Loading...
PSA with Law Enforcement Psychological and Counseling Associates, Inc. v/%aggwc' PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND CONSELING ASSOCIATES, INC. FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES, PURSUANT TO RFP NO. 2014-015-LR This Professional Services Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into this 7 day of jebr'uy , 2015 ("Effective Date"), between the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, a municipal orporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Florida, having its principal offices at 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida, 33139 ("City"), and Law Enforcement Psychological and Counseling Associates, Inc., a Florida Corporation, whose address is 9960 N.W. 117th Way, Suite 12, Medley, Florida 33178 (Consultant). 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 or undertaken pursuant to the Agreement. Fee: Amount paid to the Consultant as compensation for Services. Proposal Documents: Proposal Documents shall mean City of Miami Beach RFP No. 2014- 015-LR for Psychological Services for Employees, 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 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. 1 SECTION 2 SCOPE OF SERVICES (SERVICES) 2.1 In consideration of the Fee to be paid to Consultant by the City, Consultant shall provide the work and services described in Exhibit"A" hereto (the Services). 2.2 Consultant's Services, and any deliverables incident thereto, shall be completed in accordance with the timeline and/or schedule in Exhibit "A" hereto. SECTION 3 TERM The term of this Agreement (Term) shall commence upon execution of this Agreement by all parties hereto, which shall be the Effective Date on page 1 hereof, and shall have an initial term of two (2) years, with two (2) renewal options of two (2) years each, to be exercised at the City Manager's sole option and discretion, by providing Consultant with written notice of same no less than thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial term (or of a renewal option, as the case may be). Notwithstanding the Term provided herein, Consultant shall adhere to any specific timelines, schedules, dates, and/or performance milestones for completion and delivery of the Services, as same is/are set forth in the timeline and/or schedule referenced in Exhibit "A". hereto. SECTION 4 FEE 4.1 In consideration of the Services to be provided, Consultant shall be compensated on a fixed fee basis as per Exhibit "B". 4.4 INVOICING Upon receipt of an acceptable and approved invoice, payment(s) shall be made within thirty (30) days for that portion (or those portions) of the Services satisfactorily rendered (and referenced in the particular invoice). Invoices shall include a detailed description of the Services (or portions thereof) provided, and shall be submitted to the City at the following address: City of Miami Beach Human Resources Department 1700 Convention Center Drive 3rd Floor Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Attention: Sylvia Crespo-Tabak, Director 2 SECTION 5 TERMINATION 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, through its City Manager, shall thereupon have the right to terminate this Agreement for cause. Prior to exercising its option to terminate for cause, the City shall notify the Consultant of its violation of the particular term(s) of this Agreement, and shall grant Consultant ten (10) days to cure such default. If such default remains uncured after ten (10) days, the City may terminate this Agreement without further notice to Consultant. Upon termination, 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 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 Consultant. The City shall be entitled to recover all costs of such actions, including reasonable attorneys' fees. 5.2 TERMINATION FOR CONVENIENCE OF THE CITY THE CITY MAY ALSO, THROUGH ITS CITY MANAGER, AND FOR ITS CONVENIENCE AND WITHOUT CAUSE, TERMINATE THE AGREEMENT AT ANY TIME DURING THE TERM BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE TO CONSULTANT OF SUCH TERMINATION; WHICH SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE WITHIN THIRTY (30) DAYS FOLLOWING RECEIPT BY THE CONSULTANT OF SUCH NOTICE. IF THE AGREEMENT IS TERMINATED FOR CONVENIENCE BY THE CITY, CONSULTANT SHALL BE PAID FOR ANY SERVICES SATISFACTORILY PERFORMED UP TO THE DATE OF TERMINATION; FOLLOWING WHICH THE CITY SHALL BE DISCHARGED FROM ANY AND ALL LIABILITIES, DUTIES, AND TERMS ARISING OUT OF, OR BY VIRTUE OF, THIS AGREEMENT. 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. 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, agents, and contractors, from and against any and all actions (whether at law or in equity), 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, which may arise or be alleged to have arisen from the negligent acts, errors, 3 omissions or other wrongful conduct of the Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, contractors, or any other person or entity acting under Consultant's control or supervision, in connection with, related to, or as a result of the Consultant's performance of the Services pursuant to this Agreement. 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 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 provisions of this Section 6.1 and of this indemnification shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement. 6.2 INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS The Consultant shall maintain and carry in full force during the Term, the following insurance: 1. Consultant General Liability, in the amount of$1,000,000; 2. Automobile Liability, in the amount of$1,000,000; 3. Workers Compensation & Employers Liability, as required pursuant to Florida Statutes. The insurance must be furnished by insurance companies authorized to do business in the State of Florida. All insurance policies must be issued by companies 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. All of Consultant's certificates 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. Original certificates of insurance must be submitted to the City's Risk Manager for approval (prior to any work and/or services commencing) and will be kept on file in the Office of the Risk Manager. 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 coverage. The Consultant is also solely responsible for obtaining and submitting all insurance certificates for any sub-consultants. 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. The Consultant shall not commence any work and or services 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. SECTION 7 4 LITIGATION JURISDICTIONNENUE/JURY TRIAL WAIVER This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. 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. 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, 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 $10,000. 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$10,000. 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 $10,000 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. Nothing contained in this section 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 [INTENTIONALLY DELETED] SECTION 10 GENERAL PROVISIONS 10.1 AUDIT AND INSPECTIONS Upon reasonable verbal or written notice to Consultant, and at any time during normal business hours (i.e. 9AM — 5PM, Monday through Fridays, excluding nationally recognized holidays), and as often as the City Manger may, in his/her reasonable discretion and judgment, deem necessary, there shall be made available to the City Manager, and/or such representatives as the City Manager may deem to act on the City's behalf, to audit, examine, and/ or inspect, any and all other documents and/or records relating to all matters covered by this Agreement. Consultant shall maintain any and all such records at its place of business at the address set forth in the "Notices" section of this Agreement. 10.2 [INTENTIONALLY DELETETD] 5 10.3 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER OR SUBCONSULTING Consultant shall not subcontract, assign, or transfer all or any portion of any work and/or service under this Agreement without the prior written consent of the City Manager, which consent, if given at all, shall be in the Manager's sole judgment and discretion. Neither this Agreement, nor any term or provision hereof, or right hereunder, shall be assignable unless as approved pursuant to this Section, 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 the Services, the Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, marital and familial status, or age. 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 (as some may be amended from time to time); 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 could 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, shall 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: 6 TO CONSULTANT: Law Enforcement Psychological and Couseling Associates, Inc. Attention: Brian Mangan, Psy. D. 9960 N.W. 116th Way, Suite 12 Medley, Florida 33178 TO CITY: City of Miami Beach Human Resources Department 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Attention: Sylvia Crespo-Tabak, Director City of Miami Beach Procurement Department 1700 Convention Center Drive, 3rd Floor Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Attention: Alex Denis, Director 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 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 12.1 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. 12.2 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. 12.3 ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT The City and 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 7 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. 12.4 CONSULTANT'S COMPLIANCE WITH FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS LAW Pursuant to Section 119.0701 of the Florida Statutes, if the Consultant meets the definition of "Contractor" as defined in Section 119.0701(1)(a), the Consultant shall: a) Keep and maintain public records that ordinarily and necessarily would be required by the public agency in order to perform the service; b) Provide the public with access to public records on the same terms and conditions that the public agency would provide the records and at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law; c) Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law; and d) Meet all requirements for retaining public records and transfer to the City, at no City cost, all public records created, received, maintained and/or directly related to the performance of this Agreement that are in possession of the Consultant upon termination of this Agreement. Upon termination of this Agreement, the Consultant shall destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All records stored electronically must be provided to the City in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the City. For purposes of this Article, the term "public records" shall mean all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business of the City. Consultant's failure to comply with the public records disclosure requirement set forth in P q Section 119.0701 of the Florida Statutes shall be a breach of this Agreement. In the event the Consultant does not comply with the public records disclosure requirement set forth in Section 119.0701 of the Florida Statutes, the City may, at the City's sole discretion, avail itself of the remedies set forth under this Agreement and available at law. [REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK] 8 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: / / ,/ ///y/ / _Al „ By / _r a% city Clerk \ „� ' / . .fir` f . �� ,:j f NCORP OR,�;i FOR CONSULTANT.\,: ,- Law Enforcement Psychological and VA: : , '•I'' . Counseling Associates, Inc. ATTEST: \/<;:'://,',3:°.,,,c,--:---=--)' rr'-',.' � " e .. l . - I AI By Id.-.1I 1 = �/m _ vi. Secr:tary Presi• - "/ - r a of L -VL. JL n /PP Print Namb Print Name Air Mayte-:Aponte _<# �#FFos�7 s-, Expires:JAN.22,2018 �'y+.y°pAo� WWWAARONNOTARxoam APPROVED AS TO FORM &LANGUAGE &FOR EXECUTION City A orney Date 9 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF SERVICES "EX-k\E17 LEPCA 24 PHILOSOPHY OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL Pre-employment psychological screening of Public Safety Position applicants first began to gain popularity and widespread acceptance in the 1970-1980 period. Initially, this screening was adopted mostly by urban agencies often in reaction to alleged civil rights violations by their Officers and subsequent protests, legal actions and in some cases civil disturbances. The so called"negligent hiring and retention" legal claims began to proliferate in those years, occasionally resulting in large monetary payouts to Plaintiffs. The psychological screening of applicants became one of the first agency responses to these events, since agencies could implement screening rather quickly at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately,many agencies and contracted screening psychologists knew little about the intricacies of this screening or how to effectively implement or utilize the results. As a consequence, a plethora of screening procedures emerged, many of which were of little use to the agency. Often, the psychologist worked in isolation from the agency and there was scant communication between the two parties. This severely limited the psychologist's effectiveness and the agency frequently had little education on how to interpret or apply what the psychologist's report indicated. As a result, many misconceptions about screening developed and agencies sometimes ran the risk of actually misusing the psychological report. To make matters more complicated, selection procedures generally, and psychological screening specifically, are by their nature vulnerable to criticism and can become"political footballs"between competing factions with different interests. Therefore, although psychological consultants must maintain appropriate flexibility in their work, the consultant has to always demonstrate professional objectivity and honesty even in the face of criticism from others. It was with the above challenges in mind, that 30+ years ago our firm set about to address these issues in a professional, logical and practical approach. Briefly stated, the goal and purpose of pre-employment screening is to screen-out those applicants identified as having high-risk factors for performance of the Public Safety position vs. those applicants who are absent these risk factors and possess traits deemed suitable for the position. To accomplish this goal, our philosophy is quite simple: effective programs +effective people= effective organizations. It is the contracted psychological firm's job to create a state of the art screening program and to educate/train relevant agency personnel in the correct application of the system. It is the agency's responsibility to provide motivated selection personnel and policies consistent with the difficult but critical task of identifying the most qualified applicants for final hire. Since no one selection procedure provides all the answers, a systemic and comprehensive approach must be utilized. To achieve maximum effectiveness, agency personnel and members of the psychological firm must be willing to communicate and work as a coordinated team when necessary. We pride ourselves on remaining constantly available to each of our clients and always provide, whatever, extra input is necessary to make our screenings as effective as possible. Improving upon selection procedures is a never ending endeavor. As a result, the agency and psychological contractor sometimes need to "push the envelope" and challenge each other to enhance their respective expertise. LEPCA 25 ESSENTIAL/IMPORTANT JOB-RELATED TRAITS A critical part of effective psychological screening is to identify in common sense language the job-related traits that are most critical to performing the public safety job position. This can be accomplished through observation of those performing the job, conducting job position surveys, reading the formal job description and reviewing any studies and research on the subject by respected public safety organizations such as the California Post Commission(POST). Over the years, our firm has availed itself of all the aforementioned sources of information and our current system focuses on and rates applicants on the following 14 public safety job dimensions. The report of applicants who do not meet standards on a job-related trait(s)will either state "Deficit Mild to Moderately Indicated"or"Deficit Strongly Indicated" for each of the traits listed below. • Compliance with Rules/Integrity • Impulse Control/Attention to Safety • Judgment/Decision-Making • Openness/Ability to Admit Shortcomings • Emotional Composure • Social Orientation/Tolerance • Work Habits/Patterns • Substance Abuse/Avoidance of Maladaptive Behaviors • Learning Ability/Problem Solving • Flexibility/Adaptability • Communication Skills/Verbal Expression • Initiative/Confidence • Readiness for the Public Safety Position For further definition and detail of each job dimension, please refer to our Report Interpretation Manual located through your agency's secure access at www.lepca.com (Report Interpretation Manual is attached as Appendix A with this ro osal P p ) Although identifying and screening out high risk applicants is the primary goal of psychological screening, selecting in those applicants with particular job-related areas of strength is also often a valuable part of the evaluation. Below are listed the four screen-in or"Areas of Strength- categories in our evaluation system. Potential Areas of Strength relative to other LE applicants: 1. Fast Learner 2. Excellent Interpersonal skills 3. Very diligent/Responsible 4. Leadership/Management Potential 5. Positive experience in public safety position LEPCA 26 DETERMINATION OF JOB-RELATED RATINGS, As with most medically related professional opinions and ratings, the assessment psychologist's decisions are based on procedures and tests considered reliable and valid. In the evaluation of public safety applicants, we use multiple and overlapping sources of information in arriving at ratings on each essential job trait as well as an overall job suitability rating. All procedures, forms and the rating system in our evaluation process are carefully standardized to assure reliability and fairness for each applicant. Our firm's findings are based on the aggregate of information collected from the four phases of the evaluation. These phases include standardized test profiles derived from the battery of tests, personal history/background information, clinical interview material and performance on a problem-solving and learning ability test. All test profiles and each phase of the evaluation are reviewed closely and then integrated together to achieve the most accurate and complete picture of the applicant's potential job- related strengths or weaknesses. Beyond standard clinical interpretation of test profiles,we also utilize various actuarial predictions of job performance generated by research on each of the instruments. For the great majority of applicants, we find the piecing together of the parts of the evaluation lends itself to clear-cut and logical final ratings. Occasionally, we do find that an applicant's results are ambiguous or"borderline." In those instances, the applicant's file undergoes a thorough staff review and we may compare our findings with those of the Background Investigator. In some cases, it is useful for the Background Investigator to clarify the report with our office and we are always available to do so. To assure the reliability and quality of every report, the findings of each report are carefully reviewed by a senior psychologist before submission to the agency. To further evaluate ourselves, we periodically compare our rating category percentages with a select group of other national experts in this field. Our ratings have always been found to be very similar to this respected group. Lastly, a thorough multi-year study of our evaluation system conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department found no adverse impact on any protected group. Please be aware, members of our screening team are always interacting and discussing every aspect of the evaluation process on a daily basis. The challenge of rating and predicting human behavior will always remain a daunting task and the assessment psychologist can never let complacency set in. Those who have worked closely with us know how relentless and determined we are in our on-going efforts to get every applicant's assessment"right." REPORT FORMAT Our report format was designed specifically for public safety selection after receiving input from numerous public safety personnel and reviewing ADA guidelines, HIPAA privacy requirements and recent court rulings in this area. Our conclusion is that use of"wordy" narrative reports is very questionable for the purpose of employment testing. Psychologists often"fall in love" with lots of psychological jargon and flowery descriptions of applicants but many times these type LEPCA 27 reports contain superfluous, confusing or irrelevant information and are not practical for the task at hand. As a result, many times a psychologist's screening report can miss the "forest from the trees." Just citing one example, almost all screening psychologists use some type final rating system to categorize applicants. However, some psychologists still do not provide a brief and clear definition differentiating each rating category. Instead, these psychologists assume that the user of the report will automatically define rating categories such as"Acceptable,""Marginal," "Unacceptable" exactly how the psychologist intended. This is often not the case and can cause major misunderstandings, actual misuse of a report or stigmatize certain applicants. With a few clarifying words or sentences describing a rating category, these problems can be avoided. We find that law enforcement users of screening reports want relevant, clear-cut, concise and easy to understand job-related ratings and statements about an applicant. In many cases,the agency also needs reports quickly. These concerns are exactly what our law enforcement screening reports attempt to address. To summarize, we provide all relevant information and final reports within 24 hours of testing in a concise and user-friendly report. We believe our report format is very thorough, but at the same time, easy to use and simplistic in design. Everything contained in our report format has been well thought out and designed for the specific needs of law enforcement agencies. Of course, the applicant's entire file including psychological profiles, raw data and any other supportive information is always available should an administrative or legal challenge ever occur. To further assist the agency, we provide a comprehensive manual that educates the report user on each job-related deficit and assistance in assessing whether the deficit is substantiated by the applicant's personal history and behavior. Without such assistance, we find that users of a psychologist's report will often just look at the overall rating and little else. From reviewing the bid language in this area, we believe our report format provides the requested information in a focused, practical and user-friendly way. RETESTING/APPEAL The issue of whether a formal appeal or immediate retesting should exist for a negative psychological rating has long been a perplexing problem. Over many years, we have participated in various agency approaches to this issue from allowing for a second testing to having an additional psychologist review the findings. However, all these policies were rather quickly discarded due to the myriad of complications and unintended consequences that resulted. Therefore,we suggest the following recommendations for those applicants who receive an "Unacceptable"rating. To our knowledge, the vast majority of agencies utilize our suggestions. Other than for the rare exception,this approach seems to work well and is simple to implement and fair to applicants: 1. Initially, applicants are told by the agency that they are eligible for a re-test after a 6 month or 12 month period (determination at the discretion of agency) from the date of their report. LEPCA 28 2. If an applicant expresses further concerns about his evaluation or asks questions the agency cannot answer, then he or she is referred to our office so we may discuss our g Y � Y findings and provide appropriate feedback.No fee is charged. 3. If an applicant continues to strongly object to the findings, then at the agency's discretion we will provide an in-depth explanation of the findings to an identified official(s) of the agency. Nevertheless, it is advisable to avoid providing the applicant with specific information regarding the evaluation due to test security and integrity. 4. Of course,we always remain available to elaborate and discuss the rationale behind any applicant's rating, should the agency not understand the reason(s) supporting the statements on an applicant's report. Often,we find these reviews are very educational and reassure the agency that there are always solid reasons for an applicant's "Unsuitable" rating. TEST BATTERY Police Officer applicants: Personal History Questionnaire (PHQ), CPI, PAI, STAXI, WPT, Clinical Interview, PSSQ (research) Firefighter applicants: Pre-Offer Phase 1: Personal History Questionnaire Non-Medical (PHQ), CPI, STAXI, WPT, Interview, PSSQ (research) Post-Offer Phase 2: Personal History Questionnaire Medical, PAI, Clinical Interview Dispatch/non-sworn personnel: Personal History Questionnaire (PHQ), PAI, CPI, STAXI, WPT, Clinical Interview Please remember, Clinical Interview for non-sworn personnel is not as exhaustive as it is for sworn/critical public safety positions. Primary Instruments: Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): The PAI is a well-researched and accepted comprehensive instrument, which essentially measures and identifies various diagnosable psychological conditions. The emphasis of the PAI is to rule out diagnosable mental health conditions or behavioral patterns commonly associated with psychopathology or emotional disturbance. The purpose and nature of many test items on this instrument makes it a medical procedure under ADA guidelines and the PAI can only be administered after a"real" conditional offer of employment has been provided to the applicant. In terms of use with the screening of public safety applicants, the instrument is utilized by 100's if not 1,000's of psychologists who conduct these screenings. In recent years, it has particularly gained popularity as a more contemporary instrument vs. the MMPI-2, which has been criticized rightly or wrongly for being outdated. Both these tests serve one of the important"screen-out" functions of pre-employment LEPCA 29 screening, which is to identify and screen-out applicants with propensities towards emotional instability. Of great importance, our firm uses and works closely with Dr. Michael Roberts who has carried out extensive research with the PAI for the screening of public safety applicants. As such,he has produced and we utilize a specialized public safety report that provides specialized and extensive normative data for public safety positions and predictive validity measures of salient traits such as integrity, anger management and other job performance criterion. California Psychological Inventory (CPI): In our judgment and experience,the CPI is the most often used and validated instrument for the selection of public safety applicants. We have administered approximately 50,000 or more CPIs to applicants and conducted various research projects over the years to improve the accuracy of this instrument for predicting job performance. As with the PAI, we utilize Dr. Robert's specialized CPI public safety report, which provides further important job predictions based on longitudinal studies. As an aside, it should be mentioned that Dr. Roberts is considered an elite public safety psychologist and his specialized reports have been critically reviewed and used by the most knowledgeable and experienced screening psychologists across the country. Contrary to the PAI, the CPI measures dimensions of normal behavior such as Dominance, Social Presence, Empathy, Self-Control, Responsibility, Following rules, Conformance to team behavior, Flexibility, etc. As such, this instrument is critical in assessing the essential traits relevant to almost all public safety positions and therefore the CPI is given great weight in our assessments. The purpose and individual items of the CPI do not identify diagnosable psychological conditions and instead measure primarily interpersonal personality functioning. Therefore, under ADA guidelines this instrument qualifies as a non-medical procedure and ideally should be administered before a conditional offer of employment in a bifurcated system of screening. Wonderlic Personnel Test(WPT): The necessity to complete a rigorous training academy, pass a written state exam and apply the knowledge and skills acquired from training in often emergency and unpredictable circumstances requires that a general measure of learning ability is necessary in the screening of public safety applicants. The WPT is particularly suited for employment selection purposes since it was specifically designed for measuring what level of ability is required for specific occupations. The test yields an overall score that is used to describe the level at which an individual learns, understands instructions and solves problems. It provides objective information into how easily applicants can be trained, how well they can adjust and solve problems on the job, and how well satisfied they are likely to be with demands of specific job. The WPT has been extensively validated, researched and is the most widely known and utilized test for job selection purposes. Numerous studies including one by our firm have demonstrated the accuracy and usefulness of this instrument,particularly for predicting an applicant's performance during public safety training. Clinical Interview: Every applicant undergoes a semi-structured interview with a licensed psychologist specifically trained and supervised by our senior staff The interview process clarifies and reviews the applicant's personal and work history, explores or compares test profiles with the applicant's history and interview presentation and asks standardized job- relevant questions similar to an oral interview. The structured interview process and areas of questioning must be strictly maintained by each psychologist to assure consistency and reliability between our staff Interviewers are closely supervised and on a daily basis, our staff reviews • LEPCA 30 cases and makes certain that everyone understands and applies the same reasoning and standards as others. In addition, interviewers only pre are a preliminary report, which is then carefully reviewed by both Dr. Mangan and Dr. Axelberd. Any possible inconsistent findings or opinions whatsoever are identified and reconciled with the interviewing psychologist before a final report is created. Keep in mind,the interview is only part of a comprehensive evaluation process and in our system, ratings are only determined through a carefully laid out and objective decision process. We rely heavily on well-researched and objective predictions of job performance, which greatly limits the possibility that subjective observations or opinions will"muddy"the water. Personal History Questionnaire: Our firm has developed with input from numerous agencies a relevant and comprehensive self-report questionnaire. We have a pre-offer questionnaire(non- medical) and a post-offer(medical) questionnaire. Essentially,the post-offer questionnaire gathers mental health history, details of drug/alcohol usage and other information considered medical in nature,which cannot be obtained pre-offer. For agencies that still have not bifurcated their screening per ADA, we administer one combined background questionnaire that contains non-medical and medical inquiries. Supplementary Instruments: In many cases,these instruments are very valuable in augmenting and clarifying various findings on our primary instruments and procedures. However, they are not"stand alone" instruments and are not used as primary instruments for final rating purposes. State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI): Obviously, self-control and anger management under stressful conditions are important traits and skills that public safety officers must demonstrate on a daily basis in their job. The STAXI is a brief specialty instrument that assesses how an individual experiences and expresses their angry feelings. It identifies the frequency and intensity of one's anger and more importantly provides information on whether the individual can control and/or display their anger in modulated and acceptable ways. This test is commonly utilized by those who need to assess anger management and Dr. Charles Spielberger, the STAXI's author, is a renowned professor and expert in test development. This test has served on numerous occasions in assisting us in better understanding findings on the self-control scales of our primary instruments. The test is utilized nationwide by numerous psychologists conducting public safety evaluations. Research Instruments: This instrument is in research phase and applicants are made aware of this during informed consent. As such, the instrument is not considered during the formal rating process, but may be used to augment an interview through clarification or discussion of applicant's particular answers on specific job-related critical items. Overall, the PSSQ has shown great promise and on-going research has thus far proven its worth and accuracy. Public Safety Screening Questionnaire (PSSQ): This instrument was designed and researched specifically for the screening of public safety applicants. Dr. Axelberd, of our firm. is the author of this instrument and he utilized his 31 years of exclusive experience in law enforcement in LEPCA 31 developing an extremely job-relevant and face valid screening test. He utilized extensive input from those in the public safety community to achieve this goal and all of the PSSQ individual items were reviewed by public safety personnel or in some cases, the items were written by those working as public safety officers. Essentially, this instrument assesses those on-duty as well as off-duty behaviors, attitudes and traits that land so many officers in trouble. For instance, there are scales designed to measure the likelihood of domestic violence or sexual acting-out, which often are reasons for officer misconduct and embarrassment to the agency. Therefore, the PSSQ was an on-going collaboration between Dr. Axelberd, Dr. Mangan and those doing the public safety job the test was designed to measure. The PSSQ has been developed and researched over an approximately six-year period and subjected to numerous refinements based on several rounds of research. Dr. Nick Lim,a university professor who teaches statistical analysis and test construction was retained as an independent consultant to supervise the research design and statistical analyses involved in the PSSQ's development. So far, the test has exceeded our expectations and multiple validation studies yielded very positive results. CONFORMANCE TO STANDARDS: There is no one governing body, organization or authority that officially regulates or defines pre-employment screening of public safety applicants. Nevertheless, there are certain respected organizations, associations and individuals who have developed guidelines for this testing, which act as generally accepted standards within the public safety community. In our professional opinion, the following entities are generally accepted as setting the guidelines and standards in this area: International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), California POST Commission, Consortium of Police Psychological Services (COPPS), Michael Roberts, Ph.D., David Corey, Ph.D. and Mark Axelberd, Ph.D. Our firm complies or exceeds all of the above guidelines set forth by the above authorities. Our firm, in particular Dr. Axelberd, assisted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) in the early `80's when they strongly recommended that psychological screening is an important of public safety applicant screening. Dr. Axelberd wrote the initial guidelines for this screening on behalf of FDLE and introduced the screening process throughout the state of Florida. In addition, in the early 1990's he assisted with the initial national screening guidelines as part of his association with COPPS. Dr. Brian Mangan is an active member of the IACP Police Psychological Services Section(PPSS), currently serving as the 2014 Conference Vice-Chair on the Education Committee and as a member of the Ethics Consultation Committee, as well as previously serving as a member of the revision committees for the Officer Involved Shooting Guidelines (2013) and Psychological Fitness for Duty Guidelines (2013). Additionally, he is an active member with the American Psychological Association's Division 18: Psychologists in Public Service- Police & Public Safety Section. As stated above, the IACP PPSS developed the current guidelines for Pre-Employment Psychological Screening. To this day, our firm continues to often act as the model screening system and advisor to numerous psychologists and public safety agencies on a local, national and even international basis. In conclusion, we never rest on our laurels and those who know us realize how hard we continue to work to provide the highest quality of screenings. LEPCA 32 PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION (FFDE) The following is LEPCA's position on the proper process when conducting a Fitness for Duty Evaluation(FFDE.) This protects all involved in the evaluation. As such, LEPCA considers this the appropriate and necessary preliminary steps prior to the psychologist actually conducting an FFDE: 1. An official(s) of the Agency must objectively document incidents,behavior, activities, etc.,which raise legitimate concerns about an officer's psychological state of mind to perform the full duties of the stated job description in a safe and competent manner. 2. An appropriate Police & Public Safety Psychologist should be contacted to perform the evaluation. The City and psychologist should discuss and agree on the purpose and nature of the evaluation, the referral question(s)to be addressed, report format and intended future use of the report. The designated official of the Agency or HRS who will receive the report should be identified. 3. An appropriate signed Administrative Order from the Chief of Police should be presented to the officer requiring him/her to undergo the FFDE. Among other things,the order should briefly describe the reason for the evaluation,the limits of confidentiality and that a written report of findings concerning his/her psychological ability to perform their job duties will be provided to the City.The Orderr should also require the officer to cooperate with the psychologist's requests, while undergoing the evaluation. The Order should then be signed by ps Y b q the officer verifying receipt of the Order. If the officer refuses to sign the Order or insists that the evaluation is not warranted or illegal,then those issues should be dealt with based on agency policy and/or input from a legal advisor. 4. Assuming the officer signs and cooperates with the Order, an appointment date for the evaluation is made. Before the date of the evaluation, the psychologist should then be sent all relevant past and current information and documents that may relate to the officer's psychological fitness and job performance, i.e. performance evaluations, incident reports leading to the evaluation, past disciplinary actions, commendations and any other potential relevant background information. After review of this information, the psychologist can then proceed with conducting the FFDE. An additional,resource for these procedures is the International Association of Chiefs of Police Psychological Services Section Psychological Fitness for Duty Guidelines, 2014. A Fitness for Duty Evaluation(FFDE)is an extensive psychological assessment that typically includes information gathered from personal, treatment and employment history, multiple standardized test instruments and face-to-face interview(s) with the examinee. The FFDE exam differs somewhat from a Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation (PEPE) in that a PEPE mostly concerns itself with determining whether a job applicant is a"good fit" for a job position. In other words, among a pool of job candidates the PEPE assists the agency in identifying the most competitive and well qualified individuals for final hire. �. LEPCA 33 In contrast, a FFDE is an evaluation of an incumbent officer's current mental and psychological functioning when documented information/incidents raise serious questions as to the officer's ability to carry out his/her job duties in a competent and safe manner. The task of the psychologist is to specifically determine whether an actual mental health or psychological condition exists, which renders him/her currently "Unfit"to perform their job duties. Therefore, a FFDE looks for the existence of a diagnosable psychological condition to assess fitness vs.the PEPE, which primarily measures increments of job suitability personality traits and characteristics. As a result, the psychological threshold for stating an incumbent officer is "unfit" can often involve diagnosing the officer with a psychological condition covered under ADA guidelines. If this is the case, then the officer is entitled to the various employee protections under this law. Back to work plans and reasonable job accommodations will usually come into play at this point, as considered by the agency. CRITICAL INCIDENT STRESS DEBRIEFING (CISD) A Critical Incident Stress Debriefing (CISD) is a specialized counseling/educational session utilized with Public Safety Officers who have experienced an unusual, abnormal or potentially traumatic job-related event. Typically, officers are most often referred for this service after discharging their firearm in the performance of their duties. However, any event viewed as possibly traumatic by a supervisor or the affected officer may warrant referral. For example, an officer responding to the scene of a murdered child can have serious emotional repercussions for particular officers. In many medium to large sized agencies, the CISD program is often a part of a comprehensive EAP services. The majority of officers responding to abnormal or traumatic events only require 1-2 sessions to resolve or deal with their emotional reactions. For these officers, the CISD is more of an educational and preventative session vs. an in-depth therapeutic intervention. Nevertheless, for a minority of officers the referral event can trigger more severe and long lasting emotional reactions and can even develop into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Lastly but of importance, unless an officer displays what would be considered very unusual or disturbing behavior before, during or after a critical event then an officer is typically presumed to be fit for duty. In other words, responding to potentially critical incidents is part of an officer's routine job description and should not ordinarily trigger serious concerns about an officer's emotional fitness. Per the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) guidelines for Officer Involved Shootings (2013), the following are the recommended practical considerations in an agency's creation of an effective policy for a CISD: 1. A CISD is conducted for the benefit of the Officer and is NEVER to be confused with a formal Fitness for Duty Evaluation (FFDE): or to be used as part of any administrative or LEPCA 34 criminal investigation into the critical event itself. The client of record for the CISD is the individual officer. In contrast, in a FFDE referral the agency is the client of record and a formal evaluation is conducted that includes extensive standardized testing, review of ancillary background materials and a comprehensive written report of findings is provided to the agency. 2. To avoid the fear of stigmatizing any individual officer, all officers exposed to a critical incident should be mandated to attend an initial CISD session. It should be the shift Commander's or the officer's immediate supervisor's responsibility to verify that a referral has been made. 3. Except as an emergency might dictate, CISD sessions are to take place at the psychological consultant's private office. This provides a private setting for more open dialogue by clearly separating the CISD from other administrative or investigative processes. Whenever possible, the CISD should occur within 24-72.hours after the event. Many agencies will remove the officer(s) from their usual duties, at least until the CISD is concluded. 4. A CISD should be considered a confidential professional service and other than verifying an officer's attendance when requested, the consultant will not provide further information to anyone except as specified below. 5. If during a CISD it becomes apparent to the psychologist that the officer is experiencing acute or incapacitating symptoms,then the psychologist will explain to the officer the need for temporary removal from their usual job duties and the necessity for further treatment. The psychologist typically with the officer present will then immediately contact by phone a designated agency Commander to inform them of the situation. The psychologist will discuss and coordinate with the Commander the specific actions that are being recommended before release of the officer back to full duty. As previously stated, for the great majority of officers, the CISD is more of a required educational and psychological debriefing session and removal of officers from their routine job duties is very much the exception vs. the rule. 6. As previously stated, a CISD is a very different service from a Fitness for Duty Evaluation(FFDE). A CISD is confidential and conducted for the benefit of the officer. A FFDE is not confidential and is performed on behalf of the agency to address specific documented issues of officer fitness. Occasionally, an agency may require an officer to undergo a FFDE in addition to the required CISD. For example, assume an officer has experienced one or more recent critical incidents in addition to the current one and is known to be going through a difficult and upsetting divorce. As a result, the agency may determine a formal FFDE is justified and necessary in that circumstance in addition to the CISD. In this situation, the FFDE should be performed by a different psychologist than the one who conducted the CISD. LEPCA 35 PRACTICALITIES OF SCREENING SERVICE It is the intent of Law Enforcement Psychological & Counseling Associates, Inc to provide the City of Miami Beach with state of the art psychological services including pre-employment psychological screenings, critical incident debriefings, and fitness for duty evaluations. Our entire office and screening system has been designed to meet the needs of our Public Safety Agency clients. Any,agency that uses our services knows the effort we make to accommodate the sometimes unique needs of our law enforcement clients. For example,we developed a comprehensive website that allows agencies to independently schedule applicants at any time up to the morning of testing and download final applicant reports 24-hours from completion of testing. We also have an "applicant's section"on our website, which provides helpful preliminary information to applicants who are about to undergo the evaluation. We welcome any potential user of our services to look over the website located at: www.lepca.com • Testing is conducted at our centrally located office at 9960 NW 116 Way, Suite 12, Miami, 33178. In order to provide a more convenient office location for the many public safety applicants living in the tri-county area, we believe that we found an excellent location close to three major roadways and near the Miami-Dade/Broward County line. This office is conveniently located within a mile from the Florida Turnpike, Palmetto Expressway, and Interstate 75. There is ample free parking for applicants. Our office facility is approximately 3,200 sq. R. and is specifically designed for screening and other public safety services. We have a very large testing room with private individual test booths for each applicant. We do provide off-site screening and travel upon request but ask for adequate advance notice. • Testing is conducted Monday-Friday beginning at 9:30 a.m. We can accommodate up to 15 applicants per day or 75 per week. On special request, we can run early and late afternoon testing sessions. • For convenience, an agency can schedule their applicants on our website without contacting our office right up to the morning of testing. To date, we are not aware of any agency unable to schedule an applicant on the date desired. • The typical applicant takes 4-6 hours to complete the evaluation but there is no time limit. • All personality instruments are immediately scored in our office as each applicant finishes their individual tests. • Concise and job-related final written reports and a related background questionnaire are generated on each applicant and posted for review and/or downloading on our website within 24 hours of completion of testing. However, verbal feedback or a final report can be provided within a few hours of testing on special request. • To assist users of our final report, a Report Interpretation Manual is available, which further elaborates on an applicant's deficits and helps guide the background investigator or others in the use of our report. This manual is maintained on our website for easy viewing. • Our firm is extremely familiar with and conforms to guidelines contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and EEOC. No legal complaint or litigation alleging discrimination has ever been filed against our firm. • Our screening system meets or exceeds all the recommendations and guidelines of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. CALEA, Consortium of Police Psychological Services,National Institute of Justice and the California Post Commission. • No legal challenge of a formal or informal nature has ever been sustained against our fine. EXHIBIT " B" FEES The following are cost associated with the services to be provided by Consultant: Part I: A. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Sworn Personnel and B. Pre- Employment Psychological Services for Firefighters and Fire Rescue Personnel. Miami-Beach Police Department: Sworn Employees: Rate $265.00 per candidate Civilian Employees: Rate $200.00 per candidate Miami Beach Fire Rescue Department: Phase I: Firefighters: Rate $220.00 per candidate Fire Dispatchers: Rate $155.00 per candidate Phase II: Firefighters: Rate $45.00 per candidate Fire Dispatchers: Rate $45.00 per candidate Part III — Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel. Proposers must provide a cost on a per individual basis to provide all required services. Proposers shall additionally provide in detail any and all costs associated to defend and/or represent the City in any legal proceedings on a per individual basis if the finding/recommendation of the Successful Proposer is contested by an applicant(s). These costs, if applicable, shall be itemized in detail. Further, any additional services and their associated costs not addressed in Part C of the Scope of Services but which may be requested or required of the City shall also be detailed in your proposal. Cost per Individual: $200.00 Cost related to legal proceedings: $300.00 Part IV— Fitness for Duty Evaluation. Proposers shall provide a fix price per evaluation. Cost per Individual: $2,500 10 r RFP NO . 2014-015-LR AND ADDENDUMS SIM amica O M▪=MiNINIIMIIIMENIMINIM. _ 4 1 City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4075 ADDENDUM NO. 6 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES (the RFP) September 30, 2014 This Addendum to the above-referenced RFP is issued in response to questions from prospective proposers, or other clarifications and revisions issued by the City. The RFP is amended in the following particulars only. 1. REVISIONS: A. Deadline for the receipt of proposals is hereby changed to Wednesday, October 15, 2014 at 3:00 pm. B. Part II — Psychological Services for Employees has been removed from the required Scope of Work, and is no longer to be considered in your proposal submittal. C. Appendix E — Cost Proposal Form has been amended. PROPOSERS ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WITH THEIR BID THE AMENDED APPENDIX E — COST PROPOSAL FORM IN ORDER TO BE DEEMED RESPONSIVE. D. Effective Wednesday, September 10, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission have approved an ordinance repealing Section 2-372 of Division 3, Article VI, of Chapter 2 of the Miami Beach City Code titled "Procedure to provide preference to Miami Beach based vendors in contracts for goods and contractual services". Due to this change, the Miami Beach-based vendor preference specified in the solicitation has been deleted in its entirety and is no longer applicable. 2. RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS RECEIVED: Q1. As discussed during pre-conference, Prospective Proposer recommended that the City separates the Testing/Assessment/Debriefing service from the Employee Assistance Program or Psychological Services for Employees (Part 2). Additionally, the City may consider separating the Critical Incident Debriefing portion of Part 2 (Post Traumatic Incident counseling) into a separate intervention category. Historically, Prospective Proposer's firm has provided the pre-employment screenings, Critical Incident Debriefings, and Fitness for Duty evaluations. This is standard for nearly all agencies. The EAP service is separate. Al. The City concurs and has removed Part II — Psychological Services for Employees as a required service in this RFP. Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement Management Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office at RafaelGranado@miamibeachfl.gov Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305-673-7000 ext. 6652 LourdesRodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov P y%. are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. • f Al-x D� s Procure ent Director APPENDIX E "REVISED" PROPOSAL TENDER FORM Failure to submitsection S,cBid Price Form,_in is entirety and fully executed by the deadline established for the recei t fP.r o osals.wilresultin ProposaLbeing deemed non-resP onsive.and.bein rejected. - Bidder affirms that the prices stated on the proposal price form below represents the entire cost of the items in full accordance with the requirements of this ITB, inclusive of its terms, conditions, specifications and other requirements stated herein, and that no claim will be made on account of any increase in wage scales, material prices, delivery delays, taxes, insurance, cost indexes or any other unless a cost escalation provision is allowed herein and has been exercised by the City Manager in advance. The Bid Price Form (Section 5) shall be completed mechanically or, if manually, in ink. Bid Price Forms (Section 5) completed in pencil shall be deemed non-responsive. All corrections on the Bid Price Form (Section 5) shall be initialed. Part I: A. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Sworn Personnel and B. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Firefighters and Fire Rescue Personnel. Miami-Beach Police Department: Sworn Employees: Rate$ x 100=$ Civilian Employees: Rate$ x 25=$ Miami Beach Fire Rescue Department: Phase I: Firefighters: Rate$ x 150=$ Fire Dispatchers: Rate$ x 20=$ Phase II: Firefighters: Rate$ x 150=$ Fire Dispatchers: Rate$ x 20=$ Part Ill — Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel. Proposers must provide a cost on a per individual basis to provide all required services. Proposers shall additionally provide in detail any and all costs associated to defend and/or represent the City in any legal proceedings on a per individual basis if the finding/recommendation of the Successful Proposer is contested by an applicant(s). These costs, if applicable, shall be itemized in detail. Further, any additional services and their associated costs not addressed in Part C of the Scope of Services but which may be requested or required of the City shall also be detailed in your proposal. Cost per Individual:$ x 50=$ Cost related to legal proceedings: $ x 6=$ � 1 Part IV—Fitness for Duty Evaluation. Proposers shall provide a fix price per evaluation. Cost per Individual:$ x 12=$ GRAND TOTAL FOR PARTS I,III and IV: $ Bidder's Affirmation s_ — — — T Company: Authorized Representative: Address: Telephone: Email: Authorized Representative's Signature: PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT IAM 1 BEACH 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 331 39 305-673-7490 TO: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager VIA: Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manage 4I 0 FROM: Alex Denis, Procurement Director DATE: September 19, 2014 SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO RFP 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR CITY EMPLOYEES The scope of services, which were incorporated in the above referenced RFP approved by the City Commission, included a requirement for the selected respondent to provide post-employment psychological services to City employees. The departments (HR, Fire & Police) have determined that prospective proposer(s), pursuant to the RFP, do not need to provide the post-employment psychological services because these services are already provided by the City's Employee Assistance Program (EAP) provider. The attached addendum intends to remove post-employment psychological services portion of the scope from the RFP. Please advise if this addendum is to be communicated to the City Commission via an LTC. Yes, prepare an LTC to communicate Addendum to the City Commission prior to its release. No proceed wit issuance of Addendum without preparing an LTC. IL Jimmy . Morale., City Manager V% Si g- /KGB/SCT/h i Procurement Department DATE: 09/15/2014 TO: Jimmy Morales FROM:: Lourdes Rodriguez SUBJECT: Addendum to RFP 2014-015-LR for Psychological Services for City Employees Routing Alex Denis Reviewed Chief Oates Chief of Police Department Chief Fernandez Chief of Fire Department Sylvia Crespo-Tabak Human Resources Direct. ; Kathie Brooks Assistant City Manager %r Mark Taxis t Assistant City Manager For: (check the one that applies) Information Only Review and Lets Discuss xx City Manager's Signature Other Signature I A.4 Other tjiv'&r l Ir1 1/4;�YiC ."2 frArtf F t Comments: U Return to: . Lourdes Rodriguez,ext 7490 1 r°` CD Date Needed: As Soon As Possible \� s • Procurement Department { DATE: 09/15/2014 TO: Jimmy Morales FROM:: Lourdes Rodriguez SUBJECT: Addendum to RFP 2014-015-LR for Psychological Services for City Employees Routing Alex Denis Reviewed Chief Oates Chief of Police Department Chief Fernand Chief of Fire Department Sylvia Cresp Tabak Human Resources Director Kathie Brooks Assistant City Manager Mark Taxis _ Assistant City Manager For: (check the one that applies) Information Only Review and Lets Discuss _ xx City Manager's Signature Other Signature Other Comments: -- =_ `er • e r=` Return to: Lourdes Rodriguez,ext 7490 Date Needed:. As Soon As Possible 3 _ P M !AMIBEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4075 ADDENDUM NO. 5 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES (the RFP) September 16, 2014 This Addendum to the above-referenced RFP is issued in response to questions from prospective proposers, or other clarifications and revisions issued by the City. The RFP is amended in the following particulars only. 1. REVISIONS: A. Deadline for the receipt of proposals is hereby changed to Thursday, October 2, 2014 at 3:00 pm. B. Effective Wednesday, September 10, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission have approved an ordinance repealing Section 2-372 of Division 3, Article VI, of Chapter 2 of the Miami Beach City Code titled "Procedure to provide preference to Miami Beach based vendors in contracts for goods and contractual services". Due to this change, the Miami Beach-based vendor preference specified in the solicitation has been deleted in its entirety and is no longer applicable. Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement Management Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office at RafaelGranado@miamibeachfl.gov Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305-673-7000 ext. 6652 LourdesRodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. :.� . • lex De K7.1 "rocurement Director • M IAN\I BEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4075 ADDENDUM NO. 4 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL(RFP) NO. 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES (the RFP) September 8, 2014 This Addendum to the above-referenced RFP is issued in response to questions from prospective proposers, or other clarifications and revisions issued by the City. The RFP is amended in the following particulars only. 1. REVISION: Deadline for the receipt of proposals is hereby changed to September 18, 2014 at 3:00 pm. Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement Management Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office at RafaelGranado@miamibeachfl.gov Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305-673-7000 ext. 6652 LourdesRodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. 16/11ncereli (di GA4 e n is 'ro urement Director -•4:4'_ IAMI BE City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4075 ADDENDUM NO. 3 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES (the RFP) August 21, 2014 This Addendum to the above-referenced RFP is issued in response to questions from prospective proposers, or other clarifications and revisions issued by the City. The RFP is amended in the following particulars only. 1. REVISION: Deadline for the receipt of proposals is hereby changed to September 11, 2014 at 3:00 pm. Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement Management Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office at RafaelGranado@miamibeachfl.gov Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305-673-7000 ext. 6652 LourdesRodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. of Denis off 'rocurement Director • MIAMIBEACH City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4075 • ADDENDUM NO. 2 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL(RFP) NO. 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES (the RFP) August 21, 2014 This Addendum to the above-referenced RFP is issued in response to questions from prospective proposers, or other clarifications and revisions issued by the City. The RFP is amended in the following particulars only. 1. REVISION: Deadline for the receipt of proposals is hereby changed to September 4, 2014 at 3:00 pm. Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement Management Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office at RafaelGranado @miamibeachfl.gov Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305-673-7000 ext. 6652 LourdesRodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. eXD i Procurement Director I i• I t MIAMIBEACH.. City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4075 ADDENDUM NO. 1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) NO. 2014-015-LR FOR PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES (the RFP) August 14, 2014 This Addendum to the above-referenced RFP is issued in response to questions from prospective proposers, or other clarifications and revisions issued by the City. The RFP is amended in the following particulars only. 1. REVISION: Deadline for the receipt of proposals is hereby changed to August 26, 2014 at 3:00 pm. Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement Management Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office at RafaelGranado @miamibeachfl.gov Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305-673-7000 ext. 6652 LourdesRodriguez @ miamibeachfl.gov Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your RFP submission. iiih Air, 71, , dor �L Denis -:-Ap. Procurement Director REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ( REP PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES 2014-015-LR RFP ISSUANCE DATE: JULY 24, 2014 PROPOSALS DUE: AUGUST 19, 2014 @ 3:00 PM ISSUED BY: LOURDES RODRIGUEZ, CPPB MIAMIBEACH LOURDES RODRIGUEZ, SENIOR PROCUREMENT SPECIALIST PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139 305.673.7000 X6652 Fax: 786.394.4075 I www.miamibeachfl.gov CI MIAMI BEACH TABLE OF CONTENTS SOLICITATION SECTIONS: PAGE 0100 NOT UTILIZED N/A 0200 INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS & GENERAL CONDITIONS 3 0300 SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS & FORMAT 10 0400 PROPOSAL EVALUATION 12 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A PROPOSAL CERTIFICATON, QUESTIONNAIRE AND AFFIDAVITS APPENDIX B "NO PROPOSAL" FORM APPENDIX C MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS & SPECIFICATIONS APPENDIX D SPECIAL CONDITIONS APPENDIX E COST PROPOSAL FORM APPENDIX F INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS REP 2014-015-LR 2 ` MIAMI BEACH SECTION 0200 INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS & GENERAL CONDITIONS 1. GENERAL. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued by the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the "City"), as the means for prospective Proposers to submit their qualifications, proposed scopes of work and cost proposals (the "proposal") to the City for the City's consideration as an option in achieving the required scope of services and requirements as noted herein. All documents released in connection with this solicitation, including all appendixes and addenda, whether included herein or released under separate cover, comprise the solicitation, and are complementary to one another and together establish the complete terms, conditions and obligations of the Proposers and, subsequently, the successful Proposer(s) (the "contractor[s]") if this RFP results in an award. The City utilizes PublicPurchase (www.publicpurchase.com) for automatic notification of competitive solicitation opportunities and document fulfillment, including the issuance of any addendum to this RFP. Any prospective Proposer who has received this RFP by any means other than through PublicPurchase must register immediately with PublicPurchase to assure it receives any addendum issued to this RFP. Failure to receive an addendum may result in disqualification of proposal submitted. 2. PURPOSE. The City of Miami Beach is contracting the professional services of an experienced and qualified firm to conduct valid, reliable and cross-cultural testing of police officer, police public service aide, detention officer, communications operator, police dispatcher, police complaint officer, firefighters and fire rescue dispatcher applicants at the Contractor's facility located in Miami-Dade County. The testing is required by the City as part of a thorough background investigation of applicants. The purpose of these services is to evaluate whether said applicants are acceptable candidates. Additionally, psychological testing may include fitness-for-duty evaluations for City personnel, on an as needed basis. 3. SOLICITATION TIMETABLE. The tentative schedule for this solicitation is as follows: RFP Issued JULY 24, 2014 Pre-Proposal Meeting AUGUST 5, 2014 at 10 a.m. Deadline for Receipt of Questions AUGUST 12, 2014 Responses Due AUGUST 19, 2014 Evaluation Committee Review TBD Proposer Presentations TBD Tentative Commission Approval Authorizing October 2014 Negotiations Contract Negotiations Following Commission Approval 4. PROCUREMENT CONTACT. Any questions or clarifications concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the Procurement Contact named herein, in writing, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office, Rafael E. Granado via e-mail: RafaelGranadomiamibeachfl.qov ; or facsimile: 786-394-4188. The Bid title/number shall be referenced on all correspondence. All questions or requests for clarification must be received no later than seven (7) calendar days prior to the date proposals are due as scheduled in Section 0200-3. All responses to questions/clarifications will be sent to all prospective Proposers in the form of an addendum. Procurement Contact: Telephone: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305.673.7000 x6652 lourdesrodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov .•Y'mT•.Y:Sar'lnY.KN'lnv:s.ia.iy:W i%+J.[,'k u.r-».ai3H.c: WH::L:.C.G`Taw"fT.'ua%a4G'»--?..ti r5>%:t4.'l..J'.anr:S::.d ..:bv..3.....Y..a.).W.:'"ki-4W5"•i+N. RFP 2014-015-LR 3 / Y'tIt M I BEACH 5. PRE-PROPOSAL MEETING OR SITE VISIT(S). Only if deemed necessary by the City, a pre-proposal meeting or site visit(s) may be scheduled. A Pre-Proposal conference will be held as scheduled in Solicitation Timeline above at the following address: City of Miami Beach City Hall -4th Floor City Manager's Small 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-Proposal Submission Meeting via telephone must follow these steps: (1) Dial the TELEPHONE NUMBER: 1- 888-270-9936 (Toll-free North America) (2) Enter the MEETING NUMBER: 1142644 Proposers who are interested in participating via telephone should send an e-mail to the contact person listed in this RFP expressing their intent to participate via telephone. 6. PRE-PROPOSAL INTERPRETATIONS. Oral information or responses to questions received by prospective Proposers are not binding on the City and will be without legal effect, including any information received at pre- submittal meeting or site visit(s). Only questions answered by written addenda will be binding and may supersede terms noted in this solicitation. Addendum will be released through PublicPurchase. 7. CONE OF SILENCE. Pursuant to Section 2-486 of the City Code, all procurement solicitations once advertised and until an award recommendation has been forwarded to the City Commission by the City Manager are under the "Cone of Silence." The Cone of Silence ordinance is available at http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientlD=13097&statelD=9&statename=Florida. Any communication or inquiry in reference to this solicitation with any City employee or City official is strictly prohibited with the of exception of communications with the Procurement Director, or his/her administrative staff responsible for administering the procurement process for this solicitation providing said communication is limited to matters of process or procedure regarding the solicitation. Communications regarding this solicitation are to be submitted in writing to the Procurement Contact named herein with a copy to the City Clerk at RafaelGranado @miamibeachfl.gov. 8. SPECIAL NOTICES. You are hereby advised that this solicitation is subject to the following ordinances/resolutions, which may be found on the City Of Miami Beach website: http://web.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/scroll.aspx?id=23510 • CONE OF SILENCE........... CITY CODE SECTION 2-486 • PROTEST PROCEDURES CITY CODE SECTION 2-371 • DEBARMENT PROCEEDINGS.... CITY CODE SECTIONS 2-397 THROUGH 2-485.3 • LOBBYIST REGISTRATION AND DISCLOSURE OF FEES CITY CODE SECTIONS 2-481 THROUGH 2-406 • CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY VENDORS CITY CODE SECTION 2-487 • CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOBBYISTS ON PROCUREMENT ISSUES CITY CODE SECTION 2-488 • REQUIREMENT FOR CITY CONTRACTORS TO PROVIDE EQUAL BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS CITY CODE SECTION 2-373 • LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT... CITY CODE SECTIONS 2-407 THROUGH 2-410 • LOCAL PREFERENCE FOR MIAMI BEACH-BASED VENDORS......... CITY CODE SECTION 2-372 RFP 2014-01 S-LR r MIAMI BEACH • PREFERENCE FOR FLORIDA SMALL BUSINESSES OWNED AND CONTROLLED BY VETERANS AND TO STATE-CERTIFIED SERVICE- DISABLED VETERAN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES CITY CODE SECTION 2-374 • FALSE CLAIMS ORDINANCE ... CITY CODE SECTION 70-300 • ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS,FAVORS&SERVICES.............................. CITY CODE SECTION 2-449 9. POSTPONEMENT OF DUE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. The City reserves the right to postpone the deadline for submittal of proposals and will make a reasonable effort to give at least three (3) calendar days written notice of any such postponement to all prospective Proposers through PublicPurchase. 10. PROTESTS. Protests concerning the specifications, requirements, and/or terms; or protests after the proposal due date in accordance with City Code Section 2-371, which establishes procedures for protested proposals and proposed awards. Protests not submitted in a timely manner pursuant to the requirements of City Code Section 2- 371 shall be barred. 11. MIAMI BEACH-BASED VENDORS PREFERENCE. Pursuant to City of Miami Beach Ordinance No. 2011-3747, a five (5) point preference will be given to a responsive and responsible Miami Beach-based Proposer. 12. VETERAN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES PREFERENCE. Pursuant to City of Miami Beach Ordinance No. 2011- 3748, the City shall give a five (5) point preference to a responsive and responsible Proposer which is a small business concern owned and controlled by a veteran(s) or which is a service-disabled veteran business enterprise. 13. DETERMINATION OF AWARD. The final ranking results of Step 1 & 2 outlined in Section V, Evaluation of Proposals, will be considered by the City Manager who may recommend to the City Commission the Proposer(s) he/she deems to be in the best interest of the City or may recommend rejection of all proposals. The City Manager's recommendation need not be consistent with the scoring results identified herein and takes into consideration Miami Beach City Code Section 2-369, including the following considerations: (1) The ability, capacity and skill of the Proposer to perform the contract. (2) Whether the Proposer can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or interference. (3) The character, integrity, reputation,judgment, experience and efficiency of the Proposer. (4) The quality of performance of previous contracts. (5) The previous and existing compliance by the Proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the contract. The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation and may approve such recommendation. The City Commission may also, at its option, reject the City Manager's recommendation and select another Proposal or Proposals which it deems to be in the best interest of the City, or it may also reject all Proposals. Upon approval of selection by the City Commission, negotiations between the City and the selected Proposer(s) will take place to arrive at a mutually acceptable Agreement. 14. ACCEPTANCE OR REJECTION OF PROPOSALS. The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals prior to award. Reasonable efforts will be made to either award the Contract or reject all proposals within one- hundred twenty (120) calendar days after proposals opening date. A Proposer may not withdraw its proposals unilaterally before the expiration of one hundred and twenty (120) calendar days from the date of proposals opening. 15. PROPOSER'S RESPONSIBILITY. Before submitting a Proposal, each Proposer shall be solely responsible for making any and all investigations, evaluations, and examinations, as it deems 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 evaluations, investigations, and examinations, will not relieve the Proposer from any RFP 2014-015-LR � iffj ARIA Y� BEACH obligation to comply with every detail and with all provisions and requirements of the contract, and will not be accepted as a basis for any subsequent claim whatsoever for any monetary consideration on the part of the Proposer. 16. COSTS INCURRED BY PROPOSERS. All expenses involved with the preparation and submission of Proposals, or any work performed in connection therewith, shall be the sole responsibility (and shall be at the sole cost and expense) of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed by the City. 17. 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, and/or contractors, shall, under any circumstances, be considered employees or agents of the City. 18. TAXES. The City of Miami Beach is exempt from all Federal Excise and State taxes. 19. MISTAKES. Proposers are expected to examine the terms, conditions, specifications, delivery schedules, proposed pricing, and all instructions pertaining to the goods and services relative to this RFP. Failure to do so will be at the Proposer's risk and may result in the Proposal being non-responsive. 20. PAYMENT. Payment will be made by the City after the goods or services have been received, inspected, and found to comply with contract, specifications, free of damage or defect, and are properly invoiced. Invoices must be consistent with Purchase Order format. 21. PATENTS & ROYALTIES. Proposer shall indemnify and save harmless the City of Miami Beach, Florida, and its officers, employees, contractors, a n d/o r age n ts, fr om liability of any nature or kind, including cost and expenses for, or on account of, any copyrighted, patented, or unpatented invention, process, or article manufactured or used in the performance of the contract, including its use by the City of Miami Beach, Florida. If the Proposer uses any design, device or materials covered by letters, patent, or copyright, it is mutually understood and agreed, without exception, that the proposal prices shall include all royalties or cost arising from the use of such design, device, or materials in any way involved in the work. 22. MANNER OF PERFORMANCE. Proposer agrees to perform its duties and obligations in a professional manner and in accordance with all applicable Local, State, County, and Federal laws, rules, regulations and codes. Lack of knowledge or ignorance by the Proposer with/of applicable laws will in no way be a cause for relief from responsibility. Proposer agrees that the services provided shall be provided by employees that are educated, trained, experienced, certified, and licensed in all areas encompassed within their designated duties. Proposer agrees to furnish to the City any and all documentation, certification, authorization, license, permit, or registration currently required by applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Proposer further certifies that it and its employees will keep all licenses, permits, registrations, authorizations, or certifications required by applicable laws or regulations in full force and effect during the term of this contract. Failure of Proposer to comply with this paragraph shall constitute a material breach of this contract. Where contractor is required to enter or go on to City of Miami Beach property to deliver materials or perform work or services as'a result of any contract resulting from this solicitation, the contractor will assume the full duty, obligation and expense of obtaining all necessary licenses, permits, and insurance, and assure all work complies with all applicable laws. The contractor shall be liable for any damages or loss to the City occasioned by negligence of the Proposer, or its officers, employees, contractors, and/or agents, for failure to comply with applicable laws. 23. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Terms and RFP 2014-01 S-LR V\ i AM BEACH Conditions shall have precedence. 24. ANTI-DISCRIMINATION. The Proposer certifies that he/she is in compliance with the non-discrimination clause contained in Section 202, Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, relative to equal employment opportunity for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. 25. DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCY. A. Pre-award inspection of the Proposer's facility may be made prior to the award of contract. B. Proposals will only be considered from firms which are regularly engaged in the business of providing the goods and/or services as described in this solicitation. C. Proposers must be able to demonstrate a good record of performance for a reasonable period of time, and have sufficient financial capacity, equipment, and organization to ensure that they can satisfactorily perform the services if awarded a contract under the terms and conditions of this solicitation. D. The terms "equipment and organization", as used herein shall, be construed to mean a fully equipped and well established company in line with the best business practices in the industry, and as determined by the City of Miami Beach. E. The City may consider any evidence available regarding the financial, technical, and other qualifications and abilities of a Proposer, including past performance (experience), in making an award that is in the best interest of the City. F. The City may require Proposers to show proof that they have been designated as authorized representatives of a manufacturer or supplier, which is the actual source of supply. In these instances, the City may also require material information from the source of supply regarding the quality, packaging, and characteristics of the products to be supplied to the City. 26. ASSIGNMENT. The successful Proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey, sublet or otherwise dispose of the contract, including any or all of its right, title or interest therein, or his/her or its power to execute such contract, to any person, company or corporation, without the prior written consent of the City. 27. LAWS, PERMITS AND REGULATIONS. The Proposer shall obtain and pay for all licenses, permits, and inspection fees required to complete the work and shall comply with all applicable laws. 28. OPTIONAL CONTRACT USAGE. When the successful Proposer (s) is in agreement, other units of government or non-profit agencies may participate in purchases pursuant to the award of this contract at the option of the unit of government or non-profit agency. 29. VOLUME OF WORK TO BE RECEIVED BY CONTRACTOR. It is the intent of the City to purchase the goods and services specifically listed in this solicitation from the contractor. However, the City reserves the right to purchase any goods or services awarded from state or other governmental contract, or on an as-needed basis through the City's spot market purchase provisions. 30. DISPUTES. In the event of a conflict between the documents, the order of priority of the documents shall be as follows: A. Any contract or agreement resulting from the award of this solicitation; then B. Addendum issued for this solicitation, with the latest Addendum taking precedence; then C. The solicitation; then D. The Proposer's proposal in response to the solicitation. RFP 2014-015-LR gl AA IAA/\I BEAC 31. INDEMNIFICATION. The contractor shall indemnify and hold harmless the City and its officers, employees, agents and instrumentalities from any and all liability, losses or damages, including attorney's fees and costs of defense, which the City or its officers, employees, agents or instrumentalities may incur as a result of claims, demands, suits, causes of actions or proceedings of any kind or nature arising out of, relating to or resulting from the performance of the agreement by the contractor or its employees, agents, servants, partners, principals or subcontractors. The contractor shall pay all claims and losses in connection therewith, and shall investigate and defend all claims, suits or actions of any kind or nature in the name of the City, where applicable, including appellate proceedings, and shall pay all costs, judgments, and attorney's fees which may be incurred thereon. The contractor expressly understands and agrees that any insurance protection required by this Agreement or otherwise provided by the contractor shall in no way limit the responsibility to indemnify, keep and save harmless and defend the City or its officers, employees, agents and instrumentalities as herein provided. The above indemnification provisions shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 32. CONTRACT EXTENSION. The City reserves the right to require the Contractor to extend contract past the stated termination date for a period of up to 120 calendar days in the event that a subsequent contract has not yet been awarded. Additional extensions past the 120 calendar days may occur as needed by the City and as mutually agreed upon by the City and the contractor. 33. FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS LAW. Proposers are hereby notified that all Proposals including, without limitation, any and all information and documentation submitted therewith, are exempt from public records requirements under Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes, and s. 24(a), Art. 1 of the State Constitution until such time as the City provides notice of an intended decision or until thirty (30) calendar days after opening of the proposals, whichever is earlier. Additionally, Contractor agrees to be in full compliance with Florida Statute 119.0701 including, but not limited to, agreement to (a) Keep and maintain public records that ordinarily and necessarily would be required by the public agency in order to perform the services; (b) provide the public with access to public records on the same terms and conditions that the public agency would provide the records and at a cost that does not exceed the cost provided in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law; (c) Ensure that public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law; (d) Meet all requirements for retaining public records and transfer, at no cost, to the public agency all public records in possession of the contractor upon termination of the contract and destroy any duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All records stored electronically must be provided to the public agency in a format that is compatible with the information technology systems of the public agency. 34. MODIFICATION/WITHDRAWALS 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 prior to 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. 35. EXCEPTIONS TO RFP. Proposers must clearly indicate any exceptions they wish to take to any of the terms in this RFP, and outline what, if any, alternative is being offered, All exceptions and alternatives shall be included and clearly delineated, in writing, in the Proposal. The City, at its sole and absolute discretion, may accept or reject any or all exceptions and alternatives. In cases in which exceptions and alternatives are rejected, the City shall require the Proposer to comply with the particular term and/or condition of the RFP to which Proposer took exception to (as said term and/or condition was originally set forth on the RFP). ''x:•Hnv:..tN''.Npitu i3 \...Ee":�+n_Y".(.rY.N+O NS'xoi.-ES:>2?Lt::.e`Y:..iFYI:aW)X..oaF(¢L-eE.M:.q+,.S.n.HA.?h.R."xj5,:_._xYax >r."NA.s..:NA -'h.a..'>::G.�Fi:FFxV-.CR.attFF :.a]N:>`:s.at6R."Mti[:iFE#x<i`V..v!.i..¢ A,h'1n.'+::.'r at-":<P.Da¢O.FtY.-:-.ex-aXmxi'E Ytw ;E:>as C r+iexr,.(¢Y:a a.1Nt(h»Vixtt[rieo'�W:➢AavR:.`u.-!at: RFP 2014-015-LR 36. 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 to improperly influence him/her in the discharge of his official duties. Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank RFP 2014-015-LR SECTION 0300 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAT 1. SEALED RESPONSES. One original Proposal (preferably in 3-ring binder) must be submitted in an opaque, sealed envelope or container on or before the due date established for the receipt of proposals. Additionally, ten (10) bound copies and one (1) electronic format (CD or USB format) are to be submitted. The following information should be clearly marked on the face of the envelope or container in which the proposal is submitted: solicitation number, solicitation title, Proposer name, Proposer return address. Proposals received electronically, either through email or facsimile, are not acceptable and will be rejected. 2. LATE BIDS. Bid Proposals are to be received on or before the due date established herein for the receipt of Bids. Any Bid received after the deadline established for receipt of proposals will be considered late and not be accepted or will be returned to Proposer unopened. The City does not accept responsibility for any delays, natural or otherwise. 3. PROPOSAL FORMAT. In order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process and assist the Evaluation Committee in review of proposals, it is strongly recommended that proposals be organized and tabbed in accordance with the sections and manner specified below. Hard copy submittals should be tabbed as enumerated below and contains a table of contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed and contain a table of contents with page references. Proposals that do not include the required information will be deemed non- responsive and will not be considered. Al Cover Letter& Minimum Qualifications Requirements 1.1 Cover Letter and Table of Contents. The cover letter must indicate Proposer and Proposer Primary Contact for the purposes of this solicitation. 1.2 Proposal Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit (Appendix A). Attach Appendix A fully completed and executed. 1.3 Minimum Qualifications Requirements. Submit verifiable information documenting compliance with the minimum qualifications requirements established in Appendix C, Minimum Requirements and Specifications. y TTAB 2 k a Experience& Qualifications 2.1 Qualifications of Proposing Firm. Submit detailed information regarding the firm's history and relevant experience and proven track record of providing the scope of services similar as identified in this solicitation, including experience in providing similar scope of services to public sector agencies. For each project that the Proposer submits as evidence of similar experience, the following is required: project description, agency name, agency contact, contact telephone & email, and year(s) and term of engagement. 2.2 Qualifications of Proposer Team. Provide an organizational chart of all personnel and consultants to be used for this project if awarded, the role that each team member will play in providing the services detailed herein and each team members' qualifications. A resume of each individual, including education, experience, and any other pertinent information, shall be included for each Proposal team member to be assigned to this contract. 2.3 Financial Capacity. Each Proposer shall arrange for Dun & Bradstreet to submit a Supplier Qualification Report (SQR) directly to the Procurement Contact named herein. No proposal will be considered without receipt, by the City, of the SQR directly from Dun & Bradstreet. The cost of the preparation of the SQR shall be the responsibility of the Proposer. The Proposer shall request the SQR report from D&B at: https://supplierportal.dnb.comlwebapp/wcs/storeslservlet/SupplierPortal?storeld=11696 Proposers are responsible for the accuracy of the information contained in its SQR. It is highly recommended that each Proposer review the information contained in its SQR for accuracy prior to submittal to the City and as early as possible in the solicitation process. For assistance with any portion of the SQR submittal process, contact Dun & Bradstreet at 800-424-2495. RFP 2014-015-LR 10 f.. ,NA, M BE H Scope of Services Proposed Submit detailed information addressing how Proposer will achieve each portion of the scope of services and technical requirements outlined in Appendix C, Minimum Requirements and Specifications. Responses shall be in sufficient detail and include supporting documentation, as applicable, which will allow the Evaluation Committee to complete a fully review and score the proposed scope of services. =4 = =��TAB - =j Approach and Methodology Submit detailed information on how Proposer plans to accomplish the required scope of services, including detailed information, as applicable, which addresses, but need not be limited to: implementation plan, project timeline, phasing options, testing and risk mitigation options for assuring project is implemented on time and within budget. :TAB 5 _ Cost Proposal Submit a completed Cost Proposal Form (Appendix E). Note: After proposal submittal, the City reserves the right to require additional information from Proposers (or Proposer team members or sub-consultants) to determine: qualifications (including, but not limited to, litigation history, regulatory action, or additional references); and financial capability (including, but not limited to, annual reviewed/audited financial statements with the auditors notes for each of their last two complete fiscal years). -:.�"-�S.,tiRayednwL+v3QFV:s.CS:P[�SV h-t'�.•'b `..`AM.:'.N.9avKiv+Y.. a.:RONe-NaaY�xi�liY.'.�+x.�3t.�x<0.n..:.:.^h�ta .-z�w��xu v.J.,ih�e mwwaa:.5;.st.n�. .<.,YZi�-wiv.maH.a-uu..k�ax.arewww.--:.:N"eT..w_A..uozaecee+tSMSa_:.:ar.m..,..eatsOtaawm..isx.«xr-iaiwa+evrx.�».vwven.sr:-H-�.w'i%:azm�.a�vv i.e`a..wixx.sw6-a..nat att�e<Te.�utLy ail?.., RFP 2014-015-LR P__ MIAMI BEACH SECTION 0400 PROPOSAL EVALUATION 1. Evaluation Committee. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each Proposal in accordance with the requirements set forth in the solicitation. If further information is desired, Proposers may be requested to make additional written submissions of a clarifying nature or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee. The evaluation of proposals will proceed in a two-step process as noted below. It is important to note that the Evaluation Committee will score the qualitative portions of the proposals only. The Evaluation Committee does not make an award recommendation to the City Manager. The results of Step 1 & Step 2 Evaluations will be forwarded to the City Manager who will utilize the results to make a recommendation to the City Commission. 2. Step 1 Evaluation. The first step will consist of the qualitative criteria listed below to be considered by the Evaluation Committee. The second step will consist of quantitative criteria established below to be added to the Evaluation Committee results by the Department of Procurement Management. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each Proposal in accordance with the qualifications criteria established below for Step 1, Qualitative Criteria. In doing so, the Evaluation Committee may: • review and score all proposals received, with or without conducting interview sessions; or • review all proposals received and short-list one or more Proposers to be further considered during subsequent interview session(s) (using the same criteria). '�" 7jStep 1 Qualitative Criteria y F k's z Maximum Points Proposer Experience and Qualifications, including Financial Capability 25 Scope of Services Proposed 20 Approach and Methodology 35 }` r4' �Ch c 's-`r 4 �.i' t:W-'• 3 .4'"i'-4i t 4 �.r - -� i' 1 • z y F �, TOTAL AVAILABLE STERI POINTS BFI 80 3. Step 2 Evaluation. Following the results of Step 1 Evaluation of qualitative criteria, the Proposers may receive additional quantitative criteria points to be added by the Department of Procurement Management to those points earned in Step 1, as follows. Step 2 Quantitative Criteria sh} �� F ;:: .i-i.--'.*'�..: ? =-r-''r± 'x..-r =�`'S m-.`-:,'�_._K.,... i . a� _.r�j¢ '.'._'z x= _ _:n 2 ,..''1'`'°- E'. :e..� _ ... ....�-_' c.. __ :•-'�' Cost Proposal 20 Miami Beach-Based Vendor Preference 5 Veterans Preference 5 ,_,�. # -1 ' k ` '" WTOT4LAVAILABLE STEP2-POINTS4.... _ n: 4 �,30 f_, ti.Rr °• 4. Cost Proposal Evaluation. The cost proposal points shall be developed in accordance with the following formula: Sample Objective Formula for Cost Vendor Vendor Example Maximum Formula for Calculating Points Total Cost Allowable Points (lowest cost I cost of proposal Points Proposal (Points noted are for being evaluated X maximum Awarded illustrative purposes only. allowable points=awarded Actual points are noted above.) points) Round to Vendor A $100.00 20 $1001$100 X 20=20 20 Vendor B $150.00 20 $1001$150 X 20=13 13 Vendor C $200.00 20 $1001$200 X 20=10 10 RFP 2014-015-LR 12 v�1,Aty\I BE L\CH 5. Determination of Final Ranking. At the conclusion of the Evaluation Committee Step 1 scoring, Step 2 Points will be added to each evaluation committee member's scores by the Department of Procurement Management. Step 1 and 2 scores will be converted to rankings in accordance with the example below: Proposer A _ __Proposer B __ _Proposer Step 1 Points 82 76 80 Step 2 Points 22 15 12 Total 104 91 92 2 Committee , .: Member 1 Rank Step 1 Points 79 85 72 Step 2 Points 22 15 12 Committee , Total 101 100 Meer2 . " Rank 2 84 3 Step 1 Points 80 74 66 Step 2 Points 22 15 12 Total 102 89 78 FMember 2 Rank 1 2 3 Low A re ate Score O`°I f4i- r W t -3° ' " `x- "7 Welt#:` 8 :Final Ranking* I 7 2 * Final Ranking is presented to the City Manager for further due diligence and recommendation to the City Commission. Final Ranking does not constitute an award recommendation until such time as the City Manager has made his recommendation to the City Commission, which may be different than final ranking results. RFP p2014-015-LR APPENDIX A ik 4 / I\ Alnr A 4.044 \/‘ ( 4 FAC Ug Proposal Questionnaire Requirements Affidavit 2014-015-LR Psychological Services for Employees DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 Solicitation No: Solicitation Title: 2014-015-LR Psychological Services for Employees Procurement Contact: Tel: Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305.673.7000 x 6652 lourdesrodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov PROPOSAL CERTIFICATION, QUESTIONNAIRE & REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT Purpose: The purpose of this Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is to inform prospective Proposers of certain solicitation and contractual requirements, and to collect necessary information from Proposers in order that certain portions of responsiveness, responsibility and other determining factors and compliance with requirements may be evaluated. This Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is a REQUIRED FORM that must be submitted fully completed and executed. 1. General Proposer Information. FIRM NAME: No of Years in Business: No of Years in Business Locally: No.of Employees: OTHER NAME(S)PROPOSER HAS OPERATED UNDER IN THE LAST 10 YEARS: FIRM PRIMARY ADDRESS(HEADQUARTERS): CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: TELEPHONE NO.: TOLL FREE NO.: FAX NO.: FIRM LOCAL ADDRESS: CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: PRIMARY ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT: ACCOUNT REP TELEPHONE NO.: ACCOUNT REP TOLL FREE NO.: ACCOUNT REP EMAIL: FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.: The City reserves the right to seek additional information from Proposer or other source(s), including but not limited to: any firm or principal information, applicable licensure, resumes of relevant individuals, client information, financial information, or any information the City deems necessary to evaluate the capacity of the Proposer to perform in accordance with contract requirements. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 1 1. Miami Beach Based(Local)Vendor. Is Proposer claiming Miami Beach based firm status? YES NO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers claiming Miami Beach vendor status shall submit a Business Tax Receipt issued by the City of Miami Beach and the proof of residency requirement, as required pursuant to ordinance 2011-3747, as amended, to demonstrate that the Proposer is a Miami Beach Based Vendor. 2. Veteran Owned Business. Is Proposer claiming a veteran owned business status? YES NO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers claiming veteran owned business status shall submit a documentation proving that firm is certified as a veteran-owned business or a service-disabled veteran owned business by the State of Florida or United States federal government,as required pursuant to ordinance 2011-3748. 3. Conflict Of Interest.All Proposers must disclose, 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 affiliates, SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers must disclose 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. Proposers must also 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 affiliates 4. References&Past Performance. Proposer shall submit at least three(3) references for whom the Proposer has completed work similar in size and nature as the work referenced in solicitation. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: For each reference submitted, the following information is required: 1) Firm Name, 2) Contact Individual Name&Title, 3)Address,4)Telephone, 5)Contact's Email and 6) Narrative on Scope of Services Provided. 5. Litigation History. Proposer shall submit a statement of any litigation or regulatory action that has been filed against your firm(s) in the last five years. If an action has been filed, state and describe the litigation or regulatory action filed, and identify the court or agency before which the action was instituted, the applicable case or file number, and the status or disposition for such reported action. If no litigation or regulatory action has been filed against your firm(s), provide a statement to that effect. If"No"litigation or regulatory action has been filed against your firm(s), please provide a statement to that effect.Truthful and complete answers to this question may not necessarily disqualify a firm from consideration but will be a factor in the selection process. Untruthful,misleading or false answers to this question shall result in the disqualification of the firm for this project. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit history of litigation or regulatory action filed against proposer, or any proposer team member firm, in the past 5 years. If Proposer has no litigation history or regulatory action in the past 5 years,submit a statement accordingly. 6. Suspension, Debarment or Contract Cancellation. Has Proposer ever been debarred,suspended or other legal violation,or had a contract cancelled due to non-performance by any public sector agency? YES NO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If answer to above is "YES," Proposer shall submit a statement detailing the reasons that led to action(s). Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 2 7. Vendor Campaign Contributions. Proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the City Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein, including disqualification of their Proposals,in the event of such non-compliance. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Submit the names of all individuals or entities (including your sub-consultants) with a controlling financial interest as defined in solicitation. For each individual or entity with a controlling financial interest indicate whether or not each individual or entity has contributed to the campaign either directly or indirectly, of a candidate who has been elected to the office of Mayor or City Commissioner for the City of Miami Beach. 8. Code of Business Ethics. Pursuant to City 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 its proposal/response or within five (5) days upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a minimum, require the Proposer, to comply with all applicable governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit firm's Code of Business Ethics. In lieu of submitting Code of Business Ethics, Proposer may submit a statement indicating that it will adopt, as required in the ordinance, the City of Miami Beach Code of Ethics, available at www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/. 9. Living Wage. Pursuant to Section 2-408 of the Miami Beach City Code, as same may be amended from time to time, Proposers shall be required to pay all employees who provide services pursuant to this Agreement,the hourly living wage rates listed below: • Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-13(October 1, 2012), the hourly living rate will be$11.28/hr with health benefits, and$12.92/hr without benefits. The living wage rate and health care benefits rate may, by Resolution of the City Commission be indexed annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers(CPI-U)Miami/Ft. Lauderdale, issued by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Notwithstanding the preceding, no annual index shall exceed three percent(3%).The City may also,by resolution, elect not to index the living wage rate in any particular year, if it determines it would not be fiscally sound to implement same(in a particular year). Proposers' failure to comply with this provision shall be deemed a material breach under this proposal, under which the City may, at its sole option, immediately deem said Proposer as non-responsive, and may further subject Proposer to additional penalties and fines, as provided in the City's Living Wage Ordinance, as amended. Further information on the Living Wage requirement is available at www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this affidavit document, Proposer agrees to the living wage requirement. 10. Equal Benefits for Employees with Spouses and Employees with Domestic Partners. When awarding competitively solicited contracts valued at over$100,000 whose contractors maintain 51 or more full time employees on their payrolls during 20 or more calendar work weeks, the Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners Ordinance 2005-3494 requires certain contractors doing business with the City of Miami Beach, who are awarded a contract pursuant to competitive proposals, to provide"Equal Benefits"to their employees with domestic partners, as they provide to employees with spouses. The Ordinance applies to all employees of a Contractor who work 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. 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 Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 3 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 Firm Provides for Firm Provides for Firm does not Employees with Employees with Provide Benefit Spouses Domestic Partners Health Sick Leave Family Medical Leave Bereavement Leave If Proposer cannot offer a benefit to domestic partners 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 and submit a completed Reasonable Measures Application (attached)with all necessary documentation.Your Reasonable Measures Application will be reviewed for consideration by the City Manager, or his designee. Approval is not guaranteed and the City Manager's decision is final. Further information on the Equal Benefits requirement is available at www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/. 11. Public Entity Crimes.Section 287.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes, as currently enacted or as amended from time to time,states that a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a proposal, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a proposal, proposal,or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work;may not submit proposals, proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this affidavit document, Proposer agrees with the requirements of Section 287.133, Florida Statutes, and certifies it has not been placed on convicted vendor list. 12. Acknowledgement of Addendum. After issuance of solicitation, the City may release one or more addendum to the solicitation which may provide additional information to Proposers or alter solicitation requirements. The City will strive to reach every Proposer having received solicitation through the City's e-procurement system, PublicPurchase.com. However, Proposers are solely responsible for assuring they have received any and all addendum issued pursuant to solicitation.This Acknowledgement of Addendum section certifies that the Proposer has received all addendum released by the City pursuant to this solicitation. Failure to obtain and acknowledge receipt of all addendum may result in proposal disqualification. Initial to Confirm Initial to Confirm Initial to Confirm Receipt Receipt Receipt Addendum 1 Addendum 6 Addendum 11 Addendum 2 Addendum 7 Addendum 12 Addendum 3 Addendum 8 Addendum 13 Addendum 4 Addendum 9 Addendum 14 Addendum 5 Addendum 10 Addendum 15 If additional confirmation of addendum is required,submit under separate cover. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 4 s.i { :,. . = _-;DISCLOSURE=AND DISCLAIMER-SECTION_ .... The solicitation referenced herein is being furnished to the recipient by the City of Miami Beach (the"City")for the recipient's convenience. Any action taken by the City in response to Proposals made pursuant to this solicitation, or in making any award, or in failing or refusing to make any award pursuant to such Proposals, or in cancelling awards, or in withdrawing or cancelling this solicitation, either before or after issuance of an award,shall be without any liability or obligation on the part of the City. In its sole discretion, the City may withdraw the solicitation either before or after receiving proposals, may accept or reject proposals, and may accept proposals which deviate from the solicitation, as it deems appropriate and in its best interest. In its sole discretion, the City may determine the qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting Proposals in response to this solicitation. Following submission of a Bid or Proposal, the applicant agrees to deliver such further details, information and assurances, including financial and disclosure data, relating to the Proposal and the applicant including, without limitation, the applicant's affiliates, officers, directors,shareholders, partners and employees,as requested by the City in its discretion. The information contained herein is provided solely for the convenience of prospective Proposers. It is the responsibility of the recipient to assure itself that information contained herein is accurate and complete.The City does not provide any assurances as to the accuracy of any information in this solicitation. Any reliance on these contents, or on any permitted communications with City officials, shall be at the recipient's own risk. Proposers should rely exclusively on their own investigations, interpretations, and analyses. The solicitation is being provided by the City without any warranty or representation, express or implied, as to its content, its accuracy, or its completeness. No warranty or representation is made by the City or its agents that any Proposal conforming to these requirements will be selected for consideration, negotiation,or approval. The City shall have no obligation or liability with respect to this solicitation,the selection and the award process,or whether any award will be made. Any recipient of this solicitation who responds hereto fully acknowledges all the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer, is totally relying on this Disclosure and Disclaimer, and agrees to be bound by the terms hereof.Any Proposals submitted to the City pursuant to this solicitation are submitted at the sole risk and responsibility of the party submitting such Proposal. This solicitation is made subject to correction of errors, omissions, or withdrawal from the market without notice. Information is for guidance only, and does not constitute all or any part of an agreement. The City and all Proposers will be bound only as, if and when a Proposal (or Proposals), as same may be modified, and the applicable definitive agreements pertaining thereto, are approved and executed by the parties, and then only pursuant to the terms of the definitive agreements executed among the parties. Any response to this solicitation may be accepted or rejected by the City for any reason, or for no reason,without any resultant liability to the City. The City is governed by the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, and all Proposals and supporting documents shall be subject to disclosure as required by such law. All Proposals shall be submitted in sealed proposal form and shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by Florida Statutes, until the date and time selected for opening the responses. At that time, all documents received by the City shall become public records. Proposers are expected to make all disclosures and declarations as requested in this solicitation. By submission of a Proposal, the Proposer acknowledges and agrees that the City has the right to make any inquiry or investigation it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information contained in the Proposal, and authorizes the release to the City of any and all information sought in such inquiry or investigation. Each Proposer certifies that the information contained in the Proposal is true, accurate and com lete: to the best of its knowledge, P P � P � 9 , information, and belief. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything contained in the solicitation, all Proposers agree that in the event of a final unappealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes on the City any liability arising out of this solicitation, or any response thereto, or any action or inaction by the City with respect thereto, such liability shall be limited to$10,000.00 as agreed-upon and liquidated damages. The previous sentence, however, shall not be construed to circumvent any of the other provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer which imposes no liability on the City. In the event of any differences in language between this Disclosure and Disclaimer and the balance of the solicitation, it is understood that the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer shall always govern. The solicitation and any disputes arising from the solicitation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 5 f PROPDSER-CERTIFhCATIONy I hereby certify that: I, as an authorized agent of the Proposer, am submitting the following information as my firm's proposal; Proposer agrees to complete and unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of this document, inclusive of this solicitation, all attachments, exhibits and appendices and the contents of any Addenda released hereto, and the Disclosure and Disclaimer Statement; Proposer agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and conditions contained in the solicitation, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements of this solicitation and failure to comply will result in disqualification of proposal submitted; Proposer has not divulged, discussed, or compared the proposal with other Proposers and has not colluded with any other Proposer or party to any other proposal; Proposer acknowledges that all information contained herein is part of the public domain as defined by the State of Florida Sunshine and Public Records Laws; all responses, data and information contained in this proposal, inclusive of the Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit are true and accurate. Name of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Title of Proposers Authorized Representative: Signature of Proposers Authorized Representative: Date: State of ) On this day of , 20_, personally appeared before me who County of ) stated that (s)he is the of , a corporation, and that the instrument was signed in behalf of the said corporation by authority of its board of directors and acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Before me: Notary Public for the State of My Commission Expires: . Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 6 APPENDIX B f, t,„,,,...„ F, 1 .... „T.- ,f,,, .r- 1;.........4 4 4k. 4 1 n It. 4Y\\N (.; i 1 A 4k A I 1 4 e--=:,%.I' ,..,,,';'''''''''' '-..s,*,‘,„..,,,.-,1 :11i i\ .4 1 it „., I \./ A ii d_fl iii,„1 - -- j V ‘ 1 Ai V 1 4 ,,,,,r,,,..) . i • ..-- " No Bid " Form 2014-015-LR Psychological Services for Employe es T MANAGEMENT OF PROCUREMENT Center Drive DEPARTMENT O. DE Florida 33139 Miami Beach, .., :,;17'or .,..4,...17,etmf,ip,, -:;.q. 1700 Convention e _.. :',=;:0-1,--Talvo.,-,,:rwtrn, ii,,,-, , ,v :tr. ::-/cm.fi‘A17atiteia,',40„.-,.. -,..,, z.e.'i.: : :::4:::..::" 0:i4 '&4.=:041A8irt0:'.-;- t.:410‘.?: i. 't.ti:e51O ridiko;J:tp:,,..? a81 .;0:7,::::: Fv-,:.54 .*tlo 1;'&g:14 ,•?j,.Z:',..-:i4:':,.." .. .A!''''',.,-U;q::L..,,,,..kii,r•trniga.:,:, *:-tq."! _it•Or:6 .;litq.:7::..44:.y,;.. ',: . ,rt4,,itkpri...?.. ..,7...;, 4",::::: '=•••41-4.1W1A4-'' ''.*.';f•--7-It;;M1"!t9knitiZb.f.:...i''t. !!'..-P.z4ir,,Z461 .7:4V%6:;'. R1 , '-ViiON''."-::9-it.1'WV :r, -;--•,':it2::52.0t,..1;-tit-.9A, Igrik-',;ze ,,,,,,gs „.. ..'"''''..6itttro,f',1, ftgt-A9441).‘ ':-,, ,,„H., ,i17,1*F47*.„.-,...,,,,.-.,. -,--- -.>:.:-••V,'";ii:0..''''`, , ,'•ki,,,, :.0.11 ,14'-': r4*.r.c k ,: -,,;*.A,: ,-, .;k*...4._. .,.,;,4pg:k:i-,t !Ijm-Iim1.-';,614y:3,°%tia-1 . -::',?...40041"144,.-.;,:-:,.-A--,--ft—'-. 9..p.4.1 , ,,aiit:0;,,r7.,,cit.,...:::,,,;: - -•4. -As.4'41 . !'.'11.0.4 '•' k 444.''''.fro .i.:,, .,: :,,...-,- - ,-.7.-1-f,: ottga o.i,,:702E1-,,; ''-'t • . ...,:.:•..<•-• Statement of No Bid WE HAVE ELECTED NOT TO SUBMIT A PROPOSAL AT THIS TIME FOR REASON(S) CHECKED AND/OR INDICATED BELOW: Workload does not allow us to proposal Insufficient time to respond Specifications unclear or too restrictive Unable to meet specifications Unable to meet service requirements Unable to meet insurance requirements Do not offer this product/service _OTHER. (Please specify) We do_ do not i want to be retained on your mailing list for future proposals of this type product and/or service. Signature: Title: Legal Company Name: Note: Failure to respond, either by submitting a proposal or this completed form, may result in your company being removed from our vendors list. PLEASE RETURN TO: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT ATTN: Lourdes Rodriguez PROPOSAL#2014-015-LR 1700 Convention Center Drive MIAMI BEACH, FL 33139 Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix B—Page 1 APPENDIX C k v /\/ i /\ /\J\ I t s _. St Minimum Requirements Specifications 2014-015-L R Psychological Services for Employees DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 r ; Cl. Minimum Requirements. The Minimum Eligibility Requirements for this solicitation are listed below. Proposer shall submit detailed verifiable information affirmatively documenting compliance with each minimum requirement. Proposers that fail to comply with minimum requirements will be deemed non-responsive and will not be considered. A. Successful Proposer shall be in the business of providing the services as described in this RFP for a minimum of three (3) years. B. Successful Proposer's team shall include a licensed psychologist. Proof of licensing must be submitted with Proposal or within three (3) days as requested by the City. C2. Statement of Work Required. The City of Miami Beach is contracting the professional services of an experienced and qualified firm to conduct valid, reliable and cross-cultural testing of police officer, police public service aide, detention officer, communications operator, police dispatcher, police complaint officer, firefighters and fire rescue dispatcher applicants at the Contractor's facility located in Miami-Dade County. The testing is required by the City as part of a thorough background investigation of applicants. The purpose of these services is to evaluate whether said applicants are acceptable candidates. Additionally, psychological testing may include fitness-for-duty evaluations for City personnel on an as needed basis. The Scope of Service encompasses four (4) parts: Part I: A. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Sworn Personnel, and B. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Firefighters and Fire Rescue Dispatchers, Part II: Psychological Services for Employees; and Part III: Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel, and Part IV: Fitness for Duty, as described below. Proposers shall provide Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV services Part I: A. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Sworn Personnel and B. Pre- Employment Psychological Services for Firefighters and Fire Rescue Dispatchers It is anticipated that sworn applicants will be required to receive pre-employment psychological screening services. The Police Department is currently comprised of 381 sworn personnel, and approximately 100 sworn applicants are anticipated to be processed during FY 2013/14. The Fire Department anticipates 150 firefighter and 20 fire rescue dispatcher applicants are anticipated to be process during FY 2013/14. This is an estimate only and the City shall not be required to adhere to this estimate during the contract period. Part II: Psychological Services for Employees On an annual basis, it is anticipated that personnel may require some counseling services. Successful Proposer shall be available, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, should it be needed, to provide Psychological Services to employees at the direction of the Chief of Police or his/her designee of Fire Chief or his/her designee, or the Director of Human Resources or his/her designee. Successful Proposer shall ensure confidentiality of counseling services provided to employees. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 1 t Part III: Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel It is anticipated that civilian applicants will be required to receive pre-employment psychological screening services. Approximately fifty (50) civilian applicants for the Police Department are anticipated to be processed during FY 2013/14. These are estimates only and the City shall not be required to adhere to these estimates during the contract period. Part IV: Fitness for Duty The contractor shall administer and interpret additional psychological testing for police officer, police public service aide, detention officer, communications operator, police dispatcher, police complaint officer, firefighters and fire rescue dispatcher applicants that have been mandated for a fitness for duty evaluation. C3. Specifications. The Scope of Service encompasses four (4) parts: Part I: A. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Sworn Personnel, and B. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Firefighters and Fire Rescue Dispatchers, Part II: Psychological Services for Employees; and Part III: Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel, and Part IV: Fitness for Duty, as described below. Proposers shall provide Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV services. Failure to provide all services in Part I, Part II, Part III and Part IV may deem Proposer as non-responsive. It is the intent of the City to award all Parts to one (1) contractor. PART I SERVICES: A. PRE-EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE FOR SWORN PERSONNEL A. BACKGROUND It is anticipated that sworn applicants will be required to receive pre-employment psychological screening services. The Police Department is currently comprised of 381 sworn personnel, and approximately 100 sworn applicants are anticipated to be processed during FY 2013/14. This is an estimate only and the City shall not be required to adhere to this estimate during the contract period. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES 1. TEST ADMINISTRATION/VALIDITY EVIDENCE Successful Proposer shall create, administer and interpret one or more tests with demonstrated ability to identify applicant's suitability for police work or careers in law enforcement. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 2 r In the administration of the test, Successful Proposer shall indicate which of the following abilities and characteristics, identified through the most recent job specifications of the police officer position are measureable through the various instruments proposed: a. Cognitive Abilities • Ability to learn and apply new information. • Ability to accurately remember the important details or concepts in written or verbal information. • Ability to devise practical and appropriate solutions to problems, even where there is no standard procedure, using "common sense" and good judgment. • Ability to reevaluate decisions when presented with new information, and modify course of action, if necessary. • Ability to plan and manage work activities so that required forms are completed and submitted on time. b. Interpersonal Abilities • Ability to interact effectively with people from a wide variety of cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds. • Ability to tolerate difference in social/cultural values and practices. • Ability to display interest in, concern for, and consideration of, the needs and feelings of others. • Ability and willingness to speak and interact with citizens in a non-threatening manner. • Ability to work cooperatively with fellow officers and foster teamwork. • Ability to show assertiveness, firmness, and self-confidence. c. Written and Oral Communication Ability • Ability to communicate information and instructions factually without interjecting personal biases or emotional reactions. • Ability to respond to questions directly with essential facts, analysis, and rationale. • Ability to read and understand a wide variety of written materials. • Ability to record visual observations and spoken information accurately in writing. • Ability to use proper English grammar, spelling, punctuation, and structure in written communications. d. Motivation • Willingness to put in extra effort to acquire new knowledge or skills, or to remedy performance deficiencies. • Willingness to persist and maintain diligence in fulfilling routine, tedious, difficult, or unpleasant assignments. • Willingness to seek out and complete additional tasks during slow periods. • Willingness and ability to complete necessary work steps and assigned tasks independently with little prompting and intervention. • Ability and willingness to maintain dependable work habits, such as reporting for duty on time, with little prompting and intervention. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 3 e. Personal Maturity and Integrity • Ability to maintain self-control, patience, and persistence in response to frustration, hostility, or adversity. • Willingness to assume accountability for actions and decisions. • Willingness and ability to admit mistakes and deficiencies to others and take constructive steps to remedy them. • Willingness and ability to follow lawful orders, rules, regulations, and procedures, without undue questioning, resistance, or complaint. • Ability and willingness to exercise independent judgment. • Ability to withstand pressure from others and stick by decisions or courses of action judged to be proper and appropriate. • Ability and willingness to release personal stress and tension in appropriate, non- destructive ways. • Willingness and ability to resist using authority of position for personal gratification or gain. • Willingness to refuse favors, special privileges, and/or gratuities offered by shopkeepers and/or residents without giving offense or creating ill-will. 2. CLINICAL INTERVIEW Successful Proposer shall conduct a clinical interview for the purpose of confirming written test findings and identifying evidence of the following: • Psychiatric history • Reported drug or alcohol usage • Employment history/problems • Prior arrests or legal problems • Family history problems • Any other potential problems 3. REPORTING PROCEDURES Proposer shall submit a report on all written tests and clinical interviews conducted on a per person basis. These reports shall specify, at a minimum, the scoring and interpretation of the test/interview(s), and stipulate rating category types of acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable and reasons thereof, and/or any sub-categories utilized. It is the expectation of the City that the results of the tests/interviews be submitted in written format to the City in any expeditious manner so as to eliminate delays in the hiring process of law enforcement personnel. Additionally, the Successful Proposer shall defend and/or represent the City in any legal proceedings should any claims or allegations about the validity of the test battery be made by any individual(s). Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 4 r PART I SERVICES: B. PRE-EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICE FOR FIREFIGHTERS AND FIRE RESCUE DISPATCHERS There are two Phases of evaluation: Phase 1 is the personality suitability evaluation, and Phase 2 is the emotional stability evaluation. For the Miami Beach Fire Department, Phase 1 will be conducted as a pre-employment evaluation and Phase 2 as post conditional offer of employment. A. Firefighters The Contractor shall administer and interpret one or more tests, which shall identify and screen Firefighter applicants, who possess the following psychological characteristics: Phase 1: Personality Suitability Evaluation 1. Maturity 2. Responsibility 3. Socialization adequacy 4. Flexibility 5. General academic potential 6. Interpersonal conflict measures (assertiveness, moodiness, social alienation, family discord) 7. Social ability 8. Initiative/goal orientation 9. Strong Racial or ethnic prejudice 10. Job performance predictions of absence, lateness, and disciplinary actions. Phase 2: Emotional Stability Evaluation 1. Psychosis 2. Character disorders (especially anti-social personality disorders) 3. Significant neurotic syrnptomatology (phobic personality, undue suspiciousness) 4. Mood disorders (anxiety, depression) 5. Poor impulse control (anger/hostility patterns) 6. Need for high levels of excitement 7. Tendency to be very passive or aggressive in the face of conflict 8. Strong racial or ethnic prejudice 9. Poor self-concept 10. Job performance prediction of absence, lateness, and disciplinary actions 11. Substance abuse tendencies B. Fire Rescue Dispatchers Phase I: Personally Suitability Evaluation 1. General academic potential 2. Maturity Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 5 3. Responsibility 4. Flexibility 5. Compliance with rules and regulations 6. High stress tolerance 7. High tolerance for routine 8. Ability to interact closely with co-workers 9. Ability to work in a structured, clearly supervised work environment 10. Ability to work as a team member Phase II: Emotional Stability Evaluation 1. Psychosis 2. Character disorders 3. Significant anxiety symptomatology (phobias, undue suspiciousness) 4. Mood disorders (depression) 5. Poor impulse control (anger/hostility) 6. Strong racial or ethnic prejudice 7. Poor self-concept 8. Substance abuse tendencies 9. PART II SERVICES: PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR EMPLOYEES A. BACKGROUND On an annual basis, it is anticipated that personnel may require some service(s) as delineated below. Successful Proposer shall be available, 24 hours per day, 7 days per week, should it be needed, to provide Psychological Services to employees at the direction of the Chief of Police or his/her designee, or Fire Chief or his/her designee, or the Director of Human Resources or his/her designee. Successful Proposer shall ensure confidentiality of counseling services provided to employees. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES, COUNSELING SERVICES 1. Successful Proposer shall provide counseling, including but not limited to the following areas: e Post traumatic (incident) counseling • Crisis intervention Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 6 PART III SERVICES: PRE-EMPLOYMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES FOR CIVILIAN PERSONNEL A. BACKGROUND It is anticipated that civilian applicants will be required to receive pre-employment psychological screening services. Approximately fifty (50) civilian applicants are anticipated to be processed during FY 2013/14. These are estimates only and the City shall not be required to adhere to these estimates during the contract period. B. SCOPE OF SERVICES In those instances in which civilian applicants undergo a pre-employment psychological evaluation, the evaluation shall be based on the relative responsibilities of the specific position. 1. TEST ADMINISTRATION/VALIDITY EVIDENCE Successful Proposer shall create, administer and interpret one or more tests with demonstrated ability to identify applicant's suitability for the position. In the administration of the test, Successful Proposer shall indicate which of the following abilities and characteristics, identified through the most recent job specifications of the position are measureable through the various instruments proposed: • Adequate verbal skills and communications • Problem-solving, learning ability and multi tasking • Compliance with rules, regulations and procedures • Ability to work within a para-military setting • Good judgment and decision-making in crisis situations • Stress tolerance • Reliable team member • Adequate self-control and attention to safety • Positive work habits and conscientiousness • Absence of self-destructive behaviors that could affect job performance • Emotional stability necessary to perform the job 2. CLINICAL INTERVIEW Successful Proposer shall conduct a clinical interview for the purpose of confirming written test findings and identifying evidence of the following: • Psychological history/treatment • Reported drug or alcohol use • Employment history/patterns • Legal history/arrests etc. • Serious family problems • Financial/credit history Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 7 • Educational history • Sexual misconduct • Military history • Any other relevant potential background problems 3. REPORTING PROCEDURES Proposer shall submit a report on all written tests and clinical interviews conducted on a per person basis. These reports shall specify, at a minimum, the scoring and interpretation of the test/interview(s), and stipulate rating category types of acceptable, marginal, or unacceptable and reasons thereof, and/or any sub-categories utilized. It is the expectation of the City that the results of the tests/interviews be submitted in written format to the City in any expeditious manner so as to eliminate delays in the hiring process of personnel. Additionally, the Successful Proposer shall defend and/or represent the City in any legal proceedings should any claims or allegations about the validity of the test battery be made by any individual(s). PART IV— FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION At the request of the Chief of Police or his/her designee, or Fire Chief or his/her designee, or the Director of Human Resources or his/her designee, the Contractor shall administer and interpret additional psychological testing for City employees that have been mandated for a fitness for duty evaluation. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix C—Page 8 APPENDIX D 4 F:. A 1 `A .m F FF "vim / k.ma Y ^wax � aY.': p Special RFP 2 Psychological Services for ees Em to � Y PROCUREMENT DIVISION 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 1. TERM OF CONTRACT. The contract shall commence upon the date of notice of award and shall be effective for two(2)years. 2. OPTION TO RENEW. The City,through its City Manager, will have the option to extend for two(2) additional two-year periods subject to the availability of funds for succeeding fiscal years. Continuation of the contract beyond the initial period is a City prerogative; not a right of the bidder. This prerogative will be exercised only when such continuation is clearly in the best interest of the City. 3. FAILURE TO PERFORM. Should it not be possible to reach the contractor or supervisor and/or should remedial action not be taken within 48 hours of any failure to perform according to specifications, the City reserves the right to declare Contractor in default of the contract or make appropriate reductions in the contract payment. 4. ADDITIONAL SERVICES. Services not specifically identified in this request may be added to any resultant contract upon successful negotiations and mutual consent of the contracting parties. 5. RECORDS. During the contract period, and for at least five (5) subsequent years thereafter, Successful Proposer shall provide the City to all files and records maintained on the City's behalf. Miami Beach RFP 2014-XXX-AB Appendix D—Page 1 APPENDIX E Cost RFP 2 Psychological Services for Employees PROCUREMENT DIVISION 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 APPENDIX A PROPOSAL TENDER FORM failure to"submit Section 5,Bid Price Form,irr its entirety and fully executed by the deadline established_for the° : .receipf of proposals will-result inproposal being deemed-non=responsive_and=being-..rejected 4 Bidder affirms that the prices stated on the proposal price form below represents the entire cost of the items in full accordance with the requirements of this ITB, inclusive of its terms, conditions, specifications and other requirements stated herein, and that no claim will be made on account of any increase in wage scales, material prices, delivery delays, taxes, insurance, cost indexes or any other unless a cost escalation provision is allowed herein and has been exercised by the City Manager in advance. The Bid Price Form (Section 5) shall be completed mechanically or, if manually, in ink. Bid Price Forms (Section 5) completed in pencil shall be deemed non-responsive.All corrections on the Bid Price Form (Section 5) shall be initialed. Miami-Beach Police Department: • Sworn Employees: Rate$ x 100=$ Civilian Employees: Rate$ x 25=$ Miami Beach Fire Rescue Department: Phase I: Firefighters: Rate$ x 150=$ Fire Dispatchers: Rate$ x 20=$ Phase II: Firefighters: Rate$ x 150=$ Fire Dispatchers: Rate$ x 20=$ Part II—Psychological Services for Employees. Proposers shall provide both a cost on an hourly basis; and shall provide an all-inclusive cost to provide any/all of these services and regardless of the number of individuals seeking such services, on a monthly basis, with the understanding that services are on an as needed, when-needed basis. It will be the decision of the City whether to utilize the hourly rate,or the fee rate,depending upon that which is in the best interest of the City. Hourly Rate:$ x 50=$ Monthly Rate:$ x 12=$ Part Ill—Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel. Proposers must provide a cost on a per individual basis to provide all required services. Proposers shall additionally provide in detail any and all costs associated to defend and/or represent the City in any legal proceedings on a per individual basis if the finding/recommendation of the Successful Proposer is contested by an applicant(s). These costs, if applicable, shall be itemized in detail. Further, any additional services and their associated costs not addressed in Part C of the Scope of Services but which may be requested or required of the City shall also be detailed in your proposal. Cost per Individual:$ x 50=$ Cost related to legal proceedings: $ x 6.$ Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix E—Page 1 Part IV—Fitness for Duty Evaluation. Proposers shall provide a fix price per evaluation. Cost per Individual: $ x 12=$ GRAND TOTAL FOR PARTS I,II,Ill and IV: $ a �` Bidde Affirmation y` .. - .. ._ .. .�. . ... ._ .. _.-... ,-. _.j; tea_ Company: Authorized Representative: Address: Telephone: Email: Authorized Representative's Signature: Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix E—Page 2 APPENDIX F I 40.1 i i 14,,J L, e- LA Insurance Requirements RFP 2014-015-LR Psychological Services for Employees PROCUREMENT DIVISION 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, Florida 33139 J T i x -1 1 - 1 Lt-V1/4_,,, INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS This document sets forth the minimum levels of insurance that the contractor is required to maintain throughout the term of the contract and any renewal periods. 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). XXX 3. 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 Employee Dishonesty Bond $ .00 Other $ .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 proposal number and title The City of Miami Beach is self-insured. Any and all claim payments made from self-insurance are subject to the limits and provisions of Florida Statute 768.28, the Florida Constitution, and any other applicable Statutes. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix F—Page 1 PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING , INC . 1 \° Law Enforcement Psychological and Op, Y.. g3 Counseling Associates, Inc. • City of _ ia. i. Beach, FL Solicitation #RFP-2014-01. 5-LR Psychological Services For Employees City of Miami Beach Procurement Department 1700 Convention Center Drive 3rd Floor Miami Beach, FL 33139 305-673-7000 x6652 Date: 10/14/14 Submitted by: Law Enforcement Psychological. & Counseling Associates, Inc LEPCA 9960 NW 116th Way, Suite 1.2 Medley, FL 33178 305-442-8800 Contact: Brian .M.angan, .Psy.1D. President • 9960 N.W. lz&th Way 305-442-8800 ph Suite # 12 305-442-4469 Fax Miami. FL 33178 w),v-w.iepca.com Table of Contents Content Pate # Proposal Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit 1 Response to Appendix A items 3, 4, 5, & 11 7 Experience and Qualifications Executive Summary 8 Agency List 10 Organizational Chart 12 Staff Biographies/Qualifications 12 Professional Licenses 19 Scope of Services Proposed Philosophy of Pre-Employment Screening Process 24 Essential/Important Job-Related Traits 25 Determination of Job-Related Ratings 26 Report Format 26 Retesting/Appeal 27 Test Battery Pre-Employment Psychological Screening 28 Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation 32 Critical Incident Stress Debriefing 33 Approach and Methodology Practicalities of Screening Service 35 Cost Proposal 36 Occupational Licenses 38 Insurance 42 Appendix A- Report Interpretation Manual 43 • LEPCA 1 Solicitation No: Solicitation Title: ® 2014-015-LR Procurement Contact Tel:Psychological Services for Employees Email: Lourdes Rodriguez 305.673.7000 x 6652 lourdesrodriguez @miamibeachfl.gov PROPOSAL CERTIFICATION, QUESTIONNAIRE& REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT Purpose: The purpose of this Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is to inform prospective Propbsers of certain solicitation and contractual requirements, and to collect necessary information from Proposers in order that certain portions of responsiveness, responsibility and other determining factors and compliance with requirements may be evaluated. This Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is a REQUIRED FORM that must be submitted fully completed and executed. 1. General Proposer Information. FIRM NAME: Law Enforcement Psychological& Counseling Associates, Inc No of Years in Business: 33 years No of Years in Business Locally: 33 No.of Employees: OTHER NAME(S)PROPOSER HAS OPERATED UNDER IN THE LAST 10 YEARS: N/A FIRM PRIMARY ADDRESS(HEADQUARTERS): 9960 NW 116th Way, Suite 12 CITY: Medley STATE: FL ZIP CODE: 33178 TELEPHONE NO.: 305-442-8800 TOLL FREE NO.: FAX NO.: 305-442-4469 FIRM LOCAL ADDRESS: Same as above CITY: STATE: ZIP CODE: PRIMARY ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT: Brian Mangan, Psy.D., President ACCOUNT REP TELEPHONE NO.: 305-442-8800 ext. 104 ACCOUNT REP TOLL FREE NO.: ACCOUNT REP EMAIL: ca.com BMan an le 9 @ P FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.: 59-1978758 The City reserves the right to seek additional information from Proposer or other source(s),including but not limited to:any firm or principal information,applicable licensure,resumes of relevant individuals,client information,financial information,or any information the City deems necessary to evaluate the capacity of the Proposer to perform in accordance with contract requirements. i Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A-Page 1 LEPCA 2 1. Miami Beach Based(Local)Vendor.Is Proposer claiming Miami Beach based firm status? 1 YES x NO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT:Proposers claiming Miami Beach vendor status shall submit a Business Tax Receipt issued by the City of Miami Beach and the proof of residency requirement, as required pursuant to ordinance 2011-3747, as amended, to demonstrate that the Proposer is a Miami Beach Based Vendor. 2. Veteran Owned Business.Is Pro oser claiming a veteran owned business status? [ YES x NO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers claiming veteran owned business status shall submit a documentation proving that firm is certified as a veteran-owned business or a service-disabled veteran owned business by the State of Florida or United States federal government,as required pursuant to ordinance 2011-3748. 3. Conflict Of Interest.All Proposers must disclose,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 affiliates. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers must disclose 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. Proposers must also 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 affiliates 4. References&Past Performance.Proposer shall submit at least three(3)references for whom the Proposer has completed work similar in size and nature as the work referenced in solicitation. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: For each reference submitted, the following information is required: 1) Firm Name, 2) Contact Individual Name&Title,3)Address,4)Telephone,5)Contact's Email and 6)Narrative on Scope of Services Provided. 5. Litigation History.Proposer shall submit a statement of any litigation or regulatory action that has been filed against your firm(s) in the last five years.If an action has been filed,state and describe the litigation or regulatory action filed,and identify the court or agency before which the action was instituted,the applicable case or file number,and the status or disposition for such reported action.If no litigation or regulatory action has been filed against your firm(s),provide a statement to that effect. If"No"litigation or regulatory action has been filed against your firm(s),please provide a statement to that effect.Truthful and complete answers to this question may not necessarily disqualify a firm from consideration but will be a factor in the selection process. Untruthful,misleading or false answers to this question shall result in the disqualification of the firm for this project. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit history of litigation or regulatory action filed against proposer, or any proposer team member firm,in the past 5 years.If Proposer has no litigation history or regulatory action in the past 5 years,submit a statement accordingly. 6. Suspension,Debarment or Contract Cancellation.Has Proposer ever been debarred,suspended or other legal violation,or had a contract cancelled due to non-performance by an ublic sector agency? I YES I x NO SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If answer to above is"YES,"Proposer shall submit a statement detailing the reasons that led to action(s). Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A—Page 2 LEPCA 3 7. Vendor Campaign Contributions. Proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the City's Campaign Finance Reform ® laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the City Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws are complied with,and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein,including disqualification of their Proposals,in the event of such non-compliance. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Submit the names of all individuals or entities (including your sub-consultants)with a controlling financial interest as defined in solicitation. For each individual or entity with a controlling financial interest indicate whether or not each individual or entity has contributed to the campaign either directly or indirectly,of a candidate who has been elected to the office of Mayor or City Commissioner for the City of Miami Beach. 8. Code of Business Ethics.Pursuant to City 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 its proposal/response or within five(5)days upon receipt of request.The Code shall,at a minimum,require the Proposer,to comply with all applicable governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit firm's Code of Business Ethics. In lieu of submitting Code of Business Ethics,.Proposer may submit a statement indicating that it will adopt,as required in the ordinance,the City of Miami Beach Code of Ethics,available at www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/. 9. Living Wage.Pursuant to Section 2-408 of the Miami Beach City Code,as same may be amended from time to time, Proposers shall be required to pay all employees who provide services pursuant to this Agreement,the hourly living wage rates listed below: • Commencing with City fiscal year 2012-13(October 1,2012),the hourly living rate will be$11.28/hr with health benefits,and$12.92/hr without benefits. The living wage rate and health care benefits rate may, by Resolution of the City Commission be indexed annually for inflation using the Consumer Price Index for all Urban Consumers(CPI-U)Miami/Ft.Lauderdale,issued by the U.S. Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics. Notwithstanding the preceding,no annual index shall exceed three percent(3%).The City may also,by resolution,elect not to index the living wage rate in any particular year,if it determines it would not be fiscally sound to implement same(in a particular year). Proposers'failure to comply with this provision shall be deemed a material breach under this proposal,under which the City may, at its sole option, immediately deem said Proposer as non-responsive, and may further subject Proposer to additional penalties and fines,as provided in the City's Living Wage Ordinance,as amended. Further information on the Living Wage requirement is available at www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this affidavit document,Proposer agrees to the living wage requirement. 10. Equal Benefits for Employees with Spouses and Employees with Domestic Partners. When awarding competitively solicited contracts valued at over$100,000 whose contractors maintain 51 or more full time employees on their payrolls during 20 or more calendar work weeks,the Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners Ordinance 2005-3494 requires certain contractors doing business with the City of Miami Beach,who are awarded a contract pursuant to competitive proposals, to provide"Equal Benefits'to their employees with domestic partners, as they provide to employees with spouses. The Ordinance applies to all employees of a Contractor who work 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. A. Does your company provide or offer access to any benefits to employees with spouses or to spouses of employees? n/a YES n/a NO Only 6 employees 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? n/a YES n/a NO Only 6 employees Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix A-Page 3 LEPCA 4 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 Firm Provides for Firm Provides for Firm does not Employees with Employees with Provide Benefit Spouses Domestic Partners Health Sick Leave Family Medical Leave Bereavement Leave If Proposer cannot offer a benefit to domestic partners 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 and submit a completed Reasonable Measures Application (attached)with all necessary documentation.Your Reasonable Measures Application will be reviewed for consideration by the City Manager,or his designee.Approval is not guaranteed and the City Manager's decision is final. Further information on the Equal Benefits requirement is available atwww.miamibeachfl.gov/procurements. 11. Public Entity Crimes.Section 287.133(2)(a),Florida Statutes,as currently enacted or as amended from time to time,states that a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a proposal, proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a proposal, proposal,or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work;may not submit proposals,proposals,or replies on leases of real property to a public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier,subcontractor,or consultant under a contract with any public entity;and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this affidavit document, Proposer agrees with the requirements of Section 287.133,Florida Statutes,and certifies it has not been placed on convicted vendor list. 12. Acknowledgement of Addendum. After issuance of solicitation,the City may release one or more addendum to the solicitation which may provide additional information to Proposers or alter solicitation requirements. The City will strive to reach every Proposer having received solicitation through the City's e-procurement system, PublicPurchase.com. However, Proposers are solely responsible for assuring they have received any and all addendum issued pursuant to solicitation.This Acknowledgement of Addendum section certifies that the Proposer has received all addendum released by the City pursuant to this solicitation. Failure to obtain and acknowledge receipt of all addendum may result in proposal disqualification. Initial to Confirm i Initial to Confirm Initial to Confirm Receipt i r' yy Receipt Addendum 1 I eV/ Addendum 6 Addendum 11 I Addendum 2 Addendum 7 ! Addendum 12 C Addendum 3 Addendum 8 i Addendum 13 Addendum 4 Addendum 9 Addendum 14 ',�. Addendum 5 Addendum 10 Addendum 15 If additional confirmation of addendum is required,submit under separate cover. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LS Appendix A—Page 4 40 DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER SECTION LEPCA 5 The solicitation referenced herein is being furnished to the recipient by the City of Miami Beach(the"City")for the recipient's convenience. Any action taken by the City in response to Proposals made pursuant to this solicitation,or in making any award,or in failing or refusing to make any award pursuant to such Proposals,or in cancelling awards,or in withdrawing or cancelling this solicitation,either before or after issuance of an award,shall be without any liability or obligation on the part of the City. In its sole discretion, the City may withdraw the solicitation either before or after receiving proposals, may accept or reject proposals, and may accept proposals which deviate from the solicitation,as it deems appropriate and in its best interest. In its sole discretion,the City may determine the qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting Proposals in response to this solicitation. Following submission of a Bid or Proposal, the applicant agrees to deliver such further details, information and assurances, including financial and disclosure data, relating to the Proposal and the applicant including, without limitation, the applicant's affiliate s, officers, directors,shareholders,partners and employees,as requested by the City in its discretion. The information contained herein is provided solely for the convenience of prospective Proposers. It is the responsibility of the recipient to assure itself that information contained herein is accurate and complete.The City does not provide any assurances as to the accuracy of any information in this solicitation. Any reliance on these contents,or on any permitted communications with City officials,shall be at the recipient's own risk.Proposers should rely exclusively on their own investigations, interpretations,and analyses.The solicitation is being provided by the City without any warranty or representation,express or implied,as to its content, its accuracy,or its completeness. No warranty or representation is made by the City or its agents that any Proposal conforming to these requirements will be selected for consideration,negotiation,or approval. The City shall have no obligation or liability with respect to this solicitation,the selection and the award process,or whether any award will be made.Any recipient of this solicitation who responds hereto fully acknowledges all the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer,is totally relying on this Disclosure and Disclaimer,and agrees to be bound by the terms hereof.Any Proposals submitted to the City pursuant to this solicitation are submitted at the sole risk and responsibility of the party submitting such Proposal. This solicitation is made subject to correction of errors, omissions,or withdrawal from the market without notice. Information is for guidance only,and does not constitute all or any part of an agreement. The City and all Proposers will be bound only as, if and when a Proposal (or Proposals), as same may be modified, and the applicable definitive agreements pertaining thereto, are approved and executed by the parties, and then only pursuant to the terms of the definitive agreements executed among the parties.Any response to this solicitation may be accepted or rejected by the City for any reason,or for no reason,without any resultant liability to the City. The City is governed by the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law,and all Proposals and supporting documents shall be subject to disclosure as required by such law. All Proposals shall be submitted in sealed proposal form and shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by Florida Statutes,until the date and time selected for opening the responses.At that time,all documents received by the City shall become public records. Proposers are expected to make all disclosures and declarations as requested in this solicitation.By submission of a Proposal,the Proposer acknowledges and agrees that the City has the right to make any inquiry or investigation it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement information contained in the Proposal,and authorizes the release to the City of any and all information sought in such inquiry or investigation. Each Proposer certifies that the information contained in the Proposal is true, accurate and complete, to the best of its knowledge, information,and belief. Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything contained in the solicitation,all Proposers agree that in the event of a final unappealable judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes on the City any liability arising out of this solicitation, or any response thereto,or any action or inaction by the City with respect thereto,such liability shall be limited to$10,000.00 as agreed-upon and liquidated damages.The previous sentence, however, shall not be construed to circumvent any of the other provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer which imposes no liability on the City. In the event of any differences in language between this Disclosure and Disclaimer and the balance of the solicitation,it is understood that the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer shall always govern.The solicitation and any disputes arising from the solicitation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida. Miami Beach RFP 2C14-015-LR Appendix A—Page 5 LEPCA 6 PROPOSER CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that: I, as an authorized agent of the Proposer, am submitting the following information as my firm's proposal; Proposer agrees to complete and unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of this document, inclusive of this solicitation,all attachments, exhibits and appendices and the contents of any Addenda released hereto, and the Disclosure and Disclaimer Statement; Proposer agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and conditions contained in the solicitation,and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements of this solicitation and failure to comply will result in disqualification of proposal submitted; Proposer has not divulged, discussed,or compared the proposal with other Proposers and has not colluded with any other Proposer or party to any other proposal; Proposer acknowledges that all information contained herein is part of the public domain as defined by the State of Florida Sunshine and Public Records Laws;all responses,data and information contained in this proposal, inclusive of the Proposal Certification,Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit are true and accurate. Name of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Title of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Brian Mangan, Psy.D. President Signature of P•poser's 'rized Representative: Date: ■06� 10/10/14 State of F �^ ) On this 11 day ofOC+P,/. 82011,personally appeared before me 14!T:1.► IC who Coun of R Cf ) stated that (s)he is the '(' '• of Lk P C W CS, a corporation, and that the instrument was signed in behalf of rP � 9 the said corporation by authority of its board of directors and acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act and dee Before me: ` e Mayte Aponte Notary blic fat the State of 1- wort#FF085 87 My Commission Expires: I a I � vr�r.lUutor�.�'2018 • Miami Beach RFP 2014-O15-LR Appendix A—Page 6 LEPCA 7 Proposal Certification, Questionnaire &Requirements Affidavit Continued: IMPORTANT- Statements to address additional items in Appendix A of RFP: Appendix A,3: No conflict of interest Appendix A,5: Law Enforcement Psychological & Counseling Associates, Inc (LEPCA) has not been involved in any litigation within the last five years and there is no pending litigation arising out of LEPCA's performance Appendix A, 11: No person or affiliate of LEPCA convicted of public entity crime Appendix A,4: References & Past Performance 1. City of Miami Police Department 1980 to Present Armando Aguilar, Jr., Senior Executive Assistant to the Chief of Police 400 NW 2nd Ave, Miami, FL 33128 305-603-6100 armando.aguilarjr @ miami-police.org **Conduct all pre-employment psychological screenings, as well as critical incident stress debriefings 2. Florida Highway Patrol 1997 to Present George Crotta, Captain 2900 Apalachee Pkwy, Tallahassee, FL 32399 850-617-2311 georgecrotta@flhsmv.gov **Conduct all pre-employment screening for state agency, as well as psychological fitness for duty evaluations and critical incident stress debriefings 3. City of Hialeah Police Department 1990 to Present Raleigh Flowers, Major 5555 East 8th Ave, Hialeah, FL 33013 305-953-5343 rflowersj r@hialeahfl.gov **Conduct all pre-employment psychological screenings for agency, as well as critical incident stress debriefings LEPCA 8 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Law Enforcement Psychological and Counseling Associates, Inc. (LEPCA) is a well-established consultation firm that provides comprehensive services exclusively to law enforcement agencies primarily in the South Florida area. The firm was created in 1977 to effectively address the often unique and complex issues facing psychologists who undertake the role of a public safety psychological consultant. Dr. Brian Mangan serves as the President and Senior Psychologist of LEPCA, with Dr. Mark Axelberd, the founder of the firm, still serving as an active consultant and Staff Psychologist. Since the South Florida region is multi-ethnic in composition, the firm further understood the importance of cultural sensitivity and making certain that LEPCA's services would be accepted and utilized by the diverse cultural groups found in public safety work. One way to achieve this goal was to include mental health professionals from varied ethnic backgrounds in all areas of the firm's consultation work and this philosophy remains today. In 2006,the Miami-Dade Police Department with our assistance conducted extensive research for a 5 and 13-year period to determine whether our screening evaluations resulted in any adverse impact by race, sex or ethnic group(study included with this proposal.) The results found that no adverse impact exists." To our knowledge, this study was one of the most exhaustive of its kind. In 2009, LEPCA also completed a"green initiative" and made extensive investments to achieve a near paperless and seamless psychological screening process both for our internal office and user agencies as well. The project design utilized extensive input from numerous public safety agencies to better serve their specific needs. Our new system allows agencies to independently schedule applicants, access and/or download final applicant reports online 24-hours after completion of testing, safely store applicant files electronically,receive or review ancillary screening materials online,produce statistical reports quickly, and provide applicants important information on our website. We believe this achievement is one of the first of its kind in the entire nation and has proved to be well worth the effort extended. Importantly, this service is fully encrypted, protected with secure username and password, and all HIPAA requirements are adhered to regarding electronic storage. In summation, LEPCA has been intricately involved in every facet of law enforcement and public safety consultation. In particular, the firm is very well known for its expertise in pre- employment psychological screening and LEPCA's evaluation process has often served as a model for numerous psychologists entering this specialized field. We have conducted approximately 70,000 evaluations for over 60 public safety agencies and carried out extensive research in this area. Our screening system strictly adheres to laws governed by the EEOC, including the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Genetic Information Non- Discrimination Act(GINA). Moreover, our system meets and exceeds the guidelines set forth by the IACP, COPPS organization, California Post Commission, and CALEA. No agency using our screening services has ever had difficulties becoming or maintaining CALEA certification. In addition, many public safety agencies around the United States and even internationally both formally and informally have requested our input to implement or improve their selection procedures and design. LEPCA 9 Beyond providing pre-employment screenings and other consultations for almost every public safety agency in Miami-Dade County and many agencies es in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, our expertise has been utilized by non-local entities as well. For example, we conduct pre- employment screenings for state agencies including the Florida Highway Patrol and Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission, and have performed other sensitive evaluations as requested by federal agencies such as the F.B.I., U.S. Customs, D.E.A., and the Transportation Security Agency. In addition, we have been instrumental in developing public safety fitness standards and guidelines not only for pre-employment screenings but also for Fitness for Duty Evaluations (FFDE). Our firm has been a pioneer in introducing and conducting FFDEs, which typically are very arduous and can frequently result in expensive litigation if not done correctly. Dr. Axelberd, in particular,has been called upon many times by various agencies around the country to conduct extremely important and complicated fitness evaluations. LEPCA has also been a local and national leader in creating innovative and effective specialized counseling, critical incident debriefings and training programs for sworn and non-sworn employees and their family members. Members of the firm have provided literally thousands of hours of treatment and training to those in the South Florida public safety community for over 30 years. Indeed, many of the now commonly accepted psychological service practices for local and statewide public safety agencies were originally designed and promoted by members of our firm. Most importantly, we are known for our constant availability, ease of accessibility, and practical • approaches to achieving the highest quality services to our clients. We take great pride in our work and never forget the critical nature of the services we provide. We value the trust placed in us by our law enforcement clients and LEPCA will always strive to be deserving of the respect and opportunity given to us by the law enforcement and public safety community. LEPCA 10 N O r O tt y r (O co O) O co O a 0 0 co M - O) M O co co O Nt Q) O O O co r O M (O 0 0 a CO co co co N co O O r r r co c0 co O co O O O O M co O co O) O O (D r N r (p a) N 0 M O O M O r r r M r co N co N co r O M N N M O O r (M r (a M CI C') C') C') M co co) co co co co co co N N N co co N M M M M e. co co co co co co co M co co M co co co M M co co M co M M co co co co M co M co co co M co a) r+ as J -J J J J J J _I J J J J J J J J J _J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J N LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL L. LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL C U C.) N N a) C a) a) C a) O CO CO a) _ N U "0 C .' 0 0 0- v a) a) co al E U — a) a) a0) a0) a) a) o a) co v > — V c a (o (o j �° .. co uNi v) Cl) Cl) - U ai ai u)i CO o v t O co O >. O v '0 t t -0 N _ a) 2 O O (0 C6 CO c0 O _ (O LO (0 (a C L O (n ,_ >, C I = c9 co CO CO Cu c a0) aa)) a) E E c o' o o co co a co o co E .°— co coo. co a aa)) , m a > CO co N w o o CO a) m ca 0 co °) m 0 0 �o °a �o T a_ (5 •(-° o m m o Co o aa' c 0 Q m m m LL o = = Z Z = _ > U U H H H F- L" 2 LL H H E•• 0 Z = Y J 2 a) v a Y 2 N v C m M Y Q •� N N .l= o v. O N O o Q CD V • (/) o E n N a) o P2 qi V C N (7 O CA -0 N co -0 c O 0 CO co m V >. •.0 ` 3 CD m m .6 7 5 '6 > a) v -E 'w U I- > m a) a) 6 v 0 a) > a -dam°- a) w .. a. a_ aoQm � co m b a) C ° O -2 L 3 -c �0 V)- Q ai O H (-- C o t O 3 (4 •C co CI L t L 00 CO O O I— U .—; _ o 3 a '2 .C < b E m M (NO a (oo .;L Y --I „ o coo coo CS m § C (YO N- O 0 t eTa m LL M O E r = O co a O C O w Of a. (0 c0 co c — U O ci, p U O p(Oj m Z 3 Z N W a Z Z Z N U (!J Q O "LO') t°o Z N Q Q Q -0 ? _ , 3 Z vi'® `t N O co r 0 to W an CO O r cn . y U - a o o o c) c) r r N cn CO 0 0 0 0 r cl) r 0 r O r 0 0 0 '>, co O > V' 0 0 0 (7 M co CO M C CO O gt C (CD CO (.O CO CO 0 .N- co (r) co M N co N 'I co N o M m co Cl) a) N N r 0 c� c0 LC) N CO 4110 V O O N O Co O O O co 0 (C) N ,— 0 0 0 CO N 0 0 0 O N o r V' V* M I- co r I,-V w E . CO O v O 0 0) 0 . v 0 M N Nt M 0 0 r (0 0 CO CO CO O) r r I. V' M cf) cO (o ' • O O N O s CO V of M a) to O r (o I- CO M O r O CO O O M CO .41' M r) (o O O W Q) U c CO U) 9 CO I (O r r (n (O r Co M O (O r r l' 1' O 1' N r N N N M 'T O N N O d O . CO CO CD CO r M I■ M M N r co M N co co co co CO co O co co N co co ® CO CO (O O N Cr) ill co co co N (O r r r O c() cc) r r M 1C) c0 co I� CO O O w a. i. CO Co Co (.2 (n 1' 4 O) CO N O CO N O 1" N 1" l' ' N co M N 9 (O Q) O O M N- CO .0 CI Cl) co 6 co st cn -a co Cl) co co in co st co O O 0 O co O cn co O O co co co co V N < O O O O co O cn co O O O O O O co O co co co co O cn O co cn co 0 0 co O c1) O co co M M 0) M a) a) co co co co co co CA co CO CO CO CO co CO co CO Co co co o) co O) M a C, ET O .. C C OC V •(O.) U O V CD 0 •(9 N m m O U o c N (o o E y ES C (a c J O o m ca o a c L .' .c o LL a) o >, E L(0 Of O O O c (0 = (C CJ V U v v_) co co 0 co 0 LL cco E .c c Q m > S c >, 3 c>o U d c 'o m .- t m 0 9-L >. p r m a) U U r p m Y Q ca ca aai to H C CO co p° u- 5? 3 m a j a) r2 (9 p C o 0 .0 = 1 �+ _ c O .O. •0 c . O w.. O ••c: C co C a)) Y U r.r g co m c 1 c`a a) t 0 as m C E . rn .c av) (°o (>a 0 r m s co ac) ca LLI o .z UU -3 Ce QUQI— oUa. 25 —) W2mm ¢ a_ Uo = UUU ¢ Y 8 O U , to U y isi 0 w a) E .+ E C N N r a �, C a) '"' C .9 r. C E C cu c E a) E r y o co .' o C `_° a' aai t O E LE r a :. a' c N E c •X co m (a a) .. H E CO 03 0)) L L O • U N a > O N •C li 0 aai o C Q' E c a (n o m o „ E E co Q a) r V a 0 0 O E: a) a) 0 C a0i 0 23 o .c N m co E aci aa) ° ° o •5 ' a 0 C.)i 0 0 am) 0 Q '- v a o E o •2 .2� = • m U = a a C •o 0 2 0 a a) •o •o a. (a (a W ii a) co U .co a O Q ii H o w a .= >, >, d d 2 a a) p V O Y ` v v t L t j O c9 2 Y 0- ... •� .� U U 0 (a ca >. t O • a- a_ o C C m CO co o c .. o u) 0 0 0 a a) CL 3 3 03 U v o a) 0 CD a o a a r m (o (a 0 0 0 E N y .. Q o o >, c t 3 ca c`a a C 0_ •_ o o m co m (o Co. o °_) m 0 aci aci aci o Q. a) rn rn rn a) a ca — o < o o T 'o o = _ _ = 2 = > C E E E c co c p co CO CO CO m L ° N s a+ r e' .2 = = o ea 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — CO cO c0 •� 0 `o a v v 'o v 0 , m a u) 0 a) �► y o > w _ _ y w w _ U a a a a o `o o `o `o c (0 — > 0 v Or eN- Q CO c m m m U U U U U U U U U U U U 0 o 0 o W I.L LL LL LL LL LL 0 _ = Y co 2 LEPCA 11 N w 0 4110 O O N. 0 00 co co O N ti (f) O N r O t� st ~ co O st st O O tn• C) a co co st N N M CO N st N 'at CD (D O O Ln N N st (D Xl) ti N O N O O O r ;71 r c7) r r" r r r O O r r M N O O M 0 r r r r co st r r M m N N M M M M M M M M M M M M M M N M M M M M M M M (n M M M d co c�) M M Cr) Cn M CO M co co co co co co co co co co co co co M co C) r ea • J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J Cn LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL .0 U CA O O N U) CO C ` 6 al a) .CO. j td N N j Y Y C co CO -0 •.. (0 c.O O m m CO !n m a� g 2 m o ° N a _ m CD a•(Ev m' (Eo (Ea (Ea m m (Ea (CS (Eo m `—° u9° E • c `NC E t t t t . Y z z 11-1 `; O a a I C°n in can o a U a U_ E 0 . C.) L.: C -) fT 0 c o Y Ca C.) 0 J Ch c sr r m Q 2 W = 0 CD C E LL > c _ •N ai 0 d a) c m Y ■.... > > C ai E U N c U) C a) > > > O Cr) w r V N ¢ , O •`.- a1 w e a) ai a) N a CO to a) O > ¢ ¢ ¢ p L (4 a) o L cn = U > -o a) c > > J +• > C ° rn ¢ .o v rn , o E m o) w as m ¢ > H p p N ¢ a) a0i 'c C N C C C m r N 0-.. O E a) r `� U Co m w CA •. C 0) o N yy 13 U p O fn N CO N N N N U 111 r _ (� (�0 C N = r N U C O (� V C m § § Lu o' o ° Z ui F- o — c o' a 0 (`a a) o c k.• CO o z Z Z z • m z v ¢ a o, cn o = U m a (�, N a 0 (() Z Z O O U) Z sr O O Z O 'O (n 0 _Z -1c O M C (n st O O (N O O CO) O co O (t0) • O in CD O J N et (on (n (o � co O N O C o _up N O Cn r N v v C) N CO C) I` a co (n r N. a a N O st m co r C) in it a (1) r N d � ` d 0 co 0) st 0 CO 0 N I 0 0 0 0 0 0) V (C) M (D 0 0 r 0 N 0 0 M r r 0 /.∎ N. O N st (D _0 N� 0 st 0 O 0 0 N C) 0) M CD O_ O O V CD O O N st N_ _0 W d C P N 9 CO (O N (n q '7 M C) •- 0I N N O CO 'at N COO (4 sr C) ONO CD r N N 0 V O Q = N M M M M 0) c) r r co 0 M N N 00 r d• r r t1 ti M 7 r N M h st st 0 a. N C0 O O to O M r 0 N O CO C) r CD M C) (D CD st CD (f) O N 00 M C) O ® CO u)LO 0 (D f` 0 M s� s� N N CO N O 0 Or CD I. I..;* C) CD C) O Cn (D N N N M (n (n CD Un (n 0 (n (D (n (n CD (n et U) (n (n O (n st st st (A M (n et r (n st L 00o0000003000301110001.0 0 (n (t) It) 0 0 0 0 (n (D 0 0 LC) V 410 M M N. M M M M N M M N C'') 0) M C') M OD M 0) 0) C) M M M M CO u) M M 0) • M in C.)v y a '2 2 C , C CO L C C U _ N U 7 'O C C a) O O cc U N t O N D N C 0 y �' C d a) ♦J V m = C C (J.) m O m O c a) t C J to N (o J O C C .y C W d c >L O m m 2 c J (o 01 (0) J o ,- < Cn C LL N in O 0 c E N .0 v CO m a c Om c 5 t c >� a) m 1 2 -o o = y m (`o m N E C El > d '17. N .+ 3 h .. C Y (0 p O U_ N • Y '> ` .� w co �' G C o 0 0 'O CO O m t0 C7) 't7 o IT O .r. _ (o �. L E •- N co Ca O Co = CO C W Z J 0 C.) ¢ p J r2 J Cn ui n Cn p Z C!) 1- U J U o it J p C.) n i- 2 J W ca 0 LL .J W LL c c °? p e8 LL G w LL c E c j c `U - C ca 1E) d f0 .cm L p 2 E - E 0 a L. C N "C' C t >, co ° co .. C 0 E CC )0 .. N a • C ? aa « . . E a) a) () a) c ca` m c a) a)E E o > 'C E °a E c a p .c E co (moc co E . -a) O O a) •C c c U N *c C c °- a m m U CO a a) t E ) . C >' N Q ° ar .2 E o V a Q 0 U 0) m a) O co ( p p p p a a p p .o m a O.O a t U 0 CD 0 0 n. ., 0 a m ) .v ° aac 5 8 E E aa p 0 U s 0 0 m •N mm ° a o >. O m ° � O 0 m 0 m °0 c c¢ a o o 0 . ao ' c ° ° 0 a - C o ••V ai 0 Cl)• 6 11.- a s m a Q c m a ¢ ¢ a o a m •C .5° E c c t r OP vvV V ° r a m co O a a co O N t O a) a) co O O t a co (o (o m J (o (o a) 0 N n- c p a w as•03 n o Q Q Q ? (` a) U 0 O O a o N o 0 ... o -0 z 0 0 0 in o E E E E E E E E E E E v CS c t 'c c°i m E c E c 't a) 3 3 > _o c N (a m (a (C) m m m (a (o (o m 2 h- 0 0 0 E E: a a) m a) o = 0 3 O o c = - 2 2 2 2 2 Z Z 0 0 0 a s cn cn cn cn cn H H > > LEPCA 12 EXPERIENCE & QUALIFICATIONS Organizational Chart of licensed psychologists on staff conducting assessment/interviews and critical incident debriefings: President and Senior Psychologist: Brian Mangan, Psy.D. Licensed Psychologist Lead Staff Psychologist and Consultant: Mark Axelberd, Ph.D, ABPP Licensed Psychologist Board Certified Specialist in Police and Public Safety Staff Psychologists: Christine Jean, Psy.D. Marie Defeo, Psy.D. Mirelis Peraza, Psy.D. Licensed Psychologist Licensed Psychologist Licensed Psychologist All listed licensed psychologists operate out of the main office location: 9960 NW 116th Ave, Suite 12 Medley, FL 33178 305-442-8800 STAFF BIOGRAPHIES AND QUALIFICATIONS The following staff biographies are intended to summarize the experience in psychological screening and the services provided to police and public safety. Professional associations related to the profession of psychology and the specialty of police and public safety psychology are included in the biographies. As stated earlier, LEPCA has conducted approximately 70,000 evaluations for over 60 public safety agencies and carried out extensive research in this area. Agencies that send similar amounts of applicants or more per year to LEPCA include Florida Highway Patrol, Broward Sheriffs Office, Hialeah Police Department, City of Miami Police Department, Hollywood Police Department, Coral Gables Police Department and Miami-Dade County agencies including Police, Corrections, and Fire. Brian L. Mangan, Psy.D. Licensed Psychologist President Dr. Brian Mangan received his Doctor of Psychology in Clinical Psychology from The George Washington University in Washington, D.C. with distinction in 2003, specializing in the areas of adult therapy and assessment. He pursued his pre-doctoral internship at South Florida State Hospital, where he developed skills in dealing with a forensic population. Shortly after. he LEPCA 13 completed his post-doctoral residency with Citrus Health Network, conducting evaluations for ® the Juvenile Evaluation and Treatment Services ro am in the Miami-Dade Juvenile Justice P �' system. After achieving licensure near the end of 2005,he became a staff psychologist with Law Enforcement Psychological & Counseling Associates (LEPCA.) Since that time,he has received daily mentoring from Dr. Mark Axelberd, and has risen to the levels of Senior Psychologist and Managing Partner. In 2011, Dr. Mangan took over the daily operations of LEPCA and currently serves as President of the firm. Dr. Mangan a member of the American Psychological Association, Division 18 Psychologists in Public Service-Police & Public Safety Section and the Florida Psychological Association. Also, he is an active member of the International Association of the Chiefs of Police Psychological Services Section(IACP), currently serving as 2014 Conference Vice-Chair of the Education Committee (member of committee since 2011), member of the Ethics Consultation Committee (three year appointment), and member of the Officer Involved Shooting Guideline Revision Committee (2013) and the Psychological Fitness for Duty Evaluation Guideline Revision Committee (2013.) He is also a member of the Society for Police and Criminal Psychology and of the Consortium of Police Psychological Services (COPPS.) He served as the Chair of COPPS in 2008 and 2013,hosting the annual conferences attended by many public safety professionals from the South East region of the United States discussing emerging issues related to evaluation, intervention, ethics, and legislation current in police psychology. Currently, Dr. Mangan serves as the President of Law Enforcement Psychological and Counseling Associates (LEPCA) in Miami, Florida. He started with LEPCA in January 2006 and was directed by Dr. Mark Axelberd in advanced training on public safety and law enforcement related issues. His primary duty involves consultation with command staff on law enforcement related issues concerning both community and organizational objectives. On a daily basis, Dr. Mangan conducts numerous pre-employment screening interviews, interprets standardized test profiles, and consults with background investigators and law enforcement personnel regarding evaluation results. Moreover, he reviews all pre-employment evaluation files and completes the final report sent to an agency on each applicant. To this date, Dr. Mangan has performed over 15,000 screenings and reviewed over 20,000 evaluation files with approval for final report. Additional duties include psychological screening for specialized unit placement(Hostage Negotiator, SWAT, etc.); counseling for the Officer Assistance Program with the City of Miami, Coral Gables, and Hialeah Police Departments; fitness for duty evaluations; critical incident stress debriefings; and conducting trainings with various departments in the south Florida community regarding front line supervision, stress management,and crisis intervention. Since joining LEPCA, Dr. Mangan has also been instrumental in all research activities related to pre-employment psychological screening, including performance of combat veterans and veteran police officers on testing. For example, he conducted an extensive performance review of recruits in the Miami-Dade Police Department(MDPD) public safety academy. The research yielded very positive results and identified specific scores on the pre-employment evaluation that were correlated to successful completion of the academy. Additionally, Dr. Mangan recently completed research on "Successful vs. Unsuccessful" candidates in the Miami-Dade County- LEPCA 14 Corrections training program, utilizing the pre-screening evaluations as a guide indicate potential risk in future screenings. Along with Dr. Mark Axelberd, Dr. Mangan was involved in the development of the Public Safety Suitability Questionnaire (PSSQ), which is an objective standardized test used in the pre-employment screening of public safety candidates, and also recently participated in research on the performance of combat veterans on the pre-employment psychological evaluation. Dr. Mangan previously served as Assistant Professor and Forensic Coordinator at Carlos Albizu University. As the coordinator,he monitored a program designed to train students to deliver psychological services, including psycho-diagnostic assessment, case law, legal standards, and expert testimony within the judicial and correctional systems. Additionally, he worked closely with the Miami-Dade Juvenile Courts, providing judges with comprehensive evaluations and treatment recommendations for at-risk youths for a period of one year after completing his post- doctoral commitment. Mark Axelberd, Ph.D., ABPP Licensed Psychologist Dr. Mark Axelberd received his Ph.D. with a specialty in Clinical Psychology from Georgia State University in 1977. He did his doctoral internship at the Counseling and Consultation Center at the Ohio State University. Since that time, he has been a full-time consulting psychologist to law enforcement agencies on a local, state and national level. He was the primary founder of the firm Law Enforcement Psychological and Counseling Associates, Inc. (LEPCA) and served as the President for 34 years. Since 2011, he has served as lead consultant and staff psychologist. In 2010, Dr. Axelberd was awarded Board Certification in Police and Public Safety Psychology, a unique specialty distinction that shared by only 60 professionals nationwide. He is also an active member of the Consortium of Police Psychological Services, the American Psychological Association, and International Association of the Chiefs of Police. Dr. Axelberd's 37 years of exclusive experience with law enforcement has allowed him to develop a most unique and thorough grasp of the complexities of providing psychological services to public safety clients. His reputation and expertise is well known within the law enforcement community and he has often been called upon by law enforcement administrators to advise and consult on the most sensitive and difficult matters. Many of the current psychological services provided to South Florida law enforcement agencies have been a direct result of his efforts. He has provided expert information and testimony numerous times for matters related to psychological fitness standards for law enforcement officers. He has also assisted many agencies in matters such as understanding and complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). After 9/11. he was contracted to perform sensitive assessments germane to Homeland Security enhancement and continues to do so. Dr. Axelberd has also been instrumental in including and promoting the utilization of minorities and women in a wide range of public safety consultations. Encouraged by his colleagues and law enforcement community, Dr. Axelberd designed and developed a new and specialized personality screening instrument for the selection of Public LEPCA 15 Safety Applicants. The Public Safety Screening Questionnaire (PSSQ) is different from other tests in that a cross-section of actual Public Safety Officers were extensively involved iii providing input and actually creating some of the individual test items. As a result,the item content of the PSSQ is very job-related and directly assesses those characteristics and traits deemed essential by those working in the field. The PSSQ to date has proved itself to be a very valuable addition to the firm's battery of pre-employment instruments. Dr. Axelberd received awards and is frequently recognized for his positive contributions in areas such as Pre-Employment Psychological Screening, Officer Assistance Programs, Personnel Policy Development, Fitness for Duty Evaluations, Critical Incident Debriefings, Officer Training Programs and assisting agencies in the development and implementation of effective selection systems. He was featured several times in the written and television media for his innovative consultations with law enforcement agencies. For example, he has appeared on the TV news program 20/20, 48 Hours and the USA Today TV News Journal. The International Association of Chiefs of Police honored Dr. Axelberd with a certificate of appreciation for his teaching of seminars involving pre-employment psychological screening. In the early 1980's, Dr. Axelberd also worked closely with the Florida Police Standards and Training Commission to initiate pre-employment psychological testing standards and officer assistance programs throughout the State of Florida. In 1981, Dr. Axelberd wrote the original guidelines on behalf of the commission for the conducting of pre-employment screening in the state. During this same period, he was also one of only a few select public safety psychologists chosen by Harper and Row Media to conduct nationwide workshops with law enforcement executives on the introduction of psychological services to their respective agencies. Dr. Axelberd was selected by the Council of Police Psychologists to initiate national guidelines for psychological screening of law enforcement applicants. He was called upon by numerous agencies on a local, national and even international level to provide opinions and make recommendations on numerous subjects related to public safety psychological services. For example, he worked closely with the Dallas Police Department,New York City P. D., Rochester Police Department and several others in critically assessing and developing updated selection procedures. On an international level, he has provided extensive input to the Moscow, London, Ottawa and Israeli law enforcement agencies. Dr.Axelberd has gained his reputation and continues to do so through his"hands-on"provision of psychological services. He has been directly involved in the screening of over 70,000 law enforcement applicants and has conducted approximately 300 Fitness for Duty Evaluations. He has also designed innovative and very successful confidential counseling programs,training seminars and Critical Incident Debriefings for law enforcement personnel and their families. Over the years, he has personally provided counseling assistance to an innumerable number of South Florida officers and families. Dr. Axelberd continues to remain directly involved in every facet of the firm"s law enforcement consultations. In more recent years,he has provided extensive advanced training to LEPCA staff psychologists in the specialty of public safety psychology. This has provided him the opportunity and time to conduct updated research and to creatively modify and "tweak" existing services. He especially has concentrated on improving effectiveness in the critical area of pre-employment psychological screening. He has conducted validation research, gathered normative data LEPCA 16 pertaining to minority applicants,provided training to police background investigators and has developed numerous supplemental materials and procedures to assure the highest quality screenings of South Florida applicants. One very important and recent accomplishment was LEPCA's completion of a"green initiative"in 2009. Developed by Dr. Axelberd and Dr. Brian Mangan, with input from the public safety community, this system allows for near paperless and seamless process of screening for both LEPCA and agency users. Lastly, Dr. Axelberd conducted timely research on the performance of combat veterans on pre-employment psychological evaluations. He is honored that his screening and other programs have often served as a model for other psychologists entering the law enforcement consultation field. Christine Jean, Psv.D. Licensed Psychologist Dr. Christine Jean is a well-respected and active psychologist in the South Florida region, especially known for her delivery of mental health services to the Haitian community. Dr. Jean was born in New York, but raised in Haiti until returning to the United States for college. She received her Bachelor's Degree from the University of Miami with a major in Criminology and Psychology in 1997. She then attended Carlos Albizu University where she received a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology with distinction in 2002. Dr. Jean's area of specialty during her doctoral training was Forensic Psychology. Dr. Jean completed her internship at the South Florida State Hospital/Atlantic Services Hospital where she provided therapeutic and psychological evaluations to a wide range of mentally ill patients. She completed her post-doctoral residency at Citrus Health Network, in the Juvenile Evaluation and Treatment Services (JETS). Dr. Jean subsequently remained in that program as a Clinical Coordinator for the following three years. Her work included coordinating and providing varied evaluation and counseling services to at- risk youth. For the past eight years, Dr. Jean has been in private practice providing varied services to a wide- ranging population of clients. Her work includes therapy for sex offenders and conducting psychological evaluations for the Miami-Dade Mental Health Court Division. She also works with the Miami-Dade Juvenile Court on mental health issues of youthful offenders, and with parents involved in the Dependency Court system. Dr. Jean was also an adjunct faculty member at the Miami-Dade College for four years. Dr. Jean became a staff member with LEPCA in 2008. Based on her training, experience and interest in the criminal justice area, Dr. Jean was a natural fit for our firm. With the ever- increasing number of Haitian public safety applicants, she has also been of great assistance in better understanding the test profiles and interview responses of this applicant group. Dr. Jean has undergone extensive additional training with senior staff in evaluating and interviewing public safety applicants from numerous South Florida agencies. She has personally conducted approximately 3,000 pre-employment psychological applicant interviews and reviewed standardized objective test profiles of thousands of public safety applicants. Lastly. Dr. Jean participates as a therapist with LEPCA's Officer Assistance Program for officers and their family members,and she has conducted Critical Incident Debriefings for police officers after officer- LEPCA 17 involved shootings. These experiences have provided a further understanding and an in-depth ® look into the nature and s cholo ical effects y g ects of public safety work on individual officers. Marie DeFeo, Psy.D. Licensed Psychologist Dr. Marie DeFeo was born in New York but raised in Ethiopia, Addis Ababa and the United States Virgin Islands. Despite living abroad in her formative years, she eventually moved to the United States where she completed her studies in South Florida. She received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Psychology and a Minor in Criminal Justice at Florida International University. She went on to pursue her Masters in Psychology and Doctorate in Clinical Psychology at Carlos Albizu University(2002). Dr. DeFeo specialized in Forensic Psychology and became a member of Psi Chi Honor Society. Dr. DeFeo is a respected psychologist, who has worked in Broward Correctional Institute as a Mental Health Specialist and at the Broward Sheriff's Office as a supervisor of the women substance abuse programs. In addition, she was pivotal in creating the first Dual Diagnosis program in Broward Florida at the House of Hope. This program focused on competency restoration training, substance abuse and mental health treatment. Over the last eight years, she has pursued private practice and has been responsible to conducting court-ordered evaluation for Broward, Miami and West Palm Beach Courts. She has testified in court as an expert and 4111/ conducted an array of evaluations such as Sanity Assessments. Malingering, and Competency to Proceed to mention a few. In 2012, Dr. DeFeo became a part-time staff psychologist with Law Enforcement Psychological& Counseling Associates. Given her extensive knowledge and experience in the forensic setting, she was a natural fit for our firm. Her contributions of assessment and testing skills come from years of working in the legal and law enforcement setting. Mirelis Peraza, Psy.D. Licensed Psychologist Dr. Mirelis Peraza was born and raised in Cuba, where she completed one year of college before immigrating to the United States. She continued her education at Florida Atlantic University, where she graduated in 2003 with a Bachelor's Degree in Psychology. She pursued her graduate studies at Carlos Albizu University, from where she received her Master Degree in Psychology (2005) and a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology (2012), both with distinction. Her area of concentration during her doctoral studies was forensic psychology and assessment. Dr. Peraza completed her pre-doctoral internship and postdoctoral residency at South Florida State Hospital (SFSH), where she remains as a part time psychologist. In her three years working at the state hospital, Dr. Peraza has developed expertise with violence risk assessments and competency to proceed evaluations for the court. She has provided competency restoration and risk management on individual and group settings, completed evaluations for the court, and trained graduate students completing their practicum and internship years at SFSH. Beginning in 2012. Dr. Peraza became involved with Law Enforcement Psychological & Counseling Associates LEPCA 18 (LEPCA), integrating standardized objective test profiles, and observing interviews and the final report process. In 2014, Dr. Peraza achieved her Florida licensure and became a regular staff member of LEPCA, conducting pre-employment psychological interviews on a daily basis. Dr. Peraza has over ten years of experience in clinical therapy, with a diverse range of populations and disorders. Before providing clinical services to the severe mentally ill population of the state hospital, she had over 7000 hours of experience in clinical therapy with children and their families. Additionally, for the past year, Dr. Peraza has been in private practice, providing individual therapy to adult outpatient population. She has sought extensive training, specializing in the areas of affective disorders,trauma, family dynamics, and immigration and acculturation issues. LEPCA 19 • • • • • STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OP HEALTH DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY ASSU DATE RANCE LICENSE NO, CONTROL NO. • 05/27/2014 1.1131131.1111.Maill The PSYCHOLOGIST named below has met all requirements of the laws and rules of the state of Florida, Expiration Date: MAY 31, 2016 BRIAN LAWRENCE MANGAN A1TN:LEPCA 0960 NW 118 WAY SUITE t2 MIAMI,FL 33178 (dick Scolt °, GOVERNOR John H.Armstrong, MD.FA S DISPLAY IF REQUIRED Y STATE SURGEON GENERAL LEPCA 20 • • AC# • ` . • . STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE • DATE LICENSE NO. CONTROL NO. 0512712014 PY 2025 35778 The PSYCHOLOGIST named below has met all requirements of the taws and rules of the state of Florida. Expiration Date: MAY 31, 2016 MARK M AXELBERD ATTN:LEPCA 9980 NW 118TH WAY SUITE 12 MIAMI,FL 33178 • Rick Scott 4144..John GOVERNOR STATE SURGEON GENERAL DISPLAY IF REQUIRED BY LAW LEPCA 21 • AC# • • STATE OF FLORIDA • DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH DIVISION OF MEDICAL QUALITY ASSURANCE DATE LICENSE NO. CONTROL NO. 0512412014 PY 6942 35667 The PSYCHOLOGIST named below has met all requirements or the laws and rules of the stale of Florida. Expiration Date: MAY 31, 2016 CHRISTINE JEAN LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL 9960 NW 116TH WAY SUITE 618 MIAMI,FL 33178 Rich Scott John H.Armstrong.MD.FA GOVERNOR STATE SURGEON GENERAL. DISPLAY IF REQUIRED BY LAW LEPCA 22 • • • • • • • • • STATE OF RN"; ` y DEPARTMaN 1 �1C ', . o .� ;HEALTH �. a Dvsiow QFMED 14L QUALITY ASSURANCE'. .� �} DATA •s: LICENSE N0, ,� �,{ -o . .:•y 41,291204'A.. ::. PY 6960 _ ''_ X6174:. 4:.:PSYCHO O $T ... . :nernedbelowlgo• t.alf requirements of 'the 4we'tnd=r s of the state of Florida. • MAY 31,2016 Expcc�tion�a#e: .•• • •1 lRIE - •. DE FE® . . ..• /0 LICENSEE SIGNA .T RE • r LEPCA 23 • • . 4 I 0 . ' • . • • • • : e- 4'G'' _, • •. Ai - ' r r t 4-•.,., • • . , , • . .. - '',, ' i ,.if--e•. ''- , • ..-1 1;:kt i ' ' '''. Wtt)(1.:5A, 14 itir!e.:4,11 • ., 1 i i •N .F r - ' -, ' -,.1 TH . . (..,,t. A zr-ii. • ,,,,. i • 01 . •'''''' --s - inPf ''- S' ' .'''' ' J.". • .. kt14#4,V we 6.41011.7tr ' 4 ' grz.. '■. "'4:-• r 0, . I f' PY9014..-Th'i "Y-- r7rr.4 • ,. • _,_ T.-..,• The •-`'.: •,,,„:.4 ". . ' . name:.., .1...,,. -fr .S.r._ a ,•714,4-1:errients 490(.c.n-, ft. .?........4,, . , . .1#... U t k i Af iiYi.l. 1-t,s,_ ...' .At te of Sarkis. . . 1. .:3A-7: Cg10 31,201e t • -1 k fto t.rAlt ;;4 0 ri.t-s, 2ATTNI:JAC:Q:tiLINE:: C7HN ES.AR-VALDES,PH 11110 "4 c It's 1 fi'4 jk •0. I 4.4.0,- tip. .;.t.:01./. • HO •;',,,,," Ail - 7e." (Ir.. 1V-4.11,tg-i:t(11 1`..:*•44;;Ii .. (P .i.q. aviNg, kii ,igui tip"Iffl i. .7.11,1,1%1 v• .09 1,.. )tt yf .4 .0.,.,,., A . . ,:t1 ) - le•4.4:„ . ( ..,•.0 -- . ' • - "er* * ___ e •. 4, , f I' •a' 4alk, • • ,.A - - • en.it Aikke' I 1.,00:. :§..01!ft) gN,fl r44..b .4'' -ermitlin k . .-1■007i Distvfiy, . '''% If7S!,IvrE'sArmuR6:I*i'.'lla-4 A--. , ... ,. • ta,....me IXeY:3..' ,'...!4i1 kliltAW ; ..- II?,_,. • :Ali,' vii..4.,; 4.1.6.1: ,, 4•,•,•,,,,o, -s..17+•" • III LEPCA 24 PHILOSOPHY OF PRE-EMPLOYMENT SCREENING PROCESS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY PERSONNEL Pre-employment psychological screening of Public Safety Position applicants first began to gain popularity and widespread acceptance in the 1970-1980 period. Initially,this screening was adopted mostly by urban agencies often in reaction to alleged civil rights violations by their Officers and subsequent protests, legal actions and in some cases civil disturbances. The so called"negligent hiring and retention" legal claims began to proliferate in those years, occasionally resulting in large monetary payouts to Plaintiffs. The psychological screening of applicants became one of the first agency responses to these events, since agencies could implement screening rather quickly at a reasonable cost. Unfortunately,many agencies and contracted screening psychologists knew little about the intricacies of this screening or how to effectively implement or utilize the results. As a consequence, a plethora of screening procedures emerged, many of which were of little use to the agency. Often, the psychologist worked in isolation from the agency and there was scant communication between the two parties. This severely limited the psychologist's effectiveness and the agency frequently had little education on how to interpret or apply what the psychologist's report indicated. As a result, many misconceptions about screening developed and agencies sometimes ran the risk of actually misusing the psychological report. To make matters more complicated, selection procedures generally,and psychological screening specifically, are by their nature vulnerable to criticism and can become"political footballs"between competing factions with different interests. Therefore, although psychological consultants must maintain appropriate flexibility in their work, the consultant has to always demonstrate professional objectivity and honesty even in the face of criticism from others. It was with the above challenges in mind, that 30+years ago our firm set about to address these issues in a professional, logical and practical approach. Briefly stated, the goal and purpose of pre-employment screening is to screen-out those applicants identified as having high-risk factors for performance of the Public Safety position vs. those applicants who are absent these risk factors and possess traits deemed suitable for the position. To accomplish this goal, our philosophy is quite simple: effective programs+effective people=effective organizations. It is the contracted psychological firm's job to create a state of the art screening program and to educate/train relevant agency personnel in the correct application of the system. It is the agency's responsibility to provide motivated selection personnel and policies consistent with the difficult but critical task of identifying the most qualified applicants for final hire. Since no one selection procedure provides all the answers, a systemic and comprehensive approach must be utilized. To achieve maximum effectiveness, agency personnel and members of the psychological firm must be willing to communicate and work as a coordinated team when necessary. We pride ourselves on remaining constantly available to each of our clients and always provide, whatever, extra input is necessary to make our screenings as effective as possible. Improving upon selection procedures is a never ending endeavor. As a result, the agency and psychological contractor sometimes need to "push the envelope" and challenge each other to enhance their respective expertise. 411 LEPCA 25 ESSENTIAL/IMPORTANT JOB-RELATED TRAITS A critical part of effective psychological screening is to identify in common sense language the job-related traits that are most critical to performing the public safety job position. This can be accomplished through observation of those performing the job, conducting job position surveys, reading the formal job description and reviewing any studies and research on the subject by respected public safety organizations such as the California Post Cor emission(POST). Over the years, our firm has availed itself of all the aforementioned sources of information and our current system focuses on and rates applicants on the following 14 public safety job dimensions. The report of applicants who do not meet standards on a job-related trait(s) will either state"Deficit Mild to Moderately Indicated"or"Deficit Strongly Indicated" for each of the traits listed below. • Compliance with Rules/Integrity • Impulse Control/Attention to Safety • Judgment/Decision-Making • Openness/Ability to Admit Shortcomings • Emotional Composure • Social Orientation/Tolerance • Work Habits/Patterns • Substance Abuse/Avoidance of Maladaptive Behaviors • Learning Ability/Problem Solving • Flexibility/Adaptability • Communication Skills/Verbal Expression • Initiative/Confidence • Readiness for the Public Safety Position For further definition and detail of each job dimension, please refer to our Report Interpretation Manual located through your agency's secure access at www.lepca.com (Report Interpretation Manual is attached as Appendix A with this proposal) Although identifying and screening out high risk applicants is the primary goal of psychological screening, selecting in those applicants with particular job-related areas of strength is also often a valuable part of the evaluation. Below are listed the four screen-in or"Areas of Strength" categories in our evaluation system. Potential Areas of Strength relative to other LE applicants: 1. Fast Learner 2. Excellent Interpersonal skills 3. Very diligent/Responsible 4. Leadership/Management Potential 5. Positive experience in public safety position LEPCA 26 DETERMINATION OF JOB-RELATED RATINGS As with most medically related professional opinions and ratings, the assessment psychologist's decisions are based on procedures and tests considered reliable and valid. In the evaluation of public safety applicants, we use multiple and overlapping sources of information in arriving at ratings on each essential job trait as well as an overall job suitability rating. All procedures, forms and the rating system in our evaluation process are carefully standardized to assure reliability and fairness for each applicant. Our firm's findings are based on the aggregate of information collected from the four phases of the evaluation. These phases include standardized test profiles derived from the battery of tests, personal history/background information, clinical interview material and performance on a problem-solving and learning ability test. All test profiles and each phase of the evaluation are reviewed closely and then integrated together to achieve the most accurate and complete picture of the applicant's potential job- related strengths or weaknesses. Beyond standard clinical interpretation of test profiles, we also utilize various actuarial predictions of job performance generated by research on each of the instruments. For the great majority of applicants, we find the piecing together of the parts of the evaluation lends itself to clear-cut and logical final ratings. Occasionally, we do find that an applicant's results are ambiguous or"borderline." In those instances, the applicant's file undergoes a thorough staff review and we may compare our findings with those of the Background Investigator. In some cases, it is useful for the Background Investigator to clarify the report with our office and we are always available to do so. To assure the reliability and quality of every report, the findings of each report are carefully reviewed by a senior psychologist before submission to the agency. To further evaluate ourselves, we periodically compare our rating category percentages with a select group of other national experts in this field. Our ratings have always been found to be very similar to this respected group. Lastly, a thorough multi-year study of our evaluation system conducted by the Miami-Dade Police Department found no adverse impact on any protected group. Please be aware, members of our screening team are always interacting and discussing every aspect of the evaluation process on a daily basis. The challenge of rating and predicting human behavior will always remain a daunting task and the assessment psychologist can never let complacency set in. Those who have worked closely with us know how relentless and determined we are in our on-going efforts to get every applicant's assessment"right." REPORT FORMAT Our report format was designed specifically for public safety selection after receiving input from numerous public safety personnel and reviewing ADA guidelines. HIPAA privacy requirements and recent court rulings in this area. Our conclusion is that use of"wordy" narrative reports is very questionable for the purpose of employment testing. Psychologists often"fall in love" with lots of psychological jargon and flowery descriptions of applicants but many times these type LEPCA 27 reports contain superfluous, confusing or irrelevant information and are not practical for the task ® at hand. As a result, many times a psychologist's screening report can miss the"forest from the trees." Just citing one example, almost all screening psychologists use some type final rating system to categorize applicants. However, some psychologists still do not provide a brief and clear definition differentiating each rating category. Instead,these psychologists assume that the user of the report will automatically define rating categories such as"Acceptable,""Marginal," "Unacceptable"exactly how the psychologist intended. This is often not the case and can cause major misunderstandings, actual misuse of a report or stigmatize certain applicants. With a few clarifying words or sentences describing a rating category,these problems can be avoided. We find that law enforcement users of screening reports want relevant, clear-cut, concise and easy to understand job-related ratings and statements about an applicant. In many cases, the agency also needs reports quickly. These concerns are exactly what our law enforcement screening reports attempt to address. To summarize, we provide all relevant information and final reports within 24 hours of testing in a concise and user-friendly report. We believe our report format is very thorough, but at the same time, easy to use and simplistic in design. Everything contained in our report format has been well thought out and designed for the specific needs of law enforcement agencies. Of course,the applicant's entire file including psychological profiles, raw data and any other supportive information is always available should an administrative or legal challenge ever occur. To further assist the agency, we provide a comprehensive manual that educates the report user on each job-related deficit and assistance in assessing whether the deficit is substantiated by the • applicant's personal history and behavior. Without such assistance, we find that users of a psychologist's report will often just look at the overall rating and little else. From reviewing the bid language in this area, we believe our report format provides the requested information in a focused, practical and user-friendly way. RETESTING/APPEAL The issue of whether a formal appeal or immediate retesting should exist for a negative psychological rating has long been a perplexing problem. Over many years, we have participated in various agency approaches to this issue from allowing for a second testing to having an additional psychologist review the findings. However, all these policies were rather quickly discarded due to the myriad of complications and unintended consequences that resulted. Therefore, we suggest the following recommendations for those applicants who receive an "Unacceptable"rating. To our knowledge, the vast majority of agencies utilize our suggestions. Other than for the rare exception,this approach seems to work well and is simple to implement and fair to applicants: 1. Initially, applicants are told by the agency that they are eligible for a re-test after a 6 month or 12 month period (determination at the discretion of agency) from the date of their report. LEPCA 28 2. If an applicant expresses further concerns about his evaluation or asks questions the agency cannot answer, then he or she is referred to our office so we may discuss our findings and provide appropriate feedback. No fee is charged. 3. If an applicant continues to strongly object to the findings, then at the agency's discretion we will provide an in-depth explanation of the findings to an identified official(s) of the agency. Nevertheless, it is advisable to avoid providing the applicant with specific information regarding the evaluation due to test security and integrity. 4. Of course, we always remain available to elaborate and discuss the rationale behind any applicant's rating, should the agency not understand the reason(s) supporting the statements on an applicant's report. Often,we find these reviews are very educational and reassure the agency that there are always solid reasons for an applicant's "Unsuitable" rating. TEST BATTERY Police Officer applicants: Personal History Questionnaire (PHQ), CPI, PAI, STAXI, WPT, Clinical Interview, PSSQ (research) Firefighter applicants: • Pre-Offer Phase 1: Personal History Questionnaire Non-Medical (PHQ), CPI, STAXI, WPT, Interview, PSSQ (research) Post-Offer Phase 2: Personal History Questionnaire Medical, PAI, Clinical Interview Dispatch/non-sworn personnel: Personal History Questionnaire (PHQ), PAI, CPI, STAXI, WPT, Clinical Interview Please remember, Clinical Interview for non-sworn personnel is not as exhaustive as it is for sworn/critical public safety positions. Primary Instruments: Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI): The PAI is a well-researched and accepted comprehensive instrument, which essentially measures and identifies various diagnosable psychological conditions. The emphasis of the PAI is to rule out diagnosable mental health conditions or behavioral patterns commonly associated with psychopathology or emotional disturbance. The purpose and nature of many test items on this instrument makes it a medical procedure under ADA guidelines and the PAI can only be administered after a"real" conditional offer of employment has been provided to the applicant. In terms of use with the screening of public safety applicants, the instrument is utilized by 100's if not 1,000's of psychologists who conduct these screenings. In recent years, it has particularly gained popularity as a more contemporary instrument vs. the MMPI-2, which has been criticized rightly or wrongly for being outdated. Both these tests serve one of the important "screen-out" functions of pre-employment LEPCA 29 screening, which is to identify and screen-out applicants with propensities towards emotional instabili Of instability. O great importance, our firm uses and works closely with Dr. Michael Roberts who has carried out extensive research with the PAI for the screening of public safety applicants. As such,he has produced and we utilize a specialized public safety report that provides specialized and extensive normative data for public safety positions and predictive validity measures of salient traits such as integrity, anger management and other job performance criterion. California Psychological Inventory (CPI): In our judgment and experience,the CPI is the most often used and validated instrument for the selection of public safety applicants. We have administered approximately 50,000 or more CPIs to applicants and conducted various research projects over the years to improve the accuracy of this instrument for predicting job performance. As with the PAI, we utilize Dr. Robert's specialized CPI public safety report, which provides further important job predictions based on longitudinal studies. As an aside, it should be mentioned that Dr. Roberts is considered an elite public safety psychologist and his specialized reports have been critically reviewed and used by the most knowledgeable and experienced screening psychologists across the country. Contrary to the PAI, the CPI measures dimensions of normal behavior such as Dominance, Social Presence, Empathy, Self-Control, Responsibility, Following rules, Conformance to team behavior, Flexibility, etc. As such,this instrument is critical in assessing the essential traits relevant to almost all public safety positions and therefore the CPI is given great weight in our assessments. The purpose and individual items of the CPI do not identify diagnosable psychological conditions and instead measure primarily interpersonal personality functioning. Therefore, under ADA guidelines this instrument qualifies as a non-medical procedure and ideally should be administered before a conditional offer of employment in a bifurcated system of screening. Wonderlic Personnel Test(WPT): The necessity to complete a rigorous training academy, pass a written state exam and apply the knowledge and skills acquired from training in often emergency and unpredictable circumstances requires that a general measure of learning ability is necessary in the screening of public safety applicants. The WPT is particularly suited for employment selection purposes since it was specifically designed for measuring what level of ability is required for specific occupations. The test yields an overall score that is used to describe the level at which an individual learns,understands instructions and solves problems. It provides objective information into how easily applicants can be trained, how well they can adjust and solve problems on the job, and how well satisfied they are likely to be with demands of specific job. The WPT has been extensively validated, researched and is the most widely known and utilized test for job selection purposes. Numerous studies including one by our firm have demonstrated the accuracy and usefulness of this instrument,particularly for predicting an applicant's performance during public safety training. Clinical Interview: Every applicant undergoes a semi-structured interview with a licensed psychologist specifically trained and supervised by our senior staff. The interview process clarifies and reviews the applicant's personal and work history, explores or compares test profiles with the applicant's history and interview presentation and asks standardized job- relevant questions similar to an oral interview. The structured interview process and areas of questioning must be strictly maintained by each psychologist to assure consistency and reliability between our staff. Interviewers are closely supervised and on a daily basis. our staff reviews LEPCA 30 cases and makes certain that everyone understands and applies the same reasoning and standards as others. In addition, interviewers only pre are a preliminary report, which is then carefully reviewed by both Dr. Mangan and Dr. Axelberd. Any possible inconsistent findings or opinions whatsoever are identified and reconciled with the interviewing psychologist before a final report is created. Keep in mind,the interview is only part of a comprehensive evaluation process and in our system, ratings are only determined through a carefully laid out and objective decision process. We rely heavily on well-researched and objective predictions of job performance, which greatly limits the possibility that subjective observations or opinions will "muddy"the water. Personal History Questionnaire: Our firm has developed with input from numerous agencies a relevant and comprehensive self-report questionnaire. We have a pre-offer questionnaire (non- medical) and a post-offer(medical) questionnaire. Essentially,the post-offer questionnaire gathers mental health history, details of drug/alcohol usage and other information considered medical in nature,which cannot be obtained pre-offer. For agencies that still have not bifurcated their screening per ADA, we administer one combined background questionnaire that contains non-medical and medical inquiries. Supplementary Instruments: In many cases,these instruments are very valuable in augmenting and clarifying various findings on our primary instruments and procedures. However, they are not "stand alone" instruments and are not used as primary instruments for final rating purposes. State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI): Obviously, self-control and anger management under stressful conditions are important traits and skills that public safety officers must demonstrate on a daily basis in their job. The STAXI is a brief specialty instrument that assesses how an individual experiences and expresses their angry feelings. It identifies the frequency and intensity of one's anger and more importantly provides information on whether the individual can control and/or display their anger in modulated and acceptable ways. This test is commonly utilized by those who need to assess anger management and Dr. Charles Spielberger, the STAXI's author, is a renowned professor and expert in test development. This test has served on numerous occasions in assisting us in better understanding findings on the self-control scales of our primary instruments. The test is utilized nationwide by numerous psychologists conducting public safety evaluations. Research Instruments: This instrument is in research phase and applicants are made aware of this during informed consent. As such, the instrument is not considered during the formal rating process, but may be used to augment an interview through clarification or discussion of applicant's particular answers on specific job-related critical items. Overall, the PSSQ has shown great promise and on-going research has thus far proven its worth and accuracy. Public Safety Screening Questionnaire (PSSQ): This instrument was designed and researched specifically for the screening of public safety applicants. Dr. Axelberd, of our firm, is the author of this instrument and he utilized his 31 years of exclusive experience in law enforcement in LEPCA 31 • developing an extremely job-relevant and face valid screening test. He utilized extensive input from those in the public safety community to achieve this goal and all of the PSSQ individual items were reviewed by public safety personnel or in some cases, the items were written by those working as public safety officers. Essentially,this instrument assesses those on-duty as well as off-duty behaviors, attitudes and traits that land so many officers in trouble. For instance, there are scales designed to measure the likelihood of domestic violence or sexual acting-out, which often are reasons for officer misconduct and embarrassment to the agency. Therefore,the PSSQ was an on-going collaboration between Dr. Axelberd, Dr. Mangan and those doing the public safety job the test was designed to measure. The PSSQ has been developed and researched over an approximately six-year period and subjected to numerous refinements based on several rounds of research. Dr. Nick Lim, a university professor who teaches statistical analysis and test construction was retained as an independent consultant to supervise the research design and statistical analyses involved in the PSSQ's development. So far,the test has exceeded our expectations and multiple validation studies yielded very positive results. CONFORMANCE TO STANDARDS: There is no one governing body, organization or authority that officially regulates or defines pre-employment screening of public safety applicants. Nevertheless, there are certain respected organizations, associations and individuals who have developed guidelines for this testing, which act as generally accepted standards within the public safety community. In our professional opinion, the following entities are generally accepted as setting the guidelines and standards in this area: International Association of Chiefs 41) of Police (IACP), California POST Commission, Consortium of Police Psychological Services (COPPS),Michael Roberts, Ph.D., David Corey, Ph.D.. and Mark Axelberd, Ph.D. Our firm complies or exceeds all of the above guidelines set forth by the above authorities. Our firm, in particular Dr. Axelberd, assisted the Florida Department of Law Enforcement(FDLE) in the early `80's when they strongly recommended that psychological screening is an important of public safety applicant screening. Dr. Axelberd wrote the initial guidelines for this screening on behalf of FDLE and introduced the screening process throughout the state of Florida. In addition, in the early 1990's he assisted with the initial national screening guidelines as part of his association with COPPS. Dr. Brian Mangan is an active member of the IACP Police Psychological Services Section(PPSS), currently serving as the 2014 Conference Vice-Chair on the Education Committee and as a member of the Ethics Consultation Committee, as well as previously serving as a member of the revision committees for the Officer Involved Shooting Guidelines (2013) and Psychological Fitness for Duty Guidelines (2013). Additionally, he is an active member with the American Psychological Association's Division 18: Psychologists in Public Service- Police & Public Safety Section. As stated above, the IACP PPSS developed the current guidelines for Pre-Employment Psychological Screening. To this day, our firm continues to often act as the model screening system and advisor to numerous psychologists and public safety agencies on a local, national and even international basis. In conclusion, we never rest on our laurels and those who know us realize how hard we continue to work to provide the highest quality of screenings. LEPCA 32 PSYCHOLOGICAL FITNESS FOR DUTY EVALUATION (FFDE) The following is LEPCA's position on the proper process when conducting a Fitness for Duty Evaluation(FFDE.) This protects all involved in the evaluation. As such, LEPCA considers this the appropriate and necessary preliminary steps prior to the psychologist actually conducting an FFDE: 1. An official(s) of the Agency must objectively document incidents, behavior, activities, etc.,which raise legitimate concerns about an officer's psychological state of mind to perform the full duties of the stated job description in a safe and competent manner. 2. An appropriate Police &Public Safety Psychologist should be contacted to perform the evaluation. The City and psychologist should discuss and agree on the purpose and nature of the evaluation, the referral question(s)to be addressed, report format and intended future use of the report. The designated official of the Agency or HRS who will receive the report should be identified. 3. An appropriate signed Administrative Order from the Chief of Police should be presented to the officer requiring him/her to undergo the FFDE. Among other things, the order should briefly describe the reason for the evaluation,the limits of confidentiality and that a written report of findings concerning his/her psychological ability to perform their job duties will be provided to the City. The Order should also require the officer to cooperate with the psychologist's requests, while undergoing the evaluation. The Order should then be signed by the officer verifying receipt of the Order. If the officer refuses to sign the Order or insists that the evaluation is not warranted or illegal,then those issues should be dealt with based on policy and/or input from a legal advisor. 4. Assuming the officer signs and cooperates with the Order, an appointment date for the evaluation is made. Before the date of the evaluation, the psychologist should then be sent all relevant past and current information and documents that may relate to the officer's psychological fitness and job performance,i.e. performance evaluations, incident reports leading to the evaluation, past disciplinary actions, commendations and any other potential relevant background information. After review of this information, the psychologist can then proceed with conducting the FFDE. An additional resource for these procedures is the International Association of Chiefs of Police Psychological Services Section Psychological Fitness for Duty Guidelines, 2014. A Fitness for Duty Evaluation(FFDE) is an extensive psychological assessment that typically includes information gathered from personal,treatment and employment history, multiple standardized test instruments and face-to-face interview(s) with the examinee. The FFDE exam differs somewhat from a Pre-Employment Psychological Evaluation(PEPE) in that a PEPE mostly concerns itself with determining whether a job applicant is a"good fit" for a job position. In other words, among a pool of job candidates the PEPE assists the agency in identifying the most competitive and well qualified individuals for final hire. LEPCA 33 • In contrast, a FFDE is an evaluation of an incumbent officer's current mental and s cholo ical pY g functioning when documented information/incidents raise serious questions as to the officer's ability to carry out his/her job duties in a competent and safe manner. The task of the psychologist is to specifically determine whether an actual mental health or psychological condition exists, which renders him/her currently "Unfit"to perform their job duties. Therefore, a FFDE looks for the existence of a diagnosable psychological condition to assess fitness vs. the PEPE, which primarily measures increments of job suitability personality traits and characteristics. As a result, the psychological threshold for stating an incumbent officer is"unfit" can often involve diagnosing the officer with a psychological condition covered under ADA guidelines. If this is the case,then the officer is entitled to the various employee protections under this law. Back to work plans and reasonable job accommodations will usually come into play at this point, as considered by the agency. CRITICAL INCIDENT STRESS DEBRIEFING (CISD) A Critical Incident Stress Debriefing CISD is a specialized counseling/educational session utilized with Public Safety Officers who have experienced an unusual, abnormal or potentially traumatic job-related event. Typically, officers are most often referred for this service after discharging their firearm in the performance of their duties. However, any event viewed as possibly traumatic by a supervisor or the affected officer may warrant referral. For example, an officer responding to the scene of a murdered child can have serious emotional repercussions for particular officers. In many medium to large sized agencies, the CISD program is often a part of a comprehensive EAP services. The majority of officers responding to abnormal or traumatic events only require 1-2 sessions to resolve or deal with their emotional reactions. For these officers, the CISD is more of an educational and preventative session vs. an in-depth therapeutic intervention. Nevertheless, for a minority of officers the referral event can trigger more severe and long lasting emotional reactions and can even develop into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder(PTSD). Lastly but of importance, unless an officer displays what would be considered very unusual or disturbing behavior before, during or after a critical event then an officer is typically presumed to be fit for duty. In other words,responding to potentially critical incidents is part of an officer's routine job description and should not ordinarily trigger serious concerns about an officer's emotional fitness. Per the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) guidelines for Officer Involved Shootings(2013), the following are the recommended practical considerations in an agency's creation of an effective policy for a CISD: 1. A CISD is conducted for the benefit of the Officer and is NEVER to be confused with a formal Fitness for Duty Evaluation (FFDE); or to be used as part of any administrative or LEPCA 34 criminal investigation into the critical event itself. The client of record for the CISD is the individual officer. In contrast, in a FFDE referral the agency is the client of record and a formal evaluation is conducted that includes extensive standardized testing, review of ancillary background materials and a comprehensive written report of findings is provided to the agency. 2. To avoid the fear of stigmatizing any individual officer, all officers exposed to a critical incident should be mandated to attend an initial CISD session. It should be the shift Commander's or the officer's immediate supervisor's responsibility to verify that a referral has been made. 3. Except as an emergency might dictate, CISD sessions are to take place at the psychological consultant's private office. This provides a private setting for more open dialogue by clearly separating the CISD from other administrative or investigative processes. Whenever possible,the CISD should occur within 24-72 hours after the event. Many agencies will remove the officer(s) from their usual duties, at least until the CISD is concluded. 4. A CISD should be considered a confidential professional service and other than verifying an officer's attendance when requested, the consultant will not provide further information to anyone except as specified below. 5. If during a CISD it becomes apparent to the psychologist that the officer is experiencing acute or incapacitating symptoms,then the psychologist will explain to the officer the need for temporary removal from their usual job duties and the necessity for further treatment. The psychologist typically with the officer present will then immediately contact by phone a designated agency Commander to inform them of the situation. The psychologist will discuss and coordinate with the Commander the specific actions that are being recommended before release of the officer back to full duty. As previously stated, for the great majority of officers, the CISD is more of a required educational and psychological debriefing session and removal of officers from their routine job duties is very much the exception vs. the rule. 6. As previously stated, a CISD is a very different service from a Fitness for Duty Evaluation (FFDE). A CISD is confidential and conducted for the benefit of the officer. A FFDE is not confidential and is performed on behalf of the agency to address specific documented issues of officer fitness. Occasionally, an agency may require an officer to undergo a FFDE in addition to the required CISD. For example, assume an officer has experienced one or more recent critical incidents in addition to the current one and is known to be going through a difficult and upsetting divorce. As a result, the agency may determine a formal FFDE is justified and necessary in that circumstance in addition to the CISD. In this situation, the FFDE should be performed by a different psychologist than the one who conducted the CISD. LEPCA 35 • PRACTICALITIES OF SCREENING SERVICE It is the intent of Law Enforcement Psychological & Counseling Associates, Inc to provide the City of Miami Beach with state of the art psychological services including pre-employment psychological screenings, critical incident debriefings, and fitness for duty evaluations. Our entire office and screening system has been designed to meet the needs of our Public Safety Agency clients. Any agency that uses our services knows the effort we make to accommodate the sometimes unique needs of our law enforcement clients. For example,we developed a comprehensive website that allows agencies to independently schedule applicants at any time up to the morning of testing and download final applicant reports 24-hours from completion of testing. We also have an"applicant's section"on our website, which provides helpful preliminary information to applicants who are about to undergo the evaluation. We welcome any potential user of our services to look over the website located at: www.lepca.com • Testing is conducted at our centrally located office at 9960 NW 116 Way, Suite 12, Miami, 33178. In order to provide a more convenient office location for the many public safety applicants living in the tri-county area, we believe that we found an excellent location close to three major roadways and near the Miami-Dade/Broward County line. This office is conveniently located within a mile from the Florida Turnpike, Palmetto Expressway, and Interstate 75. There is ample free parking for applicants. Our office facility is approximately 3,200 sq. ft. and is specifically designed for screening and other public safety services. We have a very large testing room with private individual test booths for each applicant. We do provide off-site screening and travel upon request but ask for adequate advance notice. • Testing is conducted Monday-Friday beginning at 9:30 a.m. We can accommodate up to 15 applicants per day or 75 per week. On special request, we can run early and late afternoon testing sessions. • For convenience, an agency can schedule their applicants on our website without contacting our office right up to the morning of testing. To date, we are not aware of any agency unable to schedule an applicant on the date desired.. • The typical applicant takes 4-6 hours to complete the evaluation but there is no time limit. • All personality instruments are immediately scored in our office as each applicant finishes their individual tests. • Concise and job-related final written reports and a related background questionnaire are generated on each applicant and posted for review and/or downloading on our website within 24 hours of completion of testing. However, verbal feedback or a final report can be provided within a few hours of testing on special request. • To assist users of our final report, a Report Interpretation Manual is available, which further elaborates on an applicant's deficits and helps guide the background investigator or others in the use of our report. This manual is maintained on our website for easy viewing. • Our firm is extremely familiar with and conforms to guidelines contained in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and EEOC. No legal complaint or litigation alleging discrimination has ever been filed against our firm. • Our screening system meets or exceeds all the recommendations and guidelines of the International Association of Chiefs of Police. CALEA, Consortium of Police Psychological Services, National Institute of Justice and the California Post Commission. • No legal challenge of a formal or informal nature has ever been sustained against our firm. LEPCA 36 APPENDIX E "REVISED" PROPOSAL TENDER FORM Failure to submit Section 5,Bid Price Form, in its entirety and fully executed by the deadline established for the receipt of a ro•osals will result in proposal being deemed non-res•onsive and bein• re'ected. Bidder affirms that the prices stated on the proposal price form below represents the entire cost of the items in full accordance with the requirements of this ITB, inclusive of its terms, conditions, specifications and other requirements stated herein, and that,no claim will be made on account of any increase in wage scales, material prices,delivery delays,taxes, insurance,cost indexes or any other unless a cost escalation provision is allowed herein and has been exercised by the City Manager in advance. The Bid Price Form (Section 5) shall be completed mechanically or, if manually, in ink. Bid Price Forms (Section 5) completed in pencil shall be deemed non-responsive.All corrections on the Bid Price Form (Section 5) shall be initialed. Part I: A. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Sworn Personnel and B. Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Firefighters and Fire Rescue Personnel. Miami-Beach Police Department: Sworn Employees: Rate$ 265.00 x 100=$ 26,500.00 Civilian Employees: Rate$ 200.00 x 25=$ 5,000.00 Miami Beach Fire Rescue Department: • Phase I: Firefighters: Rate$ 220.00 x 150=$ 33,000.00 Fire Dispatchers: Rate$ 155.00 x 20=$ 3,100.00 Phase II: Firefighters: Rate$ 45.00 x 150=$ 6,750.00 Fire Dispatchers: Rate$ 45.00 x 20=$ 900.00 Part Ill — Pre-Employment Psychological Services for Civilian Personnel. Proposers must provide a cost on a per individual basis to provide all required services. Proposers shall additionally provide in detail any and all costs associated to defend andlor represent the City in any legal proceedings on a per individual basis if the finding/recommendation of the Successful Proposer is contested by an applicant(s). These costs, if applicable, shall be itemized in detail. Further, any additional services and their associated costs not addressed in Part C of the Scope of Services but which may be requested or required of the City shall also be detailed in your proposal. Cost per Individual:$ 200.00 x50=$. 10,000.00 Cost related to legal proceedings:$ 300.00 x 6=$ 1,800.00 LEPCA 37 Part IV—Fitness for Duty Evaluation. Proposers shall provide a fix price per evaluation. Cost per Individual:$ 2,500.00 x 12=$ 30,000 GRAND TOTAL FOR PARTS I,Ill and IV: $. 117,050.00 Bidder's Affirmation Company: Law Enforcement Psychological&Counseling Associates, Inc Authorized Representative: Brian Mangan, Psy.D., President Address: 9960 NW 116th Way, Suite 12, Medley, FL 33178 Telephone: 305-442-8800 Email: BMangan @lepca.com Authorized Representative's Signature. ..oppc,-01411.11-41 AM, 110 LEPCA 38 000490 Local Business Tax Receipt Miami-Dade County, State of Florida -THIS IS NOT A BILL - DO NOT PAY 305631 • • BUSINESS NAME/LOCATION RECEIPT NO. EXPIRES LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNOVENEIBBOLIATESEPTEMBER 30, 2015 9960 NW 116 WAY 12 305631 MEDLEY FL 33178 Must be displayed at place of business Pursuant to County Code Chapter 8A-Art.9&10 OWNER SEC.TYPE OF BUSINESS INC 212 CONSULTANT PAYMENT RECEIVED BY TAX COLLECTOR • $60.00 07/17/2014 CREDITCARD-14-028155 This Local Business Tax Receipt only confirms payment of the Local Business Tax.The Receipt is not a license, permit,or a certification of the holder's qualifications,to do business. Holder must comply with any governmental or nongovernmental regulatory laws and requirements which apply to the business. The RECEIPT NO.above must be displayed on all commercial vehicles-Miami-Dade Code Sec 8a-276. For more information,visit www.miamidade.govJravcollector 003320 Local Business Tax Receipt LBT Miami-Dade County, State of Florida -THIS IS NOT A BILL - DO NOT PAY 890047 BUSINESS NAME/LOCATION RECEIPT NO. EXPIRES MANGAN BRIAN PSY D RENEWAL SEPTEMBER 30, 2015 9960 NW 116 WAY 12 890047 Must be displayed at place of business MEDLEY FL 33178 Pursuant to County Code Chapter 8A-Art.9&10 OWNER SEC.TYPE OF BUSINESS PAYMENT RECEIVED MANGAN BRIAN PSY D 212 PROFESSIONAL BY TAX COLLECTOR 2025 $60.00 07/16/2014 CREDITCARD-14-027815 This Local Business Tax Receipt only confirms payment of the Local Business Tax. The Receipt is not a license, permit,or a certification of the holder's qualifications,to do business. Holder must comply with any governmental or nongovernmental regulatory laws and requirements which apply to the business. The RECEIPT NO.above must be displayed on all commercial vehicles-Miami-Dade Code Sec 8a-276. For more information,visit www.miamidade.govltaxcollector 410 LEPCA 39. . • :;.: ;, , . .._.:./.,.,,,,,,,,I,i . . .. . • . • ..:, • . z • a 0 ��� zJ zoo° >0 z5' -+w z O0 az z� QO w,-.,. ..g a- (DUI U •i7.1::,' + r"�r ®r'T 4 P„, C i W VI` r J'L+r' en rt �4 '. fir .�._ ..—3' tier fit' . `ttr99� r `f�``m®. �• :'R` ` V a :-J p 4Cr J N p W• ._ ...2,...,--,,,:r.,•-• ILI 0 x 8 e . 1,,,, ,,,,:,. ...: .., . . ..., ,, .,. ..„ (13 O ,� a o 1 1- r:{ J m to O . ,�.,,,,, s.,., 11J L„, .R6 .. _ �. N >QWW-J it 1rW ..14:1 •:0 1 r�t Q . cy) =a 1*'''' L U aF . }wt te� � .: ;M a z G r ''''•-‘. - -:- D ,, *(r: ;1.4* ��-0' 2a 5 c) , 40 .....x.".•Al..7;17,:::..'.' - --(:,-; .??,. nr ....:& '`2; fi. :if?!ic= � �`* E' O o �-.I 4 - 0 m wujgZZ F `iWce 0Z o O 0 —00Q L. 1 JaaCeu as _ a. CD CUZWU 0 C D ■ _ G _ ;•� G Z 1: = 0N- --) Z 41) . . /, .J. ../!/f_••.."W..", -. I ,/101.: r ,/! •-!Y.,r,—r—J I.'. LEPC _ 40 • Slate of Florida . Department of State - • . . • • . I certify from the records of this office that LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING ASSOCIATES,INC. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Florida,filed on February . 18, 1980. The document number of this corporation is 656100. I further certify that said corporation has paid all fees due this office through December 31, 2014,that its must recent annual report/uniform business report was filed on January 29,2014.and its status is active. 1 further certify that said corporation has not filed Articles of Dissolution. 0 Given wider my hand and the Great Seal of the State of Florida at Tallahassee,the Capital,this the Twenty-ninth day of January, 20J4 �, -rte ,.7.-.-1,--___-4,3- Jh • ..,,,----) .,',i---;.--:-.-:pi''. ti.-:::,,_-.5 , le.eik 0 ?f �. .- Secretary of State 1 Aatheatication ID:C'C OI43342290 1 To authenticate this certificate.%isii the fulloxing site,enter this i ID,and then follow the instructions displayed. https::'etile.su:ibi7.o*g'certauth+er.l;tmf 1 2014 FLORIDA PROFIT CORPORATION Aritium_ REPORT FILED DOcumEr1T# 66100 Ji412026201441 Entity Name: LA.V.i ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL AND COUNSELING Secretary of State ASSOCIATES It.10 CC0143842290 Current Principal Place of Business: 17a Current Mailing Address: 9960 NW 116TH WAY SUITE 12 MIAMI. FL 33 178 US FEI Number: 59-1978758 Certificate of Status Desired: Yes Flame and Address of Current Registered Agent: r..1.4.NG43.N.BRiAti OR 11-ni-,e'....4...r.. SUF7E 12 FL :r,:17::: uS 77-e a.:::,,s ti-li'i i.r:'7;I:..r.rtt7f:r.-:.,::ri7i-°"4.!!:f:':.''' .C.".7.:1,,i:!:.‘"iepr;':!.'1-;•:!.....9::::f!,:.i.'.:t•■Sp::::-,E-:i;,i'": :".t t-::'! .,.":.".i :::::::.:!-.:-‘:...":5 SIGNATURE =!:tr: OfficerlDirector Detail : `,3'n--: :;!.. .!•;311.`i .7,p,;i1■1 • '2..-...-•::!3 te-:7.c :.'-;-:- !: r--_. '3 2 1 7;_, . . .. . ,,.. ,.. . , . , .., .: . , . ..,. . .. . ,,. .. .. .. .,... .. . . .. , .. .. . _ ••... ... •,. -.. ••• - •...• .•. •- .' -• - .... -.-- -- - -. • -- ■■-...... •-•-• .... .. _ ._.. , .• ...- -. ••• III . .. • .. __. _ • • . • • 1 LEPyEN_I 42 OP ID:WE ACRD CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE(VM;0o,Y`t'r'r) I 0710812014 1{ THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder Is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies)must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED,subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT MDW Insurance Group Inc NAME: Wendy Milian 362 Minorca Ave PHONE (AIC.No.Eel:3O5-444-2324 1(C,Nc):3054444980 Coral Gables,FL 33134 Ao E-MAIL wmilian@mdwinsurance.com NAM Companies INSURERS)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAJC# INSURER A:Bankers Insurance Group • INSURED Law Enforcement Psychological INSURER e: : Counseling Associates • 9960 NW 116 Way#12 INSURER C: • • Medley,FL 33178 • INSURER D: • INSURER E: • • _INSURER F: COVERAGES • CERTIFICATE NUMBER: • REVISION NUMBER: • THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED. NOTWTHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT.TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT V`ATH 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 LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS INSR i TYPE OF INSURANCE ACOL SUER i i POLICY EFF I POLICY EXP I • LTR :INSD 41VO I POLICY NUMBER (MM;DO(YYYY) I(MMIOGYYYY) I LIMITS A ! X i COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY I I i EsCH CCCUP•FEtiCE i$ 2,000,000 CLAIMS•.I ..E I 'OCCUR :090004994913501 • 0712912014'07/29/20151`'^�I I T'�"a". `o ' I I??E41ISE3:E3:�.:.:ra„cr; : 5 X !Business Owners 1 . , ■ i?IAeJ:tP;Any cre cer;•:r: 1 10,000 I rc?sol lAi_a ACv rsuF 5 INCLUDED GEN:1.a 3 EGATE LIMIT AiCLiES;ER PRO- GENERAL AGGREGATE s 4,000,000 FOLIC(I i JE.T Lot.. . ,000,00" :OTI-EF I 5 • :CblaiNE_SiNGL=L'MI 7 .AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY i 1,000,000W i.a ac::CetT A : : „I`'aLI _ 090004994913501 07/2912014;07/29/2015; 3OCILY!ti.:t:;c' :Per cer;,-.r: AL-G',`.`iE: SCHE^L•LEC --- - ---- ,L-,,g - - ?CCIL. I"J1.P',.Fer.ac=r..r•I . X _ y N 2I'-:•,,r,E: • • -',c--"I.f:.•,M.,,. _._.__.—_._......_.._.__. ?-1;tc�=.,'r...:: :i ,=ir aCWrert . UMBRELLA LIAB C_.,..s c i.:r i::':=?_'.;:5 • EXCESS LIAB - _n,=•'1•-- -.._....................__._.._......... . • WORKERS COMPENSATION • Fa R AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY Y;N _._._STA_..'?,.-, -- s,1•,F;CcP!E7OR.F•F:774E=E.(?,.-.c IL.- - -... ...... 0:=,C=FOA ,tEE?_..::.'.C.c:, 1I N.A - -_ .._........._....._...__._......._.._... ....._.. ... ... A .Property 090004994913501 07129/2014 07129/2015 Building 65,000 • DED 1000 Wind 1000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS i LCCATICNS'VEHICLES (ACCRO 101.AdditIcnal Remarks Schedule.may be attached if more space is required? 'Ica-Eme_gency Medical Office Excludes Professional Liability CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION f • • f S-CLILG AN'?OF T'..`.9C'E C.ESC`:BE--:'LiC ES_E^,N^=--=- BE ) , 7.0: EtP'RaT?CN :AT= '-_R_CF VC,-•,:` ^ii' C,"1..-.-772:: III _._..:,..„ :„,=,..,.._. , -L , - „• ._" Law Enforcement Psycholdgrei&ti and3 k o! L I c = Counseling Associates, Inc. Law Enforcement Psychological and Counseling Associates, Inc. Medley, Florida Supplementary Background Investigation Interpretation Manual 10/12 Version * Important document for anyone who reviews the screening report. Please be certain to distribute this manual to all relevant persons in the selection system including background investigators and administrators. ©2009— Law Enforcement Psychological & Counseling Associates, Inc. Brian Mangan, Psy.D. & Mark Axelberd, Ph.D. ABPP 9960 N.W. 116th Way 305-442-8800 ph. Suite 12 305-442-4469 fax Medley, FL 33178 www.lepca.com LEPCA 44 Introduction to Interpretation Manual The following guidelines should assist you in using this manual effectively and understanding the intent and proper use of the screening report itself. We are always available and welcome Questions,should you desire further explanation. Our reports are designed and limited to identifying high-risk/unsuitable applicants, who do not meet minimum standards, and for those who do meet standards, to further comment on any Areas of Deficit or Strength which were observed. ♦ We have identified and assess traits which we consider essential (critical)for a Public Safety position. These traits are described and clarified in detail in this manual. By utilizing this information,the user of the report can gain a fuller understanding of the scope and definition of each Deficit. To read about a particular job deficit,simply turn to the index of deficits on pg. 4 and go to the corresponding pg. number for the specific deficit of interest. ♦ For the selection process to function effectively, there must be appropriate communication and sharing of information between various persons within the system. Sometimes it is the psychologist who will provide the background investigator with new and important information and vice versa. Therefore,when the background investigator becomes aware of potentially relevant information that the applicant may not have revealed to the psychologist or was discovered after the date of the psychological, then it is critical for the background investigator to contact our office. Occasionally, this new information could result in an actual change of an applicant's rating. ♦ When an applicant has Deficits but is not rated "Unacceptable," it is very important for the background investigator to investigate these deficits to determine whether they are generally substantiated or refuted by additional information obtained during other selection procedures, especially the comprehensive background investigation and polygraph examination. In other words, for those who "pass" the evaluation the report becomes an investigative tool for Background Investigators. ♦ When other phases of the selection process generally support or validate an "Area(s) of Deficit," then the agency should be cautious in considering that applicant for final hire. This recommendation should apply not only to applicants rated"Marginal" or"Acceptable with Reservations"but to applicants rated fully "Acceptable"as well. ♦ The final ranking of applicants for hire should be made after integrating and reviewing our screening report in conjunction with all other information contained in an applicants' file. Remember,the"whole file is greater than the individual ap its". 2 • LEPCA 45 • ♦ An increasing number of Public Safety agencies have initiated policy standards, whereby,applicants rated as "Marginal" or "Acceptable with Reservations"will not be considered competitive applicants for final hire. Whether your agency has such a policy, really depends on your agency's hiring needs, philosophy and selection standards. • For those agencies who do consider"Marginal"or"Acceptable with Reservations" ratings for final hire, it is extremely important to thoroughly investigate and rule out to the extent feasible the Deficit(s) described in the screening report.We would strongly recommend that a formal written policy be put in place,which assures the agency that any Areas of Deficit were appropriately addressed. As most agencies know, we are more than willing to assist you in determining whether Deficit(s) are substantiated by other information the investigator has obtained. As a point of reference, it is our experience over the years that the majority of applicants • rated Marginal or Acceptable-3 are ultimately judged as non-competitive once a thorough background process is completed and/or the entire file is reviewed with this office.Nonetheless,there are a number of competitive applicants within those ratings. ♦ We realize that some of you may view our arriving at risk/suitability ratings as a mysterious or subjective process. Those of you who do interact frequently with our office know that the evaluation process is actually very comprehensive, thorough, objective and usually very accurate. Please keep in mind, when an applicant is rated "Marginal/Acceptable with Reservations"or especially "Unacceptable" fit, it is for a good and demonstrable reason. In addition, please beware final ratings are not simply determined just by the number of Deficits or background events listed on a report. Sometimes an applicant can have a few deficits but the Deficits appear "mild"or"moderate"and not likely to significantly interfere with the applicant's actual job performance. On the other hand, someone might have only one Deficit or problem background event but the Deficit or event was very significant or severe. A person's behavior is determined often by complex and multiple factors, therefore, we (and you) must weigh the gravity of an applicant's deficits in context with their strengths and overall personality functioning. ♦ Some agencies have different rating and screening systems, so when reviewing reports from other agencies this must be kept in mind. It is up to each agency as to whether they are willing to share their reports on specific applicants with other agencies. Nevertheless, the reports are intended solely for the position and department considered at the time of evaluation • Therefore,requests for an applicant's report should be made to the applicable agency and not to our office. More than ever, recently passed laws make it very difficult for us to provide or discuss any applicant's file with anyone other than the original referring agency. ♦ Again. we are readily available to assist you and feel free to contact our office. 3 LEPCA 46 INDEX The following list of Job Related Traits was Derived from the California Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training(POST)Job Task Analysis Job Related Traits: Page Integrity/Ethics 5 Impulse Control/Attention to Safety 6 Capacity for Responsibility/Judgment 7 Openness/Forthcoming 8 Stress Tolerance/ Emotional Regulation 9 Tolerance/Social Competence/Teamwork 10 Avoidance of Substance Abuse/Maladaptive Behaviors 11 Learning Ability/Problem-Solving 12 Flexibility/Adaptability 13 Assertiveness/Initiative 14 Conscientiousness/Dependability 15 Communication Skills 16 • 4 LEPCA 47 IIIJob Trait: INTEGRITY/ETHICS Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Reports a history of lawful attitudes and conduct (+) Values honesty, has integrity, and does not blame others for mistakes (+) Follows rules as expected (+) Appreciates authority and is trustworthy (+) Respects others and is not deceitful or manipulative (+) Conscientious/reliable Negative lob behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Could sometimes be viewed as charismatic,friendly and a good leader, but at the same time, demonstrate arrogance and believe the same rules for others' do not apply to them (-) May be deceitful, clever and manipulative behind a friendly and"smooth" front (-) Blames others for his/her mistakes and only feels guilty after being caught for wrongdoing (-) A tendency towards being rebellious and inconsiderate of others (-) May lack loyalty and use relationships for personal gain (-) May gravitate to a negative crowd and believe bending rules is okay (-) May have underlying resentment of authority and feel discriminated against or victimized (-) Could be a"crash and burn"type of officer, seemingly productive and adventuresome in style but having difficulty slowing down or dealing with detailed regulations (-) Likes power and control over others,and in extreme cases,may be abusive towards others (-) In very extreme cases,may be capable of committing serious crimes (-) Feels the world owes them something (-) Could hold prejudices and hostility towards specific groups of people Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: ✓ Frequent minor violations of the law,such as traffic violations,petty theft, etc. r Arrest(s)or frequent brushes with the law or past or present delinquent behavior ✓ History of job instability and conflict with supervisors • Currently associates or has associated with persons of questionable character r History of serious rule violations or significant disciplinary problems in high school ✓ Frequent family/relationship problems such as divorce,conflict with friends, sexual promiscuity, and in extreme cases,domestic violence r Risk-taking behaviors such as experimenting with illicit drugs or excessive alcohol consumption may be indicated • Poor handling of money matters or over spends for unnecessary things . Poor driving record(e.g. license suspensions) Trouble passing polygraph examination Caught in lies or half truths during interview/omissions or inconsistencies on applications o In extreme cases. may feel alienated from the main steam society and associate or have 0 sympathy for extremist groups LEPCA 48 Job Trait: IMPULSE CONTROL/ATTENTION TO SAFETY Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to think through situations in a logical progression before acting or engaging in high- risk behavior (+) Ability to control anger and remain level-headed when provoked (+) Capacity to direct others without becoming overly aggressive (+) Demonstrates adequate maturity (+) Demonstrates adequate decision-making and readiness for a critical job (+) Calm and sensible approach to conflicts (+) Pays attention to detail and is disciplined Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Often described as somewhat impulsive, easily excited and a high-risk taker, possibly even clever and deceitful to get their way (-) Likable but may tend to be immature and still"growing up" (-) Shows a need for high level of excitement and inability to deal with boredom or detailed tasks (-) Under stress, may exhibit a low frustration tolerance, poor judgment,and act impulsively (-) May be productive but described by others as an"up"and"down" moody person (-) May be described at times as childish,over-emotional, and may have trouble being patient or dealing with structured rules (-) May demonstrate carelessness and inattention to detail or safety procedures (-) May be vulnerable to associating with a negative crowd or those of poor character (-) May be described by others as outgoing and confident, but very competitive and socially aggressive (-) May seek out dangerous or high risk activities Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: • Parties/Socializes too much/places themselves in risky situations r Described as friendly and fun but can display explosive temper r May have a poor driving record and enjoy driving fast ✓ Frequent change of jobs due to a need for excitement and to quickly make more money May be status-oriented(nice cars, house,clothes, status symbols,etc.) ✓ Over uses credit and spends beyond their means := Evidence of a greater incidence of aggressive or hostile incidents such as verbal arguments, fights or domestic conflicts/domestic violence ✓ Accident prone due to excessive risk-taking Overuse of credit cards/ loans • May lack loyalty in relationships and"dump"people when relationships become mundane r May be sexually promiscuous • Propensities towards high risk-taking behaviors such as excessive use of alcohol or other chemical substances 6 LEPCA 49 Job Trait: CAPACITY FOR RESPONSIBILITY/JUDGMENT Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to process essential information quickly and make sound decisions (+) Ability to be realistic and have a mature approach to problem-solving (+) Is observant, alert,and quick to respond to the subtleties of others' behavior (+) Possesses adequate readiness for a critical job (+) Is a clear-thinker (+) Hard working and self-motivated (+) Pays close attention to details (+) Conscientious attitude towards meeting personal and work responsibilities (+) Goal Oriented Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Unable to utilize resources to make appropriate and sound decisions (-) Unable to work independently in situations that are vague and lacking clear-cut solutions (-) Often described as careless and prone to making mistakes (-) Often described by others as lazy, immature, rebellious or unconcerned about responsibilities (-) Easily distracted and discouraged (-) Lack of productivity/initiative (-) Insensitivity towards others' problems (-) Unsophisticated and not realistic about his/her abilities or shortcomings (-) Could lack life and/or job experience Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: ✓ History of poor job performance or not moving ahead in a job(e.g. not receiving timely promotions at work) 'Ai. History of underachieving both at work and in school r History of poor decision making/poor choices r History of rule violations and disciplinary actions ✓ Lack of accomplishments or achievements ✓ Careless and repeats same mistake ✓ Disorganized and "sloppy" in carrying out responsibilities/loses or misplaces things r. Job application incomplete/contains mistakes ✓ Missing or late to appointments ✓ Late to work or excessive absenteeism r Unwilling to go the"extra mile"or go out of their way to meet job responsibilities ✓ Not able to recognize expectations others' have of them. • Forgets to do things 7 LEPCA 50 Job Trait: OPENNESS/FORTHCOMING Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to be honest and realistic about one's limitations and shortcomings (+) Can admit mistakes and receive corrective feedback (+) Demonstrates adequate psychological sophistication and does not think in an overly rigid or stereotypic manner (+) Able to self-disclose and answer written questions on the psychological evaluation without undue defensiveness Negative lob behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Strong intentional attempts to make a good impression and to deny faults most people admit to (-) May try to outsmart tests by presenting an extremely positive front (-) Lack of psychological sophistication often associated with limited life experiences or low learning ability (-) Views the world and themselves in an overly simplistic"good"versus``bad"manner (-) Has a rigid way of thinking and may hold many stereotypes (-) May harbor underlying suspicious ideas and general distrust of others (-) In extreme cases, may be described as a"liar"or as being untrustworthy or dishonest (-) Difficulty understanding and accepting criticism Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: Check polygraph results carefully for evidence of deception Check carefully for discrepancies in information provided by the applicant during the selection process :0 History of difficulty with past polygraph evaluations r Only reveals very limited or"safe" information during interviews Overly polite and"eager"to say the"right"thing but hard to get to know the person's true opinions and beliefs 8 LEPCA 51 Job Trait: STRESS TOLERANCE/EMOTIONAL REGULATION Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to keep emotions and worries from affecting job performance (+) Does not reveal strong proneness towards stress-related ailments and can face traumas of the job (+) Possesses adequate confidence and self-esteem to solve problems without becoming overly demanding or dependent on others (+) Anxiety level is not unduly high Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Lack of self confidence (-) Complaints of physical problems which are associated with stress such as headaches, stomachaches,etc. (-) During periods of high stress, increased frequency of disturbed sleep, loss of appetite, irritability, and perhaps withdrawal from friends (-) A tendency to deny problems and use physical symptoms as an excuse for difficulties (-) Over-sensitivity to personal faults 411 (..) May demonstrate immaturity and emotional outbursts especially when under stress (-) May try to manipulate and control others by gaining their sympathy or producing guilt (-) May become very nervous and worry excessively over problems (-) May be prone to burnout(heart disease, ulcers,etc.)because of inability to relax (-) Seems overly idealistic and unrealistic about many things Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: r History of counseling for personal concerns and in extreme cases, suicidal gestures or attempts ✓ Excessive absenteeism or injuries on the job due to stress related symptoms ✓ May have specific phobias, such as fear of heights, close spaces, and so on • Past traumatic events such as physical,sexual or emotional abuse r Serious past or present family conflicts • Trouble with polygraph because of nervousness Seems too sensitive, nervous or"nice"to be a law enforcement officer May have fear of guns and seem overly hesitant to use lethal force,when necessary ▪ Could be going through a situational crisis i.e. divorce,death in family,money problems etc. 9 LEPCA 52 Job Trait: TOLERANCE/SOCIAL COMPETENCE/TEAMWORK • Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to demonstrate understanding and tolerance towards others (+) Works well in group settings (+) Open-minded and feels comfortable with a wide range of people (+) Does not view others in an overly suspicious or cynical manner (+) Demonstrates adequate communication skills and interest in people (+) Puts organizational goals ahead of self/individual goals Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Described as shy, serious,reserved,and uncomfortable around people (-) Could be intolerant,critical, unsympathetic or suspicious of others (-) Could display cynical or skeptical attitudes from job burn-out (-) May quickly become verbally aggressive when authority is challenged (-) Difficulty participating as a team member and inability to form adequate social networks during times of stress (-) May have difficulty developing close relationships and communicating understanding of others (-) Has narrow interests or described as stubborn and resistant to new ideas (-) May harbor stereotypes or prejudice toward others from different cultural or social backgrounds (-) In extreme cases,can become over-reactive to negative comments by others Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: > Maintains few friendships and interacts mostly with only"people like themselves." > Has history of participating in few group or community activities(school teams, clubs,etc. ) ✓ Few experiences and contacts with people of varied cultural backgrounds ✓ Seems somewhat suspicious, guarded and cautious with others ✓ Frequently complains or generally critical about others ✓ May present in an authoritative, combative,defensive,or evasive style ✓ Presents poorly or hard to really get to know the person during oral interview ✓ In more extreme cases, person could be rude, harsh, abrasive,and/or dismissive of others • 10 LEPCA 53 • Job Trait: AVOIDANCE OF SUBSTANCE ABUSE/ MALADAPTIVE BEHAVIORS Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Demonstrates a personality type and behavioral style which is not prone to inappropriate or excessive use of alcohol and other chemical substances (+) Has the necessary personal resources to not engage in self-destructive habits(gambling,etc.) or dysfunctional relationships which may interfere with job performance Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Descriptions of the applicant as being overly reckless, impulsive, and excessive risk-taking in style (-) May be seen by others as"moody"and solves problems though seeking escape or excitement through questionable activities (-) May enter quickly into self-destructive and volatile relationships with others (-) Misses work duties due to alcohol use/or other similar behavior (-) Susceptibility to addictive behaviors (-) Periodically behaves in a way that results in embarrassment or damaging to personal or agency reputation Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: ✓ Excessive under age alcohol consumption or started using alcohol at a very young age ✓ Enjoys gambling and has money problems • Unstable/volatile family relationships ✓ Periodic problems with the law ✓ Disciplinary problems at work r Family history of alcohol/substance abuse ✓ Excessive use of over the counter or prescription drugs r Actual current or recent abuse of alcohol/illicit drugs ✓ In extreme cases, history of episodic violent outbursts especially during period of alcohoUdrug ingestion (i.e.domestic violence, bar fights, etc.) ✓ History including Driving Under the Influence or Driving While Intoxicated 11 LEPCA 54 Job Trait: LEARNING ABILITY/PROBLEM SOLVING Positive iob behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Capacity to easily learn new things and acquire basic knowledge during training (+) Ability to follow directions and deal with complex situations (+) Demonstrates proficiency in academic subjects such as reading, spelling,and math Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Problems passing entry level public safety examinations (-) Description of the applicant as being dull, not too bright,or as experiencing difficulties in intellectually demanding situations or in understanding complex situations (-) Little interest in cultural or academic matters and little interest in reading (-) Poor academic performance in the academy (-) Difficulty following detailed directions or instructions (-) Difficulty learning to use equipment such as mastering the radio (-) Difficulty passing the state required exam for law enforcement officer Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: Demonstrated difficulty passing the academy,entry level exams,and state required exams • Poor writing skills/preparation of reports • Poor schoolwork with school grades typically"C"or lower ✓ School records indicating poor scholastic achievement, learning difficulties, or flunking of grades fr Written productions characterized by poor grammar, frequent misspellings,and poor organization of the content Poor communication skills and/or difficulty with verbal expression Problems with geography i.e. finding locations quickly/mastering use of equipment Requires close supervision and often has to be provided remedial training fr Problems with multi-tasking or complicated directions 41) 12 LEPCA 55 Job Trait: FLEXIBILITY/ADAPTABILITY Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Capacity to respond and adapt to changeable situations and circumstances at work (+) Ability to be resourceful when facing new or unstructured situations (+) Not unduly rigid or stubborn (+) Willing to carry out a wide range or work assignments (+) Open to new ideas and innovation Negative lob behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) Tendency to be inflexible and sometimes stubborn in style (-) May lack creativity or spontaneity (-) During circumstances that are not routine or ordinary, independent decision making and efficiency diminishes (-) May demonstrate rigid and conservative attitudes (-) May become impatient towards others for minor indiscretions and mistakes (-) Over dependent on quasi-military structure and efficiency declines rapidly when directions are not clearly defined (-) Can be intolerant of others' minor faults (-) Trouble adapting to or accepting new or innovative ways to do things Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: ✓ Described by others as liking or needing excessive structure ✓ May tend to have difficulties readily self-disclosing and may keep emotions hidden ✓ Past difficulty adapting to new jobs,environments, or situations ✓ Past difficulty with getting along with others(co-workers,colleagues,friends, etc.)due to stubbornness ✓ Does well with repetitive and structured guidelines but has difficulty working independently. • Must do one thing at a time and has trouble multitasking r Gets upset with others who interrupt them ✓ May become hesitant about willingness to take on new or additional job responsibilities ✓ Set in ways and slow to accept innovations on the job ✓ Unwilling to consider opinions different from their own • Occasionally, in unstructured or threatening situations,could become overly self- protective and aggressive ✓ Needs uniform and authority for self—esteem/feel in control 13 LEPCA 56 Job Trait: CONFIDENCE/INITIATIVE Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to show assertiveness and act decisively when necessary (+) Belief in one's abilities and does not shy away from new or challenging work assignments (+) Demonstrates a high level of productivity and can work independently (+) Possesses good social poise Negative job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (-) May lack ambition,or present as awkward and somewhat apathetic (-) May lack aggressiveness and function poorly in unstructured situations (-) May demonstrate poor social poise and communication skills (-) Difficulty in completing tasks,especially where achievement through independence is stressed (-) May demonstrate low level of productivity (-) May not show a strong interest in learning or improving skills (-) May be a limited independent thinker and be dependent on being told exactly what to do (-) Could create problems or a crisis through inaction or responding too slowly Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: • Described by others as being self-doubting, lacking in initiative and having narrow interests • Described by others as being more of a follower than a leader • Low productivity on the job Described as others as being overly dependent on guidance and direction from others Lack of progress on the job due to limited assertiveness History shows no indication of ever being in a leadership position Described by others as a person who needs to be told what to do ✓ Does not always complete their goals or gives up on things 14 LEPCA 57 Job Trait: CONSCIENTIOUSNESS/DEPENDABILITY Positive job behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Exhibits diligent,reliable,conscientious work patterns (+) Pays close attention to details,agency rules,regulations,and policies (+) Performs assigned tasks in a successful and timely manner (+) Takes pride and accountability for one's work and analyzing mistakes to learn from them (+) Stays organized and focused on the task at hand (+) Maintains a punctual and reliable attendance record (+) Persevering and willing to got the extra mile to accomplish work goals, with minimal supervision Negative behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait (-) Lax about responsibilities and obligations (-) Unreliable team member (-) Difficulty meeting deadlines (-) Frequently late to appointments or other events (-) Unwilling to go the"extra mile" when needed (-)Avoids or resents demands of others (..) Inattention to details (-) Seems to be disorganized or misplaces things (-) Easily distracted or frustrated (-) Does just what is necessary to get by (-) Mistake prone or careless (-)Relies on others to be reminded of responsibilities (-) May be viewed as lazy or unproductive Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait: fr Job application contains mistakes or evidence of carelessness • Late to required appointments without a good reason • Slow to provide documents or other information fr Below or very average grades in school r Ignores or does not pay close attention to directions ✓ Poor credit rating or pays routine bills late r Counseled at a job for being late or absent too much ✓ Counseled at a job for careless mistakes • History of not finishing what they start(school,job training, sports, etc.) ✓ Inattention to obvious spelling or grammatical errors ▪ Seems to lack motivation to excel at things • History lacks many achievements, difficult accomplishments or special honors ✓ Described by others or co-workers as very average or needing prodding to get things done Might ignore or not pay close attention to instructions or directions 15 LEPCA 58 Job Trait: COMMUNICATION SKILLS Positive lob behaviors expected when an applicant DOES NOT demonstrate a deficit in the above trait: (+) Ability to express self effectively with verbal and written communication (+) Communication, both verbal and written, is well thought out and organized (+) Communication is complete and accurate Negative behaviors expected when an applicant DOES demonstrate a deficit in the above trait (-) Uncommunicative or extremely reserved demeanor (-)Avoids group interactions where speaking is required (-) Has difficulty expressing ideas and thoughts (-)Verbal fluency is poor (-)Disorganized and inaccurate written communication (reports) Specific background information/events to substantiate or support a deficit in the above trait o History suggests preference for jobs and activities where interaction with others is limited • Multiple corrective counseling statements or"re-phasing" due to poor writing skills, inaccurate reports, inattention to details in a report(facts, grammar, etc.) • Could be excessively shy or quiet during interview process d Gives very brief answers to questions and trouble elaborating on responses v Speech pattern may be halting, uneven or stutter is noticeable • Limited social relationships and hard to get to know person • Unusually nervous or uncomfortable when interacting with others History suggests limited ability to reach out to a support group during times of stress • Difficult to understand person's verbalizations ✓ English language deficiency or heavy accent 16 INSURANCE LAWEN-1 OP ID:AA ,maCC CERTIFICATE OF LI ILITY INSU ANCE DATE(MMIDDPYYYY) 01/28/2015 THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR.NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER,AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED,the policy(ies) must be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy,certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). PRODUCER CONTACT Ana Montenegro MDW Insurance Group Inc PHONE FAX 362 Minorca Ave (A/C.No,Ext):305-444-2324 (A/C,No): 305-444-4980 Coral Gables,FL 33134 E-MAIL amontene gro@mdwinsurance.com NAM Companies ADDRESS: g INSURER(S)AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC# INSURER A:Bankers Insurance Group INSURED Law Enforcement Psychological INSURER B: Counseling Associates 9960 NW 116 Way#12 INSURER C: • Medley, FL 33178 • INSURER D: • INSURER E: • INSURER F: COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER: REVISION NUMBER: 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.LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. INSR INSO,SUER EXP POLICY NUMBER (MM/DD/YYYY) (MM DD/Y LT TYPE OF INSURANCE R INSD YYY) LIMITS LT WVp A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY EACH OCCURRENCE $ 2,000,000 CLAIMS-MADE OCCUR X 090004994913501 07/29/2014 07/29/2015 DAMAGE TO RENTED PREMISES(Ea occurrence) $ X Business Owners MED EXP(Any one person) 10,000 • PERSONAL&ADV INJURY _ S INCLUDED GE 'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:• GENERAL AGGREGATE S 4,000,000 • POLICY PRO- JECT LOC PRODUCTS-COMP(OP AGG $ 4,000,000 OTHER: $ AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $ 1,000,000 (Ea accident) A ANY AUTO 090004994913501 07/29/2014 07/29/2015 BODILY INJURY(Per person) $ ALL OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY(Per accident) $ AUTOS AUTOS X X NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE HIRED AUTOS AUTOS (Per accident) UMBRELLA LIAB OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE 5 EXCESS LIAB CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE 5 • DED RETENTIONS $ WORKERS COMPENSATION PER I OTH- AND EMPLOYERS'LIABILITY YIN • STATUTE ER ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVE E.L.EACH ACCIDENT $ OFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? N I A (Mandatory in NH) E.L.DISEASE-EA EMPLOYEE $ If yes,describe under DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below E.L.DISEASE-POLICY LIMIT $ . A Property 090004994913501 07/29/2014 07/29/2015 Building 65,000 DED 1000 Wind 1000 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/LOCATIONS/VEHICLES (ACORD 101,Additional Remarks Schedule,may be attached if more space is required) /'� RFP 2014-015-LR �•d/) Certificate holder is listed as additional insured with respect to the � General Liability. • • �'. r / it CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE City of Miami Beach THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN y ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE 1 ©1988-2014 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved. ACORD 25(2014/01) The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD Law Enforcement Psychological and t-( 1i uBttc j �-\ Counseling Associates, Inc. \SAFETY, 1/28/2015 City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Drive Miami Beach, FL 33139 Re: Workers Compensation Insurance Requirement To Whom It May Concern: This is to confirm that our organization has three or less employees and we are in compliance with chapter 440, Florida da Statutes. Sincerely, Mate Aponte 9960 N.W. 116`" Way 305-442-8800 ph. Suite 12 305-442-4469 fax Miami, FL 33178 www.lepca.com Account Number: FL LAWE 7920 Date : 2/04/15 Initials : QTMHHTTP CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DARWIN NATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY C/O: American Professional Agency, Inc . 95 Broadway, Amityville, NY 11701 800-421-6694 This is to certify that the insurance policies specified below have been issued by the company indicated above to the insured named herein and that, subject to their provisions and conditions, such policies afford the coverages indicated insofar as such coverages apply to the occupation or business of the Named insured(s) as stated. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE NEITHER AFFIRMATIVELY NOR NEGATIVELY AMENDS, EXTENDS OR ALTERS THE COVERAGE(S) AFFORDED BY THE POLICY(IES) LISTED ON THIS CERTIFICATE. Name and Address of Insured: Additional Named Insureds : LAW ENFORCEMENT PSYCHOLOGICAL BRIAN MANGAN, PSY.D. AND COUNSELING ASSOCIATES, INC MARK AXELBERD, PH.D. 9960 NW 116TH WAY SUITE 12 MIAMI FL 33178 Type of Work Covered: PROFESSIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST Location of Operations : N/A (If different than address listed above) Claim History: Retroactive date is 11/01/1992 Policy Effective Expiration Limits of Coverages Number Date Date Liability PROFESSIONAL/ 2 , 000, 000 LIABILITY 5012-4507 11/01/14 11/01/15 4 , 000, 000 NOTICE OF CANCELLATION WILL ONLY BE GIVEN TO THE FIRST NAMED INSURED ON THIS POLICY AND HE OR SHE SHALL ACT ON BEHALF OF ALL INSUREDS WITH RESPECT TO GIVING OR RECEIVING NOTICE OF CANCELLATION. Comments: Q. 4-15 This Certificate Issued to: Name: City of Miami Beach 1700 Convention Center Driv4111/11111aintOr Address: Miami Beach, FL 33139 -� Aut. orized Representative APA 00049 00 (05/2012) / Spy s_ r! INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS This document sets forth the minimum levels of insurance that the contractor is required to maintain throughout the term of the contract and any renewal periods. 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). XXX 3. 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 Employe Disho_esty Bond $ .00 Other rY*4-ssiew4 L, $ tftivto 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 proposal number and title The City of Miami Beach is self-insured. Any and all claim payments made from self-insurance are subject to the limits and provisions of Florida Statute 768.28, the Florida Constitution, and any other applicable Statutes. Miami Beach RFP 2014-015-LR Appendix F—Page 1