95-21791 ORIGINAL Reso i
RESOLUTION NO. 95-21791
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL,
INCORPORATED FOR ASSESSMENT CENTER
EXAMINATION DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR
THE CLASSIFICATIONS OF SERGEANT OF POLICE AND
LIEUTENANT OF POLICE.
Whereas, the current Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) bargaining agreement states that
eligible applicants for the promotional examination for Sergeant and Lieutenant shall be given an
Assessment Center evaluation for the second part of the testing process; and
Whereas, the City issued Request for Proposal(RFP)Number 140-94/95 to solicit proposals
for Assessment Center development and validation for Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police;
and,
Whereas,Burroughs and Rockhill,Incorporated,were evaluated as the top-ranked proposer;
and
Whereas, the Administration was granted authorization at the September 27, 1995,
Commission Meeting to negotiate a contract with Burroughs and Rockhill, Incorporated; and
Whereas, the Administration has successfully negotiated a contract with Burroughs and
Rockhill, Incorporated.
NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and the City
Commission hereby authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the attached Agreement
between the City of Miami Beach and Burroughs and Rockhill, Incorporated, in consideration for
an amount not to exceed $124,900 including all out-of-pocket and other expenses incurred by
Burroughs and Rockhill, Incorporated.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 25th day of October , 1995.
Attest:
y Clerk, Jac Lubin yor, Seymour Gelber
FORM APPR ED
JGP:TCA:GPL:ae Le al De t.
By
Date 10 18 cis
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO. 0&J S
TO: Mayor Seymour Gelber and
Members of the City Commission DATE:
October 25, 1995
FROM: Jose Garcia-Pedrosa
City Manager I
SUBJECT: RFP NO. 140-9• ;'.,REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
WITH BURR t 'GHS AND ROCKHILL,INC.FOR DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION
OF AN ASSESSMENT CENTER FOR SERGEANT AND LIEUTENANT OF POLICE
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
Agreement with the top-ranked proposer, Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc., for Assessment Center examination
development and validation for the classifications of Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police.
CONTRACT AMOUNT AND FUNDING:
$124,900 (Not to exceed)Funds are available from Police Budget Account No.011.1130.000312
BACKGROUND:
BACKGROUND SINCE SEPTEMBER 27, 1995,COMMISSION MEETING
During the September 27, 1995, Commission meeting, the Mayor and the City Commission authorized the
Administration to negotiate a contract with the top-ranked proposer, Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc., and, if the
Administration was unable to reach closure with Burroughs and Rockhill, authorization was granted to negotiate a
contract with the second ranked proposer,Morris and McDaniel,Inc. After authorization was granted,Jeff Bernstien
addressed the Commission stating there might be a conflict of interest in that Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc.also provide
tutoring services to applicants preparing to participate in employment and promotional examinations including
assessment center format tests. The Commission requested that the City Attorney look into Mr.Bernstien's concerns.
These issues were discussed by Murray Dubbin,Dean Mielke,and Human Resources staff. The City Attorney's first
concern was whether the successful proposer responded to the Request For Proposals(RFP)and determined that it had.
The City Attorney found no initial conflict of interest,but suggested that further inquiry would be advisable,as to other_
services provided by the successful proposer which could raise a question of propriety.
Mr. Mielke met with Mr. Bernstien to afford him the opportunity to present any further concerns. Burroughs and
Rockhill, Inc., wrote to the City Attorney and were contacted by telephone. It was the position of Burroughs and
Rockhill, Inc.,that there was no conflict of interest and represented that:
1. Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc. has never provided any test preparation workshops for any City of Miami
Beach employee
2. Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc.has never conducted test preparation workshops in any market in whichch they
design,develop,and/or conduct promotional testing(and will not do so in
Miami Beach)
h) L
A
DA
M
DATE L0-)5-q ?
•
•
3. All new material and Assessment Center test exercises will be developed for the City after the Contract is
awarded
4. In the opinion of Burroughs and Rockhill,Inc.,an individual would not have profited any more or less from
attending one of their test preparation workshops versus having attended a workshop with any other firm
5. Part of this project is for Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc. to conduct a customized orientation session for all
City of Miami Beach Sergeant and Lieutenant test applicants
Based upon the above investigation, the City Attorney felt that an Agreement for Professional Services could be
negotiated with the top-ranked firm,Burroughs and Rockhill,Inc.
BACKGROUND PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 27, 1995,COMMISSION MEETING
The Current bargaining agreement by and between the City of Miami Beach and the Fraternal Order of Police(FOP)
contains the following language:
"Section 1 - Advancement to the ranks of Sergeant and Lieutenant shall be by examinations that
measure the knowledge,skills and ability of personnel and by seniority. A promotional test will be
given every eighteen(18)months.
Section 2-Eligible applicants for the promotional examination for Sergeant and Lieutenant shall be
given a two-part test,consisting of a validated,written examination...and an Assessment Center for
the second part of the testing process."
The City entered into a Professional Services Agreement with Dr.David Santisteban on March 31, 1995,to develop and
validate the written tests for the Sergeant and Lieutenant of Police classifications. However,Dr. Santisteban does not
develop assessment centers and, therefore, the City must contract with another testing firm in order to provide the
assessment centers,as required by the FOP contract.
Twenty specification packages ere mailed for this RFP,which opened on September 12, 1995,resulting in the receipt
of five bids and three "No Bid" responses. All five responses were reviewed by a three(3)member RFP selection
committee from the Testing and Recruitment Section of the Human Resources Department. The committee members
were Adam Gross,Karen Hunter-Jackson(Affirmative Action Officer),and Gail Poe-Liu.
ANALYSIS:
"No Bid"responses were received from:
Darany and Associates
Miami-Dade Community College,North Campus
Stanard&Associates,Inc.
Proposals were received from five firms,all of which met the RFP criteria and were evaluated in the following rank
order:
1. Burroughs and Rockhill,Inc.($124,900,including 5 days legal preparation-402 Points)
2. Morris&McDaniel,Inc.($262,343 -363 Points)
3. O'Leary Brokaw&Associates,Inc.($88,080 plus$500/day for individual face-to-face feedback
for candidates: $200/hour to respond to appeals in writing-326 Points)
4. International Association of Chiefs of Police(IACP)($130,000 plus cost of individual face-to-face
feedback sessions for candidates-319 Points)
•
5. Management and Personnel Systems, Inc. (S148,000 plus $125/hour for travel;$150/day for
challenges,appeals-297 Points)
The proposals were evaluated in the areas noted in Attachment A,with Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc.being evaluated
as the number one ranked firm for this project. The areas in which this firm excelled included overall proposal
completeness,responsiveness,quality,clarity and presentation,experience of the firm and of the proposed project team,
comparable scope,Sergeant and Lieutenant of Police experience with job analysis and assessment exercise development
and validation, litigation history and experience,price and completion schedule.
CONCLUSION:
In order to comply with the Federal law and the FOP bargaining Agreement,an Assessment Center must be developed
and validated for the Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police classifications. Through the RFP process,the City
received and evaluated five (5) proposals, with Burroughs and Rockhill, Inc. being the top-ranked firm. It is
recommended that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize the Mayor and the City Clerk to execute the
Agreement with Burroughs and Rockhill,Inc. for development and validation of an Assessment Center examination
for Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police.
JGP:TCA:GPL:ses
Attachment
\humablMumuovm\gail-mem\bua roci
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH (CITY)
AND BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL, INCORPORATED, (CONSULTANT)
FOR ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR
SERGEANT OF POLICE AND LIEUTENANT OF POLICE
THIS AGREEMENT, made this 25th day of October in the
year of 1995, by and between the CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, a Florida
municipal corporation, hereinafter called the "City" , which term
shall include its officials, successors, legal representatives, and
assigns, and BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL, INCORPORATED, a consulting
firm, hereinafter called the "Consultant" for consultant services
as stated herein.
-1-
SECTION 1
DEFINITIONS
Agreement : This written Agreement between the City and
the Consultant .
City Manager: "City Manager" means 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.
Final Acceptance : "Final Acceptance" means notice from the City
to the Consultant that the Consultant ' s
Services are complete as provided in Section
4 . 8 of this Agreement .
Fixed Fee : Fixed amount paid to the Consultant to allow
for his costs and margin of profit .
-2-
Project
Coordinator: An individual designated by the City Manager
to coordinate, direct and review on behalf of
the City all technical matters involved in the
Scope of Work.
Risk Manager: The Risk Manager of the City, with offices at
1700 Convention Center Drive, Third Floor,
Miami Beach, Florida 33139 .
Services : All services, work and actions by the
Consultant performed pursuant to or undertaken
under this Agreement described in Section 2 .
Termination: Termination of Consultant Services as provided
in Section 4 . 9 of this Agreement .
Task: A discrete portion of the Scope of Services to
be accomplished by the Consultant, as
described in Section 2 herein, if directed and
authorized.
-3-
,SECTION 2
SCOPE OF WORK AND SERVICES REQUIRED
The Scope of Work for this project to be performed by the
Consultant is set forth in the Request For Proposals No. 140-94/95
which is incorporated herein by reference (Attachment A) .
SECTION 3
COMPENSATION
3 .1 LUMP SUM FIXED FEE
Consultant shall be compensated for the Services
performed herein in an amount not to exceed a lump sum fixed fee of
One Hundred Twenty Four Thousand Nine Hundred Dollars ($124, 900 . 00)
for both the Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police
classifications, according to the fee schedule itemized on page 16
of the Consultant ' s proposal (Attachment B) incorporated herein by
reference.
-4-
3 .2 METHOD OF PAYMENT
3 .2 .1 Monthly Payment
Payment shall be made to the Consultant monthly pursuant
to invoices submitted by the Consultant which detail percentage of
completion of each task. Invoices shall be accompanied by a
narrative progress report which supports the invoices, and shall
contain a statement that the items set forth therein are true and
correct and in accordance with the Agreement . Payments of such
invoices shall be made within 30 days of receipt by City.
SECTION 4
GENERAL PROVISIONS
4 .1 RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONSULTANT
With respect to the performance of the Services, the
Consultant shall exercise that degree of skill, care, efficiency,
and diligence normally exercised by recognized professionals with
respect to the performance of comparable Services . In its
performance of the Services, the Consultant shall comply with all
applicable laws, ordinances, and guidelines including but not
-5-
limited to applicable regulations and guidelines of the City,
County, State, Federal Government, ADA, and EEO.
BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL, INCORPORATED, agrees to adhere to
and be governed by all applicable requirements of the laws listed
below including, but not limited to, those provisions pertaining to
employment, provision of programs and services, transportation,
communications, access to facilities, renovations, and new
construction.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) : Pub.
L. 101-336 , 104 Stat 327, 42 U.S .C. 12101-12213 and 547 U.S . C.
Sections 225 and 611 including Title I, Employment; Title II ,
Public Services; Title III , Public Accommodations and Services
Operated by Private Entities; Title IV, Telecommunications; and
Title V, Miscellaneous Provisions .
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973 : 29 U.S .C. Section 794 .
The Federal Transit Act, as amended: 49 U. S .C. Section
1612 .
The Fair Housing Act as amended: 42 U. S.C. Section
3601-3631 .
BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL, INCORPORATED, must complete and
submit the City' s Disability Non-Discrimination Affidavit
(Affidavit) . In the event the Consultant fails to execute the
-6-
City' s Affidavit, or is found to be in non-compliance with the
provisions of the Affidavit, the City may impose such sanctions as
it may determine to be appropriate, including but not limited to,
withholding of payments to the Consultant under the Agreement until
compliance and/or cancellation, termination or suspension of the
Agreement in whole or in part . In the event, the City cancels or
terminates the Agreement pursuant to this Section, the Consultant
shall not be relieved of liability to the City for damages
sustained by the City by virtue of the Consultant ' s breach of the
Agreement .
4 .2 PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES
State of Florida Form PUR 7068, Sworn Statement under
Section 287 . 133 (3) (a) Florida Statute on Public Entity Crimes,
(Attachment C) .
4.3 PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Consultant shall appoint a qualified individual
acceptable to the City to serve as Project Manager for the Services
who shall be fully responsible for the day-to-day activities under
-7-
,
this Agreement and who shall serve as the primary contact for the
City' s Project Coordinator.
4 .4 TIME OF COMPLETION
The Services to be rendered by the Consultant shall be
commenced upon receipt of a written Notice to Proceed from the City
subsequent to the execution of this Agreement, and Consultant shall
adhere to the completion schedule as stated in the Consultant ' s
proposal (Attachment B) on page 14 .
A reasonable extension of time shall be granted in the
event the work of the Consultant is delayed or prevented by the
City or by any circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the
Consultant, including weather conditions or acts of God which
render performance of the Consultant ' s duties impracticable .
Such extensions of time shall not be a basis for any
claim by the Consultant for additional compensation, unless an
extension is based on a delay caused solely by the City and is in
excess of sixty (60) days .
-8-
4.5 NOTICE TO PROCEED
Unless directed by the City otherwise, the Consultant
shall proceed with the work only upon issuance of a Notice to
Proceed by the City.
4 .6 OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS AND EOUIPMENT
All documents, including but not limited to test and test
scoring data or programs stored electronically, prepared by the
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement, are related exclusively to
the Services described herein. They are intended or represented to
be suitable for reuse by the City.
4 .7 INDEMNIFICATION
Consultant agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, the
City of Miami Beach and its officers, employees, and agents, from
and against any and all actions, claims, liabilities, losses, and
expenses, including, but not limited to, attorneys ' fees, for
personal , economic, or bodily injury, wrongful death, loss of or
damage to property, in law or in equity, which may arise or be
alleged to have arisen from the negligent acts or omission or other
wrongful conduct of the consultant, employees, or agents in
connection with the Consultant ' s performance of Services pursuant
-9-
•
to this Agreement; and to that extent, the Consultant shall pay all
such claims and losses and shall pay all such costs and judgements
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 (10) of the total Compensation
to the Consultant for performance of this Agreement is the specific
consideration from the City to the Consultant for the Consultant ' s
Indemnity Agreement .
The Consultant ' s obligation under this article shall not
include the obligation to indemnify the City of Miami Beach and its
officers, employees, and agents, from and against any actions or
claims which arise or are alleged to have arisen from negligent
acts or omissions or other wrongful conduct of the City and its
officers, employees, and agents . The parties each agree to give
the other party prompt notice of any claim coming to its knowledge
that in any way directly or indirectly affects the other party.
4 .8 INSURANCE REOUIREMENTS
The Consultant shall not commence any work pursuant to
this Agreement until all insurance required under this Section has
-10-
been obtained and such insurance has been approved by the City' s
Risk Manager. The Consultant shall maintain and carry in full
force during the term of this Agreement and throughout the duration
of this project the following insurance :
1 . Consultant Professional Liability in the amount of
$1, 000, 000 . 00 . For a claims made policy, the Consultant agrees
to carry five (5) years tail coverage after work is completed,
or maintain a comparable policy for five (5) years, provided
that such comparable policy shall include coverage for prior
acts effective from the date of execution of this Agreement .
A certified copy of the Consultant ' s (and any subconsultants ' )
Insurance Policy must be filed and approved by the Risk
Manager prior to commencement .
2 . Workers Compensation & Employers Liability as required per
Florida statutes .
3 . Thirty (30) days written notice of cancellation or substantial
modification in the insurance coverages must be given to the
City by the Consultant and his insurance company.
4 . The insurance must be furnished by insurance companies
authorized to do business in the State of Florida and approved
by the City' s Risk Manager.
-11-
5 . Original certificates of insurance for the above coverages
must be submitted to the City' s Risk Manager for approval
prior to any work commencing. These certificates will be kept
on file in the office of the Risk Manager, 3rd Floor, City
Hall .
6 . The Consultant is responsible for obtaining and submitting all
insurance certificates for their consultants .
All insurance policies must be issued by companies authorized to do
business under the laws of the State of Florida. The companies must
be rated no less than "B+" as to management and not less than
"Class VI" as to strength by the latest edition of Best ' s Insurance
Guide, published by A.M. Best Company, Oldwick, New Jersey, or its
equivalent, subject to the approval of the City' s Risk Manager.
Compliance with the foregoing requirements shall not relieve the
Consultant of the liabilities and obligations under this Section or
under any other portion of this Agreement, and the City shall have
the right to obtain from the Consultant specimen copies of the
insurance policies in the event that submitted certificates of
insurance are inadequate to ascertain compliance with required
coverages .
-12-
4 . 8 .1 Endorsements
All of Consultant ' s certificates, above, shall contain
endorsements providing that written notice shall be given to the
City at least thirty (30) days prior to termination, cancellation
or reduction in coverage in the policy.
4. 8.2 Certificates
Unless directed by the City otherwise, the Consultant
shall not commence any services pursuant to this Agreement until
the City has received and approved, in writing, certificates of
insurance showing that the requirements of this Section (in its
entirety) have been met and provided for.
4 . 9 FINAL ACCEPTANCE
When the Consultant ' s Services have been completed, the
Consultant shall so advise the City in writing. Final Acceptance
shall not constitute a waiver or abandonment of any rights to
remedies available to the City under any other Section of this
Agreement .
-13-
4 .10 TERMINATION. SUSPENSION AND SANCTIONS
4 .10 .1 Termination for Default
If through any cause within the reasonable control of the
Consultant, the Consultant shall fail to fulfill in a timely
manner, or otherwise violate any of the covenants, agreements, or
stipulations material to this Agreement, the City shall thereupon
have the right to terminate the Services then remaining to be
performed by giving written notice to the Consultant of such
termination which shall become effective upon receipt by the
Consultant of the written termination notice .
In that event, all finished and unfinished documents,
data, studies, surveys, drawings, maps, models, photographs,
reports and other work products prepared by the Consultant and its
subcontractors shall be properly delivered to the City and the City
shall compensate the Consultant in accordance with Section 3 for
all Services performed by the Consultant prior to Termination.
Notwithstanding the above, the Consultant shall not be
relieved of liability to the City for damages sustained by the City
by virtue of any breach of the Agreement by the Consultant and the
City may reasonably withhold payments to the Consultant for the
-14-
purposes of set off until such time as the exact amount of damages
due the City from the Consultant is determined.
4 .10 .2 Termination for Convenience of City_
The City may, for its convenience, terminate the Services
then remaining to be performed at any time by giving written notice
to Consultant of such termination, which shall become effective
seven (7) days following receipt by Consultant of the written
termination notice . In that event, all finished or unfinished
documents and other materials as described in Section 2 shall be
properly delivered to the City. If the Agreement is terminated by
the City as provided in this Section, the City shall compensate the
Consultant in accordance with Section 2 for all Services actually
performed by the Consultant and reasonable direct costs of
Consultant for assembling and delivering to City all documents .
Such payments shall be the total extent of the City' s liability to
the Consultant upon a Termination as provided for in this Section.
4.10 .3 Termination for Insolvency_
The City also reserves the right to terminate the
remaining Services to be performed in the event the Consultant is
placed either in voluntary or involuntary bankruptcy or makes an
-15-
•
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 4 . 10 . 2 .
4.10 .4 Sanctions for Noncompliance with Nondiscrimination
ProvisionS
In the event of the Consultant ' s noncompliance with the
nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, the City shall
impose such Agreement Sanctions as the City or the State of Florida
may determine to be appropriate, including but not limited to
withholding of payments to the Consultant under the Agreement until
the Consultant complies and/or cancellation, termination or
suspension of the Services, in whole or in part . In the event the
City cancels or terminates the Services pursuant to this Section
the rights and obligations of the parties shall be the same as
provided in Section 4 . 10 . 2 .
4 .10 .5 Changes and Additions
Each such change shall be directed by a written Notice
signed by the duly authorized representatives of the Consultant .
Said Notices shall provide an equitable adjustment in the time of
performance, a reallocation of the task budget and, if applicable,
-16-
•
any provision of this Agreement which is affected by said Notice .
The City shall not reimburse the Consultant for the cost of
preparing Agreement change documents, written Notices to Proceed,
or other documentation in this regard.
4 .11 ASSIGNMENT, TRANSFER OR SUBCONTRACTING
The Consultant shall not subcontract, assign, or transfer
his/her rights or obligations under this Agreement without the
written consent of the City. When applicable and upon receipt of
such consent in writing, the Consultant shall cause the names of
the individuals or consulting firms responsible for the major
portions of each separate specialty of the work to be inserted into
the pertinent documents or data. The Consultant shall include in
such subcontracts the appropriate versions of the Sections of this
Agreement as are necessary to carry out the intent of this
Agreement, as instructed by the City.
4 .12 EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
In connection with the performance of this Agreement, the
Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant
for employment because of age, ancestry, citizenship or intending
citizenship status, color, disability, gender, marital status,
-17-
national origin, place of birth, race, religion, or sexual
orientation. The Consultant shall take affirmative action to
ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated
during their employment without regard to their age, ancestry,
citizenship or intending citizenship status, color, disability,
gender, marital status, national origin, place of birth, race,
religion, or sexual orientation. Such action shall include, but not
be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or
termination; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or
termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and
selection for training, including apprenticeship.
4 .13 CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The Consultant agrees to adhere to and be governed by the
Metropolitan Dade County Conflict of Interest Ordinance (No. 72-
82) , as amended, and by the City of Miami Beach Charter and Code,
which are incorporated by reference herein as if fully set forth
herein, in connection with the Agreement conditions hereunder.
The Consultant covenants that it presently has no
interest and shall not acquire any interest, direct or indirectly
which should conflict in any manner or degree with the performance
-18-
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
therefrom.
4 .14 PATENT RIGHTS; COPYRIGHTS; CONFIDENTIAL FINDINGS
Any patentable result arising out of this Agreement, as
well as all information, design specifications, processes, data and
findings, shall be made available to the City for public use .
No reports, other documents, articles or devices produced
in whole or in part under this Agreement shall be the subject of
any application for copyright or patent by or on behalf of the
Consultant or its employees or subcontractors .
4 .15 NOTICES
All communications relating to the day-to-day activities
shall be exchanged between the Project Manager appointed by
Consultant and the Project Coordinator designated by the City. The
Consultant ' s Project Manager and the City' s Project Coordinator
-19-
shall be designated promptly upon commencement of the Services .
All other notices and communications in writing required
or permitted hereunder may be delivered personally to the
representatives of the Consultant and the City listed below or may
be mailed by registered mail, postage prepaid (or airmailed if
addressed to an address outside of the city of dispatch) . Until
changed by notice in writing, all such notices and communications
shall be addressed as follows :
TO CONSULTANT: BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL, INC.
1757 West Broadway Street, Suite 5
Oviedo, FL 32765
(407) 365-7244
TO CITY: City Manager
City of Miami Beach
City Hall, 4th Floor
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
(305) 673-7010
WITH COPIES TO:
Office of the City Attorney
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Notices hereunder shall be effective :
-20-
If delivered personally, on delivery; if mailed to an
address in the city of dispatch, on the day following the
date mailed; and if mailed to an address outside the city
of dispatch on the seventh day following the date mailed.
4 . 16 LITIGATION JURISDICTION
Any litigation between the parties, arising of, or in
connection with this Agreement, shall be initiated either in the
court system of the State of Florida or the United States District
Court for the Southern District of Florida.
4 .17 ENTIRETY OF AGREEMENT
This writing, the Request For Proposals, and Consultant ' s
Proposal embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the
parties hereto, and there are no other agreements and
understandings, oral or written with reference to the subject
matter hereof that are not merged herein and superseded hereby.
The Request For Proposal and the Consultant ' s Proposal are hereby
incorporated by reference into this Agreement to the extent that
the terms and conditions contained in the Request For Proposal and
the Consultant ' s Proposal are consistent with the Agreement . To
-21-
the extent that any term in the Request For Proposal or
Consultant ' s Proposal is inconsistent with this Agreement, this
Agreement shall prevail .
No alteration, change, or modification of the terms of
this Agreement shall be valid unless amended in writing, signed by
both parties hereto, and approved by the City Commission of the
City of Miami Beach.
This Agreement, regardless of where executed, shall be
governed by and construed according to the laws of the State of
Florida.
4 .18 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 the City' s liability for any such
breach never exceeds the sum of One Hundred Twenty Four Thousand
Nine Hundred Dollars and no/100 ($124 , 900 . 00) . 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 $124 , 900 . 00
-22-
less the amount of all funds actually paid by the City to
Consultant pursuant to this Agreement .
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 $124 , 900 . 00 which amount shall be reduced by the amount
actually paid by the City to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement,
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 City' s liability as set forth in
Florida Statutes, Section 768 . 28 .
4 .19 ARBITRATION
Any controversy or claim for money damages arising out of
or relating to this Agreement, or the breach hereof, shall be
settled by arbitration in accordance with the Commercial
Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association, and the
arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties
hereto and subject to no appeal, and shall deal with the question
-23-
of the costs of arbitration and all matters related thereto. In
that regard, the parties shall mutually select one arbitrator, but
to the extent the parties cannot agree upon the arbitrator, then
the American Arbitration Association shall appoint one. Judgement
upon the award rendered may be entered into any court having
jurisdiction, or application may be made to such court for an order
of enforcement . Any controversy or claim other than a controversy
or claim for money damages arising out of or relating to this
Agreement, or the breach hereof, including any controversy or claim
relating to the right to specific performance, shall be settled by
litigation and not arbitration.
-24-
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
ATTEST:
JBy: BY: /No- _ _
ity Clerk, Jack Lubin r',, or, Seymour Gelber
FOR CONSULTANT: BURROUGHS AND ROCKHILL,
INCORPORATED
WITNESS:
By: `
Consultant
GPL: ses FORM APPROVED
gal Dept
By
Date wV4\a5
f:h um arovm/contracs/polib&ri
-25-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH -
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA 33139
ATTACHMENT A
OFFICE OF THE PURCHASING AGEN
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 140-94/95 1700 CONVENTION NTER DRIVE
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDACE 33139
TELEPHONE: (305)673-7490
PROJECT TITLE: ASSESSMENT CENTER SUNCOM: (305)933-7490
(305)673-7851
DEVELOPMENT AND VALIDATION FOR
SERGEANT OF POLICE AND LIEUTENANT OF POLICE
Sealed proposals for Professional Services of an Assessment Center Development and Validation
firm, as per specifications and outline of scope of services,will be received by the Purchasing Agent
of Miami Beach at the Purchasing Division office, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach,
Florida 33139, until 2:00 P.M. on September 12, 1995.
Original and six(6)copies of proposal shall be submitted. At this time and place, all proposals shall
be publicly opened and recorded. Late proposals shall not be accepted or considered and shall be
returned to the bidder unopened.
A Pre-Proposal Conference will be held at 10:00 A.M. on August 29, 1995, in the Purchasing
Conference Room, second floor of City Hall, and will provide proposers the opportunity to ask
questions about the RFP and the City's requirements.
If you have any questions regarding this Request for Proposals, contact the Purchasing Division at
673-7490.
The City of Miami Beach reserves the right to accept any proposal deemed to be in the best interest
of the City or to waive any informality in any proposal. The City may reject any or all proposals and
re-advertise.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
AdL6-dc::)11
udith M. Ford
Purchasing Agent
GPL:cp
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 1
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 140-94/95
TABLE OF CONTENTS
• PAGE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS 2
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES 4
I. GOAL 4
II. JOB ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENT 5
III. DOCUMENTATION, FOLLOW-UP AND GENERAL SERVICES 6
IV. COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROJECTS 8
CITY PROVIDED SERVICES 9
I. THE CITY WILL 9
II. THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR SHALL 9
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS 10
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS 10
II. PROJECT PLAN 12
SUBMISSION DEADLINE 14 +
GENERAL CONDITIONS AND INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS 15
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)
PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND SELECTION PROCEDURE 23
PROPOSAL PAGE 28
PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME STATEMENT 27
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 3
DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES
GOAL
The purpose of the project is to conduct necessary job analyses; develop fair, valid,
defensible, customized assessment centers; train and provide role players and assessors;
score and analyze the results; respond to applicant challenges; establish passing scores;
produce ordered registers of results; and validate the assessment centers. The above services
will be conducted in a valid, reliable manner consistent with sound, currently accepted
professional and legal methodologies. The above services will be provided for the Sergeant
of Police and the Lieutenant of Police classifications. The experience of the firm and of the
individuals shall include performing such job analysis and assessment services for equivalent
sworn law enforcement classifications.
The results of this process will be utilized by the City to select the most qualified and
suitable individuals for the noted classifications.
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 4
•
II. JOB ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENT - For each the
Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police classifications
A. Task A-Job Analysis
1. Review and analyze existing job analysis(from 1993)for Assessment Center
development and validation.
2. Conduct additional job analysis as deemed necessary to ensure Assessment
Center is appropriate and valid and results are reliable.
3. Prepare complete detailed report documenting entire process including, but
not limited to, all methodologies,rationales, procedures, and findings of job
analysis
B. Task B - Develop Assessment Center
1. Ensure that no person(s),other than those designated by the City Manager,
shall have access to any information regarding the assessment exercises,
concepts, development materials, response/performance guidelines, or any
related materials.
2. Ensure that the assessment exercises have not been used and will not be used
in whole nor in part by any other past, present, or future client or any other
agency or individual without express written agreement between the City and
the Consultant
3. Construct the Assessment Center of three (3)exercises-the nature of which
to be determined by the job analysis and agreed to by the City
4. Develop desired performance/responses for each assessment exercise and/or
standards/criteria
5. Review and edit written assessment exercise materials to insure freedom from
misspelling or grammatical,typographical, or other errors and freedom from
ethnic, gender, or other bias
6. Validate the Assessment Center
7. Provide orientation sessions for all candidates including guidelines and
descriptions of Assessment Center process
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 5
•
JOB ANALYSIS AND ASSESSMENT CENTER DEVELOPMENT - Continued
8. Provide videotape and equipment (and backup) so that each participant is
videotaped and operate during non-written assessment exercises
9. Print and deliver sufficient copies of each assessment exercise
10. Coordinate and administer Assessment Center process including site
selection and scheduling
11. Select, provide lodging and transportation for, and train three (3) assessors
per assessment exercise. Schedule assessors for videotape and written
exercise evaluation
12. Determine appropriate Assessment Center passing score
13. Provide the City with a register of the final results including overall score for
each participant
14. Provide one-on-one feedback upon request to each participant
15. Provide and train role players, as needed.
16. Review and respond in writing to any applicant challenges, including
justification of response
17. Give title of the Assessment Center and all exercises to the City to be used
by the City in any manner without any additional charge and prevent use by
any other agency or individual
III. DOCUMENTATION. FOLLOW-UP. AND GENERAL SERVICES - For each the
Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police classifications
•
Tas A - Document, prepare comprehensive interim progress and final reports, and
provide copies to the City of all materials, methodologies, rationales,
individuals involved, and steps utilized to provide these services as well as
a copy of all data obtained
Task B Document that the assessment exercises are valid and reliable measurement
instruments and that acceptable and defensible statistical and other methods
were applied
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 6
•
•
Task C - Prepare documentation and testimony to appear in court or before any
regulatory authorities or bodies and provide testimony as an expert witness
in conjunction with any challenges,appeals,suits,or grievances which might
arise from providing the proposed services
Task D - General Services
1. Remain available on an as-needed basis to answer any questions or
clarify or interpret the results of any individual's results
2. Provide supplemental written material and training to City personnel
to facilitate the use of the Assessment Center results and reports
3. Defend and/or represent the City and testify on the City's behalf if
any claims or allegations are made regarding the services provided
including,but not limited to,the validity of the Assessment Center or
evaluation methods or results
4. Maintain all raw job analysis and Assessment Center results and
notes with respect to each individual evaluated for the time period set
forth in Florida records retention or other applicable laws or as
specified by the City,whichever is greater
5. Research and investigate to insure that all assessment exercises,
procedures, results, and interpretations are valid, reliable, cross-
cultural,and legally defensible for the purposes used
6. Submit a report summarizing and evaluating Assessment Center
results through descriptive statistics, including an analysis by
ethnicity/race, gender, and age showing adverse impact, if any, of
each exercise and of entire Assessment Center and giving
recommendations for future reduction of any adverse impact
Task E - Document that the procedure used to combine Written Test and
Assessment Center scores is valid and meets all required criteria
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 7
IV. COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROJECTS-For each the Sergeant of Police and
Lieutenant of Police classifications
The City has already contracted with another consultant to develop a Written Test which will
precede the Assessment Center. Per Union contract,the examination process will be 35%
Written Test and 65% Assessment Center plus seniority points. The successful proposer
under this Request for Proposal will coordinate with the consultant who is developing the
Written Test to ensure a valid, legally defensible, technically sound final overall product.
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 8
CITY PROVIDED SERVICES
I. THE CITY WILL:
A. Provide copies of the existing job analyses and other information requested
B. At the Consultant's request, coordinate subject matter expert and other meetings
involving City employees, coordinate distribution and return of employee
questionnaires, and contact candidates regarding scheduling.
II. THE HUMAN RESOURCES DIRECTOR SHALL:
Designate a professional City employee in the Human Resources Department as a contact
and resource person for the firm
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 9
PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REOUIREMENTS
Qualified firms interested in providing the services described above are invited to submit a complete
proposal for consideration. The proposal shall address how the proposer intends to meet the
requirements of all items listed under"Description of Services"and those items listed below. Non-
compliance with the list of requested items will be sufficient cause for non-acceptance of the
proposal.
The City also reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. Awards will be based upon the
criteria provided in this entire request and will be made to respondents whose proposals are deemed
by the City to be the most beneficial to the City and to its employees after all factors are considered.
I. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
A. Identification of all staff members of the firm who will perform any work related to
the proposed services,the tasks each will perform,and the experience, qualifications,
and licenses of each; include any other data which would be pertinent in meeting the
City's need for the proposed services
B. Identification of all sub-consultants and other assistants who are to participate in the
services including the respective tasks they are to perform and their experience,
qualifications, and licenses
C. Supporting statements indicating the firm is an equal opportunity employer.
D. Each proposer is required to provide a lump sum fee which includes all fees,
expenses, and/or payments to the firm during the contract for requested services
including,but not limited to,the cost of all individuals to participate in or support the
services; typing; printing; copying; phone calls; and other costs incidental to
providing these services. The fee proposal must also include the discount the City
would receive if the City performed any one, any combination of, or all of the
following project tasks (if applicable):
1. provide rooms in which to conduct and evaluate assessment exercises
2. obtain and select assessors and/or role players
3. provide assessor travel, lodging and food
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 10
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS -Continued
4. supply video equipment
5. administer or assist in the administration of any or all assessment exercises
Any proposed charges for special services(for example,expert witness appearances)
which are not included in the lump sum fee should be detailed within proposal. For
reference purposes only, it is anticipated that approximately 140 candidates will
participate in the Sergeants Assessment Center and 35 candidates will participate in
the Lieutenant's Assessment Center.
E. Identification of Federal, state, and local laws, regulations, and guidelines and
professional industry standards which will be taken into consideration in performing
the services and what procedures will be employed to ensure adherence
F. Identification of steps to be taken to prevent adverse impact, discrimination,
challenges,and litigation, especially those concerning age, citizenship or intending
citizenship status, color, disability, familial status, gender, marital status, national
origin, race, religion, or sexual orientation, regarding each service to be provided;
and to insure that all procedures/tools are job-related, reasonable, and defensible
G. Identification of any problems you anticipate in providing the contemplated services
as requested; and how you propose to resolve the problems
H. If possible, samples of similar projects
A time schedule outlining the period of time necessary for completion of all contract
services required for this project. This will include, but not be limited to, the
schedule for:
1. initiation of work after bid is awarded
2. completion of necessary job analysis
3. delivery and administration of Assessment Center
a. both Assessment Centers must be ready by January 1, 1996
b. Lieutenant of Police assessment exercises administration must be
completed in three(3) days or less
c. Sergeant of Police assessment exercises administration must be
completed in six(6)days or less
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 11
4. completion of scoring for each assessment exercise and establishment of a
register of final scores
5. delivery of final reports and register of participants' overall examination
results
II. PROJECT PLAN
A. Provide a complete detailed operational description of all proposed methodologies
and procedures for carrying out the work and meeting the requirements of the RFP,
including, but not limited to:
1. Communication and coordination with City personnel
2. Name and full description of each methodology to be utilized and reason(s)
for selecting each. Include evidence that referenced methodologies and
procedures have court tested or otherwise documented and demonstrated
acceptance,reliability,and validity for intended use
3. Specific sequence of procedures to be used and the time frame associated
with each procedure
4. Interim and final report format for each Task including narrative information
to be provided. A sample report should be included
5. Identify the steps which will be taken to ensure that all assessment exercises
are the proper complexity level, unambiguous, reasonable, fair, valid and
defensible
6. Identify the summary or descriptive analyses or statistics which will be
utilized and provided to the City, which may include, but are not limited to:
a. reliability
b. standard deviation
c. standard estimate of error and/or measurement
d. adverse impact,disparate treatment
e: central tendencies(mean,median, mode)
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 12
f. difficulty and discrimination indexes•
•
g. others
7. Which of the above will also be reported by assessment exercise and/or
subgroup such as ethnicity/national origin, gender, age, etc.
B. Job Analysis
1. Describe the Job Analysis methodology to be used and explain how the
functions will be conducted
2. Describe method of sampling for Job Analysis such as
a. use of incumbents,supervisors, administrators, outside experts
i. expected number of each and time needed
ii. how to be selected
iii. used for what purpose(s)
b. types of tools to be utilized
i. face-to-face interviews
ii. observations
iii. paper and pencil surveys
iv. other tools
3. How will you prepare the above individuals to participate in the job analysis
4. What factors will you consider and what preparation will be made by the
proposer prior to conducting interviews and/or surveys
C. Assessment Exercises
1. What methodology and criteria will be used to select the appropriate types of
assessment exercises
2. What methodology will be used to develop each assessment exercise and
explain how the functions will be accomplished
3. What considerations and criteria will be used for establishing passing scores
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 13
•
•
4. How will you determine if the assessment exercises include an appropriate
and representative sample of the factors to be sampled and measured,and that
they are correctly scored
5. To what extent must assessors agree on a participant's rating(s)
D. Describe the validation methodology to be used
•
SUBMISSION DEADLINE
Respondents shall submit original and six (6)complete copies of their proposal to the Purchasing
Agent. Proposals shall not be accepted after 2:00 P.M. on September 12, 1995.
Respondents selected by the City shall be prepared to present their proposals before a selection
committee.
If you have any questions regarding this Request for Proposals, contact Judith M. Ford, Purchasing
Agent, 673-7490, weekdays between 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
The City of Miami Beach is an Equal Opportunity Employer.
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 14
ATTACHMENT B
Assessment Center Development
and Validation for Sergeant of Police
and Lieutenant of Police
Proposal No. 140-94/95 P77t-eit
Prepared for: The City of Miami Beach
Submitted By
Burroughs & Rockhill, Incorporated
1757 W. Broadway Street, Suite 5
Oviedo, Florida 32765
(407) 365-7244
September 8, 1995
BURROUGHS&ROCKHILL,INC.
leaders in Promotional Test Preparation
September 8, 1995
Ms. Judith M. Ford
Purchasing Agent of Miami Beach
Purchasing Division Office
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Dear Ms. Ford:
Enclosed please find six copies of our proposal No. 140-94/95 entitled "Assessment
Center Development and Validation for Sergeant of Police and Lieutenant of Police".
We look forward to hearing the results of your competitive review process.
Sincerely,
tocu,,,, 4A-4-A-.P4-e-14-
Wayne A. Burroughs, Ph.D
President
1757 W. Broadway Street Suite 5 * Oviedo, Florida 32765 * (407) 365-7244
Table of Contents
I. Letter of Transmittal 1
II. General Information, Organization, and Resources 2
A Background of Principals 3
B. Related Experience 4
III. Technical Statement of Work to be Performed
A. Task A - Job Analysis 8
B. Task B - Develop Assessment Center 8
IV. Documentation, Follow-up and General Services 10
A Task A - Documentation of Progress
B. Task B - Documentation of Assessment Process
C. Task C - Court Appearances
D. Task D - General Services
E. Task E - Document Combining Written Test and Assessment
Center Scores
V. General Requirements 12
VI. Project Plan and Time Frames 14
VII. Project Costs 16
VIII. Appendix A: Resumes of Principals
IX. Appendix B: Sample Reports
A Sample Exercise Report
B. Sample Final Report
X. Apprendix C: Attachments
A. Public Entity Crimes Form
B. Fee Statement
1
I. Letter of Transmittal
The consultant, Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc., hereby submits a proposal to provide
professional services to the City of Miami Beach to develop, validate, administer, and
score a promotional assessment center for the positions of Sergeant and Lieutenant of
Police.
Our design, development, and conduct of selection processes and assessment
center activities meet the highest standards of validity pursuant to the "Guidelines and
Ethical Considerations for Assessment Center Operations" issued by the Seventeenth
International Congress on the Assessment Center Method and pursuant to the rules and
procedures of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Burroughs & Rockhill,
Inc.'s experience as consultants to other organizations which have been legally
challenged has allowed us to incorporate procedures into our professional services
which meet these stringent requirements. We are proud that none of our selection
programs, assessment centers, or other human resource management products and
services has been challenged successfully in court. We
clients will be minus to strive to ensure that
any defense of these services on behnlf
We have submitted this bid based upon the amount and quality of work specified
within the scope of services, development steps, and project schedule contained herein.
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. wishes to firmly express its willingness to cooperate fully
with the City of Miami Beach in providing these services for the lowest cost opossible.
The consultant remains willing and eager to discuss any feature of this prop
required by the City. The consultant looks forward to providing the City
high quality services within the human resource arena.
Important features of our proposal include:
• Written performance feedback report for each assessment participant
• Experience with court expert witness testimony
• Comprehensive orientation training of participants to reduce likelihood of
controversy and challenge
• A new and innovative approach to assessing police tactical skills which
will be customized for Miami Beach and significantly reduces the labor
intensity in scoring this type of exercise while increasing reliability of
scores.
Wayu-r 13(-4AA-erci-t-414-
Wayne Burroughs, President
—7:--/-ibry4.3-?or,e Lt
Thomas Rockhill, Vice President
2
II_ General Information, Organization, and Resources
This proposal is submitted by Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. which is an independent
consulting firm owned and operated by Wayne A. Burroughs, Ph.D. and Thomas L.
Rockhill, M.S. These principals have joined together to submit this proposal because of
their unique backgrounds, training, and consulting experience specifically related to this
project. As noted below, all of these principals have extensive experience specifically
related to this project.
As practicing psychologists in the State of Florida, the principals are subject to the
professional standards of the American Psychological Association, the Florida
Psychological Association and the Florida State Licensing Board.
Below is a brief summary of the professional credentials of the principals involved in
this project. As will be seen in later sections of this proposal, all professional level
work and the majority of all technical level work on all parts of this project will be
accomplished by Burroughs & Rockhi11, Inc. principals. In addition, some technical level
work and all clerical level work will be accomplished by competent associates.
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. has participated in the following litigation:
• New York City Police Department, 1984. The union challenge of the
assessment center process was rejected by the State Court. The assessment
center results stood. Dr. Burroughs was deposed regarding the overall design
of the project and the content validity of all exercises used. Dr. Burroughs
testified on behalf of the City (defendant) which won the case.
• Metro-Dade County, Florida, 1989. The Progressive Officers' Club, an African
American Police Officers' organization, challenged the results of an assessment
center used for promotion to Police Lieutenant claiming adverse impact
against African Americans. Dr. Burroughs was deposed on behalf of the
defendant (Metro-Dade County) regarding all aspects of the assessment center
system design and scoring. The court ruled in favor of the defendant.
• Little Rock, Arkansas, 1991. The police union challenged the administration
and scoring procedures used by the City of Little Rock for promotion to Police
Lieutenant. Dr. Burroughs was deposed and testified in court for the plaintiff
(police union). The court ruled for the plaintiff and the assessment center
and scoring produces were significantly altered in Little Rock.
• City of Cincinnati, 1993-4. A small group of participants challenged the
simulation exercises which were developed by the consultant. The process
was upheld in the Civil Service hearings, and the City prevailed in a lawsuit
which followed. Dr. Burroughs and Mr. Rockhill were both deposed and
assisted City attorneys in preparing briefs and arguments.
3
A. Background of Principals
WAYNE A. BURROUGHS, president of Burroughs & Rorkhiil, Inc., is a Professor
of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the University of Central Florida in Orlando,
Florida. Dr. Burroughs is responsible for the graduate level teaching and research in
the Master of Science Program in Industrial/Organizational Psychology and the Doctor
of Philosophy Program in Human Factors Psychology. He received his B.A. degree in
Psychology from Wake Forest University and the M.A. and Ph.D. degrees from the
University of Tennessee. He has co-authored several books designed for management
development or popular application of psychology to problem solving in life settings.
He has also contributed numerous articles to management and psychological journals in
the areas of leadership, management selection and development, Assessment Center
technology, and was formerly Vice President of Assessment Designs, Inc. In the summer
of 1973 Dr. Burroughs became the youngest director ever appointed to manage
Southern Bell Telephone Company's highest level Assessment Center, a position which
he held for five years.
THOMAS L. ROCKHILL, vice president of Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc., received his
B.S. degree in Criminology from Florida State University and his M.S. degree in
Industrial/Organizational Psychology from the University of Central Florida. From 1971
to 1981, he served as a police officer for the Orlando Police Department. From 1981 to
1988, he was a Lieutenant in the Orange County (Orlando, Florida) Sheriffs Office,
commanding the Human Resource Section. There, he managed projects in job analysis,
performance appraisal, assessment centers, training and career development. He also
managed the recruiting and selection section for several years. He has consulted with
police and fire departments, governmental agencies, and private sector companies on
the design and conduct of human resource management projects.
4
B. Related Experience
The consultants submitting this proposal have conducted similar projects for a
large number of government agencies and private industrial concerns. A list of those
clients includes the following organizations and projects.
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms:
Middle Management Assessment Center. Dr. Burroughs served as an external
assessor and conducted assessor training activities for this project accomplished
by Assessment Designs, International. 1980.
Contact: Craig Taylor, Wilson Learning - Orlando
(407) 788-8300
New York Police Department:
Lieutenant Assessment Center. Dr. Burroughs worked as a project consultant on
the specific design of the Written Technical Examination done by Assessment
Designs, International. Spring, 1982,
Contact: Craig Taylor, Wilson Learning - Orlando
(407) 788-8300
Orange County (Orlando, Florida) Sheriffs Office:
Dr. Burroughs has been the primary consultant to the O.C.S.O. since the
inception of their Assessment Center Program in the Spring of 1982. The
planning, job analysis, assessment center design, simulation design and
development, implementation, assessor training, feedback process, and final
report writing have been accomplished or supervised by the principal consultants.
Mr. Rockhill had the responsibility to oversee the process as the commander of
the Human Resource Section until he joined Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. in the
Fall of 1988. In this capacity, Mr. Rockhill was also responsible for the
development and supervision of the Police Officer/Trainee selection system. The
principals were primarily responsible for the following selection systems:
Sergeant Assessment Centers -- Spring, 1982; Fall, 1983; Spring, 1985; Fall,
1986; and Spring, 1988. All included the design and development of multiple
choice technical knowledge examinations, multiple choice simulations (In-
Baskets), and full simulations (including the videotaping and assessment of
interactive role-playing simulations).
5
Lieutenant Assessment Center -- Summer, 1988. Included the design and
development of multiple choice technical knowledge examinations, multiple
choice simulations (In-Baskets), and full simulations (including the videotaping
and assessment of interactive role-playing simulations).
Captain Assessment Center -- Spring, 1991. Included the design and
development of multiple choice technical knowledge examinations, multiple
choice simulations (In-Baskets), and full simulations (including the videotaping
and assessment of interactive role-playing simulations).
Contact: Andrea Undieme
Human Resource Development, P. O. Box 11'10, Orlando, FL 32802
(407) 836-4030
Gainesville (Florida) Police Department:
Burroughs & Rock,} , Inc. has been the primary consultants to the Gainesville
Police Department since 1988. The same services and products were provided to
the G.P.D. as were provided to the Orange County Sheriffs Office, including job
analyses. The principals were responsible for conducting these Assessment
Centers:
Lieutenant Assessment Centers -- Spring, 1988 and Summer, 1990. All included
the design and development of multiple choice technical knowledge
examinations, multiple choice simulations (In-Baskets), and full simulations
(including the videotaping and assessment of interactive role-playing
simulations).
Corporal and Sergeant Assessment Centers -- Summer, 1989. All included the
design and development of multiple choice technical knowledge examinations,
multiple choice simulations (In-Baskets), and full simulations (including the
videotaping and assessment of interactive role-playing simulations).
Contact: Sylvia Hill
GPD, 721 N. W. 6 Street, Gainesville, FL 32602
(904) 334-2422
Citrus County (Florida) Sheriffs Office:
Emergency Management Director Assessment Center -- Spring, 1990. Including
the design and development of full simulations (including the videotaping and
assessment of interactive role-playing simulations).
Contact: Bonnie White
1 S. Park Avenue, Inverness, FL 32650-4994
(904) 726-4488
6
City of Orlando (Florida) Police Department
Sergeant Assessment Center -- 1990. Including the design and development of
multiple choice simulation exercise.
Sergeant Assessment Center - 1995. Included the design and development of a
structured response tactical exercise.
Contact: Deonda Scott
City of Orlando, 400 S. Orange Avenue, Orlando, FL 32801
(407) 246-2061
Hollywood (Florida) Police Department:
Lieutenant Assessment Center -- Summer, 1992. Including the design and
development of full simulations (including the videotaping and assessment of
interactive role-playing simulations).
Contact: Joseph Roglieri, Chief Test Examiner
City of Hollywood, 2600 Hollywood Blvd., Room 203, Hollywood, FL
33022
(305) 921-3298
Recent Court Expert Witness Testimony:
Metro-Dade County (Miami, Florida) Police Department -- 1989
Little Rock, Arkansas Police Lieutenant Assessment Center -- 1992
Cincinnati, Ohio District Fire Chief Assessment Center - 1993-4
7
Other H. R. Services/Clients
The consultants have also performed assessment center and other human
resource consulting activities for the following law enforcement and government
agencies. Any of these references can provide information regarding Burroughs &
Rockhill, Inc.' responsiveness, quality of work, ability to provide services and products
within the client's resources, and timeliness of delivery.
Organization Contact Person
Palm Beach County Linsey Craig (407) 837-2105
City of Orlando Police Department Deonda Scott (407) 246-2061
Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office Major Al Perotti (813) 247-8198
Citrus County Sheriffs Office Director Bonnie White (904) 726-4488
8
III. Technical Statement of Work to be Performed
GOALS OF PROJECT
It is understood that the City of Miami Beach requires that the consultant conduct
necessary job analyses; develop fair, valid, defensible, custom assessment centers;
train and provide role players and assessors; score and analyze the results; respond
to applicant challenges; establish passing scores; produce ordered registers of
results; and validate the assessment centers for the ranks of Police Sergeant and
Police Lieutenant. It is also understood that the results of these processes will be
used by the City of Miami Beach to select the most qualified and suitable
individuals for these two Police ranks.
A. Task A - Job Analysis
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. (BRI) will carefully review the existing job analysis data
gathered in 1993. It is anticipated that it will not be necessary to conduct full scale job
analyses for the two ranks because of the recency (1993) of the job analysis data. In
addressing the question of how often a job analysis report should be repeated for Police
Lieutenant in the city of Little Rock, Arkansas, the judge in the case ruled that a job
analysis which was 4 l years old was recent enough to capture meaningful and
accurate job information. Therefore, we expect it will be necessary to create two
Subject Matter Expert (SME) panels to review the 1993 job data and update and edit it
to ensure that the information is thorough and accurate. After these panel reviews,
detailed written reports will document the methods used to ensure that the job
information meets the strictest standards for accuracy and completeness. Capturing this
information is extremely important because it serves as the basis for establishing the
content validity of the assessment center process.
B. Task B - Develop Assessment Center
It is understood that no person other than those designated by the City Manager
will have access to aov information regarding the assessment process. Furthermore, it
is agreed that all exercises have not been and will not be used in whole or in part by
any other client or agency without written agreement between the City and BRI.
The assessment centers for each rank will consist of three completely different
exercises for each rank (a total of six unique exercises). The job analysis information
will dictate the nature and content of all exercises. Each exercise will be accompanied
by detailed lists of behaviors to be used in the process of evaluating candidates
responses. All materials will be reviewed and edited to ensure freedom from errors,
ethnic, gender or other bias.
9
The assessment center will be validated by using SME panel judgments in accord
with Lawshe's Content Validity approach. This statistical approach quantifies content
validity and has been widely accepted by assessment center professionals and the courts
as an effective means of establishing the validity of any assessment center. This
approach is also congruent with all federal regulations regarding the documentation of
content validity.
All candidates will have the opportunity to attend detailed, thorough orientation
sessions at least two weeks prior to assessment. Our experience tells us that rigorous
orientation sessions alert candidates to the important skills to be measured, allay fears
of the unknown, reducing error variance in their responses thus providing more
accurate measures and reduce the number of misunderstandings and challenges to the
process. This is a very important activity and it must be done well. BRI proposes that
each orientation session be scheduled for a three hour time block. This allows thorough
review of the skills list, practice with "mini" simulations similar to the actual
assessments and plenty of time to answer all questions and concerns of the candidates.
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. will assume all responsibility for providing all exercise
materials, video equipment (and backup) as necessary and will coordinate and
administer the entire assessment center process. We will also select experienced
assessors (3 per exercise) and provide thorough training for all assessors for the
customized Miami Beach process. BRI will determine the passing score in consultation
with the city Subject Matter Expert panel. We will also provide written feedback to
every candidate and one-on-one feedback upon request to each candidate who desires it.
In addition, BRI will select and train required role players, provide written responses to
challenges and give title of the assessment center and its contents exclusively to the
City.
10
IV. Documentation, Follow-up and General Services
A. Task A - Documentation of Progress
BRI will provide interim progress reports at agreed upon significant
milestones in the project. These reports will include specific information on all
pertinent characteristics of the project including materials, methods, rationale,
steps, copies of data and lists of all Subject Matter Experts involved.
B. Task B - Documentation of Assessment Processes
BRI will document all evidence of content validity of the process as well as
reliability data on all exercise evaluation procedures. All statistical processes
used will be court defensible and meet the highest professional standards.
C. Task C - Court Appearances
BRI has extensive experience in preparing documentation and testimony
before courts and regulatory authorities. Although none of our assessments has
been successfully challenged, BRI hat provided expert testimony in number of
cases. We will provide these services as necessary for both the Sergeant and
Lieutenant assessment centers.
D. Task D - General Services
BRI will be available as needed to provide the following services related to
this project:
• answer questions or clarify individual results
• provide written material and training to city personnel to facilitate the
use of assessment center results
• represent the city in responding or testifying regarding any part of the
process
• maintain raw data
• ensure reliability and validity of the process
• provide reports regarding adverse impact statistics and recommend
procedures in advance to reduce adverse impact
11
E. Task E - Document combining Written Test and Assessment Center Scores
In order to ensure that the Written Test will count 35% and the Assessment
Center Scores plus seniority 65%, BRI will convert all raw scores to Z scores so
that these exact weights are obtained. As the Little Rock court case determined,
this is the only way to make certain that the prescribed weights actually occur
in the derivation of final overall scores used for rankings of candidates. In fact
if Z scores or standard scores are not used, the City will be extremely vulnerable
to challenges. In Little Rock, the court ruled that the City's failure to use a
standard score approach meant that the City had to totally revise the promotion
list using Z scores.
12
V. General Requirements
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. is an equal opportunity employer fully aware and
supportive of the uniform guidelines and federal, state and local laws pertaining to
discrimination against protected classes under the law. Assessors chosen to work on
this project will represent culturally diverse groups with regard to race, ethnicity and
gender.
All project management activities will be performed by Wayne Burroughs and
Thomas Rockhill, the two principals in Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. Administrative and
office support will be provided by Debbie Rockhill.
Debbie Rockhill, received her B.S. degree in Community Service Counseling from
Wayne State College in Nebraska. From 1981 to 1985 she was a Selections
Specialist/Personnel Selections Supervisor for the Orange County (Orlando, Florida)
Sheriffs Office in the Recruiting and Selections Section. She has been employed in an
administrative position with Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. since 1993.
Please see Appendix A for resumes of the principals.
Numerous federal, state and local laws, regulations and guidelines are relevant to
this project. Among these are the Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII, EEO Act of 1972,
Americans with Disabilities Act, Civil Rights Act of 1991, The Uniform Guidelines, The
Professional Standards adopted by the seventeenth annual International Congress on
Assessment Centers and any local agreements in the City of Miami Beach. BRI has
extensive experience in designing and implementing assessment centers which meet the
highest level of professionalism and ensure adherence to these guidelines and laws.
Specific steps to be taken to prevent adverse impact, discrimination, challenges and
litigation include:
• ensuring thorough and accurate job information
• preparation of documentation in the form of matrices which link job data to the
dimensions (skills) list
• documentation of matrices which link the dimensions list to the exercise content
• use of Lawshe's Content Validity Ratio and Index
• careful consideration of all time limits used in all exercises
• full representation of protected class members on SME panels
• full representation of protected class members on assessor teams
• full scale and thorough orientation of candidates to ensure their advance
understanding of all procedures
• written feedback to all candidates
• one-on-one feedback to those who request it following receipt of their written
report
• use of court defensible (required) Z score procedures to combine Written Test
and Assessment Center scores
• use of experienced well trained assessors and role players
• full documentation of all meetings and procedures followed
13
No particular problems are anticipated in the design or implementation of this project.
We feel very comfortable and well qualified to carry out the project as requested.
Insurance: The consultant currently possesses the following types of insurance:
Type Amount/Occurrence
Comprehensive General Liability $1,000,000
Manufacturer's & Contractor's Liability $1,000,000
Owner's, Landlord's, & Tenants Liab. $1,000,000
14
VI. Project Plan and Time Frames
Project activities will begin immediately after the contract has been awarded.
Below is a schedule of the major project activities and deliverables.
Time Frame for Completion
Activity/Deliverable After Contract Award
Project Planning Meeting Week 1
Review existing job data Week 2
Schedule SME panels to update/verify job data Week 2-3
Prepare/Deliver Job Data Report Week 4
Develop Six Exercises Week 4-11
• develop performance responses (and prior to Jan. 1, 1996)
• review/edit
• validate assessment center (SME panels)
Administer Exercises Week 12-13
• 3 days or less: Lieutenant
• 6 days or less: Sergeant
Train Assessors Week 13
Evaluate Exercises Week 13-14
Determine Passing Score/Prepare Results Week 15-16
Provide Results and Written Feedback Week 17
Provide one-on-one Feedback Week 17-18
Respond to Challenges Week 17-18
Provide All Summary Data and Documentation Week 19-20
15
All steps in the Project Plan will be accomplished with on-going communication
between BRI and designated city personnel. All procedures used in panel meetings,
exercise design, administration of the assessment centers, orientation of candidates,
combining scores, reporting scores, establishing the passing score, quantifying content
validity, documenting reliability and providing feedback will be accomplished utilizing
our extensive experience with professionally accepted and court recommended
procedures which will be thoroughly documented to ensure our readiness to answer all
challenges.
Also, information gathered in panel meetings ensures that SMEs help guide the
design of all exercise material as well as the accurate gathering of job information. The
job information includes knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics (KSAOs).
Equally important is the job context in which the use of these KSAOs to accomplish the
tasks and functions of the job occurs. All exercise materials will be edited until the
SME panels are satisfied with all aspects of the assessment center materials.
Descriptive statistics regarding the assessment center will include reliability (inter-
rater agreement) of ratings, content validity of the exercises (Lawshe's Content Validity
Ratios and Indices), mean, standard deviation and standard error of estimate for
protected classes (as numbers permit). Item difficulty and discrimination indices are
most relevant to the Written Test but may be appropriate for the Assessment Center
depending on what types of exercises are chosen for development. Appropriate
statistics will be reported by exercise.
In developing exercises, SME panel judgments will be considered for the design of
the exercise context (type of exercise). The criteria used for these determinations
include the relevance of each situation to on-the-job settings, the appropriateness of
task difficulty in the context and the prior experience of all candidates to have become
familiar with a particular context (e.g. a scenario involving a hostage might provide an
unfair advantage to those candidates with SWAT team experience).
In designing exercises, the "test budget" methodology is used to ensure that every
item or portion of an exercise is linked to specific behaviors in the skills (dimension)
list. This methodology requires extensive planning and caution on the part of the
designer and also leads to high quality exercises that clearly measure the intended
target behaviors.
Passing scores will be determined by consideration of performance relative to an
absolute standard of acceptability and consideration of practical information such as the
anticipated number of promotions off the list.
In terms of scoring, BRI personnel will supervise team meetings of assessors to
ensure consistency of standards and all three assessors on the team must be within 1
scale point for consensus to be reached.
16
VII. Project Costs
BRI assumes in this cost proposal that the City will agree to provide reciprocal
assessors to those agencies from which we recruit assessors for this project. In other
words, we plan to reimburse our assessors for travel and per diem expenses while their
agencies pay their normal salary. The City of Miami Beach would reciprocate assessors
in the future. If this assumption cannot be met, then the cost would increase by
$22,800. Also, our price includes up to five days of legal preparation/testimony.
Additional time if necessary would be billed at $200.00 per hour.
Lump Sum Cost of Project $124,900*
Discounts if city provides:
• Rooms to conduct exercises $1,800
• Obtain assessors and role players $1,250
• Provide assessor travel, lodging and food $10,200
• Supply Video equipment $900
• Assist in Administration $900
* This fixed lump sum cost covers assessment of up to 140 candidates for the rank
of Police Sergeant and up to 35 candidates for the rank of Police Lieutenant.
Additional candidates would be assessed at an additional cost of $675.00 each.
VIII. Appendix A: Resumes of Principals
Resume
WAYNE A. BURROUGHS, Ph.D.
EDUCATION:
Institution: The University of Tennessee
Degree: M.A., Ph.D., Industrial Psychology
Dates: September, 1965-August, 1969
Institution: Wake Forest University
Degree: B.A., Psychology
Dates: September, 1961-June, 1965
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE:
Professor, Industrial/Organizational Psychology
Psychology Department
University of Central Florida
Orlando, Florida
September, 1969 to present (9 month annual appointment)
Responsible for teaching undergraduate courses in Applied Psychology, Social
Psychology, Applied Leadership, Training and Psychology of Racial Prejudice. Also
responsible for teaching graduate courses in Motivation, Training and Performance
Appraisal, Selection, Organizational Psychology, Ethics and Assessment Centers. Other
responsibilities include the supervision of graduate practicum placements and thesis
research projects, coordination and administration of the M.S. Program in I/O
Psychology and carrying out of on-going research projects in human resource
management areas.
CONSULTING ACTIVITIES:
Consulting activities for the following organizations have dealt with the design and
implementation of assessment centers and the delivery of management development
programs in the areas of leadership, motivation and performance appraisal.
Coca-Cola, U.S.A.
American Telephone and Telegraph
Federal Mogul Corporation
Southern Bell Telephone Company
South Central Bell Telephone Company
Federal Aviation Administration
Allstate Insurance Company
Institute for Minority Business Education
Ford Motor Company
U.S. Civil Service Commission
Canadian Civil Service Commission
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
Province of Saskatchewan, Canada
Province of Prince Edward Island, Canada
U.S. Department of Agriculture
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
Orange County Sheriffs Office
Southeast Law Enforcement Institute
Orlando Police Department
Detroit Tigers Baseball Club
New York Mets Baseball Club
Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
BUSINESS ACTIVITIES:
Vice President and Co-Founder
Assessment Design, Inc.
Maitland, Florida
September, 1973 - December, 1977: Designed and implemented assessment centers and
created and implemented human resource management programs to enhance managers'
skills.
RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS:
Over fifteen research articles have been published and more than thirty presentation
have been made to professional audiences regarding the assessment and development of
human resources.
Resume
THOMAS L. ROC KHILL
VITA
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc.
1757 W. Broadway Street, Suite 5
Oviedo, Florida 32765
(407) 365-7244
2139 Pimlico Street
Orlando, Florida 32822
(407) 277-2098
EDUCATION
Institution: University of Central Florida
Degree: M.S., Industrial/Organization21 Psychology
Dates: September, 1984 - May, 1989
Institution: Florida State University
Degree: B.S., Criminology
Dates: September, 1967 - December, 1970
Institution: Orlando Junior College
Degree: Associate in Arts
Dates: September, 1965 - August, 1967
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Vice President Commander, Human Resources
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc. Orange County Sheriffs Office
1757 W. Broadway Street, Suite 5 2400 W. 33rd Street
Oviedo, Florida 32765 Orlando, Florida 32809
October, 1988 to Present 1981 to 1988
Police Officer
Orlando Police Department
100 South Hughey Avenue
Orlando, Florida
1971 to 1981
SELECTED ACHIEVEMENTS
• Managed recruiting, selection, and personnel units during growth of
organization from 800 to over 1600 employees.
• Recruited employees for positions ranging from clerical to managerial.
• Developed and implemented pre-employment and in-house selection
procedures and tests for the OCSO and other law enforcement clients
throughout the State of Florida.
• Performed needs analyses (conducting and interpreting job analyses),
designed, developed, delivered and evaluated training to improve
organizations' supervisory skills and productivity.
• Delivered management training to numerous organizations in the public
and private sectors.
• Consulted with organizations in the areas of performance appraisal and
testing and development
• Commanded county-wide law enforcement functions as Watch
Commander.
• Performed salary/benefit administration, policy and procedure
development, employee counseling, and E.E.O./affirmative action
activities.
• Negotiated union contracts, managed grievances, and practiced union
avoidance techniques.
• Managed and developed a comprehensive human resource development
program for 260 participants featuring multiple career tracks, efficiency
and productivity incentives, and pay-for-performance tying together
organizational objectives, performance appraisal, and training.
IX. Appendix B: Sample Reports
Sample Exercise Report
SAMPLE P. D. LIEUTENANT ASSESSMENT CENTER
EMPLOYEE DISCUSSION EXERCISE ASSESSOR CHECKLIST
Candidate: Assessor:
Assessing Team:
Instructions:
Each assessing team will view the candidates' performances on video tape. Each
assessor will take notes and categorize behaviors into skill areas. Each assessor will
independently assign positive or negative ratings to each checklist behavior statement
based upon the exercise notes. Next, each assessor will independently assign a
numerical rating to the overall skill category. Consensus is then determined.
Use the following notation to indicate the degree of positive or negative
performance exhibited by the candidate relative to each checklist item for each skill
based on what you observed him/her do in this exercise.
+++: Extremely Positive Performance Extremely Negative Performance
With Respect to the Behavioral With Respect to the Behavioral
Statement Statement
++: Very Positive Performance With --. Very Negative Performance With
Respect to the Behavioral Respect to the Behavioral
Statement Statement
+: Slightly Positive Performance Slightly Negative Performance
With Respect to the Behavioral With Respect to the Behavioral
Statement Statement
0: Unobserved
Use the following rating scale to evaluate the overall performance exhibited by the
candidate on each individual skill category measured by the exercise based on what you
observed him/her do in this exercise.
7 - Outstanding 3 - Less than Satisfactory
6 - Far More than Satisfactory 2 - Far less than Satisfactory
5 - More than Satisfactory 1 - Weak
4 - Satisfactory 0 - Not Observed
The area immediately following each item is provided for the assessor to write in
critical behaviors exhibited by the candidate that prompted the assessor to assign that
rating to that item. It is important for the assessor to write down the respective
observed behaviors, especially if the rating is extraordinary in any way.
Copyright(0 1995-Burroughs&Aoddu7l,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
LEADERSHIP
Rating.
This is taking charge; directing courses of action; providing guidance and feedback to subordinates in
meeting goals and objectives; ensuring compliance with standards and encouraging confidence and pride
in work; assigning and delegating work with appropriate guidelines and follow-up; observing,
monitoring, controlling, and supervising others.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Establish goals for the meeting (e.g., to provide performance information) vs. provided
few or no goals for the meeting?
2. Assume control of the meeting (e.g. introduced and steered topics, initiated and ended
meeting) vs. provided no structure for the meeting?
3. Establish guidelines for the sergeant to follow toward improving his/her and his/her
squad's performance (e.g., set necessary goals, provide feedback) vs. did not provide
guidance for performance improvement?
4. Solicit information, suggestions, and opinions from the sergeant in order to obtain
additional data for decision-making purposes vs. failed to gather additional verbal
information?
5. Initiate actions to expedite decisions made vs. made no plans to start procedures for
improvement?
6. Develop procedures for monitoring the sergeant's performance (e.g., set future meetings
to discuss performance) vs. did not establish a means of monitoring the progress of
activities?
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockall, Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
7. Ensure that definite action/developmental plans were agreed upon vs. made decisions
without checking for buy-in or understanding from the sergeant?
8. Promise assistance/support to the sergeant in achieving objectives vs. did not offer
support for the decisions agreed upon.
9. Establish specific follow-up meetings or calls (e.g., date, time, place) vs. did not make
provisions for any follow-up activities)
10. Provide a supportive atmosphere for the sergeant and conducted the meeting with a
helpful, mutual problem-solving approach vs. was demanding of the sergeant and faded
to express confidence in the sergeant?
11. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockhll,Inc_ (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
JUDGMENT
Raring.
This refers to malting sound and logical decisions; applying principles to solve practical problems;
determining when to contact superiors and what to tell them; drawing valid conclusions from available
information; making reasonable assumptions.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Make logical decisions/recommendations, using appropriate data (e.g., performance
appraisal information) vs. made decisions that were not based on the available data?
2. Consider and present all sides of an issue when making a decision vs limited
recommendations to one point-of-view.
3. Generate alternative courses of action for Sergeant Dixon to pursue vs. did not make
provisions for varying circumstances?
4. Give more weight to some information than other information (e.g., gave more weight to
performance appraisal trends) vs. inappropriately gave more attention to less important
information?
5. Logically integrate new information to provide further support for his/her
recommendations vs. did not aclmowledge new information?
6. Emphasize data which supported his/her decisions/recommendations (e.g., used the
memos) vs. made recommendations without stressing pertinent and relevant
information?
Copyright O 1995 -Burroughs&Rcrkhll,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
7. Consider the ramifications of decisions made (e.g., not setting goals might lead to less
control) vs. made hasty judgments without regard to the consequences?
8. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright O 1995-Burronghc&Rcrkhill,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
Pr"RCEPDON
Rating:
This is identifying, understanding, and integrating information related to a situation or problem;
gathering information and investigating situations; observing and recording facts; evaluating information
objectively and completely; and identifying problems and needs.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Accurately perceive the basic nature of the task (i.e., to provide performance and
developmental feedback) vs. did not understand what was expected of him/her in the
task?
2. Perceive and integrate related materials (e.g., past performance consistencies) vs. failed
to understand relationships between items?
3. Identify appropriate implications beyond the available data (e.g., that Sergeant Dixon
needs to be recognized) vs. concentrated only on the data available?
4. Perceive the need to compromise when appropriate vs. did not perceive the impact of
new information on decisions?
5. Perceive that some information was more important than other (e.g., that not developing
others would lead to future problems) vs. gave all data equal weight.
6. Perceive that the sergeant consistently down-played his/her responsibility for
performance vs. accepted the sergeant's explanations without response?
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rocklin',inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
7. Change his/her strategy in light of information provided vs. maintained strategies even
after hearing new information which would affect those strategies?
8. Perceive ( ) the following:
a. Sergeant Dixon is highly motivated to perform well?
b. Sergeant Dixon asked for the meeting to discuss performance issues?
c. Performance evaluations need to be completed by the end of July?
d. Sergeant Dixon has been a sergeant only 18 months?
e. Sergeant Dixon volunteers for a lot of assignments?
f. There is a complaint about Dixon getting too many opportunities to do
special projects (Item 1)?
g. Sergeant Dixon does some things very well — e.g.:
Homeowners Association letter (Item 2)
Recovery of stolen goods (Item 4)
Positive leadership (Item 7)
Shift coordination (Item 6)
h. There is a complaint about too many goals (Item 3)?
i There is a complaint about no feedback to Officer Erhard (Item 5)?
j. There is a memo (Item 8) about a summary of training needs being
late?
lc. Sergeant Dixon's communication skills and organizing skills have been
consistently rated as only satisfactory?
1. Since promotion to sergeant, Dixon's performance in "evaluation of
subordinates" has been only satisfactory. The same is true for"impact
on morale," "planning," and `training of subordinates?"
m Lieutenant Strange (who is now a major) did one of his reviews (Item
10a and 10b) and this appraisal was his worst?
n Sergeant Dixon's most recent appraisal was done by Lt Schmidt and
was somewhat higher than Strange's evaluation. Did he improve or was
Schmidt's more lenient?
o. Squad 2's performance (Item 12) seems to be going down. Why?
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockhfll,Inc (407) 365-7244) -AB rights reserved
9. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
ORGANIZING AND PLANNING
Rating.
This is establishing and following orderly courses of action for self and others; keeping orderly records;
effectively planning work schedules and scheduling activities; establishing objectives and priorities;
identifying activities necessary to complete an assignment; and planning and timing sequences of
activities.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Complete each portion of the task within the allotted time frames vs. failed to complete
the tasks in time?
2. Rearrange the pages or group materials together in a logical order (e.g., the positive
items) vs. did not group related materials or grouped materials inappropriately?
3. Mark on materials for easy reference vs. did not highlight or mark on information?
4. Prepare notes or lists pertaining to points to be covered in the meeting,vs. made no
preparations for what was to be discussed in the meeting?
5. Structure the course of the meeting vs. did not have a plan of action for the meeting?
6. Structure courses of action for improvement (e.g., first do X, then do Y) vs. failed to
prprovide the sergeant with a structured course of action to follow to improve
performance?
Copyright 1995-Burroughs&Rockhl, Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
7. Make quick reference to available data without fumbling vs. had trouble finding the
items he/she wished to discuss?
8. in closure on topics before moving on to other topics vs.jumped back and forth to
different topics?
9. Thoroughly outlined and summarized the content of the meeting at the beginning and
end respectively vs. failed to outline or reiterate important points of the meeting?
10. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright 6 3995-Burroughs&Rockhul,inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
DECISIVENESS
Rating.
This refers to making decisions and taking action in a timely manner; defending decisions when
challenged; initiating actions; and generating innovative ideas.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Demonstrate a minimal amount of hesitancy toward making decisions vs. was slow to
make decisions or choose between alternatives?
2. Formulate courses of action for the situation vs. failed to formulate courses of action?
3. Maintain his/her position throughout the course of the meeting vs. quickly changed
his/her position when challenged?
4. Make specific decisions/recommendations (e.g., provide consistent feedback to all
officers at least once a week) vs. made decisions or recommendations which were too
vague or general?
5. Require the sergeant to defend his/her positions (e.g., with regard to the sergeant's
performance appraisal ratings) vs. did not require justification for the sergeant's
statements?
6. Strongly express his/her opinions vs.was apologetic when expressing opinions or failed
to do so?
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockhll,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
7. Defend his/her position when challenged vs. became hesitant or flustered when
challenged?
8. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright 0 1995-Burroughs&Aockhll,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
INTERPERSONAL
Raring:
This represents acting in a sensitive manner regarding the needs, feelings, and capabilities of others;
advising subordinates of changes; tactfully dealing with sensitive issues; criticizing constructively,
establishing rapport with others and listening productively to others.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Immediately greet the sergeant and attempt to establish rapport vs. launched into the
task without attempting to establish rapport?
2. Remain polite throughout the meeting vs. used a demanding tone or was rude in
responding?
3. Actively listen when spoken to vs. looked away, fumbled with papers or otherwise
indicated he/she was not listening?
4. Acknowledge points made by the sergeant vs. did not acknowledge the sergeant's
concerns?
5. Allow the sergeant to speak without interrupting vs. interrupted frequently without
apologizing?
6. Explained his/her reasons for disagreeing with the sergeant vs. contradicted him/her
abruptly or rudely?
7. Expressed understanding for the sergeant's position vs. did not indicate that he/she
empathized with the sergeant's situation?
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
8. Continue to interact with the sergeant in a pleasant manner when conflict occurred vs.
became angry or blunt when challenged?
9. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockhil, Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
ORAL COMMUNICATION
The ability to dearly present and express information orally; to use effective oral skills such as eye
contact, gestures, voice inflection, brevity, volume and appropriate vocabulary.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Speak in a comfortably audible manner vs. spoke too softly to be heard or too loudly for
comfort?
2. Enunciate his/her words clearly and use proper voice inflection vs. mumbled or spoke
too rapidly to be understood or speak in a monotone?
3. Maintain appropriate eye contact during the discussion vs. avoided making eye contact?
4. Express his/her meaning dearly and concisely vs. tended to be wordy or lack clarity?
5. Use proper grammar, vocabulary and sentence structure when speaking vs. used
incorrect verbal mechanics?
6. Avoid distracting mannerisms vs. tended to engage in distracting mannerisms?
7. Use hand gestures for emphasis vs. speak without animation?
8. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION
Rating:
The ability to clearly present and express information in writing; to use effective writing stalls such as
correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, transition, sentence and paragraph structure in order to clearly
and concisely present written information.
To what extent did the candidate:
1. Write legibly vs. handwriting was sloppy or otherwise difficult to read?
2. Present information that was clear and concise vs. wrote a wordy report or notes or
report/notes/outline lacked clarity.
3. Use proper report/outline formatting vs. used improper or no format for
report/notes/outline?
4. Use proper grammar, and/or sentence structure vs. mechanics were poor or otherwise
inappropriate for the document constructed?
5. Use appropriate vocabulary vs. choices of words were poor or otherwise inappropriate
for the document constructed?
6. Use correct punctuation and spelling vs. used incorrect punctuation and spelling?
7. Other Behaviors:
Additional Comments:
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rndknal,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
Sample Final Report
CITY OF SAMPLE
1995 POLICE LTFUTENANT ASSESSMENT CENTER
Final Report for.
SAMPLE CANDIDATE
Asspcment Dates:
Report Prepared by:
Burroughs & Rockhill, Inc.
1757 W. Broadway Street, Suite 5
Oviedo, Florida 32765
(407) 365-7244
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
CITY OF SAMPLE
1995 LIEUTENANT ASSESSMENT CENTER
EMPLOYEE DISCUSSION EXERCISE
An individual simulation and interactive activity designed to assess the candidate's
ability to review, analyze, and integrate resource material relating to a subordinate who
is experiencing some performance difficulties. Candidates were give a packet of
material consisting of memoranda, letters, reports and data from the candidate's unit,
and other background material which indicated overall good performance as well as
some problems which needed attention. Candidates were given 40 minutes to prepare
for an interview with the subordinate. Candidates then conducted a 25 minute
interview with the subordinate in which they were to take action to provide direction to
the subordinate concerning career progress and to improve the subordinate's
performance. The interview portion of the exercise was video taped. Following the
interview, the candidate was given up to 20 minutes to prepare a written summary
report to a superior.
IN-BASKET EXERCISE
A written individual simulation activity administered in a group setting designed to
assess the candidate's ability to review, analyze, integrate, and take action on many
issues from a variety of sources such as citizens, superiors, peers, and subordinates.
The material included letters, memoranda, personnel action requests, personnel
assignment information, budget data, and other Unit performance information.
Candidates were to make decisions, delegate items, or delay action on issues as
appropriate to the situation. The candidates were given 1 hour and 30 minutes to
complete the exercise. All actions and decisions were to be made in writing. A
debriefing form was completed by the candidates following the completion of the
exercise.
PRESENTATION EXERCISE
An individual simulation and interactive activity designed to assess the candidate's
ability to review, analyze, and integrate resource material relating to Community
Policing. The candidate was given 60 minutes to review a packet of material consisting
of excerpts from periodical articles as well as some survey and statistical information
and to prepare to present the basic tenets of the program to two subordinates. The
candidate was also to enlist the support of the two subordinates for the program.
Candidates then conducted a 25 minute meeting with the subordinates to present the
program and answer questions and concerns from the role players. The interview
portion of the exercise was video taped. Following the interview, the candidate was
given up to 20 minutes to prepare a written summary report to a superior.
Copyright m 1995- Burroughs&Rockhal, Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
CITY OF SAMPLE
1995 I SFUTENANT ASSESSMENT CENTER
Candidates were assessed in the following Dimensions:
LEADERSHIP: Use of behaviors which guide individuals or groups toward
accomplishment of tasks or goals.
This is taking charge; directing courses of action; providing guidance and feedback to
subordinates in meeting goals and objectives; ensuring compliance with standards
and encouraging confidence and pride in work; assigning and delegating work with
appropriate guidelines and follow-up; observing, monitoring, controlling, and
supervising others.
JUDGMENT: Making sound and logical decisions.
This refers to making sound and logical decisions; applying principles to solve
practical problems; determining when to contact superiors and what to tell them;
drawing valid conclusions from available information; making reasonable
assumptions.
DECISIVENESS: Making decisions and taking actions as necessary.
This refers to making decisions and taking action in a timely manner; defending
decisions when challenged; initiating actions; and generating innovative ideas.
INTERPERSONAL: Acting in ways which indicate an awareness of the needs, feelings
and positions of others.
This represents acting in a sensitive manner regarding the needs, feelings, and
capabilities of others; advising subordinates of changes; tactfully dealing with
sensitive issues; criticizing constructively; establishing rapport with others and
listening productively to others.
ORGANIZING AND PLANNING: Establishing and following orderly courses of action
for self and others.
This is establishing and following orderly courses of action for self and others;
keeping orderly records; effectively planning work schedules and scheduling
activities; establishing objectives and priorities; identifying activities necessary to
complete an assignment; and planning and timing sequences of activities.
PERCEPTION: Identifying, understanding and integrating information.
This is identifying, understanding, and integrating information related to a situation
or problem; gathering information and investigating situations; observing and
recording facts; evaluating information objectively and completely; and identifying
problems and needs.
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockh ll,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
WRITTEN COMMUNICATION: Clearly expressing information in writing.
This represents clearly presenting and expressing information in writing; using
effective writing skills such as correct grammar, punctuation, spelling, transition,
sentence, and paragraph structure in order to clearly and concisely present written
information.
ORAL COMMUNICATION: Clearly expressing information orally.
This is clearly presenting and expressing information orally; using effective oral skills
such as eye contact, gestures, voice inflection, brevity, volume and appropriate
vocabulary.
Copyright 0I995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc (407) 36S-7244) -All rights reserved
CITY OF SAMPLE
1995 LIEUTENANT ASSESSMENT CENTER
Rating Scale Definitions:
7 Outstanding
6 Far More than Satisfactory
5 More than Satisfactory
4 Satisfactory
3 Less than Satisfactory
2 Far Less than Satisfactory
1 Weak
0 Limited Observations
N/A Dimension Not Measured
Variability Definitions:
No variability: Difference of 1 rating point or less across the
exercises
Some variability: Difference of 2 rating points across the
exercises
Considerable variability: Difference of 3 or more rating points across the
exercises
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
CITY OF SAMPLE
1995 LIEUTENANT ASSESSMENT CENTER
Fmployee
Dimension Proration In-Racket Discussion Weight x Overall =
Exercise Exercise Exercise Total
Decisiveness 4 3 3 (.15) 3.33 = .500
Leadership 4 3 2 (.14) 3.00 = .420
Judgment 5 3 3 (.14) 3.67 = .513
Oral
Communication 4 N/A 6 (.13) 5.00 = .650
Interpersonal 5 3 6 (.12) 4.67 = .560
Written
Communication 4 5 6 (.12) 5.00 = .600
Organizing
and Planning 3 5 4 (.10) 4.00 = .400
Perception 5 4 4 (.10) 4.33 = .433
TOTAL SCORE = 4.08
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
Relative Strengths and Weaknesses
• Strongest Dimension
The participant's strongest dimensions relative to his performance on the other
dimensions were oral communication and written communication.
• Weakest Dimension
The participant's weakest dimensions relative to his performance on the other
dimensions were leadership and decisiveness.
• Strongest Assessment Center Situation
The participant's strongest assessment center situation relative to his performance
on the other situations was the employee discussion exercise.
• Weakest Exercise Situation
The participant's weakest assessment center situation relative to his performance
on the other situations was the in-basket exercise.
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc. (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
Developmental Suggestions
Workshops, Workbooks, and Training Programs
Decisiveness
• Management Skill Development Series, Wilson Learning, Orlando (1-800-833-
3279, Maitland, Florida.
• Management Skill Development Series - Decisiveness: Taking Action, Wilson
Learning Corporation, Customer Service Center, 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden
Prairie, Minnesota 55344-3795, (612) 944-2880.
• Success Through Assertiveness, American Management Association Extension
Institute, P.O. Box 1026, Sarnac Lake, NY 12983-9986.
Leadership
• Leadership: Management Skill Development Series, Wilson Learning, Orlando (1-
800-833-3279, Maitland, Florida.
• Workshop in Coaching and Counseling: Burroughs, Wooten and Associates,
Orlando, Florida.
• Fundamentals of Leadership: A Guide for the Supervisor, Raymond J. Burby,
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., Reading, MA, 1972.
• Management Skill Development Series - Leadership: Providing Direction, Wilson
Learning Corporation, Customer Service Center, 7500 Flying Cloud Drive, Eden
Prairie, Minnesota 55344-3795, (612) 944-2880.
• How to Delegate Effectively, American Management Association Extension
Institute, P.O. Box 1026, Sarnac Lake, NY 12983-9986.
Copyright®1995-Burroughs&R rkhill,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
On-the-Job Assignments
Decisiveness
• When making a suggestion, be prepared to give reasons (need) for the suggestions
and to provide alternatives to satisfy this same need.
• With a peer or superior, take opposing sides of an issue and discuss.
• Examine tasks that you typically take to your superior for a decision. Discuss
those areas where you could take responsibility.
• Identify and assess risks of an innovative project whose failure would have
minimal impact. Discuss implementation in detail with your superior.
• Provide an agenda for a meeting/briefing you conduct. After the meeting,
examine any deviations and determine any trends to avoid or incorporate in
future decision-making processes.
Leadership
• Prepare definitions, time frames, skills required, etc., for task assignments.
• With the permission of your superior, begin training other individuals in some of
your job responsibilities.
• Work with someone in the organization who has strong leadership skills.
• With your superior, discuss opportunities to initiate action that you encounter in
assignments, meetings, and activities.
• Attempt to plan ahead for meetings/briefings at which you are not in charge, and
be prepared to initiate more actions than you might normally initiate. Add slowly
over successive meetings.
• Create a delegation checklist for use before and after you assign work, specifying
who will complete the assignment, objectives, results, methods, steps, phases,
approaches, reporting mechanisms, resources, and methods of assigning
effectiveness.
• Meet with individuals to whom you delegate work to determine what elements, if
any, of directions or assignments or expectations that they receive from you are
unclear or not as fully defined as they would prefer. Conduct meetings on an
individual basis, without making interruptions.
Copyright 6 1995-Burroughs&Rockhill,Inc (407) 365-7244) -All rights reserved
Appendix C
Public Entity Crimes Form
Fee Statement
SWORN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 287.133(3)(a),
FLORIDA STATUTES.ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES
THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO EN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL
AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS.
1. This sworn statement is submitted to C'/i Y OF /LIIA IC(J / EAC/
•
YI/by Q que 4 . &)rrD S Pt-e (d ee
(print individual's name and title)
for > lJ 006/7 A-H D
(print name of entity submitting sworn statement) -
whose business address is /75-7 14 - B� u9�a SUr>4
oVied0, r=ior�dQ 3�7��
and (if applicable)its Federal Employer Identification Number(FEN)is - 5/7 5-c,419
(If the entity has no FEIN,include the Social Security Number of the individual signing this sworn
statement -)
2. I understand that a"public entity crime"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(g),Florida Statutes,means a violation of any state or
federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to the transaction of business with any public entity or with an agency or
political subdivision of any other state or of the United States,including,but not limited to.any bid or contract for goods or services to
be provided to any public entity or an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States and involving antitrust,
fraud,theft,bribery,collusion,racketeering,conspiracy,or material misrepresentation.
3. I understand that"convicted"or"conviction"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(b),Florida Statutes,means a finding of guilt or a
conviction of a public entity crime,with or without an adjudication of guilt,in arty federal or state trial court of record relating to charges
brought by indictment or information after July 1,1989,as a result of a jury verdict non jury trial,or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere.
4. I understand that an"affiliate"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(a).Florida Statutes.means:
I.A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity crime;or
2.An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public
entity crime.The team"affiliate"includes those officers,directors.executives.partners,shareholders,employees,members,and agents
who arc active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest in another
person,or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when not for fair market value under an arm's length agreement shall be
a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person who Imowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has
been convicted of a public entity crime in Florida during the preceding 36 months shall be considered an affiliate.
5. I understand that a"person"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(IXe),Florida Statutes,means any natural person or entity organized under
the laws of any state or of the United States with the legal power to enter into a binding contract and which bids or applies to bid on
contracts for the provision of goods or services let by a public entity,or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with
a public entity. The term"person"includes those officers,directors,executives,partners,shareholders,employees,members,and agents
. who are active in management of an entity.
6. Based on information and belief,the statement which I have marked is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement
(indicate which statement applies.)
✓ Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement, nor any of its officers, directors,executives,partners, shareholders,
employees,members,or agents who are active in the management of the entity,nor any affiliate of the entity have been
charged with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1,1989.
The entity submitting this sworn statement,or one or more of the officers,directors,executives,partners,shareholders,
employees,members,or agents who are active in the management of the entity,or an affiliate of the entity has been charged
with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1. 1989.
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 2 8
The entity submitting this sworn statement. or one or more of its officers, directors,executives,partners,shareholders,
employees membe s,or agents who arc active in the management of the entity,or an affiliate of the entity has been charged
with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. However,there has been a subsequent proceeding
before 2 Hearing Officer of the State of Florida,Division of Administrative Hearings and the Final Order entered by the
Hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the
convicted vendor list (attach a copy of the final order)
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY
IDENTIFIED LN PARAGRAPH I (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY AND, THAT THIS FORM IS VALID
THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED
TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT
PROVIDED LN SECTION 287.0I7,FLORIDA STATUTES FOR CATEGORY TWO OF ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION
CONTAINED IN THIS FORM..
(L O #4
(Signature)
9-8-9s
, (date)
STATE OF
C)
COUNTY OF rIj lel 1e.
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME,the undersigned authority,
li„ (l,LI11e. A j 1'r c'l ,who,after first being sworn by me,affixed his/her signature
in the space provided above on this 4%' day of ` ,19 G,51...
Q( Lc I-1n
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
.....
CHERIE E.ALLUMS
= MY COMMISSION rt CC 466154
EXP1FES:May 22,1999
•"f a;f:• Bonded T1vu Rotary Pubic Undorwrttera
FO ev. o >•
•
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 2 9
•
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 140-94/95
To Be Opened on September 12, 1995
at 2:00 P.M.
Proposal Page 1 of 2
For providing the services of an Assessment Center Development and Validation firm for Sergeant
of Police and Lieutenant of Police for Miami Beach,per foregoing specifications:
Lump Sum Fee $ 124 .900 (Provide breakdown within proposal)
Any additional fees not included in lump sum fee (describe):
Assessor salaries S 22 , 800
More than 5 days of
Legal preparation/testimony $ 200.00 per hour
Additional candidates
over 240-Scot , _5-Lt . $ 675 :+er canrieate
The Lump Sum Fee will be discounted by the dollar amounts indicated if the City provides any
service(s)listed below:
$ ? : 800 Provide rooms in which to conduct/evaluate assessment exercises
$ 1 . 260 Obtain and select assessors
$ 20, 200 Provide assessor travel, lodging and food
$ c,n n Supply video equipment
$ 900 Administer/assist any or all assessment exercises
$ Other
BIDDERS MUST SIGN BELOW TO ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT OF ADDENDUM(IF NECESSARY).
Amendment No. 1:
Amendment No.2:
Amendment No.3:
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 26
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 140-94/95
Proposal Page 2 of 2
ANY LE 1 n RS, ATTACHMENTS, OR ADDITIONAL LNFORMATION TO BE
CONSIDERED PART OF THE PROPOSAL MUST BE SUBMITTED WITH SIX (6)
ADDITIONAL COPIES.
SUBMITTED BY:
COMPANY: By -01)S i/S 4ND c4 ///t L . .INC.
SIGNED: LJ}0-.ZfuP (2 . h-
(I certify that I am authorized to execute this proposal and commit the
bidding firm)
NAMEITITLE : WO€4 e A. Dvrroo lid
(Print)
ADDRESS: /75'7 W Broadt.t.tati Su;f C
CITY/STATE: CViecho Flchc q ZIP: 3g-7!'5
TELEPHONE: (L/o'i )
•
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
DATE: 8/14/95 2 7
ATTACHMENT C
SWORN STATEMENT PURSUANT TO SECTION 287.133(3Xa),
FLORIDA STATUTES,ON PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES
1 THIS FORM MUST BE SIGNED AND SWORN TO IN THE PRESENCE OF A NOTARY PUBLIC OR OTHER OFFICIAL
AUTHORIZED TO ADMINISTER OATHS.
1. This sworn statement is submitted tooD C., l ii/TY OF NM / IEAWr(
by Wa que 4 . &9rro_ , Pree(owett'�
I (print individual's name and title)
for ,904,r-oc)6/FS A-N D ,Z-d^,1l/t//GG .rAIC ,
I
(print name of entity submitting sworn
l statement)
�
whose business address is /75'7 vv. B,_,,A & v,4 5V, 1 5-
Oviedo, G/of-,dq .3V-7105
Jand (if applicable)its Federal Employer Identification Number(FEIN)is 679— 3/7501/9
(If the entity has no FEIN,include the Social Security Number oft he individual signing this sworn
4 statement •)
"
1 2. I understand that a"public entity crime"as defined in Paragraph 287.I33(I)(g),Florida Statutes,means a violation of any state or
federal law by a person with respect to and directly related to the transaction of business with any public entity or with an agency or
i political subdivision of any other state or of the United States,inducing,but not limited to,any bid or contract for goods or services to
be provided to any public entity or an agency or political subdivision of any other state or of the United States and involving antitrust,
fraud,theft,bribery,collusion,racketeering,conspiracy,ormataiai misrepresentation.
3. I understand that"convicted"or"conviction"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(b),Florida Statutes,means a finding of guilt or a
• conviction of a public entity crime,with or without an adjudication clpril*,in any federal or state trial count of record relating to charges
brought by indictment or information after July 1,1989,as a result of a jury verdict,non-jury trial,or entry of a plea of guilty or nolo
contendere.
: 4. I understand that an"affiliate"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(a),Florida Statutes,means:
1.A predecessor or successor of a person convicted of a public entity acme;or
2.An entity under the control of any natural person who is active in the management of the entity and who has been convicted of a public
entity crime.The term"affiliate"includes those officers,directors,executives,partners,shareholders,employees,members,and agents
who are active in the management of an affiliate. The ownership by one person of shares constituting a controlling interest in another
` person,or a pooling of equipment or income among persons when sot for fair market value under an arm's length agreement,shall be
a prima facie case that one person controls another person. A person wbo knowingly enters into a joint venture with a person who has
been convicted of a public entity crime in Florida during the prexeaog 36 months shall be considered an affiliate.
1
5. I understand that a"person"as defined in Paragraph 287.133(1)(e),Florida Statutes,means my natural person or entity organized under
the laws of any state or of the United States with the legal power so enter into a binding contract and which bids or applies to bid on
I contracts for the provision of goods or services let by a public entity,or which otherwise transacts or applies to transact business with
j a public entity. The tern"person"includes those officers,directors,executives,partners,shareholders,employees,members,and agents
E who are active in management of an entity.
'I 6. Based on information and belief,the statement which I have marked is true in relation to the entity submitting this sworn statement
(indicate which statement applies.)
f
✓ Neither the entity submitting this sworn statement,nor any of its officers,directors,executives, partners,shareholders,
` employees,members,or agents who arc active in the management of the entity,nor any affiliate of the entity have been
1 charged with and convicted of a public entity clime subsequent to July 1, 1989. —
1 The entity submitting this sworn statement,or one or more of the officers,directors,executives,partners,shareholders,
employees,members,or agents who are active in the management of the entity,or an affiliate of the entity has been charged
with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July I,1989.
I
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
IDATE: 8/14/95 2 8
1
I
i
.
I The entity submitting this sworn statement,or one or more of its officers, directors,executives, partners, shareholders,
employees members,or agents who are active in the management of the entity,or an affiliate of the entity has been charged
with and convicted of a public entity crime subsequent to July 1, 1989. However,there has been a subsequent proceeding
i, before a Hearing Officer of the State of Florida,Division of Administrative Hearings and the Final Order entered by the
II Hearing Officer determined that it was not in the public interest to place the entity submitting this sworn statement on the
convicted vendor list (attach a copy of the final order)
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SUBMISSION OF THIS FORM TO THE CONTRACTING OFFICER FOR THE PUBLIC ENTITY
IDENTIFIED IN PARAGRAPH I (ONE) ABOVE IS FOR THAT PUBLIC ENTITY ONLY AND, THAT THIS FORM IS VALID
THROUGH DECEMBER 31 OF THE CALENDAR YEAR IN WHICH IT IS FILED. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THAT I AM REQUIRED
TO INFORM THE PUBLIC ENTITY PRIOR TO ENTERING INTO A CONTRACT IN EXCESS OF THE THRESHOLD AMOUNT
PROVIDED IN SECTION 287.017,FLORIDA STATUTES FOR CATEGORY TWO OF ANY CHANGE IN THE INFORMATION
I CONTAINED IN THIS FORM.
J
(Signature)
9-8-95-
STATE OF c 1(�llY 1(l(`` (date)
1 COUNTY OF N)nU rC'e
PERSONALLY APPEARED BEFORE ME,the undersigned authority,
� 1
U (line. A 'z
• au 1-i�'I 1 hs ,who,after lust being sworn by me,affixed his/her signature
in the space provided above on this 4* day of It ) . , 19 C15 .
l It r_ no( U n�r")
NOTARY PUBLIC
My Commission Expires:
":;:.%'••• CHERIE E.ALLUMS
• .M MY COMMISSION R CC 466154
7: o EXPIRES:May22,1999
��?;; ''�' Bonded Ttw Notary Public Under rftere
FORM PUR 7038(Rev.06/03791)
I
I
I
i .
RFP NO: 140-94/95 CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
IDATE: 8/14/95 2 9
1
•
' DISABILITY NONDISCRIMINATION AFFIDAVIT ' ' •
CONTRACT REFERENCE
NAME OF FIRM,CORPORATION,OR ORGANIZATION 2OJ c oi.F XN tLL, INC.
AUTHORIZED AGENT COMPLETING AFFIDAVIT: —114.CMAS. L. 2.0CK.-IILL
POSITION V[C6 P2ESl LK,1T PHONE NUMBER(q07 36 S— 74 4-4-
I,_o mb4S L. 'J CKSJ!(i., , being duly first sworn state:
That the above named firm,corporation or organization is in compliance with and agrees to continue
to comply with, and assure that any subcontractor, or third party contractor under this project
complies with all applicable requirements of the laws listed below including,but not limited to,those
provisions pertaining to employment, provision of programs and services, transportation,
communications, access to facilities, renovations, and new construction.
The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA): Pub. L. 101-336, 104 Stat 327, 42 U.S.C.
12101-12213 and 47 U.S.C. Sections 225 and 611 including Title I, Employment; Title II, Public
Services; Title III, Public Accommodations and Services Operated by Private Entities; Title IV,
Telecommunications; and Title V, Miscellaneous Provisions.
The Rehabilitation Act of 1973: 29 U.S.C. Section 794.
The Federal Transit Act, as amended: 49 U.S.C. Section 1612.
The Fair Housing Act as amended: 42 U.S.C. Section 3601-3631.
Signature
AJ VI i I2 I 1 iggs'
Date
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO(or affirmed)before me on //// 94
Date
by 7,z;;G'.y q„{ ' /e0 e, /G G . He/She is personally known to me or has
(Affiant)
presented L.- ie-•Ir--(_ - K c _51,10-R3.01 S7-C y•Oas identification.
/' (Type of identification)
/� l/�- � C° 03(p c J.-
(Signature �pAV P`�OFFICIAL NOTARY UAL
of Nota = l MERCEOES A RONRO11A
ry (Serial Number) ��w i COYYISSION NU US
4e., li CC4036lZ
C E h 1. - 4 b 1/l k vs•9 .2.8 ' ° �r oo sxP.
9� �0F F�� AUO. lie 199•
(Print or Stamp Name of Notary) ( xpira ion Date)
Notary Public yL O i2. /b 61 (State) Notary Seal
The City of Miami Beach will not award a contract to any firm,corporation or organization that fails to complete and
submit this Affidavit with the firm,corporation or organization's bid or proposal or fails to have this Affidavit on file
with the City of Miami Beach.
f ahum a\a I I\,and ramond i scr