The URL can be used to link to this page

Maximum Consulting Services Agreement.009'_ aToo~" cy~ - ~~9 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES, INC FOR A BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEES STUDY PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 10-08/09 ~~ This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this o~ ~ day of ~G~3~~} 2009, between the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida ("City"), having its principal offices at 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139, and MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES, INC (Consultant), a Illinois corporation, whose address is 1033 North Skokie Boulevard, Northbrook, Illinois 60062. SECTION 1 DEFINITIONS Agreement: This Agreement between the City and Consultant, including any exhibits and amendments thereto. City Manager: The Chief Administrative Officer of the City. Consultant: For the purposes of this Agreement, Consultant shall be deemed to be an independent contractor, and not an agent or employee of the City. Services: All services, work and actions by the Consultant performed pursuant to or undertaken under this Agreement, as described in Section 2. Fee: Amount paid to the Consultant to cover the costs of the Services as more specifically described in Section 3. Project: Project shall mean the Building Development Process Fees Study, as contemplated in this Agreement and the Proposal Documents, including, without limitation all Services to be performed by Consultant. The "Project", as defined herein, may also be referred to as the "Study". Proposal Documents: Proposal Documents shall mean the City Request for Proposals No. 10-08/09 for A BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEES STUDY, together with all amendments thereto, issued by the City in contemplation of this Agreement (the RFP), and the Consultant's proposal in response thereto (Proposal), all of which are hereby incorporated by reference and made a part hereof; provided, however, that in the event of an express conflict between the Proposal Documents and this Agreement, the following order of precedent shall prevail: this Agreement; the RFP; and the Proposal. Risk Manager: The Risk Manager of the City, with offices at 1700 Convention Center Drive, Third Floor, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, telephone number (305) 673-7000, Ext. 6435, and fax number (305) 673-7023. CITY CLEF~K SECTION 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES (SERVICES) 2.1 PROJECT SCOPE The objective is to update all of the fees related to the Building Development Process and provide staff support for their adoption as an ordinance prior to the start of the FY 09-10 budget year. The consultant will work closely with a staff committee to be comprised of representatives from the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, Finance, Building, Public Works/Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Planning/Zoning Departments ("Departments"). The consultant should develop recommendations that help ensure that fees are set at a level and in a manner to cover the direct and indirect costs of the building development process, are implementable, are understandable, easily updated in response to change, provide for a long range financially stable system and ensure the integrity of the permitting process and collection of fees. The scope of services will include the following: Phase 1 -Pre-planning and project kick-off 1. Meet with staff committee members to review and refine the project methodology. 2. Review the City's current fee schedules for the building development process, including fees charged by all Departments involved in the process (Building, Planning, Public Works, and Fire). 3. Meet with staff from Departments, the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, and Finance to discuss current problems with the existing fee ordinance. 4. Review relevant prior studies conducted by the City, including existing cost allocation studies and prior studies reconciling revenues and fees. 5. Review historical direct costs and revenues of the City's building development process. 6. Review the indirect cost allocation and service rates (e.g. transportation mileage rates, internal service charge rates, etc.) to be provided by the City to be used in the determination of the cost of providing the services. 7. Review the average hourly rates for all of job classifications involved in the Building Development Process to be provided by the City. Phase 2 -Cost and Fee Analysis 1. Review fee structures from other comparable municipalities. 2. Work with the Departments to identify all of the functional units and service types for which a different fee will be established, ("Units") and determine appropriate basis for fees for each of these Units. 2 3. Collect and analyze available data to document the effort involved in the various Units identified and document the cost of providing each of these services for the last year, the current year and the next three years. The cost should include overhead and service charges. 4. Develop a fee system that supports the "Units" cost for the same periods as outlined above and provide fora 10% contingency fee for each of the "Units". 5. Conduct a comparative analysis between the proposed fee schedules and other local comparable municipal building process fee schedules. Phase 3 -Public Outreach and Recommendations Recommend modifications to the fee schedules for each of the departments involved in the City's Building Development Process. 2. Recommend updates to the fees for the next fiscal year, and provide a methodology for recommending updates in subsequent years. 3. Present recommendations to the project staff committee, City management, and the industry and attend any Commission Committee workshops or Commission meetings where the proposed fee schedule or related matters are discussed. 4. Provide written guidelines (process and procedures) for the implementation of the recommended fee ordinance. SECTION 3 TERM/PROJECT TIMELINE 3.1 TERM The term of this agreement shall commence upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, and shall terminate twelve (12) months after execution. 3.2 PROJECT TIMELINE The project timeline is presented in the following tables. 3 SECTION 4 COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES 4.1 COST OF SERVICES Maximus Consulting Services, Inc proposed fees include all travel costs for a total of four onsite trips, one meeting with the industry representatives, and two presentations: Bid Summary Including Travel Price Phase 1: Pre-planning and Project kick-off $10,730 Phase 2: Cost and Fee Analysis $22,520 Phase 3: Public Outreach and Recommendations $9,010 TOTAL $42,260 Estimated Travel Costs Travel Costs Phase 1 -One trip, four days, 3 people Air fare $ 840 Hotels $ 1,800 Auto! transportation $ 460 Meals per diem $ 480 Total Travel Phase 1 $ 3,580 Travel Costs Phase 2 -One trip, one day, 3 people Air fare $ 840 Hotels $ 600 Auto/ transportation $ 350 Meals per diem $ 180 Total Travel Phase 2 $ 1,970 Travel Costs Phase 3 -Two trips, one day each, 3 people Air fare $ 1,680 Hotels $ 600 Auto/ transportation $ 590 Meals per diem $ 240 Total Travel Phase 3 $ 3,110 TOTAL PROJECT TRAVEL COSTS $ 8,660 4 4.2 INVOICING Payments shall be made on a lump sum basis by task for services satisfactorily rendered pursuant to the Scope of Work specified in Section 2.1. Such invoice shall include a detailed description of the Services provided. Mail all Invoices to: City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive City Manager's Office - 4th Floor Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Attn: Kathie G. Brooks, OBPI Director 4.3 METHOD OF PAYMENT Within thirty (30) days of the approval by the City of an appropriately filed Invoice, the City shall provide Consultant with a check for payment of the approved amount. Payments shall only be made on approved invoices for Services (or portions thereof) satisfactorily performed. SECTION 5 TERMINATION. SUSPENSION AND SANCTIONS 5.1 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE If the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely manner, or otherwise violates any of the covenants, agreements, or stipulations material to this Agreement, the City shall thereupon have the right to terminate the Services then remaining to be performed. Prior to exercising its option to terminate for cause, the City shall notify the Consultant of its violation of the particular terms of this Agreement and shall grant Consultant fifteen (15) days to cure such default. If such default remains uncured after fifteen (15) days, the City, upon three (3) days' notice to Consultant, may terminate this Agreement and the City shall be fully discharged from any and all liabilities, duties and terms arising out of/or by virtue of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City by any breach of the Agreement by the Consultant. The City, at its sole option and discretion, shall additionally be entitled to bring any and all legal/equitable actions that it deems to be in its best interest in order to enforce the City's right and remedies against the defaulting party. The City shall be entitled to recover all costs of such actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees. To the extent allowed by law, the defaulting party waives its right to jury trial and its right to bring permissive counter claims against the City in any such action. 5.2 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE CITY THE CITY MAY ALSO, FOR ITS CONVENIENCE AND WITHOUT CAUSE, TERMINATE THE SERVICES THEN REMAINING TO BE PERFORMED AT ANY TIME DURING THE TERM HEREOF BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO CONSULTANT OF SUCH TERMINATION, WHICH SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE FIFTEEN (15) DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT BY THE CONSULTANT OF THE WRITTEN TERMINATION NOTICE. IF THE AGREEMENT IS TERMINATED BY 5 THE CITY AS PROVIDED IN THIS SUBSECTION, CONSULTANT SHALL BE PAID FOR ANY SERVICES SATISFACTORILY PERFORMED, AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY, AT ITS DISCRETION, UP TO THE DATE OF TERMINATION. 5.3 TERMINATION FOR INSOLVENCY The City also reserves the right to terminate the Agreement in the event the Consultant is placed either in voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors. In such event, the right and obligations for the parties shall be the same as provided for in Section 5.2. 5.4 SANCTIONS In the event of the Consultant's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the City shall impose such sanctions as the City or the State of Florida may determine to be appropriate, including but not limited to, withholding of payments to the Consultant under the Agreement until the Consultant complies and/or cancellation, termination or suspension of the Services. In the event the City cancels or terminates the Services pursuant to this Subsection the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as provided in Section 5.2. SECTION 6 INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS 6.1 INDEMNIFICATION Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the City of Miami Beach and its officers, employees and agents, from and against any and all actions, claims, liabilities, losses, and expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys' fees and costs, for personal, economic or bodily injury, wrongful death, loss of or damage to property, at law or in equity, which may arise or be alleged to have arisen from the negligent acts, errors, omissions or other wrongful conduct of the Consultant, its employees, agents, sub-Consultant, or any other person or entity acting under Consultant's control, in connection with the Consultant performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement; and to that extent, the Consultant shall pay all such claims and losses and shall pay all such costs and judgments which may issue from any lawsuit arising from such claims and losses, and shall pay all costs and attorneys' fees expended by the City in the defense of such claims and losses, including appeals. The parties agree that one percent (1 %) of the total compensation to the Consultant for performance of the Services under this Agreement is the specific consideration from the City to the Consultant for the Consultant's Indemnity Agreement. The Consultant's obligation under this Subsection shall not include the obligation to indemnify the City of Miami Beach and its officers, employees and agents, from and against any actions or claims which arise or are alleged to have arisen from negligent acts or omissions or other wrongful conduct of the City and its officers, employees and agents. The parties each agree to give the other party prompt notice of any claim coming to its knowledge that in any way directly or indirectly affects the other party. 6 6.2 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS The Consultant shall not commence any work pursuant to this Agreement until all insurance required under this Section has been obtained and such insurance has been approved by the City's Risk Manager. The Consultant shall maintain and carry in full force during the term of this Agreement the following insurance: 1. Consultant General Liability in the amount of $1,000,000. 2. Consultant Professional Liability in the amount of $200,000. 3. Workers Compensation & Employers Liability as required pursuant to Florida statute. 4. The insurance must be furnished by insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of Florida and approved by the City's Risk Manager. 5. Original certificates of insurance for the above coverage must be submitted to the City's Risk Manager for approval prior to any work commencing. These certificates will be kept on file in the office of the Risk Manager, 3`d Floor, City Halt. 6. The Consultant is solely responsible for obtaining and submitting all insurance certificates for its sub-consultants. All insurance policies must be issued by companies authorized to do business under the laws of the State of Florida. The companies must be rated no less than "B+" as to management and not less than "Class VI" as to strength by the latest edition of Best's Insurance Guide, published by A.M. Best Company, Oldwick, New Jersey, or its equivalent, subject to the approval of the City's Risk Manager. Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the Consultant of the liabilities and obligations under this Section or under any other portion of this Agreement, and the City shall have the right to obtain from the Consultant specimen copies of the insurance policies in the event that submitted certificates of insurance are inadequate to ascertain compliance with required overage. 6.2.1 Endorsements All of Consultant's certificates, above, shall contain endorsements providing that written notice shall be given to the City at least thirty (30) days prior to termination, cancellation or reduction in coverage in the policy. 6.2.2 Certificates Unless directed by the City otherwise, the Consultant shall not commence any services pursuant to this Agreement until the City has received and approved, in writing, certificates of insurance showing that the requirements of this Section (in its entirety) have been met and provided for. SECTION 7 LITIGATION JURISDICTION/VENUE/JURY TRIAL WAIVER This Agreement shall be enforceable in Miami-Dade County, Florida, and if legal action is necessary by either party with respect to the enforcement of any or all of the terms or conditions herein, exclusive venue for the enforcement of same shall lie in Miami-Dade County, Florida. By entering into this Agreement, Consultant and the City expressly waive any rights either party may have to a trial by jury of any civil litigation related to or arising out of this Agreement. Consultant shall specifically bind its employees, sub-consultants, and agents to the provisions of this Agreement. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 7 SECTION 8 LIMITATION OF CITY'S LIABILITY The City desires to enter into this Agreement only if in so doing the City can place a limit on the City's liability for any cause of action, except for non-payment of services provided by Consultant as a result of the City's request, for money damages due to an alleged breach by the City of this Agreement, so that its liability for any such breach never exceeds the sum of $1,000. Consultant hereby expresses its willingness to enter into this Agreement with Consultant's recovery from the City for any damage action for breach of contract to be limited to a maximum amount of $1,000. Accordingly, and notwithstanding any other term or condition of this Agreement, Consultant hereby agrees that the City shall not be liable to the Consultant for damages in an amount in excess of $1,000 for any action or claim for breach of contract arising out of the performance or non-performance of any obligations imposed upon the City by this Agreement, except for non-payment of services provided by Consultant as a result of the City's request. Nothing contained in this paragraph or elsewhere in this Agreement is in any way intended to be a waiver of the limitation placed upon the City's liability as set forth in Section 768.28, Florida Statutes. SECTION 9 ATTORNEY'S FEES In the event that any party to this Agreement should seek legal or administrative recourse to enforce the terms of this Agreement, the breaching party shall be obligated to pay the prevailing party the reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred by the prevailing party. SECTION 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 10.1 AUDIT AND INSPECTIONS At any time during normal business hours, and as often as the City may deem necessary, in its reasonable discretion, there shall be made available to the City and/or such representatives as the City may deem to act on its behalf, to audit, examine and make audits of all contracts, invoices, materials, payrolls, records of personnel, conditions of employment and other data relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain any and all records necessary to document compliance with the provisions of this Agreement. 10.2 ACCESS TO RECORDS Consultant agrees to allow access during normal business hours to all financial records related to this Project to the City and/or such authorized representatives as it may deem to act on its behalf, and agrees to provide such assistance as may be necessary to facilitate financial audit by the City or its representatives when deemed necessary to insure compliance with applicable accounting and financial standards. Consultant shall allow access during normal business hours to all other records, forms, files, and documents which have been generated in performance of this Agreement, to those personnel as may be designated by the City. 8 10.3 ASSIGNMENT. TRANSFER OR SUBCONSULTING The Consultant shall not sub-consult, assign, or transfer any work under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City. Neither this Agreement nor any term nor provision hereof or right hereunder shall be assignable unless as approved pursuant to this section, by any parties and any attempt to make such assignment (unless approved) shall be void. 10.4 PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES Prior to commencement of the Services, the Consultant shall file a State of Florida Form PUR 7068, Sworn Statement under Section 287.133(3)(a) Florida Statute on Public Entity Crimes with the City's Procurement Division. 10.5 EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY In connection with the performance of this Agreement, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, age, and national origin, place of birth, marital status, sexual orientation or physical handicap. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during their employment without regard to their race, color, religion, ancestry, sex, age, national origin, place of birth, marital status, physical handicap, or sexual orientation. 10.6 CONFLICT OF INTEREST The Consultant herein agrees to adhere to and be governed by all applicable Miami-Dade County Conflict of Interest Ordinances and Ethics provisions, as set forth in the Miami- Dade County Code, and as may be amended from time to time; and by the City of Miami Beach Charter and Code; both of which are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth herein. The Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirectly which should conflict in any manner or degree with the performance of the Services. The Consultant further covenants that in the performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall knowingly be employed by the Consultant. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part of this Agreement or to any benefits arising there from. SECTION 11 NOTICES All notices and communications in writing required or permitted hereunder, except for those of cancellation of assignments which are governed by subsection 2.2, may be delivered personally to the representatives of the Consultant and the City listed below or may be mailed by U.S. Certified Mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, or by a nationally recognized overnight delivery service. Until changed by notice in writing, all such notices and communications shall be addressed as follows: 9 TO CONTRACTOR: Maximus Consulting Services, Inc Attn: Bruce Cowans 1033 North Skokie Boulevard, Suite 350 Northbrook, Illinois 60062 (847) 564-9270 TO CITY: City of Miami Beach Building Department - 2"d Floor Attn: Alex Rey, Building Director 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 (305) 673-7610 Notice may also be provided to any other address designated by the party to receive notice if such alternate address is provided via U.S. certified mail, return receipt requested, hand delivered, or by overnight delivery. In the event an alternate notice address is properly provided, notice shall be sent to such alternate address in addition to any other address which notice would otherwise be sent, unless other delivery instruction as specifically provided for by the party entitled to notice. Notice shall be deemed given on the day on which personally served, or the day of receipt by either U.S. certified mail or overnight delivery. SECTION 12 ENTIRE AGREEMENT, AMENDEMENT, SEVERABILITY 12.1 ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT The City and the Consultant agree that this is the entire Agreement between the parties. This Agreement supersedes all prior negotiations, correspondence, conversations, agreements or understandings applicable to the matters contained herein, and there are no commitments, agreements or understandings concerning the subject matter of this Agreement that are not contained in this document. Title and Paragraph headings are for convenient reference and are not intended to confer any rights or obligations upon the parties to this Agreement. 12.2 CHANGES AND ADDITIONS This Agreement cannot be modified or amended without the express written consent of the parties. No modification, amendment, or alteration of the terms or conditions contained herein shall be effective unless contained in a written document executed with the same formality and of equal dignity herewith. 12.3 SEVERABILITY If any term or provision of this Agreement is held invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected and every other term and provision of this Agreement shall be valid and be enforced to the fullest extent permitted by law. 10 12.4 COUNTERPARTS This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same Agreement. Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Request for Proposal No. 10-08109; Exhibit "B" - Addendums 1 and 2; Exhibit "C" -Maximus' Proposal dated January 28, 2009; Exhibit "D" -Commission Memo dates February 25, 2009; and Exhibit "E" -Resolution No. 2009-27008 11 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first entered above. FOR CITY: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA ATTEST: , gy: ~ ~ ~~ gy; obert Parcher Matti Her era ower City Clerk Mayor STATE OF FLORIDA ) SS COUNTY OF MIAMI-DADE ) O this ~~day of ~ 2009, before me personally appeared, a ~t~Y>Nt/ of the City of Miami Beach, who is personally know t_ ~ or pro~dsed 1 as identification and who did take an oath and eposes and says, that they/he/she executed the above instr ent and they/he/she acknowledged to me that they/he/she executed the same. , ~ ~~ ~ s~M''r'~•.,,, KEFlRY HERNANOEZ N ' ~ ~:~ MY COMMISSION # DD 626373 MY COMMISSION EX ~: EXPIRES: May 3, 2011 %'~._ of ~..°.~''~ Bonded Thru Notary Public Underwriters MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES, INC By: Si nature ~~.. x.1-1 t ~'. ~- QE'tCt~, ` ~a~stp~4t~ Print Name/Tltle Corporate Seal VI(1(olMtM STATE OF ~1c6RfBA ) FP~RFwy ) SS COUNTY OF-AMAilfiF6ADE ) On this d~ S day of A aRr ~ 2009, before me personally appeared, FRan/lc IrI~aKA,w ~~ oau,<I ~lre~ , as ,who is personally know to me or produced as identification and who did/did not take an oath and deposes and says, that he/she executed the above instrument and he/she acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same with lawful authority to do so. MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: ~'~`' ~~~' APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE FOR ELUTION ~y za ~ 2 ity orney a k' . ~... NOTARY PUBLIC r~i~irl~ - - - ARTRICE A. STIN$ON 1 ~ M YNOIM~ >I tl~t' !Ot! s /+ /~ ;;.; :; . ::.; :. :..; ' .:::".:.:.:;i "i< .' .. : ..:....... . ::.. . i .i: i:: is i i ' ?. ; :; :: ' : '.i ' . .... ~' _ ,......i;; o:".': ;7:'.::;.. ..DATE (MM/DDNY) A l~ D/'ia~,~ :T:F:1:~': ~ F ::::L1::~~~~T:::::1:::~~::U::R:~ .~. .....:...... D4/13/09 -., ..... PaooucEa THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION i MARSH USA INC. ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE SUITE 400 HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR 1255 23R0 STREET, N.W. ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. WASHINGTON, DC 20037 COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE Attn: SHARON HENNING - T-202-263-7600 COMPANY 500625--GAUW-08-09 A Hartford Fire Insurance Co INSURED COMPANY MAXIMUS, INC. AND ALL SUBSIDIARIES B Twin City Fire Insurance Co 11419 SUNSET HILLS ROAD RESTON, VA 20190 COMPANY C NIA COMPANY D Hartford Insurance Company OF Midw THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO LTR TYPE OF INSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE DATE (MM/DDlYY) POLICY EXPIRATION DATE (MM/DDIYY) LIMITS GEN ERAL LIABILITY GENERAL AGGREGATE $ 2,000,000 A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY 10 UEN TE5891 05101/08 05/01/09 PRODUCTS-coMProPAGG $ 2,000,000 ~~ CLAIMS MADE ~ OCCUR PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ 1 ,000,000 OWNER'S & CONTRACTOR'S PROT EACH OCCURRENCE $ 1 ,000,000 FIRE DAMAGE (An one fire) $ 300,000 MED EXP (An one arson $ 10,000 AUT OMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 A X qNy AUTO 10 UUN TE6206 05/01/08 05/01/09 ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per Pew) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY $ NON-OWNED AUTOS (Per acddent) ~~ ~ PROPERTY DAMAGE $ / GARAGELIABILITY AUTO ONLY-EA ACCIDENT $ ANY AUTO OTHER THAN AUTO ONLY: EACH ACCIDENT $ AGGREGATE $ EXCESS LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ UMBRELLA FORM AGGREGATE $ OTHER THAN UMBRELLA FORM $ WO EM RKERS COMPENSATION AND PLOYERS' LIABILITY X TORY LIMITS ER :: ~~~ ~ g 42WBRMG3741(WI) 05/01/08 05/01/09 EACH ACCIDENT 1,000,000 $ D THE PROPRIETOR! n INCL 42WNMG3740 (AOS) 05/01/08 05/01/09 DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ 1,000,000 PARTNERS/EXECUTIVE (I OFFICERS ARE: -II EXCL DISEASE-EACH EMPLOYEE $ 1,000,000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONSlLOCATIONSNEHICLESISPECIALITEMS RE: RFP# 10-08/09 BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEES STUDY THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA IS INCLUDED AS ADDITIONAL INSURED FOR GENERAL LIABILITY AND AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY WHERE REQUIRED BY WRITTEN CONTRACT AND ALLOWED BY LAW. SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 3O DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, ATTN: MARIA ESTEVEZ, PROCUREMENT 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DR.. BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF THIRD FLOOR ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY. ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE of Marah USA Ina ,~~ ~ BY: Timothy M. Sasser - - ;; :.:::::.::.::.::.::.::.:::.::.:::.::.:>;:.;:::::;:.'-:::;:;::;::;r:::;::;;::;;::;::::;:r:=::;:>::;;::;::;::;::k:;::;::;::;:: -- - - - - MM DD :::>:szx:~> DATE ~::;::::;:-iir;:;'•.::::;::;::;::;::::ist::~;r::;::`;:;::;rR:;:;::r::;;;::;:s::>;:: v:::;:}x:::i:-;:;:::;:::s~:- --...... / - - - - - - - - - - 009 4142 0 / / PROnucF:I: Aon Risk Services ,Inc. of Washington, D.C./ Hunti THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY 200 East Randol ph AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON'I'HE CERTIFICATE HOLDER TIIIS Chi cago I L 60601 USA CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND, ERTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIL # rHGNE- 866 283-7122 Fax- 847 953-5390 INSUREn INSURERA American International specialty Lines 26883 MAXIMUS, Inc. INSURERS: 11419 Sunset Hills Road Reston VA 20190 USA INSURERC: INSURER D: INSURER E: .::.:;:->:.x.-x..r:.;:_-:c:::.r:;:.::.;x.-;::.::::~rn..:;-::->:-::.r.-::->xa:-;s:.:::n:::.::-::.::c-r..r:.r•a:~;:-:~;:.;x-:;::~:-:;c-:->:<-:_:;->:-:;:a:-:;.:::-:: " `::; ....t`.,~i~... ~. .. .:.~. r::.- THE POLICIES OF HJSLTRANCE i.ISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO TIC INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANl' REQUIREMENT, TERIvf OR Ci_~NDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPEC.'T TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PIRTr\IN, THE INSURANCE AFF'ORllED Bl' THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. LIMITS SHOWN ARE AS REQUESTED INSR LTR INS TYPE OFINSURANCE POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIV POLICY EXPIRATION LIMITS DATE(MM\DD\YY) DATE(MM\DD\YY) G ERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES (Ea occurence) CLAIMS MADE ~ OCCUR one Demon PERSONAL&ADV INJURY GENERAL AGGREGATE GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER: PRODUCTS -COMP/OP AGG POLICY L IC ^ A ^ 7ECT ~ AC!TOMODILF. LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT ANY AUTO (Ea accident) ALL OWNED AUTOS BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS (Per person) HIRED AUTOS BODILY INJURY NUN OWNED Alrl'OS (Per eccideN) PROPERTY DAMAGE P ©d t) ( er ac en GARAGE LIABILITY AUTO ONLY - EA ACCIDENT AN}' ACIT'O OTHER THAN EA ACC 8 AUTO ONLY AGG EXCESS 0.iMBRELLA LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE ^ OCCUR ^ CLA)MSMADE AGGREGATE DEDUCTIBLE B ~ ~ RETENTION ~/ ~ \YORIiER S COMPENSATION AND /~ C STATU- OTH- , EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY / ~ / // 7 y y~l / E.L. EACH ACCIDENT ANY PROPRIETOR /PARTNER /EXECUTIVE / OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? E.L. DISEASE-EA EMPLAYEE If yee, deeaibe wider SPECIAL PROVISIONS E.L. DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT belrnv A 007005584 08/01/08 Eac calm 200,000 oTHER Prof Liability DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/L.OCATIONS/\'EHICLES/EXCLUSIONS ADDED BY ENDORSEMENTSPECIAL PROVISIONS RE: Building Development Process Fees Study Pursuant to RFP 10-08/09, Division No. 7, Division Name: Program Performance services, Project No. if applicable: 715720, Term of Project/Contract: Contract term is 12 months from the date of execution. Cl ty Of Miami Beach , Florida SHOULD ANY OFTHE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE E%PIRATION Attn: Maria Estevez DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING INSURER WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAIL Procurement 30 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT. 1700 convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor Ml dml Beach FL 33139 USA BUT FAILURE TO DO SO SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR LIABILITY OF ANY KIND UPON THE INSUREiL ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. ACrTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ~y~ ~_ ~n CP~~~ ~j0 ~ B~~ O z V L' 'rr L d C„) '~~° i ~e EXHIBIT "A" REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR A BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEES STUDY RFP # 10-08/09 RFP DUE DATE: JANUARY 21, 2009 at 3:00 P.M. Maria Estevez, Senior Procurement Specialist PROCUREMENT DIVISION 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach. FL 33139 mariaestevez@miamibeochfl. gov F:\PURC\$ALL\Maria\RFP'S\08-09\RFP- OS-09 Building Development Process Cost Allocation and Fees Study\RFP and Addendums\RFP-10-0$A9 For A Building Development Process Fees Study-.doc m MIAMIBEACH m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DIVISION PUBLIC NOTICE Tel: 305-673-7490, Fax: 786394-4002 FOR A BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEES STUDY Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 10-08/09 Scope of Services The City of Miami Beach (the City) is soliciting responses from qualified consulting firms to conduct an analysis of building development fees in the City of Miami Beach. The study should have distinct recommendations for fees in the various departments involved in the building development process, including the Building, Public Works/Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Planning/Zoning Departments. Sealed proposals will be received until 3:00 PM on January 21St, 2009 at the following address: City of Miami Beach City Hall Procurement Division -Third Floor 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Any proposal received after 3:00 PM on January 21 S`, 2009 will be returned to the proposer unopened. The responsibility for submitting proposals before the stated time and date is solely the responsibility of the proposer. The City will not be responsible for delays caused by mail, courier service, including U.S. Mail, or any other occurrence. A Pre-Proposal Submission Meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2009, at 10:00 A.M. at the following address: City of Miami Beach City Hall -Fourth Floor 1700 Convention Center Drive City Manager's Large Conference Room Miami Beach, Florida 33139 The City of Miami Beach is using RFP Depot, a central notification system which provides bid notification services to interested vendors. RFP Depot allows for vendors to register online and receive notification of new bids, amendments and awards. Vendors with Internet access should review the registration options at the following website: www.rfpdepot.com If you do not have Internet access, please call the RFP Depot's vendor support group at 801-765-9245. Attendance (in person or via telephone) to this Pre-Proposal submission meeting is encouraged and recommended as a source of information, but is not mandatory. Proposers interested in participating in the pre-Proposal submission meeting via telephone must follow these steps: RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 2 of 29 (1) Dial the TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1-800-915-8704 (Toll-free North America) (2) Enter the MEETING NUMBER: *2659980* (note that number is preceded and followed by the star (*) key). Proposers who are interested in participating via telephone, please send an a-mail to mariaestevez@miamibeachfl.gov expressing your intent to participate via telephone at least one business day in advance of the meeting. THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RESERVES THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT ANY PROPOSAL DEEMED TO BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, OR WAIVE ANY INFORMALITY IN ANY PROPOSAL. THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH MAY ALSO REJECT ANY AND ALL PROPOSALS. YOU ARE HEREBY ADVISED THAT THIS REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS IS SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING ORDINANCES/RESOLUTIONS, WHICH MAY BE FOUND ON THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH WEBSITE: http:l/www.miamibeachfl.QOV/newcityldepts/purchase/bidintro.asp • CONE OF SILENCE -- ORDINANCE NO. 2002-3378 • CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS -RESOLUTION NO. 2000-23879. • DEBARMENT PROCEEDINGS -- ORDINANCE NO. 2000-3234. • PROTEST PROCEDURES -- ORDINANCE NO. 2002-3344. • LOBBYIST REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURE OF FEES -ORDINANCE NO. 2002-3363. • CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY VENDORS -ORDINANCE NO. 2003-3389. Sincerely, ~' Gus Lopez, CPPO Procurement Director RFP No' 10-08-09 December t 1, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study 3 of 29 City of Miami Beach m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT Division Te1:305.673.7490 Fox: 786394.4002 RFP No. 10-08/09 NOTICE TO PROSPECTIVE PROPOSERS If not submitting a proposal at this time, please detach this sheet from the RFP documents, complete the information requested, and return to the address listed above. NO PROPOSAL SUBMITTED FOR REASON(S) CHECKED AND/OR INDICATED: Not responding due to workload issues. Not responding due to minimum experience requirements. Not responding due to specifications/scope of services. Not responding due to timely payment issues. OTHER. (Please specify) We do do not want to be retained on your mailing list for future proposals for the type or product and/or service. Signature: Title: Company: Note: Failure to respond, either by submitting a proposal or this completed form, may result in your company being removed from the City's bid list. RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 4 of 29 m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, veww.miami6eachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DIVISION Tel: 305-673-7490, Fax: 305-673-7851 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE I. OVERVIEW AND PROPOSAL PROCEDURES 6-12 II. SCOPE OF SERVICES/SPECIFICATIONS 13-14 III. PROPOSAL FORMAT 15-16 IV. EVALUATION/SELECTION PROCESSf CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 17 V. PROPOSAL DOCUMENTS TO BE COMPLETED AND RETURNED TO CITY WITH PROPOSAL SUBMISSION -All items outlined as required under Proposal Format (Section III) and Scope of Services/Specifications (Section II) - Signed Insurance Checklist 18 -Proposer Information 19 -Acknowledgment of Addenda 20 -Declaration 21 -Sworn StatementlSection 287.133(3)(a), Florida Statutes - Public Entity Crimes 22.23 - Questionnaire 24.28 VI. DOCUMENTS TO BE COMPLETED BY CUSTOMERS OF THE RESPONDENTS - Pertormance Evaluation Letters 2g_2g - Performance Evaluation Survey RFP No: 10-OS-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 5 of 29 SECTION I -OVERVIEW AND PROPOSAL PROCEDURES: A. INTRODUCTION /BACKGROUND The purpose of this RFP is to select a qualified consulting firm to conduct an analysis of building development fees in the City of Miami Beach. The study should have distinct recommendations for fees in the various departments involved in the building development process, including Building, Public Works/Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Planning/Zoning. The fees must be set by establishing a direct relationship between the services provided and the fees charge to permit holder. The Building Department provides process intake, routing, billing, and computer support for all construction activities, issuance of all building and trade permits, verification of compliance with the Florida Building Code and enforcement of codes promulgated by regulatory agencies such as the Hotel and Restaurant Commission, Miami-Dade Environmental Resources Management, State Department of Health and Professional Regulation, Board of Adjustment and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Building Department staff conducts plans review and inspections for plumbing, structural, building, electrical, engineering, elevator and mechanical trades as required by the different permit types. Additionally, the Department oversees building re-certification, elevators and boiler inspections and FEMA flood regulations. In addition to the Building Department, the Fire Department Prevention Services Division, the Public Works Engineering Division, and the Planning and Zoning Department participate in the building development process including plan reviews and inspections. The Fire Department is involved in the majority of building permits issued by the City. Afire fee is collected for each building permit corresponding to the fire department review and inspection. The Public Works Department Engineering Division staff conducts plan reviews and inspections for all construction activities that occur within the public right-of-way (streets, roadways, waterways, alleys and sidewalks), public property and easements. The Public Works Department also pertorms plan review activities supporting a variety of Building Department permits in private property that will connect and/or will have potential impacts to City owned utilities, right-of-way and/or easements. The department also determines the level of traffic analysis required for compliance with City regulations, including review and approval of traffic impact studies. In addition, the department conducts technical review of applications that are to be submitted to County and State regulatory agencies as part of the building development process. The Planning Department serves as staff to the City's Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, and Single Family Residential Review Panel. Depending on the scope of the project, new development is required to receive approval from one or more of these Boards. The Planning Department processes the applications, reviews and prepares recommendations to all of the above Boards. Fees are assessed for the various Planning applications according to a fee schedule contained within the City Code. The fees have been evaluated from time to time, and compared with other similar municipalities. The Planning Department also reviews all building permits for compliance with the land development regulations and consistency with architectural review guidelines and preservation appropriateness criteria. This zoning review is required to ensure compliance with existing legislation, zoning requirements, and state growth management requirements. However, this function is not fee-based, as Section 553.80(7) of the Florida Statutes precludes building permit fees to be used for Planning and zoning or other general government activities. Alternative means of funding such functions should be explored RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 6 of 29 A fee for each permit is required to be paid, in accordance with the fee schedule established and approved by City Commission, on all buildings, electrical, elevators, mechanical, and plumbing and fire protection new systems or alterations requiring a permit. In addition, fees are collected for fire, Miami Dade Building Code Compliance, sanitation, zoning, and radon fees. Concurrency fees are charged by the Planning Department. The fees for the Building Department fees should be structure as per the Florida Building Code SS 553 and SS 166.22, as outlined below: Section 553.80(7), Florida Statutes: (7) The governing bodies of local governments may provide a schedule of reasonable fees, as authorized by s. 125.56(2) or s. 166.222 and this section, for enforcing this part. These fees, and any fines or investment earnings related to the fees, shall be used solely for carrying out the local government's responsibilities in enforcing the Florida Building Code. When providing a schedule of reasonable fees, the total estimated annual revenue derived from fees, and the fines and investment earnings related to the fees, may not exceed the total estimated annual costs of allowable activities. Any unexpended balances shall be carried forward to future years for allowable activities or shall be refunded at the discretion of the local government. The basis for a fee structure for allowable activities shall relate to the level of service provided by the local government. Fees charged shall be consistently applied. Further, Section 166.222, Florida Statutes, regarding building code inspection fees, states the following -The governing body of a municipality may provide a schedule of reasonable inspection fees in order to defer the costs of inspection and enforcement of the provisions of its building code. B. RFP TIMETABLE The anticipated schedule for this RFP and contract approval is as follows: RFP Issued Pre-proposal submission meeting Deadline for receipt of questions Deadline for receipt of Proposals Evaluation Committee meeting Commission approval authorizing negotiations Contract negotiations Projected contract start date December 11, 2008 January 9, 2009 January 11, 2009 January 21st, 2009 at 3:00 P.M. February 2009 March 2009 March 2009 April 2009 C. PROPOSALS SUBMISSION An original and ten (10) copies of complete proposals must be received no later than 3:00 p.m. on January 21st, 2009, at the following address: City of Miami Beach City Hall Procurement Division --Third Floor 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 The original and all copies must be submitted to the Procurement Division in a sealed envelope or container stating on the outside the Proposer's name, address, telephone number, RFP number and title, and due date. No facsimile, electronic, or a-mail responses will be considered. RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 7 of 29 The responsibility for submitting a response to this RFP to the Procurement Division on or before the stated time and date will be solely and strictly that of the Proposer. The City will in noway be responsible for delays caused by the U.S. Post Office or caused by any other entity or by any occurrence. Responses received after the RFP due date and time will not be accepted and will not be considered. D. Requirement for City Contractors to Provide Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners (the "Ordinance") Proposers are advised that this RFP and any contract awarded pursuant to this procurement process shall be subject to the applicable provisions of Ordinance No. 2005-3494, entitled "Requirement for City Contractors to Provide Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners (the "Ordinance")."The Ordinance applies to all employees of a Contractor who works within the city limits of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, and the Contractor's employees located in the United States, but outside of the City of Miami Beach limits, who are directly performing work on the contract within the City of Miami Beach. All Proposers shall complete and return, with their proposal, the "Declaration: Non-discrimination in Contracts and Benefits" form contained herein. The City shall not enter into any contract unless the Proposers certifies that such firm does not discriminate in the provision of Benefits between employees with Domestic Partners and employees with spouses and/or between the Domestic Partners and spouses of such employees. Contractors may also comply with the Ordinance by providing an employee with the Cash Equivalent of such Benefit or Benefits, if the City Manager or his designee determines that: a. The Contractor shall complete and retum the "Reasonable Measures Application" contained herein, and the Cash Equivalent proposed; AND. b. The Contractor shall complete and return the "Substantial Compliance Authorization Form" contained herein. It is important to note that Contractors are considered in compliance if Contractor provides benefits neither to employees' spouses nor to employees' Domestic Partners. E. PRE-PROPOSAL SUBMISSION MEETING A Pre-Proposal submission meeting is scheduled for January 9, 2009 at 10:00 A.M. at the following address: City of Miami Beach City Hall -Fourth Floor City Manager's Large Conference Room 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Attendance (in person or via telephone) is encouraged and recommended as a source of information, but is not mandatory. Proposers interested in participating in the pre-RFP submission meeting via telephone must follow these steps: (1) Dial the TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1-800-915-8704 (Toll-free North America) (2) Enter the MEETING NUMBER: "'2659980'` (note that number is preceded and followed by the star (*) key). RFP No: 10-OS-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 8 of 29 Proposers who are interested in participating via telephone, please send an a-mail to the contact person listed below, expressing your intent to participate via telephone. F. CONTACT PERSON/ADDITIONAL INFORMATION/ADDENDA The contact person for this RFP is Maria Estevez at phone: 305-673-7234; fax: 786-393-4002; ore-mail: mestevez@miamibeachfl.gov. Communications between a proposer, bidder, lobbyist and/or consultant and the Procurement Division are limited to matters of process or procedure. Requests for additional information or clarifications must be made in writing to the Procurement Division. Facsimile ore-mail requests are acceptable. Please send all questions to mestevez(a~miamibeachfl.gov and a copy to guslopez miamibeachfl.gov and City Clerk's Office RobertParcherCa~miamibeachfl.gov no later than the date specified in the RFP timetable. The Procurement Division will issue replies to inquiries and any other corrections or amendments, as it deems necessary, in written addenda issued prior to the deadline for responding to the RFP. Proposers should not rely on representations, statements, or explanations, other than those made in this RFP or in any written addendum to this RFP. Proposers should verify with the Procurement Division prior to submitting a proposal that all addenda have been received. Proposers are advised that oral communications between the Proposer, or their representatives, and the Mayor or City Commissioners and their respective staff, or members of the City's administrative staff (to include the City Manager and his staff), or evaluation committee members, is prohibited. G. MODIFICATIONNVITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSALS A Proposer may submit a modified proposal to replace all or any portion of a previously submitted proposal up until the proposal due date and time. Modifications received after the proposal due date and time will not be considered. Proposals shall be irrevocable until contract award unless withdrawn in writing priorto the proposal due date or after expiration of 120 calendar days from the opening of Proposals without a contract award. Letters of withdrawal received after the proposal due date and before said expiration date and letters of withdrawal received after contract award will not be considered. H. RFP POSTPONEMENT/CANCELLATION/REJECTION The City may, at its sole and absolute discretion, reject any and all, or parts of any and all, Proposals; re- advertise this RFP; postpone or cancel, at any time, this RFP process; or waive any irregularities in this RFP, or in any Proposals received as a result of this RFP. COSTS INCURRED BY PROPOSERS All expenses involved with the preparation and submission of Proposals to the City, or any work performed in connection therewith, shall be the sole responsibility of the Proposers) and shall not be reimbursed by the City. J. EXCEPTIONS TO RFP Proposers must clearly indicate any exceptions they wish to take to any of the terms in this RFP, and outline what alternative is being offered; which exceptions and alternatives shall be included and clearly delineated in proposers' submittal response. The City, at its sole and absolute discretion, may accept or reject the exceptions. Incases in which exceptions are rejected, the City shall require the Proposer to comply with the RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 9 of 29 particular term and/or condition of the RFP which proposer takes exception to (as said term and/or condition was originally set forth on the RFP). K. SUNSHINE LAW Proposers are hereby notified that all proposals, including with or without limitation any and all information and documentation submitted will be available for public inspection after opening of Proposals, in compliance with Chapter 286, Florida Statutes, (the Florida "Government in the Sunshine Law". L. NEGOTIATIONS The City may award a contract on the basis of initial offers received, without discussion, or may require Proposers to give oral presentations based on their Proposals. The City reserves the right to enter into further negotiations with the top-ranked Proposer, (following authorization of negotiations by the City). No Proposer shall have any rights in the subject project or property or against the City arising from such negotiations. Notwithstanding the proceeding, the City is in noway obligated to enter into a contract with the top-ranked and/or successful proposer, in the event the parties are unable to negotiate a contract. M. PROTEST PROCEDURE Proposers that are not selected may protest any recommendation for selection of award in accordance with the proceedings established pursuant to City of Miami Beach Ordinance No. 2002-3344. Protest(s) not timely made pursuant to the requirements of Ordinance No. 2002-3344 shall be barred. N. RULES; REGULATIONS; LICENSING REQUIREMENTS Proposers are expected to be familiar with, and comply with, all Federal, State, County, and City laws, ordinances, codes, and regulations that may in any way affect the services offered, including without limitation the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC Uniform Guidelines, and all EEO regulations and guidelines. Ignorance of the law(s) on the part of the Proposer will in no way relieve it from responsibility for compliance. O. DEFAULT Failure or refusal of a Proposer to execute a contract following award by the City Commission, or untimely withdrawal of a proposal before such award is made and approved, may result in forfeiture of that portion of any surety required as liquidated damages to the City. Where surety is not required, such failure may result in a claim for damages by the City and may be grounds for removing the Proposer from the City's vendor list. P. CONFLICT OF INTEREST All Proposers must disclose, with in their proposal, the name(s) of any officer, director, agent, or immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an employee of the City of Miami Beach. Further, all Proposers must disclose the name of any City employee who owns, either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten (10%) percent or more in the Proposer entity or any of its afFliates. Q. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LOBBYIST LAWS All Proposers are expected to be or become familiar with all City of Miami Beach Lobbyist laws, as amended from time to time. Proposers shall ensure that all City of Miami Beach Lobbyist laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed herein, including disqualification of their Proposals, RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 10 of 29 in the event of such non-compliance R. PROPOSER'S RESPONSIBILITY Before submitting a proposal, each Proposer shall be solely responsible for making any and all investigations and examinations, as it seems necessary, to ascertain all conditions and requirements affecting the full performance of the contract. Ignorance of such conditions and requirements, and/or failure to make such investigations and examinations, will not relieve the Proposer from any obligation to comply with every detail and with all provisions and requirements of the contract documents, and will not be accepted as a basis for any subsequent claim whatsoever for any monetary consideration on the part of the Proposer. S. RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY It is the intent of the City, and proposers hereby acknowledge and agree, that the successful Proposer is considered to be an independent contractor and that neither the Proposer, nor the Proposer's employees, agents, andlor contractors, shall, under any circumstances, be considered employees or agents of the City. T. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME (PEC) A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crimes may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on leases of real property to public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, sub-contractor, or consultant under a contract with a public entity ,and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Sec. 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. U. CONE OF SILENCE Pursuant to Section 2-486 of the City Code (entitled "Cone of Silence") proposers are hereby advised that the Cone of Silence requirements listed herein shall apply. V. DEBARMENT ORDINANCE Proposers are hereby advised that this RFP is further subject to City of Miami Beach Ordinance No. 2000-3234 (Debarment Ordinance). Debarment may constitute grounds for termination of the contract, as well as, disqualification from consideration on any future City of Miami Beach RFP, RFQ, RFLI, or bid. W. PROHIBITED CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY VENDORS Pursuant to Section 38-6 of the City Code, no person who is a vendor to the City shall give a campaign contribution directly, or through a member of the person's immediate family, or through a political action committee, or through any other person, to a candidate, or to the campaign committee of a candidate, for the offices of mayor or commissioner. No candidate, or campaign committee of a candidate for the offices of mayor or commissioner, shall solicit or receive any campaign contribution from a person who is a vendor to the City, or through a member of the person's immediate family, or through a political action committee, or through any other person on behalf of the person. This prohibition applies to natural persons and to persons who hold a controlling financial interest in business entities. RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study December 11, 2008 City of Miami Beach 11 of 29 X. CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS Pursuant to Resolution No.2000-23879 each person or entity that seeks to do business with the City shall adopt a Code of Business Ethics ("Code"} and submit that Code to the Procurement Division with your bid/response or within five days upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a minimum, require your firm or you as a sole proprietor, to comply with all applicable governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of the City Code. Y. AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT Call 305-673-7490/VOICE to request material in accessible format; sign language interpreters (five days in advance when possible), or information on access for persons with disabilities. For more information on ADA compliance please call Robert Halfhill, Public Works Department, at 305-673-7631. Z. ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS, FAVORS, SERVICES Proposers shall not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value to any official, employee, or agent of the City, for the purpose of influencing consideration of this proposal. Pursuant to Sec. 2-449 of the City Code, no officer or employee of the City shall accept any gift, favor or service that might reasonably tend improperly to influence him in the discharge of his official duties. RFP No: 10-OB-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 12 of 29 SECTION II -- SCOPE OF WORK/SPECIFICATIONS Scope of Services The objective is to update all of the fees related to the Building Development Process and provide staff support for their adoption as an ordinance prior to the start of the FY 09-10 budget year. The consultant will work closely with a staff committee to be comprised of representatives from the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, Finance, Building, Public Works/Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Planning/Zoning Departments ("Departments"). The consultant should develop recommendations that help ensure that fees are set at a level and in a manner to cover the direct and indirect costs of the building development process, are implementable, are understandable, easily updated in response to change, provide for a long range financially stable system and ensure the integrity of the permitting process and collection of fees. The scope of services will include the following: Phase 1 -Pre-planning and project kick-off 1. Meet with staff committee members to review and refine the project methodology. 2. Review the City's current fee schedules for the building development process, including fees charged by all Departments involved in the process (Building, Planning, Public Works, and Fire). 3. Meet with staff from Departments, the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, and Finance to discuss current problems with the existing fee ordinance. 4. Review relevant prior studies conducted by the City, including existing cost allocation studies and prior studies reconciling revenues and fees. 5. Review historical direct costs and revenues of the City's building development process. 6. Review the indirect cost allocation and service rates (e.g. transportation mileage rates, internal service charge rates, etc.) to be provided by the City to be used in the determination of the cost of providing the services. 7. Review the average hourly rates for all of job classifications involved in the Building Development Process to be provided by the City. Phase 2 -Cost and Fee Analysis 1. Review fee structures from other comparable municipalities. 2. Work with the Departments to identify all of the functional units and service types for which a different fee will be established, ("Units") and determine appropriate basis for fees for each of these Units. 3. Collect and analyze available data to document the effort involved in the various Units identified and document the cost of providing each of these services for the last year, the current year and the next three years. The cost should include overhead and service charges. 4. Develop a fee system that supports the "Units" cost for the same periods as outlined above and provide fora 10% contingency fee for each of the "Units". RFP No: 10-08-09 Decemf~er 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 13 of 29 5. Conduct a comparative analysis between the proposed fee schedules and other local comparable municipal building process fee schedules. Phase 3 -Public Outreach and Recommendations 1. Recommend modifications to the fee schedules for each of the departments involved in the City's Building Development Process. 2. Recommend updates to the fees for the next fiscal year, and provide a methodology for recommending updates in subsequent years. 3. Present recommendations to the project staff committee, City management, and the industry and attend any Commission Committee workshops or Commission meetings where the proposed fee schedule or related matters are discussed. 4. Provide written guidelines (process and procedures) for the implementation of the recommended fee ordinance. Minimum Requirements The proposals that do not meet the following minimum requirements shall be deemed non-responsive and will not be further evaluated. Have successfully completed within the past four years at least two fee studies for Building Department in the State of Florida urban cities of comparable size to Miami Beach. RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 14 of 29 SECTION 111-PROPOSAL FORMAT Proposals must contain the following documents, each fully completed, and signed as required. If any items are omitted, Proposers must submit the documentation within five (5) calendar days upon request from the City, or the proposal shall be deemed non-responsive. The City will not accept fee/cost information after deadline for receipt of Proposals. 1. Table of Contents Outline in sequential order the major areas of the Proposal, including enclosures. All pages must be consecutively numbered and correspond to the table of contents. 2. Proposal Points to Address: Proposer must respond to all minimum requirements listed below. Proposals which do not contain such documentation may be deemed non-responsive. a) Introduction letter outlining the Proposer's professional specialization; provide past experience to support the qualifications of the Proposer. Proposers shall submit documents that provide evidence as to the capability to provide and implement the services as outlined in this RFP. b) Proposers must provide documentation which demonstrates their ability to satisfy all of the requirements detailed in this RFP. c) References: List at least eight (8) client references, to include contact name, title, company, address, telephone number, a-mail address, fax number. The City reserves the right to verify and confirm any information submitted in this process. Such verification may include, but is not limited to, speaking with current and former clients, review of relevant client documentation, site-visitation, and other independent confirmation of data. d) Qualifications of Proposer: Outline in detail the experience and qualifications of the business and individual members of the Proposer entity and experience of Proposer and/or Proposer members in providing similar projects/programs as the one proposed. Provide an organizational chart of all personnel and consultants to be used on this project/program and their qualifications. Aresume of each individual, including education, experience, and any other pertinent information, shall be included for each team member to be assigned to this Project. A brief history of the firm, name(s) of owner and principal(s) and number of years in business. Include the location(s) of the ofFces. Include all memberships, licenses, and accreditations your firm and employees hold. 2. A listing of the proposed team members for this project, their specific experience, qualifications, licenses currently held, membership affiliations and any other pertinent information as it relates to the requirements outlined in this RFP. e) Past Performance Client Survey Information: Past performance information will be collected on all Proposers. Proposers are required to identify and submit their best projects. Proposers will be required to send out Performance Evaluation Surveys to each of their clients. Please provide your client with the Performance Evaluation Letter and Survey attached herein on pages 29 and 30, and request that your client submit the completed survey to Maria Estevez, at (Fax) 786-394-4002 or (e-mail) mestevez~miamibeachfl.gov; and a copy to Gus Lopez, at (Fax) 786-394-4007 or (e-mail) guslopez(a~miamibeachfl.gov .The Ci will not accept Client Surveys sent to the Procurement Division from the office of the RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 15 of 29 Proposer. Surveys must be sent to the Procurement Division directly from your client's office(s). Proposers are responsible for making sure their clients return the Performance Evaluation Surveys to the City. The City reserves the right to verify and confirm any information submitted in this process. Such verification may include, but is not limited to, speaking with current and former clients, review of relevant client documentation, site- visitation, and other independent confirmation of data. g) Methodology and Approach for the Project. The Proposer must specifically describe its Proposal methodology and approach. f) Cost Information: Submit the proposed fees relative to the responsibilities listed in the scope of services based on a lump sum by phase fee structure. The proposed lump sum fee for each phase must be supported by estimated hours and hourly rates for each phase in the proposal document for evaluation and negotiation purposes only. Fee information must be submitted with Proposal. Notwithstanding any cost submitted, the City reserves the right to further negotiate same with the successful Proposer. 3. Acknowledgment of Addenda: (IF REQUIRED BY ADDENDUM) and Proposer Information forms. 4. Any other Documents Required by this RFP. RFP No: 10-OB-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 16 of 29 SECTION IV -EVALUATION/SELECTION PROCESS The procedure for Proposal evaluation and selection is as follows: 1. Request for Proposals issued. 2. Receipt of proposals. 3. Opening of responses and determination if they meet the minimum standards of responsiveness. 4. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each proposal in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. Proposers may be requested to make additional written submissions or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee. 5. The Evaluation Committee shall recommend to the City Manager the proposal or proposals acceptance of which the Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best interest of the City. The Evaluation Committee shall base its recommendations on the following factors, for a total of 100 possible points: o Qualifications of Individuals assigned to work with the City 35 points o Consultant(s) experience and past performance with similar projects 20 points o Proposed Fees 35 points o Methodology and Approach 10 points 6. After considering the recommendation(s) of the Evaluation Committee, the City Manager shall recommend to the Mayor and Commission the proposal or proposals acceptance of which the City Manager deems to be in the best interest of the City. 7. The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation(s) as it deems appropriate, and approve the City Manager's recommendation(s); may make its own recommendation (s); may reject all proposals; or may prescribe such other action, as it deems necessary and in the best interest of the City. In consideration of its recommendation, the Mayor and City Commission may consider and give preference and/or additional consideration to a proposal and/or proposals which, in the determination of the City Commission, provide a "community" and/or "public" benefit, which added benefit the City Commission may deem is in the best interest of the City of Miami Beach. 8. Following recommendation of award by the City Commission, negotiations between the selected Proposers and the City Administration take place to arrive at a contract. tf the Mayor and Commission has so directed, the City Manager may proceed to negotiate a contract with a proposer other than the top-ranked proposer if the negotiations with the top-ranked proposer fail to produce a mutually acceptable contract within a reasonable period of time. 9. A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the Mayor and Commission for approval, modification and approval, or rejection. 10. If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved by the Mayor and Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after the selected proposers) has (or have) done so. By submitting a proposal, all Proposers shall be deemed to understand and agree that no property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any point during the aforesaid evaluation/selection process until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by both parties. RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 17 of 29 INSURANCE CHECK LIST XXX 1. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability per the statutory limits of the state of Florida. XXX 2. Comprehensive General Liability (occurrence form), limits of liability $ 1.000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury property damage to include Premises/ Operations; Products, Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. Contractual Liability and Contractual Indemnity (Hold harmless endorsement exactly as written in "insurance requirements" of specifications). XXX3. Automobile Liability - $1,000,000 each occurrence -owned/non-owned/hired automobiles included. 4 . Excess Liability - $ . 00 per occurrence to follow the primary coverages. XXX 5. The City must be named as and additional insured on the liability policies; and it must be stated on the certificate. 6. Other Insurance as indicated: _ Builders Risk completed value $ . 00 _ Liquor Liability $ . 00 _ Fire Legal Liability $ . 00 _ Protection and Indemnity $ . 00 _ Professional Liability $ Employee Dishonesty Bond $ .00 Theft Covering Money and/or Property Of Others $ .00 XXX 7.Thirty (30) days written cancellation notice required. XXX 8.Best's guide rating B+:VI or better, latest edition. XXX 9.The certificate must state the RFP number and title PROPOSER AND INSURANCE AGENT STATEMENT: 00 We understand the Insurance Requirements of these specifications and that evidence of this insurance may be required within five (5) days after Proposal opening. Selected Proposer's failure to procure or maintain required insurance program shall constitute a material breach of Agreement under which City may immediately terminate the proposed Agreement. Proposer Signature of Proposer RFP No: 10.08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 1 B of 29 PROPOSER INFORMATION Submitted by: Proposer (Entity): Signature: Name (Printed): Address: City/State: Telephone: Fax: E-mail: It is understood and agreed by Proposer that the City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals, to make awards on all items or any items according to the best i nterest of the City, and to waive any irregularities in the RFP or in the Proposals received as a result of the RFP. It is also understood and agreed by the Proposer that by submitting a proposal, Proposer shall be deemed to understand and agree than no property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any time until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by both parties. (Authorized Signature) (Date) (Printed Name) December 11, 2008 City of Miami Beach RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study 19 of 29 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 10-08/09 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA Directions: Complete Part I or Part II, whichever applies. Part I: Listed below are the dates of issue for each Addendum received in connection with this RFP: 34- 07/08: Addendum No. 1, Dated Addendum No. 2, Dated Addendum No. 3, Dated Addendum No. 4, Dated Addendum No. 5, Dated Part II: No addendum was received in connection with this RFP. Verified with Procurement staff Name of staff Proposer -Name Date Date Signature RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 20 of 29 DECLARATION TO: City of Miami Beach City Hall 1700 Convention Center Drive Procurement Division Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Submitted this day of , 2009. The undersigned, as Proposer ,declares that the only persons interested in this Proposal are named herein; that no other person has any interest in this responses or in the contract to which this response pertains; that this response is made without connection or arrangement with any other person; and that this response is in every respect fair and made in good faith, without collusion or fraud. The Proposer agrees if this response is accepted, to execute an appropriate City of Miami Beach document for the purpose of establishing a formal contractual relationship between the Proposer and the City, Florida, for the performance of all requirements to which the response pertains. The Proposer states that the response is based upon the documents identified by the following number: RFP No. 34-07/08. WITNESS PRINTED NAME WITNESS PRINTED NAME December 11, 2008 City of Miami Beach PROPOSER SIGNATURE PRINTED NAME TITLE RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study 21 of 29 SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(3)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS. 1. This sworn statement is submitted to [print name of public entity] by [print individual's name and title] for [print name of entity submitting sworn statement] whose business address is and (if applicable) its Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) is (If the entity has no FEIN, include the Social Security Number of the individual signing this sworn statement: 4. I understand that a "public entity crime" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(g), Florida Statutes, means a violation of any state or federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to the transaction of business with any business with any public entity or with an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States, including, but not limited to, any bid or contract for goods or services to be provided to any public entity or an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States and involving antitrust, fraud, theft, bribery, collusion, racketeering, conspiracy, or material misrepresentation. 5. I understand that "convicted" or "conviction" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(b), Florida Statutes, means a finding of guilt or a conviction of a public entity crime, with or without an adjudication of guilt, in any federal or state trial court of record relating to charges brought by indictment or information after July 1, 1989, as a result of a jury verdict, nonjury trial, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. 6. I understand that an "afFliate" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(a), Florida Statutes, means: 1) A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime; or 2) An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public entity crime. The term "affiliate" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest in another person, or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when not for fair market value under an arm's length agreement, shall be a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person who knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has been convicted of a public entity crime in Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate. RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 22 of 29 5) I understand that a "person" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(e), Florida Statutes means any natural person or entity organized under the laws of any state or of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract and which bids or applies to bid on contracts for the provision of goods or services let by a public entity, or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with a public entity. The term "person" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in management of an entity. 6) Based on information and belief, the statement which I have marked below is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement. [indicate which statement applies.] Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, nor any affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members or agents who are active in management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. However, there has been a subsequent proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings and the Final Order entered by the hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the convicted vendor list. [attach a copy of the final order] I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY AND, THAT THIS FORM IS VALID THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVIDED IN SECTION 287.017, FLORIDA STATUTES FOR CATEGORY TWO OF ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FORM. [signature] Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of , 2009 Personally known OR Produced identification Notary Public -State of (Type of Identification) My commission expires (Printed typed or stamped Commissioned name of Notary Public) RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 23 of 29 QUESTIONNAIRE Proposer's Name: Principal Office Address: Official Representative: Individual Partnership (Circle One) Corporation If a Corporation, answer this: When Incorporated: In what State: If a Foreion Corporation: Date of Registration with Florida Secretary of State: Name of Resident Agent: Address of Resident Agent: President's Name: Vice-President's Name: Treasurer's Name: Members of Board of Directors RFP No: 10-0&09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 24 of 29 Questionnaire (continued) If a Partnership: Date of organization: General or Limited Partnership*: Name and Address of Each Partner: NAME ADDRESS * Designate general partners in a Limited Partnership 1. Number of years of relevant experience in operating same or similar business• 2. Have any agreements held by Proposer for a project ever been canceled? Yes() No() If yes, give details on a separate sheet. 3. Has the Proposer or any principals of the applicant organization failed to qualify as a responsible Bidder/Proposer refused to enter into a contract after an award has been made, failed to complete a contract during the past five (5) years, or been declared to be in default in any contract in the last 5 years? If yes, please explain: RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 25 of 29 Questionnaire (continued) 4. Has the Proposer or any of its principals ever been declared bankrupt or reorganized under Chapter 11 or put into receivership? Yes () No () , If yes, give date, court jurisdiction, action taken, and any other explanation deemed necessary on a separate sheet. 5. Person or persons interested in this RFP and Qualification Form have ( )have not ( ) been convicted by a Federal, State, County, or Municipal Court of any violation of law, other than traffic violations. To include stockholders over ten percent (10%). (Strike out inappropriate words) Explain any convictions: 6. Lawsuits (any) pending or completed involving the corporation, partnership or individuals with more than ten percent (10%) interest: A. List all pending lawsuits: B. List all judgments from lawsuits in the last five (5) years: C. List any criminal violations and/or convictions of the Proposer and/or any of its principals: 7. Conflicts of Interest. The following relationships are the only potential, actual, or perceived conflicts of interest in connection with this proposal: (If none, state same.) 1 211 112 0 0 8 RFP No 10-08/09 City of Miami Beach 26 of 30 Questionnaire (continued) 8. Public Disclosure. In order to determine whether the members of the Evaluation Committee for this Request for Proposals have any association or relationships which would constitute a conflict of interest, either actual or perceived, with any Proposer and/or individuals and entities comprising or representing such Proposer and in an attempt to ensure full and complete disclosure regarding this contract, all Proposers are required to disclose all persons and entities who may be involved with this Proposal. This list shall include public relation firms, lawyers and lobbyists. The Procurement Division shall be notified in writing if any person or entity is added to this list after receipt of proposals. 12/11/2008 RFP No 10-08!09 City of Miami Beach 27 of 30 Questionnaire (continued) The Proposer understands that information contained in this Questionnaire will be relied upon by the City in awarding the proposed contract, and such information is warranted by the Proposer to be true and accurate. The Proposer agrees to furnish such additional information, prior to acceptance of any proposal relating to the qualifications of the Proposer, as may be required by the City Manager. The Proposer further understands that the information contained in this Questionnaire may be confirmed through a background investigation conducted by the City, through the Miami Beach Police Department. By submitting this Questionnaire the Proposer agrees to cooperate with this investigation, including but not limited to, fingerprinting and providing information for a credit check. PROPOSER WITNESS: IF INDIVIDUAL: Signature Signature Print Name Print Name WITNESS: IF PARTNERSHIP: Signature Print Name of Firm Print Name Address By: General Partner Print Name ATTEST: IF CORPORATION: Secretary Print Name of Corporation Print Name Address By: President (CORPORATE SEAL) Print Name 1211112008 RFP No 10-08!09 City of Miami Beach 28 of 30 m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DIVISION Tel: 305.673.7490 ,Fax: 786.394.4002 To: Phone: Fax: E-mail: Subject: Performance Evaluation of Number of pages including cover: 2 To Whom It May Concern: The City of Miami Beach has implemented a process that collects past performance information pursuant to the submittal of responses to this Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 34- 07-08 entitled "A Building Development Process Fees Study." The information-will be used to assist City of Miami Beach in the evaluation of proposals received in response to the RFP. The company listed in the subject line has chosen to participate in this RFP. They have listed you as a past client for which they have provided services. Both the company and City of Miami Beach would greatly appreciate you taking a few minutes of your time to complete the accompanying questionnaire. Please review all items in the following document and answer the questions to the best of your knowledge. If you cannot answer a particular question, please leave it blank. Please return this questionnaire to Maria Estevez by January 21t, 2009 via fax: 786.394.4002; or a-mail mestevez@miamibeachfl.gov Thank you for your time and effort. ~: Gus Lopez, CPPO Procurement Director 12/11!2008 RFP No 10-08/09 City of Miami Beach 29 of 30 m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DIVISION Tel: 305.673.7490 ,Fax: 786.394.4002 Contractor Name: Point of Contact: Phone and a-mail: PERFORMANCE EVALUATION SURVEY Please evaluate the performance of the contractor (] 0 means you are very satisfied and have no questions about hiring them again, and l is if you would never hire them again because of very poor performance). If you don't know, please leave blank. NO CRITERIA UNIT 1 Ability to manage the project and budget costs (1- l 0) 2 Ability to maintain the schedule (complete on-time or early) (1-10) Quality of work papers/documentation ~ (1-10} 4 Professionalism and ability to manage the scope and objectives of the ro'ect (1-10) Communication of results of recommended fee structure and 5 levels to the elected officials (1-10) 6 Ease of im lementation of ro osed fee structure and levels 1-10 ~ Communications of recommended fee structure and levels to the ublic ( ) 1-10 8 Ease of updating fee structure levels over time based on ( ) 1-10 methodolo rovided b the consultant 9 Overall customer satisfaction and hiring again based on (1-10) erformance Overall Comments: Agency or Contact Reference Business Name: Contact Name: Contact Phone and a-mail: Date of Services: Dollar Amount for Services: Please return this questionnaire to Maria Estevez by January 2l", 2009 via fax: 786.394.4002; or e- mail mestevez(>,miamibeachfl.Qov 12/11/2008 RFP No 10-08/09 City of Miami Beach 30 of 30 EXHIBIT "B" m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, veww.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DIVISION Tel: 305.673-7490 Fax: 786.394-4002 January 16, 2009 RE: ADDENDUM NO. 1 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 10-08/09 FOR BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEE STUDY. In response to questions and requests for additional information received by prospective Proposers and the Administration's additional review of the requirements set forth in the RFP, the RFP is hereby amended as follow: The deadline for receipt of proposals and Performance Evaluation Surveys has been changed from January 21, 2009 to January 28, 2009 at 3:00 p.m. Please be advised that a subsequent addendum will follow addressing all questions received. Proposers are reminded to please acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. Potential proposers that have elected not to submit a response to the RFP are requested to complete and return the "Notice to Prospective Bidders" questionnaire with the reason(s) for not submitting a proposal. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~; Gus Lopez, CPPO Procurement Director RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fee Study Addendum #1 1/16/2009 Page 1 of 1 ~~I City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beoch, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DIVISION Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786394-4002 January 21, 2009 RE: ADDENDUM NO. 2 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 10-08/09 FOR BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEE STUDY. In response to questions and requests for additional information received by prospective Proposers and the Administration's additional review of the requirements set forth in the RFP, the RFP is hereby amended as follow: I. The sign-in sheet relative to the Pre-Proposal Meeting has been attached as part of this addendum. II. The minimum Requirements has been changed to read as follows: Proposers shall have successfully completed within the past four years at least two fee studies for Building Department of urban cities of comparable size to Miami Beach. III. The MS Word format of the documents required to be submitted with your proposals are available. Please send an a-mail to mestevez(a~miamibeachfl.aov or visit the following link: http://web.miamibeachfl.qov/procurementlscroll.asax?id=39506 Questions and Answers Q#1: When was the last time the City of Miami Beach had this type of study conducted? I see that Jorge Duyos (JRD & Associates) conducted what seems to be a similar study for your City in the past. Could you also tell us what the cost of the previous study was? A#1: The last allocation study was completed in 2001. The cost of said study performed by JRD ~ Associates was approximately $23,850. Q#2: We may be precluded from responding given we have not "successfully completed within the past four years at least two fee studies for Building Department in the State of Florida urban cities of comparable size to Miami Beach. " We are a NY based firm; if we can show comparable skill sets outside of Florida would we be considered for review? A#2: The Minimum Requirements has been changed. If within the past four years at least two fees studies for Building Department of urban cities of comparable size to Miami Beach have been performed, the proposer will meet the minimum requirements. Proposers must provide detailed information that demonstrates the comparability of said urban cities to Miami Beach. ire-1 o-osios 1 of 17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 Q#3: How much, if any, has been budgeted for this project? A#3: There is no specific budget allocated for this study. Please note that the Equal Benefits Ordinance will apply to this contract if the cost of your proposal is $100,000 or more. If so, proposers are required to complete the enclosed documentation. Also included is a Quick Reference Guide to assist proposers in completing the Equal Benefits related forms. Q#4: On page 13 (Phase 1, Item 4) you talk about reviewing existing cost allocation and prior studies of fees -How many "relevant prior studies" do you estimate reviewing? Is the cost allocation plan prepared annually? If so, is it prepared internally or by an outside vendor? If it is an outside vendor, what is the name of that company? A#4: Please visit the following link to obtain access to the prior the 2001 allocation study, the 2003 fee presentation, and the 2008 revenue reconciliation. The last cost allocation study was conducted in 2001 for Fiscal Year 1998!99. The City currently has underway a cost allocation study with RSM McGladry Inc. anticipated to be completed in early 2009. http://web.miamibeachfl.qov/procurementlscroll.asgx? id=39506 Q#5: Please tell us a little about your permit tracking and financial system. Is the financial system flexible in terms of easily developing queries to extract volume and revenue data for the various permit types? A#5: The City uses EDEN software application for financial activities including accounts payable, ,purchasing, position budgeting, cashiering, payroll, accounts receivable, billing and project accounting as well as for human resource activities, contracts management, etc. The City utilizes the Permit Pius software from Avolve Corporation to support the Building Development Process. The software is able to store processing time data for plan reviews and inspection for each permit and has the ability to aggregate those results by permit type. . Q#6: Are the City's current fee schedules available online? Electronically? (we looked but did not find the link) A#6: Please visit the following link to obtain access to the Schedule Fees for the Fire, Public Works, Building, and Planning Departments: http:!!web.miamibeachfl.govlgrocurement/scroll.asax?id=39506 Q#7: Do you have the other municipalities in mind for the comparative review? If so, how many are you expecting to be reviewed? What are the expected benefits of comparing your fee schedule to other municipal fee schedules? (page 13, Phase 2, Item 1 and page 14 Phase 2, Item 5) iTS-~ aoaios 2of17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 A#7: The list of peer review cities typically used by the City are as follows (highlighted cities are considered core peer review cities): Annapolis Arlington County Atlanta Atlantic City Beverly Hills Boca Raton Charlotte Clearwater Daytona Beach Fort Lauderdale Galveston Hilton Head Island Hollywood Honolulu Key West New Orleans New York City Orlando Pensacola San Antonio San Diego San :Francisco Santa Barbara Santa Fe Santa 'Monica Savannah Scottsdale St Petersburg Tampa Virginia Beach Washington West Hollywood Maryland Virginia Georgia New Jersey California Florida North Carolina Florida Florida Florida Texas South Carolina Florida Hawaii Florida Louisiana New York Florida Florida Texas California California California New Mexico California :Georgia Arizona Florida Florida Virginia DC California In addition, in the 2005 Building Department Benchmarking and Customer Service Analysis, the following Building Departments were analyzed: Miami-Dade County Arlington County, VA City of Miami City. of Coral gables City of Tampa City of Orlando City of Fort Lauderdale City of Coral Springs City of Jacksonville iTe-iaosios 3of17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1/21 /2009 City of Indianapolis, IN City of Cincinnati, OH City of San Jose, CA City of Charleston, SC Watson Rise Comparative Cities: Miami-Dade Miami Coral Gables Ft. Lauderdale Tampa Jacksonville Aventura Q#8: How many presentations, Commission Committee Workshops, and Commission meetings do you expect the consultant to attend? Page 14, Phase 3, Item 3 A#8: At a minimum, the consultant is expected to participate in at least one Committee meeting, 1 industry meeting and the 2 commission meetings to adopt the proposed fee ordinances in September. Additional meetings may be required if follow-up is needed. Q#9: Can you elaborate a little more on what you are requiring on Page 14, Phase 3, Item 4. Are they looking for us to recommend changes to the language of their ordinance, or more for how to roll this out in their IT system, for example? A#9: Implementation requirements include changes to the City's fee, ordinances; recommended changes to roll-out in the IT system; written policies, and procedures for staff; and, training for staff. Q#10: Minimum requirements - 2 studies in last 4 years -Will this be adjusted or waived? (Page 14 - Minimum Requirements) A#10: No. Proposers shall have successfully completed within the past four years at least two fee studies for Building Department of urban cities of comparable size to Miami Beach. Q#11: The RFP requires 8 references. Are Past Performance Client Surveys expected to be returned by January 21 from all 8 references? (page 15 Item 2. c}. A#11: All Past Performance Client Surveys must be received by the due date of January 28, 2009 at 3:00 pm. The Past Performance Clients Surveys received are not necessary to include all 8 references provided by the proposer. iTS-~ o-oaros 4of17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1121!2009 Proposers are reminded to please acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. Potential proposers that have elected not to submit a response to the RFP are requested to complete and return the "Notice to Prospective Bidders" questionnaire with the reason(s) for not submitting a proposal. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~'. Gus Lopez, CPPO Procurement Director irB-i o-osios 5of17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1/21/2009 ~~~! ~. PRE-~PRQPC~SA..~ ~~~~~SS:~~~ l~~E~.T".C?~~ S~f~?~~II~r 5~°I~ET I7~ATE: ~a~: 9, 2.Q05~ 'T`~1`LL"•: FC~R A ~UILDIl~IG DEt/'EL?C}~`h=t~' F'Rt~CF;~S ~~~ STUL3~ __ 1'sA.M~ (PLEASE PRII~IT) CAMF'A~+('Y N,4;ME -: EMAIL :AI]UTtESS F~HUt*IEt~ FA3s'.~/ Maria F~~ ~ Pracur~nent - C.MB 3{15-fr73.^?~4 '~8c~-394~~t~tl2 m~stew -.. iii ~~~1"~ Staldt~~ A~ 1 ;~ ~ 5~7 -~' 4~f1i'~fi tr~r,,~n(r~1nnr,rt,-~ mr~Z ~' ~~~~ I~~~ ~t U~ i RFP-l{I-D~IQ9 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 !2009 ~:~~ ~~.. ~~"" C)F R~I1./~I. BOAC 1~.x?~a..~~; ~~F.ET N~'!v7~ {PIJEASE Pr~nr,~ ~:OMP.IY N!'• - ~-iii, ~4I1]a1tE55 FHClN RAX~ ~"" ~ iiR,' ~" t~'~vt ~~ ~ ,I~''~i dt.P ~s'~i'~!'~7'- 9S"t ?d3~G7~-~lQ# ~: a=7taAt3t.Y'~ 1f Prii1. ~s'R7 ~~ ~~. ~ ,~ '~ ~ tiS . ~' fDl~3- ~Z~' '' ~5-~YP'~ - ~.Z~' , it j, C~~~-Cc:S ~~~~~~~ ~'C~C~ C4u'.S#'TLUCiId!'~~"NC C3t~S~'22~ C3~5~~-~_ ~ ~ s r,c,~ .~ r J~ ~' aae~ ~s ~ t~s r tf~t~w, t C~s~ ;3, a z.. a"~r' 3 Z ~x b~ ccs 1sa~ ~ w,~ ~~ .L° ~ S~'' $'b ~i d~/' . ' ' ' ~ ~ ,ter r 13 ~d -(x L 1 /~ j~+ d [f' i l:~ 6°7 il.~i:'L,_(~ (f..'V 7.'~7 ^ TcR !" 10/ ~ +'~'~j ~ ~ (~ Cr~,,'1 JL: [i,1 Cr ~!i- ~+-~,. 1/t '("a. G :Za+ `~ • ~ 1 iii ~~1~1"[f$/V'7 ITB-10-08/09 7of17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 CTI'Y a~ l~ BE_~CF-~ PRE-PI~.flP~SAI~ S~7$~.~gS~I~I~ ~~G ~ ~r rn~sE ~'t__ I eoi~Ar~ ~. - ~. aor~x~ss ( ~xo~ I ,«A I ~.~~ RFP-1{I~OSlQ9 iTS-1 aosios 8of17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 .~~1l~ N. ~~~E~:EI~1~~"E '.~1,.13C?E T;~"; E~LIAj ~Et I~F1T~ f r1is~"~F?~~.~,.f'~!~E ltTEP tz UhEDiptST/11'1DING THE LAW W#eet duos ei-u larw rwyviwT 71ra prafaasacJ krcnnr~r~ will aagvua gar#nin .urxrsxc;mrs dc%rr8 ixusis~r-n.+ w#h #l~ Oily of ~S°;iami beach, w$ra arc ~rarcle! a cnnir«t Fauraurtnr is carn~eliriuc bids. b praride "Spud' Hcnrliie" #ca ifvrlt eflrthlayrua v+llh damesii parhars, ~ thrr pra~id~e b erarplayr~s wWh spcu~a. YY!ko b vav+mwd by Yhir Orviicwrna~rl Cairpreliiiresty lily arn~rxtr ~iuod tt# ~e€ 510#1);5+ whrawt r^nnRa!rera .eatn#nin 5'1 csr mare fisfl h~k wmlalayarws van their 1?~nyrcalla rr<rrir~ s^.#l c+r r!~rre ~landar +vaxk we.akx i:ar nrtrrw. hi~rrnx9diswr, t°e±. Eywl E~eaw.+ittr ~edrrarrc~ Snanr~ry 5TEP 73 3#QVN' TC> CttAr~kf7E TINE DECUtRJCT#i4Ns N6~N•OE.SCRIMINJM1TION MI CDNf'ERi4CT5 AND lIEMEii1'Sr ~bfW# ~ii~l.asi;~ fwa iniarmatian ~F }~cxa campanp' $ f4xc raampwq *mpbys SO ow .Msa trrrploywrs Lrr t}rr 1,! 5., skip>b 3rrNiaw 4, dwr. ar~rd:si~n. S~nrri ~.. t".kr..+anrE lm saska .aheiher + t;r:ti3l•'ury }rr~drifri~s sfr~rimNriuAirai; ahrairrxi pe.° fs'a#aal 4di #hed {ot4?wwtr °Y~~ i# year e,amp'whY ++ hrrw v Faalicy. Ar?gaa "rJ::" it Ya'+r csmpaiRy nrXr have s~x:~ a Pal1c}' Whar bene#:R#n erc oorcvuxf7 The Ckdnrnca cpsplics to All 6arw#ffis-oNsrmil by a oaatrac~r'tca its emplx wha hcrra npounas or darrasi!~ pcmm~x nrti a1 knrre#ir~ *d rlisac-ly to soh ry?au m die. pprtswx, a vdawn #fse, ern~layee pays {ac anisin_•.c~ai ~ikrc bcndd F'rrr.:. irrc>tudes bu# is msi liarirod M =suck #uow, baeubanuuranF eav+r.. Fzn#yrnadiea) itirtiuu; arrl her11#i burs Nthrtn it rx.Osreewntii Parerr~7 ,4 °~9rtierik<.l+Qartlrw_°° ~~I rrrtga tlrsy iw~ t~l adahx of #ue rune ar dilaronF oea w~ha (crwx r~e~isirerod na civrrreut~ paetrrera wii~r a ,~'r'.MaNi#q>K.ru [x~(} ('=rei;Clnf 129tA!'±SAn. 3~~ei: Irvin ~+)fltxagznfy k4`~Y f~~Y€flot3ars ~ w:fa my iole;ntli rrr~isra~ nNitCdain,eJ ~x~ 9itr enafilayes rat e± bsru ana aG #Irr clanr~stRic pamrerr liYirmf iF s sorerrnerurr u :uaakrio tto ofirr 6ano#itt agrncrl4yY .Yr~n~ r~xr!ra4~ar»» am enaksle lca ~intl ~ insurr~r~e c~nprarnr wlllmg is darrse~ir perinea csa.-_ra~e. 'VVF~r, a ca~ra~oa inkrx all x+ooumabia rn>xnranas ks cfiap diucrirrunaring, 6rx caa'8.ins -ravasaas rsrol~zle its ~ui~rsel, it enn c~+m~lp wi~a lha Equral s~Hr Ch~rxrnpa if ii oar-_cs is ray a Mash es~viralen&, a4. cash a~rri~irnl z ttae canxrsirtt of an>xrn~ pard bean em-p#a7+dr Itsr #ke sprruaal'~henrdit ts;ryl is unavar"3ah#w krrr z#aanartic prubrurs, .ar vaa versa. %-ta* maaa ii3~tatYlxiriian, Retrsnrx dalaasures Applic~ctkx~. What a# a ~amprcrny wrtl E+mm~ply but rnre+d rime to ds ie? uneu« ~, crarstrnrt~r c~nke~ r r;Jn~sr #hr~ it wig c-,mgrr with the Zinclnmrirxn,. 11n eetn"xrr- un~:rlrm. aattlCin~ rlrgrrirnrrxaira~n m. b9rnamrr rsrery !~ s~lsry'r+c1. Fer inrroneea, eiffartrrg rtiadtswl Jr„c~rur..~ nwy trr tinluyaacl an#il ikn canr ~rrnr'x ns?a earradlrraare ~Sarnnd arlrvr rsrrwEiix, au'r ax h.mrrrxnaaranr IacNn, mat delntrtirs! until #h. cznniracrmr"s ~Sanasal pd3:ics con 6e rv.iwd Fcv~ nx9ru irlvrmnetisvn., sure ku+o: ea# Fkacadaaa aF th« Sulararrriai k-am{+ss~nea Ganosbiar; ~Ei, asks +v#rdhar Ya'n~ ennspr:t}~ a8rao: to ir+cluda €ra!x#is~a`smira~nn cdpsraa in rzE ,~v~cas~hacts erNSmd irna aas #h- ~x~larraarrrs rai a su~UOn#ini pwlizrn al +he arxy usnh*xks Ymu fraNe ~wih. #rc C:il}r Thix ckause: mrsei~.in:ludc ~rrf e,€1he catex~artr: Inled ir. gnresliort 1+~. Yau muse anrwer ~,is qusdrirri~ e+w_n if m~e r~rrnipany twerp Vii' k~ stin35rinE i~a anV xu6carviracls o=:>~sSaier3 v~h 'xvcxk; pci&nrmed 3ar the Cirp. Ansa+~er "YF,~" if yai argree Ir? r>civ~a ~ rvondixcflmir~linsrt dat+an~ in atak~seat+avak.. i4n>r "t`1C`" a~ Ya+~ will r++~t q ~ trix:ltraiw as fr47rrdfdi:rirrrrril9#IUrr tf£irr4e in ~rrik{.iYfl oils. ~uNxhar° ?Xs a~ca whailwr #raux czWnpatrv a(iptz hsvnu~st~• Isuch ets madiml iasssrwaGrw'ic amgiayaas' spausas ar #a arrapfcr}~. aacarrs$ Ifiau are rnnrr#~I f~clr ox banaa+ntm!rnt Ira xriaicfr eoo ksm r ~+rrccxesa cr the daathr a1 spaassc, cxr (ominr rnedicnl Beare which. can 'be ts#xrr iaowccwasa e$ a zpasruv fw!ria~ a sariaus n7idicai candiM~r~ ' Arisvftf "YES' #i +rur,! d(i~f arr~° iiueh heri~eifla • itasisr "FlrJ` #I ~ cic ract oNrs any arrlt lxnelits. ~Tfs ~`~, troa+• ,-tsergi`~jbariwr! rr~ tt~, r, ewrx+€r r,r+wr~ it ,vcx.~ rhrr`; day trw 7P. t'ttecYxe ac, P?rr t;erwr~; r. ou~'arrscf. iauF caxr rairrsr h.F inarna +n v tr-:~ r n} ,•rr,c+kg~w. watt alrrarr~i':rtl msrwer "1`F~" 4arwxsnr: 2F nsk~ whet#se+• rKru +'!arnfrmrv .fllhers hers Isracl~ ns rnadr.,al inavmncsrl #a arnpiaYena dannaarc parze+arx ar M omplravaaa k>•rua~e 11as}° or+n in n dnerra-sF~r ~arkaakrrisip ~rrFC6 ax 6uarr+arnert# kwcreva-which eor L+x~ rakn isaxarasc cat Rea daarh aE a darrrasfic paehrur, ar lrani#y nrrrdtcra laa»n which. can .6a toiwn 3xrcaasa a# ar Wrnasrr_ fiam~r ha»rr~ n xziaux rnrxllcal roris#n+arrl . • Anzomcr "9'E of ~ aFssr urr}- sutih hcact#n. • Rnsx ear "f iti-?` if yiw do sw~d oFa~ arty, a~,°h i~rnokis ITB-10-08/09 9of17 RFP No. 10-08109 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 NOTE: To compty, your answers to questions 2A and 2B shavtd be the same.. !n very limited circumstances, you may comply without offering benefits equally. See Reasonable Measures Anpticatan Fomr. ~ .soon C shewld be filled out ONLY if you have answered "YES° to question 2A andjor 76, tt asks you to indica#e which benefits ycru offer to spouses (or employees because they are rnarriedl, which benefits you offer to domestic partners (or employees bemuse they are in a domestic partnershipj, and which benefits you do not offer. Please indicate only those berreflts of#ered. (f you offer benefits not already listed, write them in where it says "other"`. Remember, offering access to a 6eneNf is still considered o benefit, even if your company does not pay for it. Note; if you can't offer all benefit in a nondiscriminotory monner because of reasons outside your control, (e.g, there are na insurance providers wtTfing is offer domestic partner coverage) you may be eligible for Reasonable Measures compliance. To comply on this basis, you must agree to pay o cash equivalent submat a completed Reasonable Measures Application form with all necessary attachments and have your application approved by the Procurement tivision of the City of Miami Beach. s,~p 3: aTracw THE ~Y Docu~rrnnc~ Section 3 states that you must submit documentation that verifies all benefits marked in your answer b Quesfion 2C are offered in a nondiscriminatory manner. When possible, it is best if you submit this documentation along with your Dedaraiion form. For policies that are unwritten, submit a letter to the Procurement Division indicating this- Use the Itst below as a guide for the type of documentation needed.. Medical Fnsurance A statement from your medical insurance provider that confirms spouses and domestic portners (as defined under this Ordinance} receive equal coverage in your medical plan. This may lie in a {attar from your insurance provider, ar reReded in the eligibility section of your official inwrance Akan document. Similar documentation is needed far other types of insurance plans. Retirement Plans (including 401k & pension plans} The sections of your pension pion detailing how employees receive benefits. This should cover (oint annuity options and pre retirement death benefits, Documentation should indicate that employees with domestk partners and employees with spouses receive the same benefits and payment options.. Bereavement Leave Your bereavement leave of funeral leave policy indicating the benefit is offered equally. If your policy allows etployees time off from work because of the death of a spouse, it sfmuld also allow for time off because of the death of a domestic partner, ff the policy allows for time off due to the death of a parent in~law or other relative of o spouse, it must include time off for the death of a domestic partner's equivalent relative. Family Eeave Your company's Family and Msdical Leave Act policy. All companies with 50 or more employees must offer this benefit. Your policy should indicate that employees may take leave because of the serious medical condition of their spouse or domestic partner. Parental Leave Your company's policy indicating that employees may take leave for the birth or odoption of a child, to care far a child who is ill, andjor to attend xchool appointments. If leave is available for stepchildren (the spouse's child] then leave alxo should be available for the child of a domestic partner. Employee Asaistanee Program Yaur company's employee assistance program policy confirming that spouses, domestic partners and their parents and children are equally eligible (or inehgible~ far such benefits. Rebcation & Travel Your company's policy confirming that expenses for travel or relocation will be paid on the same basis for spouses aril domestic partners of employees. Diseaunte, Facilities 8, Events Your company`s policy confirming that discounts, facEltttes (e.g. gym} and events (e.g, holiday party} are equally available to spouses and domestic partners of empbyees. Credit Union Documentation from the credit union indicating that spouses and domestic partners have equal access to credit union services. Child Care Documentation that the children of spouses (stepchildren) and chikfren of domestic partners have equal access fo child care services. ONser Benefits Documentation of any other benefits listed to indicate chat they ore offered equally. For medical insurance companies providing domestic partner coverage in the State of Florida, refer to the L7amestic Partner Insurance Coveraae Search available online at: www.miamibeaehfl.aav under Business, Procurement drag down list. For any questions on the City of Noami Beacfr Equal Benefits Ordinance ar how to complete the applicable forms, please contact: Cristina Piax, Contrach Comaliance Specialist PROCUREMENT DivtSION 170D Comrenfian Cenbr Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139 Tel: 305673-7446 / Fax: 786394~d000,f cristinadiaz~miamibeachfl,aov We arc committed to pravidir~r excellent public service and safeM An al! who live; vrorY and play in our vibrant; fropieat, historic community. Ire-1 aoaros 10 of 17 RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 ' '~"" ~` ~ _. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DECLARATION: NONDISCRIMINATION IN CONTRACTS AND BENEFITS Section 1. Vendor Information Name of Company: Name of Company Contact Person: Phone Number: Fax Number: E-mail: Vendor Number (if known): Federal ID or Social Security Number: Approximate Number of Employees in the U.S.: (If 50 or less, skip to Section 4, date and sign) Are any of your employees covered by a collective bargaining agreement or union trust fund? _Yes_No Union name(s): Section 2. Compliance Questions Question 1. Nondiscrimination -Protected Classes A. Does your company agree to not discriminate against your employees, applicants for employment, employees of the City, or members of the public on the basis of the fact or perception of a person's membership in the categories listed below? Please note: a "YES" answer means your company agrees it will not discriminate; a "NO" answer means your company refuses to agree that it will not discriminate. Please answer yes or no to each category. Race _Yes _ No ~ Sex _Yes _ No Color _Yes _ No C' Sexual orientation _Yes _ No Creed _Yes _ No _ Gender identity (transgender status) _Yes _ No ^ Religion _Yes _ No C. Domestic partner status _Yes _ No National origin _Yes _ No ^ Marital status _Yes _ No Ancestry _Yes _ No r~ Disability _Yes _ No _~ Age _Yes _ No ^ AIDS/HIV status _Yes _ No Height _Yes _ No C Weight _Yes _ No B. Does your company agree to insert a similar nondiscrimination provision in any subcontract you enter into for the performance of a substantial portion of the contract you have with the City? Please note: you must answer this question, even if you do not intend to enter into any subcontracts. _ Yes _ No iTS-i o-osios i ~ or n RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 Question 2. Nondiscrimination -Equal Benefits for Employees with Spouses and Employees with Domestic Partners Questions 2A and 26 should be answered YES even if your employees must pay some or all of the cost of spousal or domestic partner benefits. A. Does your company provide or offer access to any benefits to employees with spouses or to spouses of employees? _ Yes _ No B. Does your company provide or offer access to any benefits to employees with (same or opposite sex) domestic partners* or to domestic partners of employees? _ Yes _No `'The term Domestic Partner shall mean any two (2) adults of the same or different sex, who have registered as domestic partners with a government body pursuant to state or local law authorizing such registration, or with an internal registry maintained by the employer of at least one of the domestic partners. A Contractor may institute an internal registry to allow for the provision of equal benefits to employees with domestic partner who do not register their partnerships pursuant to a governmental body authorizing such registration, or who are located in a jurisdiction where no such governmental domestic partnership exists. A Contractor that institutes such registry shall not impose criteria for registration that are more stringent than those required for domestic partnership registration by the City of Miami Beach If you answered "NO" to both Questions 2A and 2B, go to Section 4 (at the bottom of this page), complete and sign the form, filling in all items requested. Ifyouu answered "YES" to either or both Questions 2A and 26, please continue to Question 2C below. Question 2. (continued) C. Please check all benefits that apply to your answers above and list in the "other' section any additional benefits not already specified. Note: some benefits are provided to employees because they have a spouse or domestic partner, such as bereavement leave; other benefits are provided directly to the spouse or domestic partner, such as medical insurance. BENEFIT Yes for Employees with S ouses Yes for Employees with Domestic Partners No, this Benefit is Not Offered Documentation of this Benefit is Submitted with this Form Health ^ ^ ^ ^ Dental ^ ^ ^ ^ Vision ^ ^ ^ ^ Retirement (Pension, 401 k ,etc. ^ ^ ^ ^ Bereavement ^ ^ ^ ^ Famil Leave ^ ^ ^ ^ Parental Leave ^ ^ ^ ^ Employee Assistance Pro ram ^ ^ ^ ^ Relocation & Travel ^ ^ ^ ^ Company Discount, Facilities & Events ^ ^ ^ ^ Credit Union ^ ^ ^ ^ Child Care ^ ^ ^ ^ Other ^ ^ ^ ^ RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fee Study Addendum #1 1/21/2009 Page 12 of 1 Note: If you can not offer a benefit in a nondiscriminatory manner because of reasons outside your control, (e.g., there are no insurance providers in your area willing to offer domestic partner coverage) you may be eligible for Reasonable Measures compliance. To comply on this basis, you must agree to pay a cash equivalent, submit a completed Reasonable Measures Application with all necessary attachments, and have your application approved by the City Manager, or his designee. Section 3. Required Documentation YOU MUST SUBMIT SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION to verify each benefit marked in Question 2C. Without proper documentation, your company cannot be certified as complying with the City's Equal Benefits Requirement for Domestic Partner Ordinance. For example, to document medical insurance submit a statement from your insurance provider or a copy of the eligibility section of your plan document; to document leave programs, submit a copy of your company's employee handbook. If documentation for a particular benefit does not exist, attach an explanation. Have you submitted supporting documentation for each benefit offered? _Yes _ No Section 4. Executing the Document 1 declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct, and that 1 am authorized to bind this entity contractually. Executed this day of , in the year , at _ City State Signature Mailing Address Name of Signatory (please print) City, State, Zip Code Title RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 Wes' __ ,.~, ~.~ .~ CITY OF MIAMI BEACH REASONABLE MEASURES APPLICATION Declaration: Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits Submit this form and supporting documentation to the City's Procurement Division ONLY IF you: a. Have taken all reasonable measures to end discrimination in benefits; and b. Are unable to do so; and c. Intend to offer a cash equivalent to employees for whom equal benefits are not available. You must submit the following information with this form: 1. The names, contact persons and telephone numbers of benefits providers contacted for the purpose of acquiring nondiscriminatory benefits; 2. The dates on which such benefits providers were contacted; 3. Copies of any written response(s) you received from such benefits providers, and if written responses are unavailable, summaries of oral responses; and 4. Any other information you feel is relevant to documenting your inability to end discrimination in benefits, including, but not limited to, reference to federal or state laws which preclude the ending of discrimination in benefits. I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually. Name of Company (please print) Signature Name of Signatory (please print) Title Mailing Address of Company City, State, Zip Telephone Number Date RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 ,~ ~ ~. _ ~ . CITY OF MIAMI BEACH SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE AUTHORIZATION FORM Declaration: Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits This form, and supporting documentation, must be submitted to the Procurement Division by entities seeking to contract with the City of Miami Beach that wish to delay ending their discrimination in benefits pursuant to the Rules of Procedure, as set out below. Fill out all sections that apply. Attach additional sheets as necessary. A. Open Enrollment Ending discrimination in benefits may be delayed until the first effective date after the first open enrollment process following the date the contract with the City begins, provided that the City Contractor submits to the Procurement Division evidence that reasonable efforts are being undertaken to end discrimination in benefits. This delay may not exceed two years from the date the contract with the City is entered into, and only applies to benefits for which an open enrollment process is applicable. Date next benefits plan year begins: Date nondiscriminatory benefits will be available: Reason for Delay: Description of efforts being undertaken to end discrimination in benefits: RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 B. Administrative Actions and Reouest for Extension Ending discrimination in benefits may be delayed to allow administrative steps to be taken to incorporate nondiscriminatory benefits into the City Contractor's infrastructure. The time allotted for these administrative steps shall apply only to those benefits for which administrative steps are necessary and may not exceed three months. An extension of this time may be granted at the discretion of the Procurement Director, upon the written request of the City Contractor. Administrative steps may include, but are not limited to, such actions as computer systems modifications, personnel policy revisions, and the development and distribution of employee communications. Description of administrative steps and dates to be achieved: If requesting extension beyond three months, please explain basis: C. Collective Bargaining Agreements (CBA) Ending discrimination in benefits may be delayed until the expiration of a City Contractor's Current collective bargaining agreement(s) where all of the following conditions have been met: 1. The provision of benefits is governed by one or more collective bargaining agreement(s); 2. The City Contractor takes all reasonable measures to end discrimination in benefits either by requesting that the Unions involved agree to reopen the agreements in order for the City Contractor to take whatever steps necessary to end discrimination in benefits or by ending discrimination in benefits without reopening the collective bargaining agreements; and 3. In the event that the City Contractor cannot end discrimination in benefits despite taking all reasonable measures to do so, the City Contractor provides a cash equivalent to eligible employees for whom benefits are not available. Unless otherwise authorized in writing by the Procurement Director, this cash equivalent payment must begin at the time the Unions refuse to allow the collective bargaining agreements to be reopened, or in any case no longer than three (3) months from the date the contract with the City is entered into. RFP No. 10-08/09 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 For a delay to be granted under this provision, written proof must be submitted with this form that: • The benefits for which the delay is requested are governed by a collective bargaining agreement; • All reasonable measures have been taken to end discrimination in benefits (see Section C.2, above); and • A cash equivalent payment will be provided to eligible employees for whom benefits are not available. I declare (or certify) under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of Florida that the foregoing is true and correct, and that I am authorized to bind this entity contractually. Name of Company (please print) Signature Name of Signatory (please print) Title Mailing Address of Company City, State, Zip Telephone Number Date RFP No 10-08/D9 Building Development Process Fees Study Addendum #2 1 /21 /2009 EXHIBIT "C" 0 ` i~ i ._ . a HELPING GOVERNMENT SERVE THE PEOPLE January 21, 2009 Maria Estevez Senior Procurement Specialist Procurement Division 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 Dear Ms. Estevez: The City of Miami Beach needs a simpler way to help it recover the cost of building permit activities. MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of MAXIMUS, Inc., is pleased to present our proposal to provide the City of Miami Beach with a building development process fees study. We are confident that you will find our proposal fully compliant with the requirements outlined in the Request for Proposals (RFP). More importantly, you will find that MAXIMUS offers the best approach to meeting your need for an analysis of building development fees in the City of Miami Beach. MAXIMUS conducts more building fee studies than all of our competitors combined. We have done so recently for many big cities nationally, including Tampa and Chicago. Closer to Miami Beach, we are proud to have assisted fourteen Florida cities and counties with building fees. Our extensive work in this area has led to a deep understanding of the operations and cultures of large city governments. The City wants a simpler fee structure than the one produced in the prior study. Nothing could be simpler to administer than our NEXUSTM application. Simply indicate three things: the occupancy type, square footage and construction type and our report indicates the fee to reimburse the City's cost. Ask the City of Tampa about this; both the City and the Tampa Bay Builders Association have found that this dramatically simplified the process, while preserving the City's need for sufficient revenue from permits to fund the City's operations. The project team we have assembled contains our best staff for this work, and the City should expect no less. The leader of our national practice in this field, Bruce Cowans, will direct this engagement. He will be supported by project staff who have helped other Florida cities and counties set building fees and who have consulted to building departments on operational efficiency improvement. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal to study the City's building development process fees. We understand that the services requested under this RFP are a critical component in helping the City fund the services needed to enforce the building code. Please call me with any questions. Yours truly, ~~--'(_ ' Bruce Cowans Senior Vice President brucecowan s@maximus.com MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of MAXIMUS, Inc. 1033 NORTH SKOKIE BOULEVARD, SUITE 350 i NORTHBROOK, ILLINOIS 60062 847.564.9270 847.564.9136 FAX j WWW.MAXIMUS.COM IM1I~AXf~~S GoNSULTfNG SERVICES, ENG. PR~}~C}SAL TO THE GfTY OF !~i[AMf BEACH FOR A BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PRQGESS FEES STUDY RFP # '~ ~-Q~/Q~ JAF~UARY 21, 20Q~ ~~c CITY OF MIAMI BEACH MA?CIMLIS Building Development Process Fees Study, RFP # 10-08/09 TABLE QF CONTENTS Section Page INTRODUCTION LETTER A Documentation of our ability to Satisfy RFP requirements 1 B References 4 C Qualifications 7 C.1 Overview of MAXIMUS 7 C.2 MAXIMUS Building Fees Experience 11 C.3 Staffing 12 D Past Performance Client Survey Information (clients sending 24 directly to City's Procurement Office) E Methodology and Approach 25 E.1 Phase 1 -Pre-planning and Project Kick-off 25 E.2 Phase 2 -Cost and Fee Analysis 27 E.3 Phase 3 -Public Outreach and Recommendations 33 F Cost Information 35 G Enclosures (forms required by RFP) 36 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~{_ i~~s}~g~ RFP # 10-08/09 NtAXIMUS A. DOCUMENTATION 4F OUR ABILITY TO SATISFY RFP REQUIREMENTS _ _ _ _ _ _ __ MAXIMUS has the proven ability to satisfy ail RFF requirements. 'Vile are the national leader in user fee studies, doing mare of this work than all other firms combined do. We are active throughout Florida. Most of our clients are repeat customers who seek aut our services in helping to serve their constituents. We understand that accuracy and timeliness are essential for this project, and we have repeatedly demonstrated our ability to deliver precisely this type of project. The City of Miami Beach needs a building permit fee study that identifies the cost the City incurs to meet this demand. It needs a structure that reflects the way the industry thinks about these projects and one that is easy to explain and administer. We offer a sophisticated cost- basedbuilding permit model that is easy to administer. The City has had consultant support for this effort in the past, but has voiced concern about the complexity of the current method.. More so than ever, the City needs to have faith that it is selecting the best partner for this effort. The desirable partner is a firm that brings both Florida and nationwide experience in the field; a firm that deploys capable staff and state-of--the-art tools; a large, financially stable firm with resources appropriate to fit the needs of a large city; and a firm that embraces quality assurance. MAXIMUS offers Miami Beach all of this and more. We also offer Miami Beach expertise in addressing efficiency concerns. ~ MAXIMUS conducts more building permit fee studies than all other firms combined. Our user fee practice is thriving, both in Florida and across the nation. ~ The MAXIMUS NEXUS'S methodology is designed to generate cost-based building fees, as requested by Miami Beach. ~ MAXIMUS has broad and recent experience in this field, both across Florida and in large cities nationally. Our project team brings both Florida and nationwide experience to this project. ~ Our model is very easy to administer and reflects the structure of the Florida Building Code. industry-Siaecific Experience -Florida and Nationwide MAXIMUS conducts more governmental fee studies than all other vendors combined. We are proud to have provided user fee and cost allocation services to Florida for more than 20 years. Specifically, our recent building fee experience spans Florida from north to south. Cities such as Tampa and Cape Coral and counties such as Orange County, Hillsborough County and Manatee County have turned to MAXIMUS for help in creating building fee schedules. We surpass the RFP minimum requirement of having successfully completed within the past four years at least two fee studies for Building Departments in urban cities in the State of Florida of comparable size to Miami Beach. Exhibit B-1: Florida Experience lists all Florida cities and counties we have prepared building fee studies for in the past three years. MAXIMUS Florida Clients for City and County Building Fee Studies in the Last Three Years City of Tampa Manatee County Polk County Lake County Orange County Leon County Sarasota County Wakulla County City of Cape Coral Hillsborough County Alachua County Charlotte County City of Cocoa Exhibit B-7: Florida Experience. We understand the building permit environment of Florida local governments. Several of our proposed project staff worked for many of the Florida clients listed in Exhibit B-I.As the long-standing national leader in this market, we have developed software, a large cadre of experienced DOCUMENTATION OF OUR ABILITY TO SATISFY RFP REQUIREMENTS PAGE A-1 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 ~'-~~~_ N~cinnus~ staff, and insights from working with a wide variety of cities, each of which provides its own unique requirements. We understand the operations and cultures of large city governments. The leader of our national practice in this field, Bruce Cowans, will direct this engagement. Capable, Skilled Staff We have assembled a team that offers unmatched relevant knowledge, skills and experience. Our team includes a Project Director who has experience consulting throughout Florida, prepared hundreds of fee studies, consulted to building departments of all sizes on operational improvement, and currently leads our national efforts in fee studies. He will be supported by a project team which includes the designer of the latest version of our state of the art software NEXUST'", staff who have assisted other Florida cities and counties with building fee studies, and staff who have provided process improvement advice to building departments in cities across the country. Our staff understands the utmost importance of working closely with the City staff committee. We are experts at the cost accounting, cost modeling and policy analysis that you need. You are experts in how you operate. We know how to work together to produce a successful result. State of the Art Te~vls Our NEXUSTM methodology produces fee schedules that ensure three key City priorities: A) It is a simple formula that decreases stafftime spent calculating fees B) It is cost-based so that each fee matches the City's actual cost of providing service C) It can be easily updated annually by City staff, to adjust for increases in budgeted expenditures NEXUSTM is easy to use because: ^ Its tables produce findings on all Florida Building Code occupancy types for all types of structures. The results are simple to read. ^ For construction permits, all the user needs to do is specify occupancy type, square footage and construction type and see the cell that provides the permit price. This ends the complexity that Miami Beach is experiencing with fees that are based on a variety of methods. This saves staff time and applicant frustration in determining the correct fee for a permit. ^ For mechanical /electrical /plumbing permits, simply look up the permit type. ^ For smaller permits (e.g., signs, decks, fences, licenses, etc.), simply look up the permit type. ^ This is easy to modify to reflect City decisions on discounts for certain permits and subsequent changes to budgets. Fees that match the City's cost of providing services The City of Miami Beach is seeking fees that are set by establishing a direct relationship between the services provided and the fees charged to the permit holder. Our custom-built, state of the art NEXUSTM software allows for this analysis, providing a very simple, easy to use fee schedule. It addresses the very specific nature of building fees and the requirement to accommodate a wide range of structures and structure sizes. NEXUSTM has been tried and tested in countless engagements. Builders appreciate cost-based fees, since they view the industry in this manner. Nationally, there is a growing trend to move away from valuation-based fees. Our clients in places as diverse as Pennsylvania (City of Reading), Florida (City of Tampa), and Illinois (City of Chicago) have told us recently that they regard cost-based fees as an essential feature of building permit design. We understand that Florida Statutes preclude using building permit fees for planning, zoning or other general governmental activities, and the City seeks alternative means of funding such functions. We have DOCUMENTATION OF OUR ABILITY TO SATISFY RFP REQUIREMENTS PAGE A-2 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 c3 t~pji.~ N-AxlMUs worked with various Florida Cities to develop and determine the cost of their Site Plan fees, which Cities can charge before the construction process begins. Florida statutes prohibit cities to include the cost of planning and zoning in building permit fees, but it does not prohibit cities to charge for the cost of these services separately, before the construction process begins. urge, Financialfy-Stable Firm MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of MAXIMUS, Inc., will conduct this project. As a New York Stock Exchange-listed firm, we have substantial fiscal strength and stability. In a year of financial turmoil, our stock price has increased. We have grown in both size and profitability every year since our founding in 1975. Our revenues have grown from $100 million in FY 1997 to more than $700 million in FY 2008. We have no debt, and we maintain significant cash resources to support our operations. MAXIMUS employs more than 5,000 people, operates in all 50 states and maintains more than 100 offices throughout the country. Established Process far Quality Assurance MAXIMUS follows the principles of the Project Management Institute to ensure quality in our engagements. We require our staff to take project manager training. We have an internal Quality Control group that audits our work and tests for compliance with our Professional Practice Guide. This guide requires standard documentation for all projects, detailed work plans, communications plans with clients, and financial and schedule controls. We also survey each client at the end of each project and use the survey data not only as a learning experience, but also as part of each employee's annual review. Scores below a "B" on any measure require the Senior Vice President responsible for that region to call the client and discuss why the project did not go as well as hoped. Our focus and our goal is to motivate each of our staff to provide our clients with the highest quality work in a timely and effective manner. We measure our results by our clients' satisfaction with our work. ExRertise in Addressing Efficiency Concerns In addition to knowing user fees inside and out, MAXIMUS also brings to this project a broader contextual understanding of how to address efficiency concerns. Ensuring fees that appropriately reflect the costs involved in providing the services is a critical and necessary step for best serving its residents. MAXIMUS has helped many building departments, including several in Florida. For example, the City of Tampa's slowdown in building demand required acost-based fee structure, improvement in interdepartmental coordination and better information technology to justify an increase in fees. MAXIMUS prepared an activity-based management analysis of fee services, business process redesign of interdepartmental service relationships, business case study for permit management system, and recommendations for improved office layout and facilitation of meetings with stakeholders to build consensus. Because of our work, the Tampa Bay Builders Association asked Hillsborough County to retain MAXIMUS for a similar study. DOCUMENTATION OF OUR ABILITY TO SATISFY RFP REQUIREMENTS PAGE A-3 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~~ ~ ~~ RFP # 10-08/09 ~ N~xllv-us E3. FZEFERE~iCES We are proud to provide the City of Miami Beach with 10 references who can attest to our professionalism, willingness, and ability to support our clients even after the project is complete. Our references include several jurisdictions in Florida, comparable in size to the City of Miami Beach. We have also included references to clients in other states. City of Tampa, Florida Contact name John Barrios Title Construction Services Manager Company City of Tampa, Florida Address 1400 North Boulevard, Tampa, FL 33607 Telephone number (813) 274-3153 E-mail address John.barrios(c~ci.tampa.fl.us Fax number (813) 259-1838 City of Cape Coral, Florida Contact name Mark Mason Title Director of Financial Services Company City of Cape Coral, Florida Address 1015 Cultural Park Boulevard, Cape Coral, FL 33990 Telephone number (239) 574-0497 E-mail address mmason(a~capecoral.net Fax number (239) 574-0837 Hillsborough County, Florida Contact name Jim Ford Title Manager, Plan Review Company Hillsborough County, Florida Address 5701 E. Hillsborough Avenue, Suite 1140, Tampa, FL Telephone number (813) 763553-7353 E-mail address Fordie(a~hillsboroughcounty.org Fax number (813) 307-4442 Manatee County, Florida Contact name John Barnott Title Director, Building Department Company Manatee County, Florida Address 1112 Manatee Avenue West, Bradenton, FL 34205 Telephone number (941) 748-4501 E-mail address John.barnott(c7mymanatee orq Fax number (941) 749-3098 REFERENCES PAGE B-4 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~~$1 at ~~~ RFP # 10-08/09 ~ , ~v~xlMUs City of Cocoa, Florida Contact name John Titkanich Title Director of Community Development Company City of Cocoa, Florida Address 603 Brevard Avenue, Cocoa, FL 32922 Telephone number (321) 639-7565 E-mail address jtitkanich(a~cocoafl.org Fax number (321) 639-7619 Alachua County, Florida Contact name Suzanne Gable Title Director, Office of Management & Budget Company Alachua County, Florida Address PO Box 2877, Gainesville, FL 33602 Telephone number (352) 374-5262 E-mail address sgable(a~co.alachua.fl.us Fax number (352) 374-7362 Wakulla County, Florida Contact name Lindsay Stevens Title Assistant County Administrator Company Wakulla County, Florida Address PO Box 1210, Crawfordville, FL 32326 Telephone number (850) 926-3695 E-mail address Istevens(a~mywakulla.com Fax number (850) 926-1528 St. Louis County, Missouri Contact name Glenn Pearl Title Chief Accounting Officer Company St. Louis County, Missouri Address 41 South Central Avenue, 8th Floor, St. Louis, MO 63105 Telephone number (314) 615-7060 E-mail address Glenn pearl(a~stlouisco.com Fax number (314) 615-3707 City of Chicago, Illinois Contact name Steve Lux Title Comptroller Company City of Chicago, Illinois Address 33 North LaSalle Street, Suite 700, Chicago, IL 60602 Telephone number (312) 744-2887 E-mail address Slux(a~cityofchicago.org Fax number (312) 744-0014 REFERENCES PAGE B-5 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 .-_ , , a`.;~~.;~4f N~x~MUS~ Kane County, Illinois Contact name Cheryl Pattelli Title Director of Finance Company Kane County, Illinois Address 719 South Batavia Avenue, Building A, Geneva, IL 60134 Telephone number (630) 208-5113 E-mail address ap ttellicheNi(v~co.kane.il.us Fax number (630) 208-5110 REFERENCES PAGE B-6 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 C. QUALIFICATIONS .~ ~' N~ac~lv-us -__ __ For over 30 years, MAXEMI.IS has been helping government serve the people. MAXINE!!S has a wealth of experience in user fee studies and building permit studies specifically. C1ur praposed project staff reflects MAXIMUS has done more building fee studies than all other firms combined. We offer a deep bench of staff who are skilled not only in activity-based costing generally but skilled in developing building fees specifically. The team we are assigning to this project includes our national leader for user fee studies and substantial recent experience in working with Florida local governments on fee studies under the Florida Building Code. We are familiar with what is unique to Florida; wind zones, demands imposed by natural disasters, Florida developer reactions to these studies, Amendment 1 and the like. We also bring national experience, which may provide Miami Beach with insights into new ways to operate. In this section, we present the experience and qualifications of both our company and our proposed project staff. We begin by providing an overview of MAXIMUS. We then describe our experience specifically related to building fees. We conclude this section by presenting the qualifications of our proposed project team. C.1 OVERVfEW OF MAXIMUS Since our inception in 1975, MAXIMUS has been at the forefront of innovation in meeting our mission of "Helping Government Serve the People®." We provide products and services to a1150 states, as well as numerous counties, cities, and other local government entities across the United States. Our history of dedication and commitment to the needs of government sets MAXIMUS apart from our competitors. Our multi-disciplinary services and delivery systems are designed to make government more efficient and cost-effective, while improving the quality of services offered to millions of program beneficiaries. Our Guiding Principles Help Us Meet Our Cfients' Expectations We take great pride in providing high-quality service to our clients and have consistently been successful in providing our clients with services that meet and exceed expectations. This success starts with the following fundamental principles of our Company, which will guide us during our work for City of Miami Beach. ^ We are dedicated to providing the highest quality of service to our clients. We first take time to understand the operations and needs of our clients, and then we develop solutions to help resolve those issues. ^ We utilize an interactive process that fully involves our client in all aspects of our engagement, resulting in a product that the client understands and accepts as accurate. ^ We assign senior project teams to our engagements, using staff members who have many years of consulting, who are on-site for the project, and who are directly involved in each step of the work process. ^ We seek to build long-term relationships based on mutual trust and respect, so that our clients feel free to seek us out for advice and counsel long after our engagement is complete. Service Offerings MAXIMUS provides a diverse set of products and services: ranging from human service program evaluations and quality assurance, to investigations and program compliance, to systems development and implementation, to maintenance and operations of human service programs and systems, to change management and performance analytics, to government program financial consulting for cost plan development, user fees, and rate setting. To support this diversity, MAXIMUS is organized as shown in Exhibit 2-1: MAXIMUS Corporate Organization. Within all of our major segments, senior professionals QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-7 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~ ~~~.~~~~ RFP # 10-08/09 N~xlMUS~ provide the administrative, operational, systems, and programmatic expertise to im plement and operate each project. < < ~, ~ , ~. ~ ~ °`~"` ~ ` ~ " ~ ' President and CEO a n i z at i n n Ri~ro ^ Mcmtorr _. _ ,___ operations _ Akbar Pibti Bruce Caswell ,fohn Boyer Deanne Westin Group FinanCS Grnup flnanw ._~. t( _ _ .._ „,..... _. _, _.._. _. Kewr Reitlg~ ~ ~ - - ~ .-. ~ v Enc Stevens .. _.. ... .. p- North America ~ Health West Federal -. QpefaflOR$ KaCr;ieen Kerr ~ tr~r~nde- Lembe^ ~ '" Davies R.rhardson I Health East +lene Bav!:nson UnAed Kingdom I ~ Wortcforce Solutions hk~cKey Mana• Lisa Voelier Stever. Es:avsrtc m ~- m_ Educational T $erviCeS n Pn,t G2~.ter ~ QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-8 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 MAXIMUS The MAXIMUS organization aligns with service offerings under our five major business lines. The first of these is the Consulting Segment, which provides program, financial, management, and systems analysis and support services to state and local governments. This project will be performed by MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of MAXIMUS, Inc. (MAXIMUS). Deanne Wertin is the President and General Manager of the Consulting Segment. Lisa Voeller is the President of the Program Performance Services Division responsible for this work. Mr. Bruce Cowans, our proposed Project Director, is a Senior Vice President assigned to this division. As requested by the RFP, we have included our Certificate of Authority in Appendix 1: Certificate ofAuthoriry. Uffice Locations MAXIMUS has over 6,000 employees. MAXIMUS is incorporated in and headquartered at 11419 Sunset Hills Road, Reston, Virginia 20190. The company maintains more than 240 other corporate and project offices across the United States, Australia, Israel, and Canada. Exhibit LB-2: MAXIMUS Office Locations shows the location of many of our office sites in the United States. ,~ Wisconsin s s Bav .. ,'r'. rldSpt Alaska ~ - -'adison. Illinois Washington ~'±~~~ ~` .r.,.~ Minnesota Montana ~4`~ --~~ -- North Dakota ,.__ Oregon ~...,~~.. Nebraska `~.~ ~~`°~°~~-. N_e_vada ~~" _ _~.. Ohio Concore Twp` NortY~. Canton Indiana New York """~' ; Vermont ttl8 F3!ia - r...,,. Pennsylvania ~ Massachusetts ' ~ Connecticut Delaware Colorado ~..,., ,_- -~...__ _.. ,„ , California __ ~~~'_`'-- ,. ..~ .~nvs ~ mtw ~cn ~~ y,. h-iswart"^ Lo ~ ~ ~ a, ~h6,ia v sta ;Jr,~rr,.. ~:% t c:,rpress Fa,nr AfIZOOa ,,~~.~ ,, '~ P f :.7owney Pa~cti ' i ,'' 7 t r , ct <';aJon Rarc ~ j _ / 'Y ., sr,,. , ~ ~ i ; I 'Texas ~ , -_ ~+ Kansa6 ,ice - `%a ~ ~ Alabama ,/ Georgia ' r , Hawaii Jel ~ Iowa Tennessee: ti Flonda ar a -~ _ . Missouri J esden ,.d ,.. - Nashvilie Louisiana Some*vdie .-_J Trenton 'J nlon C:it~ New ~'~astie Vdtlanngtor, ~,` \\\\\\ `_., Washinton D.C ''`t Virgirna KI Jli~ Nil amsburq North Carolina Exhibit l.B-2: MAXIMUS Office Locations. This exhibit shows ournationwide presence. MAXIMUS Financial Stability MAXIMUS is a large, public corporation with stock trading on the New York Stock Exchange (MMS). We have grown in both size and profitability every year since our founding in 1975. Our revenues have grown from $l00 million in FY 1997 to more than $700 million in FY 2007. Exhibit 5.9-1: MAXIMUS QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-9 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 ',..'fib)&i~~. I~~IAXIMUS~ Financial Growth FY 1997 - FY2007, shows the growth of our fiscal capacity over the past 10 years. We have no debt and have financial resources readily available, if needed. Our financial position provides a stark contrast to some of our competitors who are small firms with very limited resources. REVENUE FY1997-FY2007 N C0 L Exhibit 5-9-1: MAXIMUS Financial Growth FY 1997 - FY 2007. This graph illustrates our strong financial growth over the past ? 0 years. MAXIMUS is a financially stable corporation. We have never filed any bankruptcy or insolvency proceeding or undergone the appointment of a receiver, trustee, or assignee for the benefit of creditors. Presently, MAXIMUS commands a high financial rating (SA1) from Dun & Bradstreet, reflecting its assessment of both our financial statements and our credit worthiness as "strong." Our Dun & Bradstreet number is 08-234-7477. Our bank of record is SunTrust Bank, 8245 Boone Boulevard -Third Floor, Vienna, Virginia 22182. As a publicly traded company, we are subject to the scrutiny of our shareholders and Wall Street. Each quarter, we submit financial reports to Wall Street, the SEC, and our stockholders. As a public company, MAXIMUS financials are thoroughly reviewed. Unlike small and privately-held companies, MAXIMUS is subject to regular financial reporting requirements and audit standards. Moreover, the Company is subject to valuation by the stock market based upon the quality of our work and the resulting financial status. Thus, MAXIMUS must maintain the highest degree of honesty, ethics, and moral scruples. QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-10 PROPRIETARY FY7997 FY7998 FY7994 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2063 FY2004 FY2065 FY2006 FY2007 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~ ~ r e r --~-~}~~3 :. C RFP # 10-06/09 ~~ ~ ~~ / C.2 I~kAXIMUS BUfLf~fNO FEES E7~PERIE~CE MAXIMUS has a record of successful past performance that is second to none, having provided high- quality services to clients across the government spectrum for over 30 years. Most of our clients are repeat customers who seek out our services in helping to serve their constituents. The RFP asked proposers to demonstrate experience in the last four years comparable to Miami Beach. All of the projects below are the work of the project team we are assi inf. We assume that experience of the people we are not assi~~ to this project is not of interest to Miami Beach and that the selection committee will hold all proposers to this same higher standard. Building Permit Fee Studies Meeting Three Criteria 1) Done by the Project Team for this Proposal, and 2) Done in the Last Four Years, and 3) Clients as Large as or Larger than the City of Miami Beach Client City of Tampa, Florida City of Cape Coral, Florida Hillsborough County, Florida Manatee County, Florida Polk County, Florida Orange County, Florida City of Chicago, Illinois City of Midland, Texas Kane County, Illinois Stanislaus County, California City of Hayward, California San Luis Obispo County, California Involved Florida Building Code J J J J J QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-11 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 C.3 STAFFING PROJECT DIRECTOR Bruce Cowans Senior Vice President PROJECT STAFF Ani Saldana, Senior Consultant Lauren Hula, Consultant i3ruce Cowans Pr~~ect f3irector Qualifications "fi~41'; °. N-~ciMUS~ ADDITIONAL PROJECT DIRECTION, IF NEEDED Brian Foster Senior Manager ADDITIONAL STAFF, IF NEEDED Stacey Shell, Consultant Mr. Cowans has been with our firm since 1991, providing public agencies with advice on how to improve their operations and finances. Mr. Cowans directs a regional practice of two dozen consultants that serves clients in seven states in the Southeast and Midwest. He leads our work nationally on user fees, cost of service studies, and information technology rates and provides direction to business process redesign projects. ~?el~varrt Ex~rerience Financial consulting ^ Help clients recover the cost of fee services and set performance targets by conducting activity- based cost studies. Have done this for hundreds of agencies coast to coast, covering virtually every type of service, with substantial building department experience in Florida (for all of the Florida clients listed in this proposal) and coast-to-coast. He trains our staff in this field and has addressed many professional organizations on this subject. ^ Litigation support, including development of expert reports on cost allocation, forensic accounting, cost of service, and calculation of damages. ^ Budget balancing analyses for fiscally strapped government agencies, assessing if, where and how to trim spending and staffing, how to streamline service and when to increase charges. ^ Assess client's ability to recruit foster parents by analyzing reimbursement rates and policies. ^ Set rates for state laboratories to charge to third parties. ^ Cost benefit models of policy options such as jail expansion, janitorial services and landfill operations. ^ Developed a new method for O'Hare and Dallas/Fort Worth airports to recover operating costs from bond funds. ^ Tax equity studies comparing amounts levied to cost of service provided. Performance measurement, management improvement, program evaluation and staffing studies ^ Comprehensive evaluation of all departments for cities, and state agencies. ^ Department-specific studies including: Health department issues such as staffing and managing clinical services, mental health services, environmental regulation, food safety, and laboratory operations. QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-12 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-OS/09 #pg I~~IAXIMUS~ • Police and sheriff issues, such as how to manage a patrol operation, staffa 911 center, and manage a jail. • Public Works and Highway issues, such as workload scheduling and staffing, equipment replacement and capital financing. • Building and Zoning, including how to staff for fluctuation in the business cycle and how to improve customer service. • Recreation and Parks, addressing staffing, budgeting and funding. • Other: (finance departments, human resources departments, information technology departments, county clerks, recorders of deeds, assessors, coroners, and special education in public schools). Mr. Cowans is an elected municipal official, serving as Village Trustee and Chairman of the committees of Finance and Community Grants for Glencoe, Illinois. He has experience in setting tax rates, developing bond financing plans, regulating building, zoning and land use, developing strategies for labor contracts, setting policy on litigation and risk management, assessing information technology needs, developing human resource policy and evaluating the effectiveness of municipal operations. ~rofessianal History MAXIMUS, Inc., Senior Vice President 2004 -present, Vice President, 1997 - 2004, Senior Manager 1995-97, Manager 1991-95 JMB Institutional Realty Corporation, Portfolio Analyst, Chicago, IL 1989-91 U.S. Treasury Department, Office of the Secretary, Budget Analyst, Washington, DC 1986-89 Price Waterhouse, Office of Government Services, Senior Consultant (1985-86), Staff Consultant (1983- 85), Washington, DC Village Trustee (city councilman) and Chairman, Finance Committee and Chairman, Community Grants Committee, Glencoe, Illinois, 2005 to present Ecit~cation M.A., Public Policy, Duke University, Durham, North Carolina B.A., Environmental Studies, Pitzer College, (The Claremont Colleges), Claremont, California Spee~ires ana' Articles ^ National Association of State Comptrollers (fiscal issues affecting information technology consolidation) ^ University of Wisconsin, College of Engineering (development impact fees) ^ West Central Municipal Conference (Chicago) (activity-based costing) ^ Illinois County Auditors Association (user fees) ^ Illinois Assistant Municipal Managers (performance management) ^ Illinois Government Finance Officers Association (user fees) ^ Missouri Association of Counties (disaster grant management) ^ Wisconsin Public Employers Labor Relations Association (outsourcing) ^ www.bettermanagement.com (Internet class on performance measurement and benchmarking) ^ Missouri Municipal League (compensation analysis) ^ Illinois Tax Foundation (user fees) ^ Illinois Association of County Clerks & Recorders (user fees) ^ Iowa State Association of Counties (predicting the cost of jail expansion) ^ Association of Minnesota Counties, (predicting jail operation costs) ^ Wisconsin County Finance Officers Association (using cost data to improve fiscal condition and indirect cost rates QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-13 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 k'-F~'kq~~, N~xiMUs _._ -- --__ Brian A. Foster Additional Project direction S~ppart if Needed Qcr~fifkcatons Mr. Foster is a Senior Manager with MAXIMUS. He has been a governmental practitioner and consultant for almost 26 years, having worked with cities, counties, courts, and special districts during his career. Mr. Foster has worked with large, medium, and small organizations. Mr. Poster's focus is on the areas of organizational analysis, operational efficiency, financial management, and technology improvements in complex environments. Mr. Foster has been responsible for: management and organizational analyses, budgetary analyses, rate studies, technology solutions designs, policy studies, and revenue enhancement reviews. Relevant Expe~-ienee Mr. Foster has specific experience in the following areas: ^ User Fee Studies ^ Public Sector Management Audits ^ Financial, Accounting, and Budget Management ^ Revenue Management and Analysis ^ Bond Financing ^ Employee Relations and Personnel Management ^ Systems Analysis, Design, and Implementation ^ Legislative Monitoring and Analysis ^ Grant Writing ^ Purchasing and Central Services ^ Community Liaison ^ Policy Analysis ^ Business Planning ^ Contract Writing The following list of accomplishments represents Mr. Poster's public sector management skills. User Fee Studies In addition to creating the latest software models used to generate user fees, Mr. Foster has recently worked on the following User Fee studies: ^ Citywide User Fees for the City of Hayward. ^ Community Services and Recreation Fees for the City of Diamond Bar. ^ Building Fees for the County of Stanislaus. ^ Development User Fees for the City of Victorville. ^ Engineering Fees for the City of Citrus Heights. ^ Citywide User Fees for the City of Colusa. ^ Community Development User Fees for the County of Calaveras. ^ Citywide User Fees for the City of National City. ^ Community Development User Fees for the City of Napa. ^ Building and Planning User Fees for the City of Chula Vista. ^ Building User Fees for the City of Cupertino. ^ Planning and Building User Fees for the County of San Luis Obispo. ^ Hourly billing rates for the Butte County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo). QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-14 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH Ea-~~,t RFP # 10-08109 MAXIMUS ^ Hourly planning rates and user fee schedules for the Livermore Area Recreation and Park District (LARPD). ^ Engineering User Fees for the City of Brentwood. Finance, Accounting, and Budgeting: ^ Reviewed the financial history and projected the financial needs for the City of Imperial Beach, CA (leading to expenditure reductions and revenue alternatives). ^ Installed a new financial management system for the City of El Cerrito, from the development of a Request For Proposal (RFP) to the actual "go live" date. Instituted operational and procedural improvements for a variety of financial operations, such as Business License, Vendor File management, etc. ^ Implemented a financial management system-grants accounting and management, financial project accounting, overhead rate modeling, and loan accounting for the City of Oakland. ^ Prepared and administered the City of El Cerrito's operating and capital budgets. ^ Developed alternative revenue generating mechanisms to support litter abatement activities for the City of Lynwood. ^ Reviewed accounting and financial operations, including internal controls, for Jewish Family & Children's Services of the East Bay, CA. Recommended changes to accounting procedures, cash handling, and allocations of responsibility. ^ Audited & Reconciled six years of special district records to Alameda County, CA records. ^ Performed comparative financial and debt analyses for the City and County of San Francisco's solid waste collection operator. ^ Conducted solid waste collection rate review analyses for the South (San Mateo County) Bayside Transfer Station Authority's Transfer Station ($24 million operation). ^ Conducted a solid waste collection rate review analysis for the City of Livermore, CA's solid waste collection franchise. ^ Performed a financial review of 13 municipalities, six grant awardees, and a countywide recycling program in Alameda County, CA. ^ Reviewed the City of Davis' solid waste operation and made recommendations to improve their franchise agreement and rate structure. ^ Prepared financial management reports for various Boards of Directors and governing bodies. ^ Performed all Accounting & Revenue functions, except cash management, fora 21-person company. ^ Performed budget reviews of large-scale operations, such as San Francisco General Hospital ($100's millions). ^ Established revenue procedures for a Business Tax and Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District in the City of Oakland. ^ Performed a review of internal controls for the Union Sanitary District. Recommended changes to cash handling, purchasing, and store keeping procedures. ^ Determined fund balances and development of an interdepartmental billing structure at Oakland's Office of General Services. ^ Recommended changes to Worker's Compensation caseload management and systems controls for the Central Contra Costa Schools Insurance Group. ^ Performed a review of internal controls for the Central Contra Costa Schools Insurance Group. Publications and Speeches ^ In February, 1997, American City and County magazine published Mr. Foster's article: Playing to Win the Competition Game. QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-15 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 MAXIMUS ^ A Blueprint for Ej~ciency, California Special Districts Association's 3l st Annual Conference, Monterey, CA, September, 2000. ^ Conducted community focus group sessions in the Cities of San Leandro and San Jose, California. ^ User Fees in the Current Legal Environment, League of California Cities Financial Management Seminar, Monterey, CA, December, 2007. F~ri~r Experie~rree Prior to joining MAXIMUS, Mr. Foster gained the following experience: ^ City of El Cerrito, California: Financial Services Manager/City Treasurer, 2001-2004 ^ Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson, LLC: Senior Associate, 1996-1999 ^ GCI Jennings, Inc.: Operations Director, 1995-1996 ^ Foster Consulting: Owner, 1994-1995 ^ City of Oakland, California: Administrative Services Manager II, 1990-1994 ^ Foster Consulting: Owner, 1986-1990 ^ Harvey M. Rose Accountancy Corporation: Senior Management and Budget Analyst, 1981-1986 Prafessieanaf History MAXIMUS, Senior Manager, Financial Services Division, Sacramento, CA, 2004 -Present MAXIMUS, Senior Manager, Financial Services Division, Burlingame/Oakland, CA, ] 999 - 2002 Education M.P.P., Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley A.B., Political Science and Economics (Double Major), University of California at Berkeley QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-16 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 Arne Saidana Project Staff Qualifications N~x~MUs Ms. Saldana is experienced in helping government agencies with matters of activity-based costing (ABC), business process reengineering (BPR), cost accounting, and management consulting (MC). Relevant Experience Florida ^ City of Tampa; BPR -Efficiency Review of the Permitting Process for Construction Services. ABC for Construction Services. ^ City of Cape Coral; ABC for Site Development & Building. ^ City of Hollywood; ABC for Building, Planning, Code Enforcement and Public Works- Sanitation. ^ City of Cocoa; ABC for Community Development. ^ Manatee County; BPR -Analysis of Plan Review Permit Delays in the Building Division. ABC, Survey Research & Peer Comparison for Building. ^ Orange County; ABC for County's School Impact Fee Services to the local School Board based on Inter-local School Agreement. ^ Polk County; ABC for Growth Management, Land Development, Emergency Medical Services, Radio Communications, Traffic/ Engineering Operations, Office of Educational Development, Code Enforcement, and the Central Florida Development Council. ^ Hillsborough County; ABC for Building and Fire. ^ Charlotte County; ABC for Community Development. ^ Alachua County; ABC for Building, Fire, & Public Works. ^ Department of State; MC -Agency report to the Legislature prepared for the Divisions of Historical Resources & Library and Information Services. Illinois ^ City of Chicago; MC -Review of the city-wide cost model for Building Permits. Cost Accounting -Full City Cost Allocation Plan and indirect cost rates analysis. ABC for the Planning Department. ^ McLean County; BPR -Efficiency & Staffing Analysis of Recorder's Office. ^ DuPage County; Cost accounting -County Cost Allocation Plan. ^ Will County; ABC for the Recorder's Office. ^ Peoria County; ABC for Clerk's and Sheriffs Offices. ^ McHenry County; ABC for the Recorder's Office. ^ St. Clair County; ABC for the Health Department. ^ Madison County; ABC for the Supervisor of Assessments. ^ Kane County; ABC for Clerk's Office and Building Department. ^ Kankakee County; ABC for Geographic Information Systems Department. Tennessee ^ City of Nashville/ Davidson County Metropolitan Government; BPR -Process improvement analysis for Health Food Protection Services. Survey Research and Peer Comparison on Risk- Based Inspections programs. Texas ^ City of Abilene; ABC and Peer Comparison for Planning & Development. QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-17 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-OBI09 Prior Experience t'-~~~3~ nnAxiMUS~ Prior to joining MAXIMUS, Ms. Saldana worked at The University of Chicago's Psychology Department as a Research Assistant, conducting various analytical studies to assess and improve math development in early childhood. Prafiessrae-~af ~6istary MAXIMUS, Inc., Associate Consultant, February 2007 -September 2007 MAXIMUS, Inc., Consultant, October 2007 -September 2008 MAXIMUS, Inc., Senior Consultant, October 2008 -Present Education The University of Chicago, Bachelor of Arts, Economics, 2006 Certifications ar~d Aurards Project Management: Pursuing the Certified Associate in Project Management (CAPM) certification. University of Chicago Scholar Award; 2002-2006 QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-18 PROPRIETARY r CITY OF MIAMI BEACH i ~ ~ s ~ 1 RFP # 10-08/09 ` ~~~ ° t' " nna~clN-us Project Staff Qualifications Ms. Hula is assigned to help government agencies with matters of cost accounting, process improvement, and management consulting. Her range of project experience includes the following: ^ User fee cost analysis ^ Cost Allocation Plans ^ ManagemenbBusiness process reengineering ^ studies ^ Cost benefit analyses ^ Statistical analyses ^ Survey research Refevant Experience Since joining MAXIMUS in 2007, Ms. Hula has worked on the following projects: ^ User Fee and Cost of Service Analysis • City of Hollywood, Florida; Activity-based costing for the Engineering and Police Department. • Wakulla County, Florida; Activity-based costing for the Building Division and Planning and Zoning Department. • Sangamon County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the Department of Public Health. • Peoria County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the Department of Public Health. • Kane County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the Department of Public Health and Sheriff Department. Cost Sharing Study for Emergency Management E-911 Dispatch Center. • DeKalb County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the County Clerk, Geographic Information Services, Coroner, and Sheriff Department. • Massac County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the Sheriff Department. City of Reading, Pennsylvania; Activity-based costing for the Building, Codes Enforcement, and Fire Department. • Sangamon County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the Department of Zoning. • Lee County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the County Clerk. • City of Midland, Texas; Activity-based costing for the Scharbauer Sports Complex and Hogan Park. • LaSalle County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the County Clerk, Recorder, Recorder Automation Fund, Geographic Information Services, and Sheriff Department. • Sangamon County, Illinois; Activity-based costing for the Department of Zoning. ^ Central Services Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Rate Calculations • City of Chicago, Illinois; Assisted in the preparation of the City's central services cost allocation plans and departmental indirect cost rate proposals. Assisted in determination of the City's support of the O'Hare and Midway airports enterprise funds and development of fringe benefit rates for police and fire personnel. • Metra -Metropolitan Rail, Illinois; Assisted in the preparation of the central services cost allocation plan, indirect cost rate proposal, fringe benefit rates, and labor additive rates for Metra. Prepared equipment rental rates. • City of EZ Paso, Texas; Assisted in the preparation of the central services cost allocation plan. • Illinois Department of Aging; Assisted in the preparation of the central services cost allocation plan. QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-19 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-06/09 3~1~_ N-wclMUs • Illinois Department of Economic Opportunity; Assisted in the preparation of the central services cost allocation plan. ^ Management/Business Process Reengineering Studies • Department of State, Florida; Examined the Division of Elections and Division of Administrative Services. Produced a comprehensive report for the Florida Legislature. The Agency Report assessed the extent to which the Florida Department of State programs and services comply with statuary mandates. • Nashville and Davidson Metro Government, Tennessee; Activity-based costing for the Food Protection Services Division. Financial impact and best practice review for inspecting food establishments based on risk, rather than bi-annually. • Manatee County, Florida; Business Process Reengineering -Analysis of plan review permit delays in the Building Division. Activity-based costing for the Building Division. ^ Cost Benefit Analyses • City of Kenosha and Kenosha County, Wisconsin; Developed methodology for a tax equity cost sharing model for the Joint Services Emergency Management Agency. • Sangamon County, Illinois; Reviewed the Department of Public Health's plan to consolidate three sites into a single health facility. Reviewed cost of new features, future growth considerations, and comparison of requested square footage to peer departments. • City of North Port, Florida; Assessment of efficiency and financial review of in-house and contractual mowing operations. Feasibility study for outsourcing public work services in the region of North Port Estates. • Department of Nuclear Safety, Illinois: Assisted in updating the computer model we developed for the IDNS that the Department used for negotiations with a private firm. The model estimates the prices that would be required to support the development and operation of a low-level radioactive waste facility, under varying assumptions and scenarios. ^ Capitalization Plans • Kenosha County, Wisconsin; Determined methodology and capitalization plan for the Information Services Division. Developed long term strategic plan with implementation strategies. • City of Chicago, Illinois; Performed analysis of costs that support capital projects for the Department of Aviation. F'ricar Exp~ri~r~ce Prior to joining MAXIMUS, Ms. Hula worked as a: ^ Summer Intern for the Michigan Senate Fiscal Agency. She was responsible for analyzing issues pertaining to foster care and higher education. Her work was published in the following reports. • Kids, Kin, and Foster Care: Fiscal Issues Related to the Increasing Role of Relatives in Foster Care, an issue paper exploring the fiscal impact of changes in federal and state foster care legislation. • How Kinship Care has Affected Foster Children, a State Notes Article exploring how the incorporation of kin into the child welfare system has affected foster children. • A Study of Higher Education in Michigan, which explores student demographic patterns at public Michigan universities. ^ Research Assistance for Michigan State University. Ms. Hula was a member of a research team that assessed the physical condition of environmentally contaminated sites throughout the state of Michigan to determine the success of state policy to promote site redevelopment. QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-20 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 PrafessFarral ffistary MAXIMUS, Associate Consultant, 2007 - 2008 MAXIMUS, Consultant, 2008 -Present Educati`an B.A., Economics, The University of Chicago, 2006 B.A., Political Science, The University of Chicago, 2006 Ac~ditiar~~l lnfarmation Proficiency in German MAXIMUS Software: Proficient in Microsoft Word, Microsoft Excel, Adobe Photoshop, MAXCARS Cost Allocation Software, STATA ~! wards University of Chicago Dean's List; 2003-2007 University Athletic Association, All Academic; 2007 QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-21 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~~ ~~ ~ ~~(y ~~ ~ r r RFP # 10-08/09 ~ Y I! V V ~ ~~ Stacey D. Sheii Project Staff Qceafifications Ms. Stacey Shell is a Senior Consultant with MAXIMUS, working in the Sacramento office of the Cost Services division since 2006. Ms. Shell focuses on budgetary analyses, rate studies, and revenue enhancement reviews for various governmental organizations. She has experience with cost of service/user fee studies, cost allocation plan development (OMB A-87 and Full Cost), and California State mandated cost reimbursement (SB 90). Relevant Ex~er6ence Ms. Shell has a range of experience in the areas of user fee studies, cost allocation plans, and SB 90 consulting, including: ^ Financial, Revenue, and Budget Analysis and Financial Management. ^ Develop and manage studies and surveys by obtaining and analyzing data and recommending solutions based upon knowledge, theory, principles, technology, or specialization. ^ Gathering necessary client financial information and analyzing accounts, Document allocation bases, and transfer pertinent information into MAXIMUS software. ^ Production of project deliverables that meet and exceed performance expectations, including scope of work requirements, financial objectives (revenue and profit goals), and implementation timeframes. ^ Specific professional activities include participating in client meetings, developing trust, credibility, and strong client relationships, while seeking opportunities to add value above and beyond competitors. ^ Achieve and/or exceed client satisfaction while maintaining a professional and problem solving approach in all dealings with clients. ^ Project Management in accordance with MAXIMUS established policies and procedures. ^ Assist in the identification of sales and marketing opportunities and participation in capturing new business opportunities for MAXIMUS. Ms. Shell has the following additional experience: ^ Community Liaison--creating and bridging relationships between local agencies and outside interest groups such as local Building Industry Association (BIA) and the California State Controllers Office. ^ Employee relations and personnel management. ^ Public speaking in small to medium engagements ranging from marketing presentations to informationaUeducational seminars. ^ Proposal writing assistance. ^ Event and Conference idea inception, budgeting, planning, coordination, marketing, execution, and follow up. Ms. Shell's previous and current clients include: User Fee Studies: ^ Calaveras County ^ City of Covina (Initial Study and Update) ^ City of Cupertino ^ City of Napa ^ City of Ontario ^ City of Rohnert Park ^ City of Ventura QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-22 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 ^ City of Hayward ^ City of Diamond Bar Cost Plans: ^ City of National City ^ City of Victorville ^ City of Covina SB 90: ^ City of Alameda ^ City of San Leandro ^ City of Daly City ^ City Delano ^ Town of Paradise ^ City of Chico ^ City of Bakersfield } Yep§~ti ~x~nnus Prafessianal Hisfar}~ MAXIMUS, Inc., Senior Consultant, May 2006 -Present Sacramento State University, Teacher's Assistant for Jordan Halgas, June 2002 -September 2002 and January 2006 -Present Farmers Insurance Group, Marketing Specialist, October 2004 -August 2005; Field Property Claim Representative, August 2003 -October 2004 Maloof Sports and Entertainment, Sales Coordinator, October 2002 -February 2004 EdUGal:ifln ^ Currently enrolled in MBA (Marketing) program, California State University, Sacramento. ^ Bachelor of Science, Finance, California State University, Sacramento. ^ Bachelor of Science; Human Resource Management, California State University, Sacramento. ^ Bachelor of Science, Risk Management and Insurance, California State University, Sacramento. Affiliations and Awards ^ Inter Business Council: Co-Founder; Co-President. ^ Investment Society: Marketing Director and Secretary; President. ^ Phi Theta Kappa Honor Society. ^ Golden Keys Honor Society. ^ Dean's List International Honor Society. ^ Beta Gamma Sigma International Honor Society. ^ Dean's List Five Consecutive Years (Undergraduate). ^ Dean's List Four Consecutive Semesters (Graduate). QUALIFICATIONS PAGE C-23 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08109 N~x~MUs d. PAST PERFQRMANCE CLIENT SURVEY INFORMATiQN We acknowledge that we have sent all of our clients a copy of the survey found in the RFP, and asked them to send it directly to the City of Miami Beach's Procurement Division. PAST PERFORMANCE CLIENT SURVEY INFORMATION PAGE D-24 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~~ e 1•? 1 k f nnAxIMUS~ E. ~ETH~}D4LQG`r' Auld APPROACH The City of Miami Beach provides plan review and inspection services to support the development industry. The City ensures that applicants construct structures that meet the requirements of the Florida Building Code and local ordinances. To make good policy decisions on how to price these services, the City needs reliable information on the cost of the services it provides. We provide a methodology that: • Is solid and defensible. The numbers have to be right and the documentation has to be easy for non-technical staff to follow. We have conducted more building permit fee studies than any other firm. We have built several error checks into our proprietary user fee software to improve quality control. • Is easy to administer. Our NEXUSTM methodology is designed to generate cost-based building fees based on codes derived from the Florida Building Code. In our experience, developers prefer this structure and client staff find it easier to administer. The model's output is rather voluminous, but it is extremely easy for a city to use. All that anyone needs to do to determine a fee is to specify the occupancy type, square footage and construction type. • Allows the City to easily update fees from year to year within a five year plan. Based on our model, we can identify and document the cost of providing services for the last year, the current year and the next three years. Our model allows the City to easily update their fees on an annual basis. E.'I PHASE 1 -PRE-PLANNING AND PROJECT KICK-OFF Successful projects do not happen without planning and communication. We propose to begin the project by meeting with staff committee members to review and refine the project methodology. We will lead akick-off meeting with staff from each Department, the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, and Finance to discuss current problems with the existing fee ordinance. Our understanding is that the Department's current fee structure is outdated and cumbersome. The Department wants to simplify their fee schedule. As the industry leader in determining user fee service costs, we have developed several proprietary user fee models to calculate service TM J Meet with committee members to review and customize project methodology. Kick-off meeting with staff from key Departments, the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, and Finance. costs. Our NEXUS model for Butldmg and Safety fees addresses the very specific nature of buildin~ fees and the requirement to accommodate a wide range of structures and structure sizes. Our NEXUST model will provide the City of Miami Beach with a fee structure that conforms to the Florida Building Code (which is derived from the International Building Code). In our experience, developers prefer this structure and client staff find it easier to administer. NEXUS produces three types of fee price schedules: 1. Prices based on the International Building Code occupancy types, with detail and scaling by project size 2. Mechanical, Plumbing and Electrical permits when required outside separate from structural work METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-25 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 :a; MAXIMUS 3. Miscellaneous permits, such as contractor licenses, fences, decks, signs and the like -the list is customizable to each client First Onsite interviews and Review of Services Our purpose is to delve into how the Department performs each of the fee services. This process involves several steps. We will begin by review the City's current fee schedules and support costs charged by all Departments involved in the process. We will review all relevant prior studies, existing cost allocation studies and historical revenues. We need to gain an understanding of labor efforts for each service. We will ask City staff to decompose their work into steps and will estimate the time required for each step. The Department already logs reliable data for the amount of staff time spent on plans review. We will use this data to develop our model. If we were to ask how long the City spends with intake, plan review, and inspection for each occupancy type and each size project within each occupancy type, interviews would never finish. We make some simplifying assumptions. ^ There are certain permit types for which we will ask questions about effort level differences for projects of different sizes in a single occupancy type. For example, how long does it take to provide a group of services for a single family residence (occupancy type R3) of 2,000 square feet, 4,000 square feet, 6,000 square feet, 8,000 square feet, and so on. ^ The City's answers to how much longer it takes to serve alarger-sized project within these key occupancy types represent a percentage difference that we can apply to related occupancy types (e.g., from Ras to R2s). We will work with the City at the beginning of the study to confirm that the list of occupancy types and sizes will produce findings useful for the diversity of the City's projects. Our starting listing includes all occupancy types appearing in the Florida Building Code, but we can and often add to those types based on unique construction in each jurisdiction. While we will be sensitive to the interruptions our work will cause, we need access to supervisors in the Department who can explain work processes and estimate the time required for these steps. We do not need to meet with all of the Department's employees. Supervisors capable of explaining the steps in intake, plan review, and inspection should plan to attend, but typically, a client would send only a handful of people to these meetings. We would meet separately with plan review staff, inspectors, and intake staff. The Department should also assign a liaison familiar with the Department's finances and who is capable of extracting data from the Department's financial records or systems. We may not obtain all of the data we need in the first visit. Inevitably, some of the Department's staff will be unavailable when we wish to meet with them, or will need to research the answers to our questions. Our schedule assumes that the Department's staff will be available and able to provide reasonably prompt responses to our data requests. If exceptions arise, we will discuss the options with the City's project liaison. Review indirect Costs and Service Rates We will review the indirect costs, service rates, and the average hourly rates for all of job classifications. We will discuss with the Department options to use individual hourly rates or a loaded hourly rate for each Department. While it is possible to develop individual employee rates and extend those rates to times for each individual, this approach greatly complicates the study without materially affecting the resultant fee structure. We will also use data on paid leave and administrative duties to adjust the total number of hours available for permit work. If someone is paid 2,080 hours per year, but has paid leave or administrative assignments, the City does not get 2,080 hours of actual work from this person. We use the total assignable hours for two reasons: METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-26 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~ x~ r~~~s C RFP#10-06/09 ~~~~~ J ^ To develop a departmental hourly rate that we apply to time required to perform various services. ^ To reconcile the total assignable hours in the department to the quantity of work to be done. The quantity of work is the sum of the time required for each permit multiplied by the number of permits of that type. We do not expect this computation to reconcile exactly, but generally fall within 10 percent. E.2 PHASE 2 -COST AND FEE ANALYSIS MAXIMUS has broad and recent experience in this field, _ ~_ ,~ both across Florida and in large cities nationally. Our ~ project team expertise allows us to not only to anticipate Review Fee Structures from Other Comparable Municipalities the City's needs, but also allows us to share solutions that have worked successfully elsewhere. We will review and `~ Work with the Departments to identify all of the discuss fee structures from other comparable functional units and service types for which a different fee will be established. municipalities. Based on these results, we will tailor our ~I Collect and analyze available data to document model to meet the needs of the City of Miami Beach. the effort involved in the various units identified We will work with the Department to identify all of the and document the cost of providing each of functional units and service types for which a different fee these services for the last year, the current year will be established and the appropriate basis for fees. This and the next three years. phase includes accumulate all of the relevant costs fora J Develop a fee system that supports the units full-cost recovery target, including support costs from cost and provide for a contingency fee. other Departments. MAXIMUS ensures that all applicable Conduct a comparative analysis between the proposed fee schedules and other local costs are included in this fee study, including support costs comparable municipal building process fee from Public Works, Fire, Engineering, etC. schedules. We will provide complete documentation of all of our findings, and will remain available by telephone to answer questions about how to interpret or use these findings. Key features of our model include: ^ Revenue Analysis -Multiplying building fee prices by quantity of fees issued will not produce a revenue estimate that reconciles to City financial records. Building revenues may be received in one fiscal year, but the services not be performed until the following year. We correlate net revenues based on identical unit volume data under both the current fee schedule and the new NEXUSTM schedule. The figures should be reasonably close, but not necessarily identical. ^ Time to Perform Services -- Some user fee models ask for clients to describe the time required to provide a service in the aggregate (i.e., how much time does it take to do all of the work related to asingle-family new residence?)NEXUSTM breaks the service down to its components, which we feel leads to more accurate time estimates. We apply this time to an average departmental hourly rate to derive cost by service. We use scaling assumptions that we will discuss with the City, and the City may accept them or discuss an alternative scaling method with us. ^ Staffing Requirements - By varying forecast unit volumes, the City will be in a position to understand its future staffing requirements better. Typically, we expect a percentage difference in productive hours available versus consumed of+/- 10%. Anything significantly above or below that amount suggests an over- or under-allocation of staff at current workload levels. We discuss how workload may be changing so that the implications of this finding are appropriate to local circumstances. We can say with justification that the MAXIMUS NEXUSTM application for building fees is the best such application available to local governments. A few of our former employees -who used to tell clients that NEXUSTM was the best available solution -have departed to competitor firms, and are now in the uncomfortable position of trying to deny their previous comments. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-27 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH i , r,~l~ i r. RFP # 10-06/09 ~~MUs Some of these firms have developed spreadsheet-based "knock-offs" of our NEXUST'" application, but these imitators lack the functionality and proven track record that only NEXUST'" provides. Only the MAXIMUS NEXUST'" application has been in broad use in Florida and nationally and only this application has sustained court review. To help the City understand what we offer, we provide some examples of tables and reports. The system is table-driven, and many of the nearly two dozen tables are background working papers or inputs to other tables that we would review with the City, but not include in a final report. Prodcfet~ve t-tours Staff are paid more hours than they have available for assignment. Paid leave and administrative assignments are important considerations. Federal rules for cost studies related to Federal grants and contracts sanction these adjustments. While the City is not under an obligation to follow Federal costing rules, the use of these rules imposes an additional level of credibility to the findings. Here is an example of the productive hours form: City Supervising Building Senior Building STAFF HOURS & ADJUSTMENTS SOURCE & STANDARD AVERAGE TOTAL Official Secretary Inspector Full-Time Equivalents (FTEs) - Budget __ 74.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 Regular Workday_Hours Policy/MOU 8.0 Gross Annual Hours Available Calculation 2086 2 086 154,343 2 086 2,086 2 086 ___ __- __ Annual Annual Full Day Reductions for: __ Da s Hours Hours Annual Hours Annual Hours Annual Hours Holiday (including_Floating) _ _ Policy/MOU (days _ 14.5 116 8,584 116 116 116 Vacation Annual Accrual (days) 10 _ __ 33 2,440 120 _ 0 200 Sick Leave and Wellness Polic /MOU da s 12 96 _ 7,104 _ _ 96 96 96 Administrative Leave - -- Polic /MOU da s 5 Y ~Y 1 2 __ _ 160 80 0 80 Seminars, Conferences, Training -- Vanes 2 - _ _ 25 - _ 1,872 _ _ 40 16 _ - 24 Other Annual Accrual (days) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Full Da Reductions Hours 272 20 160 452 228 516 Subtotal Available Hours 1,813 134,183 1,634 1,858 1,570 Subtotal Available Da s 227 16,773 204 232 196 Annual Annual Ann_ ual Hour Reductions for: Hours Hours Hours Annual Hours Annual Hours Annual Hours Training C/asses/Sessions Policy _ 16 24 1,808 40 24 40 City Manager Meetings Department Heads 72 4 _ _ __ 312 12 4 12 Departmental Meetings Departmentwide 12 6 _- 444 6 __ 6 6 Division Manager Meeti~s Supervisors Only 36 1 - 52 52 _ 0 0 Staff Meetings _ _ _ All Staff 12 12 888 12 12 12 One on One Meetings Annual Time (hours) 0 1 50 50 0 0 Other Annual Time (hours) 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total Annual Hour Reductions Hours 48 3,554 172 46 70 Hours per Hours per Hours per Hours per Hours per Daily Reductions for: - - - Hours Da Da Da Da Da Break Time ___ _ _ FLSA 0.5 0.50 37.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 Other _ Support to All Activities 0 _ 0.00 0.00 0.00 _ - 0.00 __ 0.00 ~ Other Overtime Time (hours) - _--~0.0 ~ 0.0~___ 0.0 - ~ 0.0 1 0.0 Time (hours) Hour METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-2S PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 Productive Hauriy Rate s. ~.~ t ~. ~... 1~~C[MUS While it is possible to develop individual employee rates and extend those rates to times for each individual, this approach greatly complicates the study without materially affecting the resultant fee structure. We will discuss with the Department options to use either individual hourly rates or a loaded hourly rate for each Department. The following table is an example of the format we use to develop a Department loaded rate. BUDGET SUMMARY FY 2008-09 Productive Total Hourly Rate Percent of Item Source Bud et Per Item Base Bud et __ _ _ Salaries _ - - SubtotalNSalaries E 1651641 $ 52.22 57.04% B_ene_fits SubtotalNBenefits $ 715 520 $ 22.62 24.71% TOTAL SALARIES 8 BENEFITS (Ad') $ 2,367,161 $ 74.84 81.75% - - - - Non-Personnel Costs Field & Office Maintenance Budget $ 500 $ 0.02 0.02% Portable Communication EquQ_ _ Budget $ 6,000 $ 0.19 0.21% Office Supplies _ -- - - Budget -- $ 7,182 $ 0.23 0.25% Advertising Budget $ - 500 $ _ - 0.02 0.02% Printing __ _ Budget $ 3,000 $ 0.09 0.10% Printing Supplies - Budget -_ $ - 300 $ _ _ 0.01 0.01% Field Supplies - - Budget $ - 300 $ 0.01 -- 0.01% Uniforms -Allowances Budget $ 1,575 $ __ 0.05 0.05% Dues,Publications,Books -- -_ Budget -- $ 4,000 $ - 0.13 0.14% Meals (MOU) _ - - Budget _ $ 100 $ 0.00 0.00% ~ecial Services- Claims Budget -- $ 129,778 ___ $ 4.10 -- 4.48% VehiGe Maint & Oper Rate Budget $ 93,618 $ 2.96 -__ 3.23% Local Mile~e, Parking & Toll _ -- Budget $ 500 $ 0.02 0.02% Tming,Educ,Trvl,Meetn9,Meals - _Budget_ $ 5,500 $ 0.17 0.19% Credit Card Service Charge Budget $ 2,000 $ --- 0.06 0.07% _ Facility Services - - _ Budget - $ 123,523 $ 3.91 4.27% Technolo Services Bud et $ 150,120 $ 4.75 - _ 5.18% _____ SubtotalNNon-Personnel Costs $ 528496 $ 16.71 18.25% TOTAL BUDGET (Ad' $ 2,895,657 $ 91.55 100.00% Overheads Citywide Overhe~CAP) CAP $ 237,119 $ 7.50 8.19% De artmental Overhead CAP $ 117,011 $ 3.70 4.04% SubtotalNOverheads $ 354130 $ 11.20 12.23% O__ ff-Bu_ dget Items - -- Interactive Voice ResQonse 5- ear) Est $ 9,600 $ 0.30 0.33% Permit System Upgrade (5-year) - Est -- $ 102,000 $ 3.22 3.52% MAXIMUS Fee StudyL-year) -- Est _ $ 1,540 $ 0.05 0.05° Reserve for 27th Pa Period Calculation $ 8,277 $ 0.26 0.29% SubtotalNOff-Budget_Items $ 121417 $ 3.84 4.19% Support from Other Departments - -- -- _ -- _ CED-Planning - Est $ - 483,750 $ - 15.30 16.71% Finance-Revenue - - _ __- Est $ 47,793 __ $ 1.51 1.65% Fire Prevention __ - Est __ -- $ _ 62,370 $ - 1.97 2.15% Public Works En ineerin Est $ 108,267 $ _ 3.42 3.74% SubtotalNOtherDepartments $ 702,181 $ 22.20 24.25% NET ADJUSTED BUDGET $ 4,073,385 $ 128.79 140.67% Ado ted Bud et $ 2,895,657 $ 91.55 100.00% Excluded CostsNNot Funded b Fees $ $ 0.00% Off-Bud et Ad"ustments $ 1,177,728 $ 37.24 40.67% NET ADJUSTED BUDGET $ 4,073,385 $ 128.79 140.67% Process Tasks Most building permit services require hours, if not days or weeks of staff time. Estimating the time required for these activities with confidence is difficult in the aggregate. In detail, it is much easier. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-29 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 nn~c-MUs We work with clients to break these activities into process tasks and subtasks, and then to determine the time required to perform each task. This process is much easier on client staff, and leads to findings in which City staff have confidence. Below is one city's example ofthe time required to complete plan check services related to an A-1 Assembly -Fixed Seating of 20,000 square feet in size. We have transposed the display to portrait to make it easier to read. We prepare a similar table for inspection services, reflecting the tasks of inspection. The model computes the costs of the two components and returns a cost per occupancy type and project size. Related IBC Class A-1 Building Use (e.g., IBC Occupancy Type) Assembly-Fixed Seating Standard Occupancy Size (sfl 20,000 HOURS Intake & Processing 1.00 Routing 0.50 Water and sewer service 0.00 Solid waste 0.28 Overall review residential _ o.oo Building review 2.50 Building site review 1.00 Calculate impact fees 0.50 _Plumbing Review 1.50 Mechanical Review 1.50 Electrical Review 1.50 Fire code review 1.50 Data entry ------- 0.50 _Waivers 0.08 Zoning Review 0.50 Landscape Review 0.50 Transportation Review 0.50 Stormwater Review 0.50 Field inspection (plan review) 0.50 FEMA (commercial) _-__ - 0.20 Permit Issuance and documentation 1.00 U~n'i~a 16.U7 Most of the time we spend onsite for initial interviews is in defining the activities related to fee services and in facilitating the discussion of time required to perform each task. For mechanical, electrical, and plumbing permits on a stand-alone basis, the process is simpler. Provided below is an example of the simplified form we use for this table. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-30 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ox~~ RFP # 10-08/09 MAXIMUS REVENUE IMPACTS Intake and Time 07 FY 06-07 Annual Annual Issuance (includes Volume Average Surplus/ Actual Revenue General Time travel) Total Time (# of Actual Current (Subsidy) Annual @ Current Fund FEE TYPES (mins) (mins) (mins) Units) Unit Cost Fee Per Unit Cost Fee Subsidy $ 1.70 MECHANICAL PERMIT FEES Duct work onl 10 48 58 29 $ 98 88 $ 3 2.00 S 66.88 $ 2,868 $ 928 $ (1,940) Solar Heat/Heat Recovery S stem 10 _ __ - 48 58 0 . $ 98.88 _ _ _ $ 98.88 __ _ $ $ $ AC Chan e-outs 10 48 58 1,546 $ 98.88 $ 32.00 $ 66.88 $ 152,874 $ 49 472 $ 103,402 PLU MBING/GAS PERMIT FEE S __ Pool or S a installation Pool and S are air Solar Heatin S stem All other Plumbing and Gas work Medical Gas (includes rou h-in and final Li uified Petroleum/ Natura Per Tank Installation Pi in Rou h - In incl I KII:AL YtKMII YttJ 83 Service Changeout (CMO, per two meter 10 I 38 normal business hrs (min charge one hr) hriy Special Request rat Inspections (min charge one hr e Pool Board of Appeals request for hearing for alternate methods and materials _ Contractors Registration Minutes Consumed Hours Consumed Productive Hours per FTE FTE Consumed, 10 60 -_ 3Q 0 70 112,820 917,236 1,030,056 1 880 15 287 17 168 1 058 1 058 1 058 1.8 14.5 16.2 ~ ~ ~ $ $ $ $_ _ $ -_ $ - - $ __ - $ - Total Revenue $1,756,131 $758,280 $(997,852) METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-31 PROPRIETARY 10 38 48 317 10 _ _ _ 38 _ 48 138 10 95 105 525 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 ~.t4-!~Tt„-. I~~IAXIMUS Miscellaneous permits represent all activities that we do not address in the construction tables and the stand-alone mechanicaUelectricaUplumbingtables. The table below shows the appearance of the table for two services from a client's miscellaneous permits report. Intake and) Plan I Inspection) Total I FY 06-07 I I Check I I Total Process Check Process Time Volume Actual Inspection Actual Work Item Hours Hours Hours (hours) (# of Units) Cost Actual Cost Cost Perimeter Wall _ 0.33 i 1.00 - ~ 2.82_ } _ 4.152 ~ 63 _ 1 l $ 34.10 { $ 288.13. { $ 322.; The new construction costs (plan check and inspection) come together in a table as we show below, using one occupancy type: Construction Type IA, IB Construction Type IIA, IIB, IIIA, IIIB, IV Construction Type VA, VB Base Cost Cost for Base Cost Cost for Base Cost Cost for Each @ Each @ Each CBC Project Size Threshold Additional Threshold Additional Threshold Additional Class CBC Occu anc T e Threshold Size 100 sf • Size 100 sf * Size 100 sf A-1 AssemblyNFixed Seating _ 1,500 $20,317 _ _$16.8113 $16,931 $14.0094 $13,545 $11.2075 - - _ Theater, Concert Hall - - 7,500 $21,326 $73.8600 $17,77_1 $61.5500 $14,217 $49.2400 - - - _ -- _ 15,000 - _$26,8_65 $22.7700 $22,388 _$18.9750 $17,910 $15.1800 - - --- - - 30,000 $30,281 $14.9350 $25,234 $12.4458 $ 20,187 $9.9567 - - - - - 75,000 - $37,001 - $9 5250 $30,834 $7.9375 __ _ $24,668 $6.3500 - 150,000 $44,145 $29.4300 $36,788 - - $24.5250 $29,430 $19.6200 The City will want to understand the unit costs and budget impact of cost-based fees. That table appears as follows: Revenue Annual Annual Average Surplus/ Actual @ General SF Volume of Cost per Actual Current (Subsidy} Annual Current Fund Class Occupancy Type Standard Activity SF Unit Cost Fee Each Fee Cost Fee Subsidy Subtotal S-2 Storage-Low Hazard 14,500 19 0.6962 - $ 10,095 -- $ 1,124 -- _$_.(8,970) - $ 191,803 $ 21,364 - $(170,439) - - 72,500 4 0.1792 $ 12,992 $ 8,010 $ (4,982) $ 51,968 $ 32,041 $ (19,927) - - 145,000 1 0.1107 $ 16,052 __ $ 19,834 _ $ 3,782 $ 16,052 - $ 19,634 - $ 3,782 - - 290,000 0 0.0694 $ 20,126 $ - $ (20,126) $ - $ - $ _ - - 725,000 0 0.0401 $ 29,073 $ - $ (29,073) $ - $ - $ _ - - 1,450,000 0 0.0321 $ 46,545 $ - $ (46,545) $ - $ - $ $(186,584) Review First Draft Urxsite We will meet with the City in person to review the first draft. Some of this material is technical It helps to have the entire MAXIMUS Project Team onsite to explain it, to confirm the facts and assumptions, and to direct the City's attention to items that need more review. The City should expect to meet with MAXIMUS in groups. Just as the initial meetings divide into teams (i.e., plan review, inspection, and intake), so will the review. The same staff who attended the initial meetings should attend the first review. Furtrther Editing to Finish the Study It takes a few drafts to confirm the facts and reconcile the labor and financial data to appropriate levels. Once we have met with the City's team in person to review the first draft of the study, there is no need to be onsite for additional edits. We will perform those reviews by Internet meetings and by phone. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-32 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 MAXIMUS Experience tells us that in any large organization, some staff will be require more time than anticipated, will be unavailable, or will be unable to commit to decisions. We stress that our goal is to be reasonable and defensible, but not perfect. To the extent that we are using recent data to predict the future, no one should expect complete precision. If we believe that we are facing such an obstacle, we will discuss the situation with the Department's liaison and develop a plan for closure. Our work plan shows "dependencies" -tasks that cannot proceed until prior tasks finish. Review Fee Strt~etures from Other GamparabFe I~tunicfpafEties The City wants to know how their costs compare to the practices of other governmental agencies. Usually, there are two reasons to produce such comparisons: ^ Cities are concerned about setting prices that seem high relative to other local jurisdictions where the applicants may work. Pricing "too high" may invite challenges. ^ Cities want to know if there are revenue opportunities that they should consider. Fortunately for the City of Miami Beach, no firm has more user fee experience than MAXIMUS, not only in Florida, but nationally. We do millions of dollars of these types of studies annually and have in our possession the findings from the City of Tampa, Cape Coral City, Hillsborough County, and Manatee County - to name a few. We will work with the City to define both the peer cities for comparison and the items we will measure. We will ask the City to contact each jurisdiction to encourage their cooperation. To keep the process manageable, we strongly urge the City to keep the number of survey questions short -not more than ten. Few jurisdictions will cooperate with a lengthy survey from a firm they did not retain. We further suggest that the City allow us to share the peer survey data with the other cities that want to see the results. Many cities are concerned about providing data to a third party without knowing how that party will use it. These contacts and agreements will improve our chances of obtaining from the survey respondents the data that the City seeks. E.3 PHASE 3 -PUBLIC OUTREACH AND RECONiIIlIENDATIONS Builders are sensitive about fee prices. Elected officials do not increase fee prices without justification. Many local governments have found that setting prices that recover the cost of providing services is fair and efficient. We will present our recommendations to the project staff committee, City management, and the industry. We assume that our entire project team should attend each presentation. Not knowing the nature of the presentations, we are not sure of the level of detail that these presentations will involve. Therefore, we felt it necessary for the authors of the study to be present. If there are presentations that will not involve all of the project team, we would be pleased to revise our quote to reflect the change. ~ Recommend modifications to the fee schedules for each of the departments involved in the City's Building Development Process. Recommend updates to the fees for the next fiscal year, and provide a methodology for recommending updates in subsequent years. ,/ Provide written guidelines (process and procedures) for the implementation of the recommended fee ordinance. Staleeftola~er Input We propose the following stakeholder involvement. We will meet with industry and stakeholder during our second onsite visit to review the model. In our experience, explaining the study approach to customers helps build support for implementation. Stakeholder input is not synonymous with asking them to approve the time estimates that the City associates with each task. It is not an invitation to the stakeholders to offer suggestions about how the METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-33 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-08/09 ~~`k~C~vj~.. r~xlMUs Department might become more efficient and therefore reduce the cost of fee services. This fee study is not an efficiency study, and if given efficiency suggestions, we would refer the person making recommendations to the Department to discuss them outside of this study forum. That said, the City should anticipate that one of the public's reactions to changing fees will be to ask if the costs reflect a fully efficient operation. We propose two additional trips to present our final report to the project staff committee, City management, and the industry. The RFP did not define the number of presentations that the City wants the consultant to make. We would be pleased to revise our work plan and quote if the City wants a different number of presentations. Methodology for Updating the Costs in Subsequent Years The City requests that they be able to refresh the cost data by entering new salary or other cost data. These updates are easy to accomplish. Our NEXUST"' software is proprietary, and our staff need months of training to become proficient. However, we can build a simplified version of the model for the City to use that would allow staff to enter the revised cost data the RFP indicates. -mplementatian Strategy After completing hundreds of these studies, we have seen a wide variety of implementation efforts, some more effective than others. There is no one-size-fits-all way to implement. The strategy must take client culture into account. In addition to hundreds of fee studies of experience and substantial experience in consulting to many of the country's biggest cities, many of our project team members are former government employees. Our proposed Project Director is also a sitting elected official. These experiences help us to understand the nuances of implementation. The strategy is a collaborative City/consultant effort. We need to assess what City staff would like to do, how elected officials and the public will react to these results, and whether timing or phasing of recommendations is appropriate. Part of the strategy involves a communications plan, including presentation documents and meetings. We will provide written guidelines (process and procedures) for the implementation of the recommended fee ordinance. METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH PAGE E-34 PROPRIETARY CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ~ ~~~f RFP #,o~,os MAXIMUS F. COST INFQRI~fAT[QN The table below shows our total bid of $42,260 for the scope of services described in the methodology section of this proposal. It includes all travel costs for a total of four onsite trips, one meeting with the industry representatives, and two presentations. This is our bid summary by each of the three project phases. We have further detailed our methodology, project plan, timeline and respective costs per each phase. This detailed work-breakdown structure is available in the pages that follow. Bid Summa Hours Fee Phase 1: Pre- tannin and Pro'ect kick-off 56 $10,730 Phase 2: Cost and Fee Anal sis 144 $22,520 Phase 3: Public Outreach and Recommendations 39 $9,010 TOTAL 238 $42,260 MAXIMUS cannot accept responsibility for events outside of its control. Determining who is responsible for an event can be a very complex process. We ask that our agreement with the City contain a limitation of liability to address this situation. At the appropriate time, we will discuss the wording of such provision. COST INFORMATION PAGE F-35 PROPRIETARY 01 O O O r a w ay D y Q' d O ti J y LL y O w a m c Q a ~ o O G H ~ U c 3 m 2' ~a E E m ~_ m M N ~ 1~ ~! O O N 01 r N fA ~ ~ M N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 vocDOOO ~o~nao~ mornv~- N OD ~ ~ t1') 00 (O M .- ~ CO CO ~ N ~ ~ M r .--~ M Efl d4 Efl EA 64 ffl ffl ffl ffl Ffl Efl Efl ffl Efl (A N C O *+ ~ ~ C C _ O d N Y ~ C. ~ v ~ ~~ ~"' R Y V ~ V 0 m tJJ T ~ T ~ a ~' ~ ~ w o ° .~ to C <O ~ y d a a ~ Q t v ~ ..`. O d ~ c c ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ O O H C C C 7 Q ~ a. ~ r N N e"~ M ~ Q ~ r.+ ~ .~ ("' y C y d d ~ O y ~ p N A p N N U ~ am t ea = ea L ~ ee a ~d d ma a ~ ~' d G . i o o o a ~ ._ - ~ ._ ~ ~- r N M y a y a a m O ~~ ~ O N~ ~ O y~ ~ d G1 G1 J U m n~ V c Ca a~ (~ m a w N M fA Q ` y N y H H y~ y .. F- m~ N~ y y y ~ ~ ~ ~ a a a t- ¢=Q ~ ¢=a~~ Q=a~~ U C UI U .~ rn c 0 U Q T 3 N d ~_ ~ y ~ H 0 V u' a` 2 ~ U d W Q. m ~ ~ ~ Q ~ O ~ ~ Y~ r U m M N 0 rn N Y d r O V M N O u7 O u7 O u7 O O O O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O U O O O N V N M N O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C ~ m E ~ N a~ o M 0 N o N u~ O 0 O 0 ~ 0 N 0 M 0 N 0 0 W H C ~ ~ O p v 0 O O U o~ o o v c~i ao V ~ a ~ m ~ >. _ ~ O ~ ~ N f0 O C~ N ~ 0 .S a o 3 E -o a '~' o o '9 m m o ~ r S uN, O1m N N N N N ~ N O ~ ~~ E ~° m ~ .~ O ~ N ~ N .LO.~ O O L N a m `~ d cca v d ~ ~ ~ a~ ~a r ~_ °: y C O - ~p m a>i Z o ~ ~ o ~ $ ~ 3 E O ~ ~ ~ Y a N .~ m ~"~ C ~ ~ O N N m ~ ~ ~ ~ 3 w r m ~ ~ 3 a o ~ ~ ~ ~ o c H a3 o m m m a- w >. C U Q ~0 p N O ~ w p 0 0~~ ~ C ` ~ CI C U O ~ h O o~ a~ ~ o .E p .o w w ~ N o .3 m ~~ a o m m m o m o E a>a.° ~~ aci ~ m ~ ~~a>i ~ To N m ,.~ d- U c0 ~ N O t C O d tVp D (0 ~ U 7~ Vi ,~ > N 'C C N ~" ~" N y e O a cp N C E a~ m `~~ ~_' ao '_' m~ a m~ m o N ao~ N ~ N~a ~ ~ c ~.~ d E a?_a~ ~ ~' ~ ~ N ~ act ~ moo N 2 NU °'~ ~ c~ m 0 ~? N ;, a w o ~ ~ aoi ~ ii c '~ °~ °~ pEp ~ E „oo., c °' m~ Z N N N U `~ to O C t~ N O > w .~ n y `~ U w ~~ o a E .+ 3 -o E °? cO1a c~ :-° n c v.~p ~~ wL.., ~ ~,' N C Y N >. c0 =` Ep C N 01 X 7 0 'O N „(6y N y N ~pj U N L~~ Q' U C~ U C '. 7 d O c Q U 0) w N C y y 0 d L '.' N d N N 0 (6 aLo.~°~.=o.E°aNi Qaci~°c.c~yEEvc'i,~a~3N°c~aoi.~~o~'nE~ W ate= a~ m'- c N c~ c~ o~ N o~ m 3 0> a ~n c 3 a m a;i ~' m a3i o c_ ~ ~Q~Q..O o >~O~a.~~oa-oH~ m.o o `~ > `°L.. m Y a ~ Z Z o a~ia>i>oa>>a>> a ~ ~~ m~ a~>Z ~R~>2'2''O O.S OJ LLY ~ ~ C C'O N Y N O a 0 c 0 .~ c E 0 C O N 9 C d a m a io r N 9 ~ C d Of J ~ O M M O O O O 'R °n~~ ~ ~~~° v~ O O O O O O O O O M ~ 0~0 ~ V V ~ 00 to N EA ~ fA ~ C.j fA (fl 1A y N N f17 C d r ,v ~ O ~ ~p ~ .O N H yF`-~ 'aQ2~~t O c a ~a ~ x w = d c '? m O d ~am> a -- °~ J d O ~ ~ ~ Q p _ F m H O L a 0 U F A N d a ,~ ~_ 0 U J u' a` a~ m ~ CQ ~ G ~ C U m M N 0 rn I o i y -' Y d O V M N O O O O O V N N ~ N ~ 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 ~ 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O ~~ C~ OV ~ N N ~ O CO ~ ~ N N H 7 G O V Y O O O O O O O O U O~ N N 00 N V N ~ ~ ~ _ 4? `p ~ .O o N ~ L Q N y ~ C •N C .+ a . . y U O C T ' ~ ~ _ O a~ a~ >' f4 U c :o a~ c ~ ~ c a? ~ x' v ~ ~_° 's 7 O 2 (O a ~~ - N N m 0 ~ a ~ 3 o v m m c a ~ ~ o y c v '~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ '3 a m ~ a ~ ~ N O> ~~ O N y N C 7 U ~. t y y ~' 'O L C c 0.'S ~= O d N O U :+ N Y ~ ~p ~ C ~ 1 U N~ m ~ j E ~ d N • ~ ~ 9 >' 7 °' ~ y ~ a iN ~ .-. y C ~3 a v O _ ~ •C .-. ~ c n ~ ~ f0 O .c ~ y Z 3 N~ y N U n2+ ~ 3 3~ a o ~ `~ ° ~ o t ~.o N L ~ y a~ <o ~ ~ w v d -° N o o c y c ~ $~ ~ rn ~ °' w °' m m t 'p r C fD Y N y N N LL N fC C O y +L. (0 >~ •N "N-' Q N ~_ ~ ' ~ O f0 w y U 3 ~ c .L .. ~~ N O ~~~ f0 y C~ ; C N .C C C ~ O > O ~ 'O. ~ N ~ > ~ ~ 47 N ' C c t3 ..- r+ N c O .~ d y y ~ d~ ~ U N O N~+ N E~ N L N U O '.>'' O d C 0 L_ a N N d w o y f0 y -O O O ~ m a n L N y~ .O .~ ; .O ~ m `~ ~`~ ~ rn O Z O y N~ p C~~ O O a >. w ~ ~ 3 y ~ ~ ~~ o U a x"00' ~ o y~o O> ~ y ~~'~y~~dowo ~ ` i w ~ ~~o ~Nmmc>~a ~c w . . n ° mm~ w y ` °~ > ~~ a i .T. O O w O) U ~ • t a i ~ N m ~~ c ~ ` f°~~00m 3 a °m~ LL ~ y .U ~ ~ N (0 N ._ j ~~ , `~_ y 0~ N y ~ O~ «. U 'O ~ N aJ 10 () ' = c0 ~~ j y C N i C 0 in N 7 0 N~ ~ U L d M d 'O N O n N y ~ Z N y~~ w O. ~ ~ p 0 N N d> Vl N w c y N w (0 O 'j p 0~ C N D> O O y 'O <") N m r w N p w N O f4 f4 tC U 0 3 N c = 0 U o 0 o~ :rm mmoa>i~~°ocu~.°-'~'~a° a>>' '~~- 'o~c `o~a -''a iwoE ~U~OmOUonam-py `m°~nma~ oaci~pE ~ !0~ ~ E~~a~ 0~ ~ccac E v~ 0~.wn °' ~ i d Uaw~~aa- a~ mUUt .ina Oi wO r' N l") ~ N N N N Y y O .` a ... O c 0 m a E 0 V C O y 9 C N a m ea L i Y y ~ ~ C d J ~ O O a 0 0 0 0 ~otnr~N ~ r N Q~ to T'~riRN ~ W fR 0 ~ ~ O OIflM EiT~NER ~ M fA W a~+ "'' O d .~ 10 N V~ O W N O~ R O ~ :V 4? ' N d a T C ~ ~ N ~- _ ~ ~ t0 7 Z w C Q O N L vox o NnC. -Y = m a c y a~ 'C m m > c o O Q ~ N H d y i9 L a N O U H 3 O 2 a M N O N Y O d N W O M N O O U ~ ~ °o °o o °o °o °o °o C ~ N N N CO V ~ F" 3 C O O V ~ In O O O U Y a~ o o v v .. 1 0000 O o o r r O r 01 r O N ~ W W ~ O O O O~ O O] d' ~ ~MO fD (O~Nr r IA v! W c ? E N D C - - O ~ '~ ~ O L N tp C M tOC :4 N '~ N y ' ~ c' ° i N a ~,c~E" m =~ p ~ i v i a ~ N N U „- p O O O Q 7 D d O ~ Q O N L d D H . w C N O~ ~ c N O) N ~ t0 cC Y y N= ` N N y C d C t0 c0 O) D C C T D N f0 N~ D L ~ ~ 7 C O O N a O »' N A O~ ~ ~ N N N 0 m ~ ~ E > J _ N ~' 'a . , to N N m w N O to N N N p Q C C N C C ~` N U Q O H a3+ ~, m N p is ~ a`~i ~ U U ~ ~ a~i ~ ~ ~ ~ O H V) N E C a D U -~ O` w N D w C d N a~a w > ° my~y °? ~ ~ 1`7 ~ Q iy . ~ = C •C C O ~ C .- d N 0 :° o a I m o u~i a~ m :~ c o °o d t ~ ~ . w a~ i ~ •~ ~v y ~~~ o d ~ O N C O j N C f6 Q p) C ~~'-' -0 f6 c u y1 r.i J v ~ _ w ~. •~ w m •~ c ~° y ma c / ~ d c ~j. d C t N O V 1 N O^ U N y rn'~ ~''L~ a ~ m ~~ a~ w °- U d U C . U N .O "O N ~ N N N .~ ~~ L W~ y N D ~~ w ~ v w a~ N~ H ~ .y m 7 w. m N w N n a Q -O ~ (0 f0 f0 I- m O •C O y V U U U~~ 0 U m N ~~ N D_ O ~ ' Q~ , - N 'O U N N C C ~O w C D N ~O a ~.. d O` C fV O> O U .N Q CC d ~ O~ t_ .-. C O C A in N d N C L a (0 N C O 'C (0 ~ D r.. Q O d~ O) V ~ O C D (0 c ci LL~ c - 3 ~. c w p ~ a~ mo o o n. c ~ m E c k c a ~ a v a? y~ r 3 ~ N ~ C CL ^ Q ^ Q O ~ L L a ~ C d U4] . .. > . f 0 ~ D . ' Boa .>_ ~~~c~ ` L ii a ~ m~I -n. E ~ o r N M M CITY OF MIAMI BEACH RFP # 10-OB/09 G. EI~CLQSURES As requested by the RFP, we have completed the following forms. ~ Insurance Checklist ~ Proposer Information ~~ Request for Proposals No. l 0-08/09 Acknowledgement of Addenda ~ Declaration ~ Sworn Statement Under Section ~ Questionnaire ENCLOSURES nn,~xlMUs PAGE G-35 PROPRIETARY INSURANCE CHECK LIST XXX 1. Workers' Compensation and Employer's Liability per the statutory limits of the state of Florida. XXX 2. Comprehensive General Liability (occurrence form), limits of liability $ 1,000,000.00 per occurrence for bodily injury property damage to include Premises/ Operations; Products, Completed Operations and Contractual Liability. Contractual Liability and Contractual Indemnity (Hold harmless endorsement exactly as written in "insurance requirements" of specifications). XXX3. Automobile Liability - $1,000,000 each occurrence -owned/non-owned/hired automobiles included. 4 . Excess Liability - $ . 00 per occurrence to follow the primary coverages. XXX 5. The City must be named as and additional insured on the liability policies; and it must be stated on the certificate. 6. Other Insurance as indicated: _ Builders Risk completed value $ . 00 Liquor Liability $ . 00 _ Fire Legal Liability $ . 00 _ Protection and Indemnity $ . 00 _ Professional Liability $ .00 Employee Dishonesty Bond $ .00 Theft Covering Money and/or Property Of Others $ .00 XXX 7.Thirty (30) days written cancellation notice required. XXX 8.Best's guide rating B+:VI or better, latest edition. XXX 9.The certificate must state the RFP number and title PROPOSER AND INSURANCE AGENT STATEMENT: We understand the Insurance Requirements of these specifications and that evidence of this insurance may be required within five (5) days after Proposal opening. Selected Proposer's failure to procure or maintain required insurance program shall constitute a material breach of Agreement under which City may immediately terminate the proposed Agreement. Bruce Cowans -. ~-~=~~ Proposer December 11, 2008 City of Miami Beach Signature of Proposer RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study 18 of 29 PROPOSER INFORMATION Submitted by: MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc. Proposer (Entity): MAXIMUS Consu/l'~ting_Services, Inc. Signature: Name (Printed): Bruce Cowans Address: 1033 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 350 City/State: Northbrook, IL 60062 Telephone: (847) 564-9270 Fax: (847) 564-9136 E-mail: brucecowans@maximus.com Website: www.maximus.com It is understood and agreed by Proposer that the City reserves the right to reject any and all Proposals, to make awards on all items or any items according to the best interest of the City, and to waive any irregularities in the RFP or in the Proposals received as a result of the RFP. It is also understood and agreed by the Proposer that by submitting a proposal, Proposer shall be deemed to understand and agree than no property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any time until and unless a contract has been agreed to and signed by both parties. 1 ~ , 4 4 . ~.--1~. '' _ ` /, - ;,_ ~~ ~ c-. _ < _~ - ~_..-~~-- ~_January 21, 2009_ (Authorized Signature) (Date) -Bruce Cowans_ (Printed Name) RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study December 11, 2008 19 of 29 City of Miami Beach REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 10-08/09 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF ADDENDA Directions: Complete Part I or Part II, whichever applies. Part 1: Listed below are the dates of issue for each Addendum received in connection with this RFP: 34- 07/08: Addendum No. 1, Dated ' ~ ! ~ -~ r f -• ~/ Addendum No. 2, Dated ~ ~'• '` Addendum No. 3, Dated Addendum No. 4, Dated Addendum No. 5, Dated Part II: No addendum was received in connection with this RFP. Verified with Procurement staff Name of staff Bruce Cowans Date January 21, 2009 Proposer -N~ Signature December 11, 2008 City of Miami Beach Date RFP No: 10-OS-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study 20 of 29 DECLARATION TO: City of Miami Beach City Hall 1700 Convention Center Drive Procurement Division Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Submitted this _21_ day of -January-, 2009. The undersigned, as Proposer ,declares that the only persons interested in this Proposal are named herein; that no other person has any interest in this responses or in the contract to which this response pertains; that this response is made without connection or arrangement with any other person; and that this response is in every respect fair and made in good faith, without collusion or fraud. The Proposer agrees if this response is accepted, to execute an appropriate City of Miami Beach document for the purpose of establishing a formal contractual relationship between the Proposer and the City, Florida, for the performance of all requirements to which the response pertains. The Proposer states that the response is based upon the documents identified by the following number: RFP No. 34-E37f08.~ r~ ~ ,~ ~_ ~, ~.~{ -,-,_ __. WITNESS ,{~.T PROPOSER SIGNATURE ~ s , ~ . s ~ .,._ PRINTED NAME ~..~_. ~ ~. WITNESS e . ,, ~-~~, , PRINTED NAME December 11, 2008 City of Miami Beach BruceCowans PRINTED NAME SeniorVicePresident_ TITLE RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study 21 of 29 SWORN STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 287.133(3)(a), FLORIDA STATUTES, ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICER AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS. This sworn statement is submitted to The City of Miami Beach, Florida by Bruce Cowans, Senior Vice President for MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Inc. whose business address is 1033 Skokie Boulevard, Suite 350 Northbrook, IL 60062 and (if applicable) its Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN) is 26-1557956 (If the entity has no FEIN, include the Social Security Number of the individual signing this sworn statement: 4. I understand that a "public entity crime" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(8), Florida Statutes, means a violation of any state or federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to the transaction of business with any business with any public entity or with an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States, including, but not limited to, any bid or contract for goods or services to be provided to any public entity or an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States and involving antitrust, fraud, theft, bribery, collusion, racketeering, conspiracy, or material misrepresentation. 5. I understand that "convicted" or "conviction" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(b), Florida Statutes. means a finding of guilt or a conviction of a public entity crime, with or without an adjudication of guilt, in any federal or state trial court of record relating to charges brought by indictment or information after July 1, 1989, as a result of a jury verdict, nonjury trial, or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere. 6. I understand that an "affiliate" as defined in Paragraph 287.133 (1)(a), Florida Statutes, means: 1) A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime; or 2) An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public entity crime. The term "affiliate" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest in another person, or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when not for fair market value under an arm's length agreement, shall be a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person who knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has been convicted of a public entity crime in Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate. RFP No: 10-08-09 December 11, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study Ciiy of Miami Beach 22 of 29 5) I understand that a "person" as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(e), Florida Statutes means any natural person or entity organized under the laws of any state or of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract and which bids or applies to bid on contracts for the provision of goods or services let by a public entity, or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with a public entity. The term "person" includes those officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, and agents who are active in management of an entity. 6) Based on information and belief, the statement which I have marked below is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement. [indicate which statement applies.] Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, nor any affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members or agents who are active in management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. The entity submitting this sworn statement, or one or more of its officers, directors, executives, partners, shareholders, employees, members, or agents who are active in the management of the entity, or an affiliate of the entity has been charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. However, there has been a subsequent proceeding before a Hearing Officer of the State of Florida, Division of Administrative Hearings and the Final Order entered by the hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the convicted vendor list. [attach a copy of the final order] I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH 1 (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY AND, THAT THIS FORM IS VALID THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT PROVIDED IN SECTION 287.017, FLORIDA STATUTES FORCATEGORY TW F ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THIS FORM. ; %~ ~~/, I i'~~~=C~ ___ ~~~~~ [signature] Sworn to and subscribed before me this ~~ day of (,~/} , 2009 Personally known cOR Produced identification H7Q/1 IQ.II.C~C'0~4,t~Jotary Public -State of .~~~r~2O~ JIQ~~Y.S ~..IC.L'~'ls~, My commission expires ~`.?U~o7ZY (Type of Identification) -~.~, OFFICIAL SEAL (Printed typed or stamped Commissioned name of Notary Public) AN6l~LA ~• BRISTOYd NOTARY PU91:l0, ST/ll'E Qf tILII~t0iS i~Y CO?+lMISSIOV EXPIRES 1.20.2010 .~,.. RFP No: 10-OS-09 A Building Development Process Fees Study December 11, 2008 23 of 29 City of Miami Beach QUESTIONNAIRE Proposer's Name: A1A;~.I1~T.TS Consulting Services., Inc. Principal Office Address- 11419 Sunset .Hills Road Reston,. VA 2U 190 Official Representative: Bruce owans Individual Partnership (Circle One) Corporation ~f a Corporation. answer this: When Incorporated: August 8; 200b {subsidiary of MAXIDffiSlnc: incorporated ]9 75) [n what State: Virginia If a Foreis~n Corporation: Date of Registration with Flo~iec~a S~ec~retla1ry ~O~~~flcuartent. ~~ FOf3000000637 Name of Resident Agent: Corporation Service Company. Address of Resident Agent: 1201 Hays Street Tallahassee, FL 32301 President's Name: Deanne N. Wertin ViceN~rAesident's Name: Treasurer's Name: David N. Walker Members of Board of Directors Richard A. Montoni, Director RFP No: 10-08-09 A Building Developrnen{ Process Fees Study December 11, 2008 24 of 29 City of Miami Beach Questionnaire (continued) if a Partnership: Date of organization: General or Limited Partnership*: Name and Address of Each Partner: NAME ADDRESS '` Designate general partners in a Limited Partnership 1. Number of years of relevant experience in operating same or similar business: 33' ;yeas a~~ kiAXfi~IUS Inc.. ('patent cog. } 2. Have any agreements held by Proposer for a proj®ct ever been canceled? Yes (~ No ( ) If yes, give details on a separate sheet. 3. Has the Proposer or any principals of the applicant organization failed to qualify as a responsible BidderlProposer refused to enter into a contract after an award has been made, failed to complete a contract during the past I"ive (5) years, or been declared to 6e in default in any contract in the last 5 years? If yes, please explain: See atrn:che~ RFP No: 10-08-09 December 1 t, 2008 A Building Development Process Fees Study City of Miami Beach 25 of 29 Questionnaire, Items 2 and 3: Contract Terminations The following contracts were terminated for alleged cause during the last five years: • In February 2004, the New Mexico Department of Public Safety terminated a contract for MAXIMUS to prepare a benchmark classification study. Termination was based on the alleged failure of MAXIMUS to deliver the report within the contractual time period. MAXIMUS disagreed with that determination. John Denko Department of Public Safety P.O. Box 1628 Santa Fe, NM 87504 (505) 827-3370 In January 2006, the Wright County, Iowa, Board of Supervisors terminated a contract under which MAXIMUS provided cost allocation services. Termination was based on inadequate communication and follow-up. MAXIMUS disagreed with that determination. Brad Leckrone Community Services 115 1st Street SE Clarion, Iowa 50525 (515) 532-3309 • In December 2006, the Ministry of Community and Social Services in Ontario Canada purported to terminate a contract with Themis Program Management and consulting Limited (a Canadian subsidiary of MAXIMUS) to develop a child support enforcement system. The Ministry contended that Themis did not meet delivery requirements under a contract, and Themis disputed those allegations. In 2007, the Ministry filed a lawsuit, and Themis filed counterclaims. The matter was settled in 2007. Kevin Costante Deputy Minister Ministry of Community and Social Services Hepburn Block, Queen's Park Toronto, Ontario M7A 1 E9 (416) 325-5225 • In 2007, the State of Connecticut purported to terminate a contract it had with MAXIMUS for default. MAXIMUS was under contract to provide an updated criminal justice information system to the State. MAXIMUS is disputing the State's termination. The State's notice of default came two months after MAXIMUS had provided notice that it was terminating the contract for convenience. Augustus Cavallari Connecticut Department of Information Technology 101 East River Drive East Hartford, CT 06108 (888) 703-5410 The following contracts were terminated for convenience or by mutual consent during the last five years: In February 2004, the MAXIMUS contract with Davie County, North Carolina for development and implementation of a comprehensive pay plan was terminated for convenience. James J. Stockert Davie County Finance Office 123 South Main Street Mocksville, North Carolina 27028 (336) 751-5256 • In 2004, the MAXIMUS contract with the State of Georgia for consulting services for the preparation of the Advanced Planning Document (APD) and the Request for Proposal (RFP) for the development of a statewide automated child welfare information system (SACWIS) was terminated for convenience. Michael S. Lynch Safe Futures Program Director Two Peachtree Street NW Suite 25.112 Atlanta, GA 30303 (404) 463-2466 In September 2005, the MAXIMUS contract with the City of Miami for land development management business process redesign services was terminated for convenience. Alicia Cuervo Schreiber Chief of Operations 444 S.W. 2°d Avenue, 10`" Floor Miami, Florida 33130 (305) 416-1007 2 • In April 2006, the MAXIMUS contract with the District of Columbia Public Schools for fleet monitoring, routing and scheduling was terminated for convenience. Glorious Bazemore District of Columbia Public Schools Office of Contracts and Acquisitions 825 North Capitol Street, NE, Suite 7006 Washington, DC 20002 (202) 442-5111 • In September 2006, the MAXIMUS contract with the Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration for Fee for Service Medical Billing Support and Medicaid Administrative Claiming programs was terminated for convenience. Darin J. Gordan Deputy Commissioner Tennessee Department of Finance and Administration Bureau of TennCare 310 Great Circle Road Nashville, Tennessee 37243 (800) 342-3145 • In October 2007, the MAXIMUS contract with the State of New York Workers Compensation Board for consulting services was terminated for convenience. Mary Beth Woods State of New York Workers Compensation Board 20 Park Street Albany, New York 12207 (518) 408-0739 • In 2007, Accenture LLP and MAXIMUS terminated their contract by mutual consent. MAXIMUS served as a subcontractor in support of Accenture's prime contract with the Texas Health and Human Services Commission for integrated eligibility services. David McCurley Accenture LLP 4000 S. IH-3 5 W Austin, Texas 78704 (512) 533-5000 3 • In 2008, BearingPoint and MAXIMUS mutually agreed to terminate a subcontract between the parties. MAXIMUS served as a subcontractor to BearingPoint in Qatar to modernize the Qatar court system. Richard Longstaff BearingPoint 1676 International Drive McLean, Virginia 22102-4828 (703) 747-3000 • In 2008, the MAXIMUS contract with the Illinois Department of Children and Family Services was terminated for convenience. Mr. Erwin McEwen, Director Illinois Dept. of Children & Family Services 406 E. Monroe Street Springfield, IL 62701 (217) 785-2509 4 Questionnaire, Items 6.A and 6.B: Litigation Disclosure A. Pending Lawsuits MAXIMUS 1. Government Programs. As an operator of numerous government programs, MAXIMUS is sometimes named in lawsuits filed by program participants (predominantly non-custodial parents challenging their child support obligations). MAXIMUS has been a defendant in a number of pending and concluded litigation matters pertaining to government programs during the last five years. MAXIMUS believes that the pending matters are without merit and will defend those actions vigorously. 2. Human Resources. MAXIMUS has over 6000 employees. As with any company of that size, from time to time MAXIMUS is involved in employment-related litigation. MAXIMUS has been a defendant in a number of pending and concluded litigation matters pertaining to human resources during the last five years. MAXIMUS believes that the pending matters are without merit and will defend those actions vigorously. 3. General Litigation. MAXIMUS is a defendant in the following pending general litigation matters: Case Name, Number, Summary of Case Status Location ASL Consulting v. In 2006 MAXIMUS was sued by a former software sales Pending MAXIMUS representative who alleged commissions owing to him of Case No. 06-31280 $355,000. (Su olk Coun , NJ Chicago ex rel Brown v. In 2006 MAXIMUS, Unison MAXIMUS (a wholly-owned Pending MAXIMUS, Unison subsidiary) and numerous other companies and organizations were MAXIMUS et al sued by a pro se plaintiff purporting to bring his lawsuit on behalf Case No. 061050405 of Chicago and various other municipalities. In a rambling 400- (Cook County, IL) page complaint, the plaintiff appears to contend that the plaintiffs have misrepresented their slavery-era business dealings in various disclosure forms submitted to those municipalities. Neither MAXIMUS nor Unison MAXIMUS have or had any slavery-era business or predecessors that might have had slavery-era business. MAXIMUS believes the matter is without merit and intends to defend the action vi orousl . Massachusetts v. Leavitt, In 2007, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts sued the Secretary Pending et al. of Health and Human Services ("HHS") and number of other Case No 07-CA-11930 parties including a subsidiary of MAXIMUS. Massachusetts MLW claims that HHS has improperly denied the Commonwealth (US Dist Ct MA) reimbursement for certain costs under the federal Medicare program. The MAXIMUS subsidiary involved is under contract to the federal government as a qualified independent contractor that conducts second-level appeals of Medicare reimbursement claims. The Commonwealth seeks a declaratory judgment that it is entitled to be reimbursed under the Medicare program for the costs at issue. MAXIMUS believes the matter is without merit and intends to Case Name, Number, Summary of Case Status Location defend the action vi orousl . Connecticut v. In 2007 MAXIMUS was sued by the State of Connecticut. The Pending MAXIMUS State claims that MAXIMUS breached its contract to provide the Case No. HHD-CV-07- State with an updated criminal justice information system. The 5015239S State also alleges negligence and beach of the implied warranty of (Hartford, CT) fifiess for a particular purpose. MAXIMUS has sued its primary subcontractor (ATS) which abandoned the project. MAXIMUS intends to defend the action vigorously. Image API v. MAX/MUS In 2007 the Company was sued by Image API, a former Pending Case No. D-1-GN-07- subcontractor to MAXIMUS under the Integrated Eligibility and 004227 Enrollment Services program (the "Program") with the Texas (Travis County, TX) Health and Human Services Commission ("HHSC"). MAXIMUS was a subcontractor to Accenture under the Program until February 2007. The Company and Image API had a number of disagreements under their subcontract regarding Image API's performance and scope of responsibilities. Following the termination of the Company's subcontract with Accenture, the Company and Image API were not able to agree on the role Image API would play in support of MAXIMUS' new agreements with HHSC, and Image API terminated its services. The plaintiff has asserted a variety of claims including breach of contract, fraud, misrepresentation, business disparagement and trade secret misappropriation. The plaintiff claims damages due to the loss of compensation expected under its subcontract with MAXIMUS in an amount exceeding $30.0 million. MAXIMUS denies the allegations and intends to defend the matter vigorously. Doctors Medical Center In 2008, a medical practice sued Global Excel and MAXIMUS for Pending of Modesto v. Global approximately $159,000 in unpaid invoices submitted to Global Excel Mgmt. et al, Excel. Global Excel is a health plan and MAXIMUS provides Case No. 627719 appeal and review services pertaining to claims. The plaintiff (Stanislaus County, CA) alleges that MAXIMUS interfered with its contractual relationship with Global Excel by questioning certain services provided by the plaintiff: MAXIMUS denies the allegations and intends to defend the matter vi orousl . Stockholders with more than 10 percent interest Our only shareholder with 10% or more shares is Morgan Stanley. The only available public information regarding litigation for Morgan Stanley comes from their most recent IOK In addition to the matters described below, in the normal course of business, Morgan Stanley has been named, from time to time, as a defendant in various legal actions, including arbitrations, class actions and other litigation, arising in connection with its activities as a global diversified financial services institution. Certain of the actual or threatened legal actions include claims for substantial compensatory and/or punitive damages or claims for indeterminate amounts of damages. In some cases, the issuers that would otherwise be the primary defendants in such cases are bankrupt or in financial distress. Morgan Stanley is also involved, from time to time, in other reviews, investigations and proceedings (both formal and informal) by governmental and self-regulatory agencies regarding Morgan Stanley's business, including, among other matters, accounting and operational matters, certain of which may result in adverse judgments, settlements, fines, penalties, injunctions or other relief. Morgan Stanley contests liability and/or the amount of damages as appropriate in each pending matter. In view of the inherent difficulty of predicting the outcome of such matters, particularly in cases where claimants seek substantial or indeterminate damages or where investigations and proceedings are in the early stages, Morgan Stanley cannot predict with certainty the loss or range of loss, if any, related to such matters, how or if such matters will be resolved, when they will ultimately be resolved, or what the eventual settlement, fine, penalty or other relief, if any, might be. Subject to the foregoing, Morgan Stanley believes, based on current knowledge and after consultation with counsel, that the outcome of such pending matters will not have a material adverse effect on the consolidated financial condition of Morgan Stanley, although the outcome of such matters could be material to Morgan Stanley's operating results and cash flows for a particular future period, depending on, among other things, the level of Morgan Stanley's revenues or income for such period. Coleman Litigation. In May 2003, Coleman (Parent) Holdings Inc. ("CPH") filed a complaint against Morgan Stanley in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit for Palm Beach County, Florida relating to the l 998 merger between The Coleman Company, Inc. and Sunbeam, Inc. ("Sunbeam"). The complaint, as amended, alleged that CPH was induced to agree to the transaction with Sunbeam based on certain financial misrepresentations, and it asserted claims against Morgan Stanley for aiding and abetting fraud, conspiracy and punitive damages. Shortly before trial, which commenced in Apri12005, the trial court granted, in part, a motion for entry of a default judgment against Morgan Stanley and ordered that portions of CPH's complaint, including those setting forth CPH's primary allegations against Morgan Stanley, be read to the jury and deemed established for all purposes in the action. In May 2005, the jury returned a verdict in favor of CPH and awarded CPH $604 million in compensatory damages and $850 million in punitive damages. In June 2005, the trial court issued a final judgment in favor of CPH in the amount of $1,578 million, which included prejudgment interest and excluded certain payments received by CPH in settlement of related claims against others. In March 2007, the District Court of Appeal for the Fourth District of Florida (the "Court of Appeal") issued an opinion reversing the trial court's award for compensatory and punitive damages and remanding the matter to the trial court for entry of judgment for Morgan Stanley. In June 2007, the Court of Appeal's opinion became final when the Court of Appeal issued an order denying CPH's motions for rehearing, rehearing en banc and for certification of certain questions for review by the Florida Supreme Court ("the Supreme Court"). On December 12, 2007, the Supreme Court denied CPH's request for review of the Court of Appeal's decision, directing judgment in favor of Morgan Stanley. II'O Fee Litigation. Starting in late 1998, purported class actions, later captioned In re Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation (the "purchaser actions") and In re Issuer Plaintiff Initial Public Offering Fee Antitrust Litigation (the "issuer actions"), were initiated in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (the "SDNY") against 22 Morgan Stanley and numerous other underwriters. The consolidated proceedings, one on behalf of purchasers and the other on behalf of issuers of certain shares in initial public offerings ("IPOs"), allege that defendants conspired to fix the underwriters' spread at 7% in IPOs of U.S. companies in the $20 million to $80 million range in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The complaints seek treble damages and injunctive relief. Plaintiffs' claims for damages in the purchaser actions have been dismissed, but the claims for injunctive relief remain and plaintiffs' claims in the issuer actions for damages and injunctive relief remain. Plaintiffs moved for class certification in both actions, and defendants opposed that motion in May 2005. In October 2005, plaintiffs moved for summary judgment, which defendants opposed. In May 2006, plaintiffs filed a petition pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) for leave to appeal the SDNY's denial of class certification and in September 2007, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit (the "Second Circuit") reversed the SDNY's decision and remanded the case back to the district court for further consideration of class certification issues. On remand, plaintiffs filed a motion for class certification on October 17, 2007. IPO Allocation Matters. Beginning in March 2001, numerous purported class actions, now captioned In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, were filed in the SDNY against certain issuers of IPO securities, certain individual officers of those issuers, Morgan Stanley and other underwriters of those IPOs, purportedly on behalf of purchasers of stock in the IPOs or the aftermarket. These complaints allege that defendants required customers who wanted allocations of "hot" IPO securities to pay undisclosed and excessive underwriters' compensation in the form of increased brokerage commissions and to buy shares of securities offered in the IPOs after the IPOs were completed at escalating price levels higher than the IPO price (a practice plaintiffs refer to as "laddering"), and claim violations of the federal securities laws, including Sections 11 and 12(a)(2) of the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Securities Act") and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. Some of the complaints also allege that continuous "buy" recommendations by the defendants' research analysts improperly increased or sustained the prices at which the securities traded after the IPOs. In February 2003, the underwriter defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied, except as to certain specified offerings. In December 2006, the Second Circuit reversed the SDNY's grant of class certification, and ruled that these cases could not be certified for class treatment. In August 2007, plaintiffs filed second consolidated amended class action complaints, which purport to amend the allegations in light of the Second Circuit's reversal of the SDNY's decision approving the cases to proceed as class actions. Plaintiffs again seek certification of classes. In October 2007, numerous derivative actions, purportedly brought on behalf of certain issuers of IPO securities, were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against Morgan Stanley and other underwriters of those IPOs. The actions seek to recover "short swing" profits allegedly generated in violation of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act. Late Trading and Market Timing. Starting in July 2003, Morgan Stanley received subpoenas and requests for information from various regulatory and governmental agencies, including the SEC, the NYSE and various states, in connection with Industry-wide investigations of broker-dealers and mutual fund complexes relating to possible late trading and market timing of mutual funds. In December 2007, Morgan Stanley settled all claims with the SEC concerning late trading and market timing of mutual funds in the retail system over the period from January 2002 to August 2003. Under the terms of the settlement, Morgan Stanley will, among other things, be censured and pay a monetary fine. Subprime-related Matters. Morgan Stanley is responding to subpoenas and requests for information from certain regulatory and governmental entities concerning the origination, purchase, securitization and servicing of Subprime and non-subprime residential mortgages and related issues. Morgan Stanley has also been named as a defendant in various civil litigation matters related to the subprime and non-subprime residential mortgage business, including 23 purported class actions related to Morgan Stanley's role as an underwriter of certain preferred stock offerings for New Century Financial Corp. and Countrywide Financial Corp. and certain offerings of mortgage pass through certificates for a subsidiary of Countrywide Financial Corp., and other related matters. A shareholder derivative lawsuit was filed in the SDNY during November 2007 asserting claims related in large part to losses caused by certain subprime-related trading positions and related matters, but no complaint has been served. In December 2007, several purported class action complaints were filed in SDNY asserting claims on behalf of participants in Morgan Stanley's 401(k) plan and employee stock ownership plan against Morgan Stanley and other parties, including certain present and former directors and officers, under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The complaints relate in large part to subprime-related losses, and allege, among other things, that Morgan Stanley stock was not a prudent investment and that risks associated with Morgan Stanley stock and Morgan Stanley's financial condition were not adequately disclosed. B. Judgments from lawsuits in the last five years MAXIMUS MAXIMUS was a defendant in the following general litigation matters during the last five years: Case Name, Number, Summary of Case Status Location Village of Maywood, In 2000 Unison MAXIMUS, ("Unison," awholly-owned Settled on a Illinois v. Unison subsidiary of MAXIMUS) was sued by the village of Maywood, confidential basis MAXIMUS, Case No. Illinois. Unison had provided financial consulting services to in 2004. OOL 014029 (Cook Maywood from ] 996 through 1999. The plaintiff alleged inter alia County, IL) breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraud. The Ciry of San Diego v. In 2002 the City of San Diego named DMG as a defendant in an Settled by Conwell Shonkwiler & on-going lawsuit filed against the City by Conwell Shonkwiler, an insurance carrier Assoc.; DMG- architectural firm. DMG had provided facilities planning services in 2004. MAXIMUS, Inc., et al., to the City during ] 999. Conwell sued the City for unpaid fees, Case No. GIC 795634 and the City countersued Conwell alleging breach of contract and (San Diego, CA) negligence. Conwell has blamed some of the problems on the work done by DMG. Therefore, the City named DMG as a defendant alleging breach of contract and negligence. HMC v. Foster and In 2003 MAXIMUS was sued by a company that had worked as a Judgment in MAXIMUS, Case No. subcontractor to an office moving company for MAXIMUS. The favor of 03GC22293 (Davidson plaintiff alleges that the moving company failed to pay it MAXIMUS in Coun TN) approximately $13,500. 2005. Johnson v. MAXIMUS et In 2003 MAXIMUS and two executive officers were sued by a Settled on a al., Case No. former officer who alleged that the company had breached his confidential basis 1:03CV2483 (n. Dist. employment agreement. His claims include breach of contract, in 2004. Ohio) promissory estoppel, fraud, interference with contract, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The plaintiffalleges damages of $11 million. Harrod v. PeopleSoft, In 2004 MAXIMUS was named in a lawsuit filed by a consultant to Settled on a MAXIMUS et aI, Case PeopleSoft. The plaintiff alleges that PeopleSoft owes her confidential basis No. CJ-2004-211 commissions in excess of $175,000 for contracts obtained by in 2006. (Oklahoma County, OK) PeopleSoft in Oklahoma. MAXIMUS is a subcontractor to Peo leSoft in Oklahoma providing ERP im lementation services. Jones v. MAXIMUS, In 2004 MAXIMUS was sued by the estate of a deceased woman The matter was Case No. 04-403913 who died when she fell out of the window of an apartment leased settled on a (Wa ne County, Ml) by the Company. The plaintiff alleged negligence resulting in confidential basis Case Name, Number, Summary of Case Status Location damages to be proved at trial. in 2006 by the insurance carrier for the company and the building owner. Public Affairs In 2004 MAXIMUS was sued by a subcontractor alleging breach Voluntarily International v. of contract, tortious interference with contract, and fraud due to the dismissed without MAXIMUS, Case No. 04- failure of MAXIMUS to place certain task orders with the prejudice by the 169-A subcontractor. The plaintiff requests compensatory damages of plaintiff in 2004. (Alexandria, VA) $165,000 and punitive damages of $l million. De Lage Landen v. In 2004 MAXIMUS learned that two former employees had signed In 2005 the MAXIMUS et al., Case fraudulent guarantees on behalf of MAXIMUS for computer company settled No. 04-3712 (U.S. Dist. equipment leases apparently used in a competitive enterprise the De Lage E.D. PA) completely unrelated to MAXIMUS business. MAXIMUS filed Landen claim on suit against those individuals and reported the matter to law a confidential Solarcom v. MAXIMUS, enforcement. Solarcom LLC, the leasing company, has demanded basis. In 2006 Case No. 04C-09159-4 $31.0 million from MAXIMUS under the guarantees, which the company (Gwinnett County, GA) amount represents the remaining payments under the leases. On settled the Fleet August 6, 2004, De Lage Landen Financial Services, Inc. sued and Solarcom Fleet Business Credit v. MAXIMUS and Solarcom in connection with this matter. claims on a confidential Solarcom, MAXIMUS et Solarcom had sold and assigned certain of the lease payments to basis. al., Case No. 04 CV De Lage Landen. De Lage Landen has sued MAXIMUS to 2455 (U.S. Dist. N. D. enforce the guarantees, and has claimed damages of at least $10 GA) million. We believe that amount is part of the $31 million demanded by Solarcom. On August l 7, 2004 Solarcom sued MAXIMUS for damages to be proved at trial. On August 24, 2004 Fleet Business Credit sued Solarcom and MAXIMUS seeking damages of approximately $8 million. Solarcom had also assigned certain lease payments to Fleet. Similarly, we believe that amount is art of the $31 million demanded b Solarcom. Golden Big Dipper v. In 2004 Unison MAXIMUS was named as a defendant in a lawsuit Claims against Nicar Aanagement et al., brought by a franchisee at the Newark International Airport. MAXIMUS Case No. ESX-C-226-04 Unison MAXIMUS manages the retail tenants at the airport. The dismissed in (Essex County, NJ) plaintiff alleged damages of at least $1 million. 2005. Biggers v. City of In 2005 MAXIMUS and other defendants were sued by an Voluntarily Lagrange et al., Case individual who claimed he was bitten by a cat while performing dismissed without No. OS-CV-I 18 community service activities as part of his probation. The plaintiff prejudice by the (Troup County, GA) seeks damages to be proved at trial. plaintiff in 2005. D&R Craig Investments In 2005 a former landlord sued MAXIMUS for an amount Settled on a v. MAXIMUS, Case No. allegedly owing of approximately $25,000. confidential basis OS-CO5111-3 (Gwinnett in 2006. Coun , GA) Southeastern Consulting In 2005 MAXIMUS was sued by a former subcontractor that Settled on a Group v. MAXIMUS, alleged its agreement with MAXIMUS had been improperly confidential basis Case No. 251-OS-368CV to iinated. Among other things, the subcontractor alleges breach in 2006. (Hinds County, MS) of contract, unjust enrichment and bad faith and seeks damages to be roved at trial. D&D Management v. In 2005 MAXIMUS was sued by a former landlord who alleged Settled on a confidential basis Case Name, Number, Summary of Case Status Location MAXIMUS that MAXIMUS had improperly terminated its lease. The plaintiff in 2008 Case No. OSM20286] alleges damages of approximately $25,000 per month for a one (Cook Coun , IL) ear eriod. FirstMerit Bank v. West In 2006, MAXIMUS received a request for indemnification from Settled on a et al., Manatron, a company from which MAXIMUS purchased a court confidential basis Case No. OS CV 144276 management software business in 2004. The underlying case in 2006 (Lorain County, OH) involves a dispute over a property foreclosure and a claim that Manatron or MAXIMUS failed to maintain a County website showin 'ud ment liens. City of Greer, SC v. In 2006 a former client of the MAXIMUS Correctional Services Voluntarily MAXIMUS business sued MAXIMUS claiming breach of contract, fraud and dismissed in 2007 Case No. 2006-CP-23- conversion. The plaintiff alleged that the Company did not remit 5275 all funds due and did not turn over all relevant records when the (Greenville Coun , SC) Com any's contract with the client ended. Emergis v. MAXIMUS In 2006 a subcontractor to a MAXIMUS subsidiary in Canada filed Settled on a Arbitration an arbitration action contesting a default notice MAXIMUS had confidential basis (British Columbia, sent the subcontractor arising out of performance failures under the in 2007 Canada) subcontract. The plaintiff sought damages to be proved at the hearing, and MAXIMUS asserted various counterclaims due to the subcontractor's default. In 2007, the parties agreed to restructure their business relationshi and dismiss the arbitration matter. Disla v. Continental In 2006, Unison MAXIMUS and several other parties were sued Summary Airlines et al. by an employee of a contractor who had been working at the judgment granted Case No. ESX-L-3903- Newark International Airport. Unison MAXIMUS provides retail in 2007 04 management and consulting services at the airport. The plaintiff (Essex County, NJ) alleges she was injured when a portion of the ceiling fell on her. MAXIMUS v. Accenture In 2007 MAXIMUS initiated arbitration against Accenture LLP. Settled in 2008; Arbitration MAXIMUS served as a subcontractor in support of Accenture's the parties agreed (Chicago, IL) prime contract with the Texas Health and Human Services to a mutual Commission for integrated eligibility services. MAXIMUS alleged termination of the that Accenture breached the subcontract and sought damages to be subcontract proved at the arbitration. Accenture denied MAXIMUS' claims and asserted counterclaims alleging that MAXIMUS breached the subcontract. Avalon Correctional In 2007, MAXIMUS received a request for indemnification from Settled on a Services v. Stifel Stifel Nicolaus ("Stifel"), an investment banking firm which had confidential basis Nicolaus assisted MAX[MUS in the sale of its Correctional Services in 2008 Case No. CJ-2007-794 business. A disappointed bidder alleged that Stifel had (Oklahoma County, OK) misrepresented its agency relationship with MAXIMUS. MAXIMUS is obligated to indemnify Stifel for claims other than those arising from gross negligence or willful misconduct. The laintiffalle es dama es to be roved at trial. Fujitsu Consulting v. In 2007 Fujitsu sued Therms, a Canadian subsidiary of Settled in 2007 Therms Program MAXIMUS, claiming that Therms owed Fujitsu approximately Management and $974,000 (Cdn.) under a subcontract in support of Therms' prime Consulting Ltd. contract with the Province of Ontario. Case No. S-071142 (British Columbia) Mathews v. Jemal's In 2007 MAXIMUS and its landlord were sued by a woman who Settled by ORME LLC and allegedly slipped and fell on a wet bathroom floor at the insurance carrier MAXIMUS MAXMUS office. for $6000. Case Name, Number, Summary of Case Status Location Case No. 2007 CA 001602 B (Washin on DC) Ontario Ministry of In 2007 Therms Program Management and Consulting Limited Settled in 2007 Community and Social ("Themis") and MAXIMUS were sued by the Ontario Ministry of Services v. Therms Community and Social Services which alleged breach of contract. Program Management Themis is an indirectlwholly-owned subsidiary of MAXIMUS that and Consulting Ltd. And had contracted with the Ministry to provide software and services MAXIMUS in support of the Ministry's child support case management Case No. 07-CV-330721 system. MAXIMUS signed the contract with the Ministry as a PD 1 guarantor. (Ontario, Canada) Allied Capital Partners In 2007, MAXIMUS was sued by a former subcontractor for Settled on a v. MAXIMUS breach of contract. MAXIMUS terminated the subcontractor when confidential basis Case No. D-1-GN-07- the relevant portion of the MAXIMUS prime contract was in 2008. 003500 terminated. The plaintiff alleged damages of approximately (Travis Coun , TX) $975,000. Calabrese and Otto v. In 2008, a doctor and her patient sued MAXIMUS and other Dismissed as to Regence BlueShield, parties seeking a declaratory judgment. MAXIMUS acts as an MAXIMUS in MAXIMUS et al. independent review organization for certain medical treatments. 2008 Case No. SACV08- The plaintiffs appear to allege that a denial of treatment 00588 AG determination violates applicable ERISA law. MAXIMUS denies (U.S. Dist. Ct. C. D. CA) the allegations and intends to defend the matter vi orously. Other Matters. MAXIMUS has also been involved in the following legal matters during the last five years: District of Columbia Revenue Maximization In October 2004, MAXIMUS received a subpoena from the Criminal Division of the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) acting through the U.S. Attorney's Office (USAO) for the District of Columbia. The subpoena requested records pertaining to the Company's work for the District of Columbia, primarily relating to the preparation and submission of federal Medicaid reimbursement claims on behalf of the District. The USAO and the Civil Division of the DOJ investigated the Company's compliance with the federal laws governing Medicaid claims. They alleged that the Company knowingly prepared reimbursement claims on behalf of the District of Columbia that lacked supporting documentation. In July 2007 MAXIMUS accepted full responsibility for the conduct and entered into a settlement agreement with the DOJ and USAO. MAXIMUS paid the government $30.5 million and entered into a 24-month deferred prosecution agreement. The USAO agreed not to file charges against the Company during that period so long as the Company complied with its settlement obligations and with a corporate integrity agreement that it entered into with the Department of Health and Human Services. Illinois -Central Management Services In June 2005, MAXIMUS received a subpoena from the Office of the Attorney General of Illinois in connection with a purported whistleblower investigation of potential false claims. The subpoena requested records pertaining to the Company's work for agencies of the Executive Branch of Illinois State Government. Discussions with the Attorney General's office indicated that MAXIMUS was one of nine contractors that received such subpoenas and that the investigation is primarily focused on the procurement and contracting activities of the Illinois Department of Central Management Services. MAXIMUS fully responded to the subpoena by December 2005, and there has been no activity involving the Company since that time. MAXIMUS was informed that it is neither a target nor a subject of the investigation. For these reasons, the Company considers the matter closed. Stockholders with more than 10 percent interest Our only shareholder with 10% or more shares is Morgan Stanley. The only available public information regarding litigation for Morgan Stanley comes from their most recent IOK The following matters were terminated during the quarter ended November 30, 2007 for Morgan Stanley: Global Wealth Management Group Employment Matters. Wage and Hour Matters. Complaints raising allegations of unpaid overtime and unlawful wage deductions were filed against Morgan Stanley in New Jersey, New York, Connecticut, Texas, Florida, Illinois, California and Ohio seeking damages on behalf of certain current and former employees. In October 2006, Morgan Stanley reached agreement to resolve these claims on behalf of the individual claimants as well as other potential class members nationwide. In November 2006, for purposes of executing the settlement, a consolidated amended complaint captioned Steinberg, et al. v. Morgan Stanley was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California ("SDC"). In December 2006, the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation issued an order centralizing the various matters pending across the country in the SDC. Gender Matters. In June 2006, Morgan Stanley was named in two purported class actions alleging gender discrimination under state and federal law. On October 24, 2007, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted final approval to the settlement reached in Joanne Augst-Johnson v. Morgan Stanley. The approved settlement resolved all of the class-wide and individual plaintiffs' claims and included, among other things, a payment to the settlement fund and certain programmatic relief. All similar class wide claims raised in the second purported gender class action captioned Daisy Jaffe et al. v. Morgan Stanley were subsumed by the Augst-Johnson settlement. Questionnaire (continued) The Proposer understands that information contained in this Questionnaire will be relied upon by the City in awarding the proposed contract, and such information is warranted by the Proposer to be true and accurate. The Proposer agrees to furnish such additional information, prior to acceptance of any proposal relating to the qualifications of the Proposer, as may be required by the City Manager. The Proposer further understands that the information contained in this Questionnaire may be confirmed through a background investigation conducted by the City, through the Miami Beach Police Department. By submitting this Questionnaire the Proposer agrees to cooperate with this investigation, including but not limited to, fingerprinting and providing information for a credit check. PROPOSER WITNESS: Signature Print Name WITNESS: Signature Print Name IF INDIVIDUAL: Signature Print Name IF PARTNERSHIP: Print Name of Firm Address By: General Partner Print Name ATT ST: ~~ ~ ' Se retary `vii ~ r/C~S Print Name (CO PQ~ ~' AL) 1 211 1 /2 008 City of Miami Beach IF CORPORATION: ~s (vtc , Print Name of Cor(ioration ~lLtl9 5yase~ KtI(s ~ac~ (Ze s VA ~.~ / 40 Address By: ~'~ 5.a-^~~r i;c~ ~scofe~c~President Print Name RFP No 10-08/09 28 of 30 EXHIBIT "D" C;UMMISSIUN I 1 tM SUMMAKY r~~.~ln~~nrl Titln• v v.. vv..vv.. Accept the City's Manager's Recommendation Pertaining To The Ranking of Proposals Pursuant To Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 10-08/09, For a Building Development Process Fees Study; Authorizing the Administration to Enter Into Negotiations With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Maximus Consulting Services, Inc; And Should The Administration Not Be Successful In Negotiating An Agreement With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing Negotiations With The Second-Ranked Proposer, Matrix Consulting Group; And Further Authorizing The Mayor and City Clerk To Execute An Agreement Upon Conclusion Of Successful Negotiation By The Administration To Not Exceed $42,260, And Appropriating Funds from FY 07-08 Year-End Set Aside For Buildin De rtment Uses. Ke Intended Outcome Su orted: Improve the Citys Overall Financial Health and Maintain Overall Bond Rating; Make City More Business Friend) . Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): The July 2008 Internal Aud'R Report of Building Permit Fees included a finding related to the "Department's complex fee schedule and lack of regular revisions". The finding included that the fee schedule consists of numerous fees for specific scope of works. This complexity leads to inefficiencies and inconsistencies in charging customers. In addition, one of the recommendations ofthe Watson & Rice Building Department draft report recommendsthatthe City pursue a sim lifted ermit fee calculation methodol Issue: Shall the City Commission approve the City Manager's recommendation? Item Summa /Recommendation: On December 10, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 10-08/09 for a Building Development Process Fees Study. The objective of this RFP is to update all of the fees related to the Building Development Process and provide staff support fortheir adoption as an ordinance prior to the start of the FY 09-10 budget year. RFP No. 10-08/09 was issued on December 11, 2008 with an opening date of January 28, 2009. Apre- proposalconference was held on January 9, 2009. BidNet issued bid notices to 105 prospective proposers, BidSync issued bid notices to 33 prospective proposers, and 37 proposers were notified via mat, e-mai, and fax circulation, which resulted in the receipt of five (5) proposals. During the review process performed by the Procurement Office and with the approval of the City's legal department, the proposal submitted by KPMG LLP was deemed non-responsive since it failed to provide the requested cost related information. Therefore, only four (4) proposals were presented to the Evaluation Committee members for further review. The City Manager via Letterto Commission (LTC) No.027-2009, appointed an Evaluation Committee ("the Committee")which convened on February 12, 2009. The Committee discussed their individual perceptans of the proposers' qualifications, experience, price and competence, and ranked the proposers accordingly. A motion was presented by Richard Lorber, seconded by Grace Escalante, and unanimously approved by all Committee members to recommend the first ranked proposer, Maximus Consulting Services for potential award for the Building Development Process Fees Study. ACCEPT THE CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION. Adviso Board Recommendation: NIA Financial Information: Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin Gus Lo ez, Ext: 6641 Sian-Offs: De meet Director Aasfatant G' Mena , c __ _ _ __ C Man : r AR KB PDW JMG T:WGENDA~20091February 25\Conse~flRFP-10-06-09 Fees Shx1y- Summary.doc •' U ~ AGENDA ITEM C 7~ 1f i ~~ r3A~~ a -ate-o 9 m MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beaeh, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachA.gov COMMISSION MEMORANDUM To: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members oft City Commission FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager DATE: February 25, 2009 SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 10-08/09, FOR A BUILDING DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FEES STUDY; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES; AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON CONCLUSION OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION TO NOT EXCEED 542,260, AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FROM FY 2007108 YEAR-END SET ASIDE FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT USES. ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution. FUNDING Funds to be appropriated from Building funds set aside from FY 2007-08 year end. KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED Improve the City's overall financial health and maintain overall bond rating. Make City more business friendly. ANALYSIS The Administration proposed that the City issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) to select a qualified consulting firm to conduct an analysis of building development fees in the City of Miami Beach. The study should have distinct recommendations for fees in the various departments involved in the building development process, including the Building, Public Works/Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Planning/Zoning Departments The fees must be set by establishing a direct relationship between the services provided and the fees charge to permit holder. Commission Memorandum - RFP#10-08-09 For Building Development Process Fees Study February 25, 2009 Page 2 The Building Department provides process intake, routing, billing, and computer support for all construction activities, issuance of all building and trade permits, verification of compliance with the Florida Building Code and enforcement of codes promulgated by regulatory agencies such as the Hotel and Restaurant Commission, Miami-Dade Environmental Resources Management, State Department of Health and Professional Regulation, Board of Adjustment and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. The Building Department staff conducts plans review and inspections for plumbing, structural, building, electrical, engineering, elevator and mechanical trades as required by the different permit types. Additionally, the Department oversees building re-certification, elevators and boiler inspections and FEMA flood regulations. In addition to the Building Department, the Prevention Services Division of the Fire Department, the Public Works Engineering Division, and the Planning and Zoning Department participate in the building development process including plan reviews and inspections. The Fire Department is involved in the majority of building permits issued by the City. Afire fee is collected for each building permit corresponding to the Fire Department review and inspection. The Public Works Department Engineering Division staff conducts plan reviews and inspections for all construction activities that occur within the public right-of-way (streets, roadways, waterways, alleys and sidewalks), public property and easements. The Public Works Department also performs plan review activities supporting a variety of Building Department permits in private property that will connect and/or will have potential impacts to City owned utilities, right-of-way and/or easements. The department also determines the level of traffic analysis required for compliance with City regulations, including review and approval of traffic impact studies. In addition, the department conducts technical review of applications that are to be submitted to County and State regulatory agencies as part of the building development process. The Planning Department serves as staff to the City's Planning Board, Board of Adjustment, Design Review Board, Historic Preservation Board, and Single Family Residential Review Panel. Depending on the scope of the project, new development is required to receive approval from one or more of these Boards. The Planning Department processes the applications, reviews and prepares recommendations to all of the above Boards. Fees are assessed for the various Planning applications according to a fee schedule contained within the City Code. The fees have been evaluated from time to time, and compared with other similar municipalities. The Planning Department also reviews all building permits for compliance with the land development regulations and consistency with architectural review guidelines and preservation appropriateness criteria. This zoning review is required to ensure compliance with existing legislation, zoning requirements, and state growth management requirements. However, this function is not fee-based, as Section 553.80(7) of the Florida Statutes precludes building permit fees to be used for Planning and zoning or other general government activities. Alternative means of funding such functions should be explored. A fee for each permit is required to be paid, in accordance with the fee schedule established and approved by City Commission, on all buildings, electrical, elevators, mechanical, plumbing, and fire protection new systems or alterations requiring a permit. In addition, fees are collected for Miami-Dade Building Code Compliance, sanitation, zoning, and radon fees. The Public Works Department collects fees associated with right-of-way (ROW) construction activities. Concurrency fees are charged by the Planning Department. Commission Memorandum - RFP#10-08-09 For Building Development Process Fees Study February 25, 2009 Page 3 The objective of this RFP is to update all of the fees related to the Building Development Process and provide staff support for their adoption as an ordinance prior to the start of the FY 2009/10 budget. The consultant will work closely with a staff committee to be comprised of representatives from the Office of Budget and Performance Improvement, Finance, Building, Public Works/Engineering, Fire Prevention, and Planning/Zoning Departments ("Departments"). The consultant should develop recommendations that help ensure that fees are set at a level and in a manner to cover the direct and indirect costs of the building development process, are implementable, are understandable, easily updated in response to change, provide for a long range financially stable system and ensure the integrity of the permitting process and collection of fees. On December 10, 2008, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 10-08/09 for a Building Development Process Fees Study. RFP No. 10-08/09 was issued on December 11, 2008 with an opening date of January 28, 2009. Apre-proposal conference to provide information to the consultants submitting a response was held on January 9, 2009. BidNet issued bid notices to 105 prospective proposers, BidSync (Formerly known as RFP Depot) issued bid notices to 33 prospective proposers, and 37 proposers were notified via mail, a-mail, and fax circulation, which resulted in the receipt of following five (5) proposals: 1. MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES, INC 2. KPMG LLP 3. PMG ASSICATES, INC 4. MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 5. WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES During the review process performed by the Procurement Office and with the approval of the City's legal department, the proposal submitted by KPMG LLP was deemed non-responsive since it failed to provide the requested cost related information relative to the Building Development Process Fees Study. Therefore, only four (4) proposals were presented to the Evaluation Committee members for further review. The City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 027-2009, appointed an Evaluation Committee ("the Committee") consisting of the following individuals: • Kathie Brooks, Director, Budget and Performance Improvement Department (OBPI) • Ira Giller, Resident, Giller and Giller Architects • Ken Nichols, Vice President, G.T. Construction and Development, Inc • Chris Puentes, Project Executive, Turnberry Ltd • Sonni Moore, Chief Fire Protection Analyst, Fire Prevention Department • Richard Lorber, Planning and Zoning Manager, Planning Department • Grace Escalante, Assistant Director, Building Department Commission Memorandum - RFP#10-08-09 For Building Development Process Fees Study February 25, 2009 Page 4 On January 12, 2009, the Committee convened and a quorum was attained. Kathie Brooks, Budget and Performance Improvement Department's Director, addressed the Committee and provided general information on the scope of services. The Committee members were also provided with presentations and Performance Evaluation Surveys from all proposers: The following Evaluation Criteria was used to evaluate and rank the groups or individuals • Qualifications of Individuals assigned to work with the City 35 points • Consultant(s) experience and past performance with similar projects 20 points • Proposed Fees 35 points • Methodology and Approach 10 points The Committee discussed their individual perceptions of the proposers' qualifications, experience, price and competence, and ranked the proposers being evaluated accordingly. A motion was presented by Richard Lorber, seconded by Grace Escalante and unanimously approved by all Committee members to recommend the first ranked proposer, Maximus Consulting Services for potential award for the Building Development Process Fees Study. ~~ '~ ~~° ,• .; xrn= ~~' '"~}" `~. ~ _ ~ ~-., OW ~ r' ` Kathie Brooks Ira Giller Ken Nichols Chris Puentes Sonni Moore Richard Lorber Grace Escalante TOTALS AGGREGATE TOTALS MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES 95 1 97 2 88 1 99 1 59 3 100 1 94 1 632 10 PMG ASSOCIATES 71 4 71 4 50 4 65 4 50 4 40 3 60 4 407 27 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 82 2 100 1 75 2 84 2 66 1 61 2 80 2 548 12 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 79 3 78 3 55 3 70 3 62 2 33 4 66 3 443 21 #'s 1 #'s 2 #'s 3 #'s 4 MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES 5 1 1 PMG ASSOCIATES 1 6 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 2 5 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 1 5 1 RANKING ORDER ~ MAXIMUS CONSULTING SERVICES 2 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP 3 WILLDAN FINANCIAL SERVICES 4 PMG ASSOCIATES Commission Memorandum - RFP#10-08-09 For Building Development Process Fees Study February 25, 2009 Page 5 Maximus Consulting Services, Inc Maximus Consulting Services, Inc has conducted user fee and cost allocation studies for more than 20 years. Maximus Consulting Services Inc has recently conducted fee studies for many Florida's communities such as Tampa, Cape Coral, Orange County, Hillsborough County and Manatee County. Maximus Consulting Services, Inc proposes a simpler fee structure, Nexus, which utilizes the following three elements: the occupancy type, square footage, and construction type to determine the fee to reimburse the City's cost. The Nexus methodology is designed to generate cost-based building fees based on codes derived from the Florida Building Code. The Nexus methodology is a simple formula that decreases staff time spent calculating fees. It is cost based so that each fee matches the City's actual cost of providing service, and it can be easily updated annually by City staff, to adjust for increases in budgeting expenditures. Builders appreciate cost-based fees, since they view the industry in this matter. Nationally, there is a growing trend to move away from valuation-based fees. Maximus Consulting Services, Inc also brings a broader contextual understanding of how to address efficiency concerns. Ensuring fees that appropriately reflect the cost involved in providing the services is a critical and necessary step for best serving our residents. The proposed Project Director to be assigned to the City of Miami Beach, Bruce Cowans, has been with Maximus Consulting Services since 1991. Mr. Cowans directs a regional practice of two dozen consultants that serves clients in seven states in the Southeast and Midwest. He leads all work at the national level performed by Maximus Consulting Services Inc on user fees, cost of service studies, and information technology rates and provides direction to business process redesign projects. Maximus Consulting Services, Inc proposed fees include all travel costs for a total of four onsite trips, one meeting with the industry representatives, and two presentations: Pro osed Fees Hours Fee Phase 1: Pre- tannin and Project Kick-of 56 $10,730 Phase 2: Cost and Fee Anal sis 144 $22,520 Phase 3: Public Outreach and Recommendations 39 $9,010 TOTAL 239 $42,260 CONCLUSION A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida accepting the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of proposals pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 10-08/09, for a Building Development Process Fees Study; Authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked proposer, Maximus Consulting Services, Inc; and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating an Agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing negotiations with the second-ranked proposer, Matrix Consulting Group; and further Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiation by the Administration to not exceed $42,260, and appropriating funds from FY 2007/08 year-end set aside for Building Department uses. T:WGENDA\2009\Febnrary 25\Consent\RFP-10-08-09 Fees Study - Memo.doc EXHIBIT "E"