Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of WhitefishP.O. Box 158 · Whiteflsk. MT 59937 · (406) 863-2400 January 18, 2005 Honorable Mayor and City Council, L~ JAN 2 0 2005 On behalf of the Whitefish City Council, I am wdting to ask for your support for legislation that allows cities and towns to consider price when selecting architects engineers and land surveyors. A copy of the draft bill. LC1724, has been enclosed for your rewew. Currently, state law disallows local governments from asking consultants for a price bid for their services during the competitive selection process. The law provides for negotiations on the cost of services only aftera consultant is selected. Passage of this bill will bring healthy price competition to the consultant selection process and create a new level of transparency in the use of scarce tax dollars, Businesses seeking to hire a consultant routinely ask for price from interested consultants before making a selection decision. Local government should have the same advantage. The Whitefish City Council is seeking the support of your Council for this important bill. Enclosed you will find a resolution of support. Two years ago, support for a similar bill by the City of Whitefish was opposed by paid special interest lobbyists representing several architectural and engineering firms. The bill was defeated. This time we want to show legislators that cities and towns from throughout the state support this legislation. Passage of the enclosed resolution will allow us to list your city or town as a supporter of this legislation. Enclosed you will also find a copy of my written materials in support of this legislation two years ago. These materials provide additional information I hope you will find useful in consideration of our request. Your kind consideration of the enclosed resolution is appreciated. If approved, please mail a signed copy of the resolution to the City of Whitefish at the above listed address. Thank you. //,,~,~/05' RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY/TOWN OF EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR DRAFT BILL LC 1724 AND REQUESTING THAT THE MONTANA STATE LEGISLATURE ADOPTS LC 1724 AND PRESENTS IT TO THE GOVERNOR FOR SIGNING. WHEREAS, the cost of employing amhitects, engineers, and land surveyors represents a significant expense to many Montana cities and towns; and WHEREAS, current State law, notably Section 18-8-204, MCA, prohibits cities and town from considering fee structures and projected fees, together with other lawful factors, when making an initial selection of a firm considered most qualified to provide architectural, engineering, and land surveying services; and WHEREAS, current State law requires Montana cities and towns to make an initial selection of the firm most qualified to provide services without reference to potential fee structures or projected fees, and then attempt to negotiate a contract with the first firm.selected; and WHEREAS, allowing Montana cities and towns the option and advantage of competitive price comparison, as a factor of their overall consultant evaluation and selection processes, will promote financial transparency and fiscal accountability in the use of public funds; and WHEREAS, allowing Montana cities and towns the option to consider fee structures and projected fees, along with other lawful factors, in making an initial selection of the most qualified firm to provide architectural, engineering, and land surveying services, will increase efficiency and transparency to the public, and result in lower overall costs for cities and town when hiring such professionals; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City/Town of as follows: Section 1: The recitals set forth above are adopted as findings of fact. Section 2: The City/Town of expresses its support for LC 1724 and requests that the Montana State Legislature adopts LC 1724 and presents it to the Governor for signing. Section 3: This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. PASSED AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY/TOWN OF THIS __ DAY OF ,2005. ~, ON A"FrEST: MAYOR City/Town Clerk 'Unofficial Draft Copy As of: January 5, 2005 (12:00PM) **** Bill NO. **** Introduced By ************* By Request of the ********* LC1724 A Bill for an Act entitled: "An Act permitting state and local agencies or special districts to adopt procedures allowing fee structures and projected fees to be used under certain conditions when selecting architectural, engineering, and land surveying services; and amending section 18-8-204, MCA Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Montana: Section 1. Section 18-8-204 , MCA, is amended to read: "18-8-204. Procedures for selection. (1) In the procurement of architectural, engineering, and land surveying services, the agency may encourage firms engaged in the lawful practice of their profession to submit au_nually a statement of qualifications and performance data. The agency shall evaluate current statements of qualifications and performance data on file with the agency, together with those that may be submitted by other firms regarding the proposed project, and conduct discussions with one or more firms regarding anticipated concepts and the 1 LC 1724 Unof£iCial Draft Copy AS of: January 5, 2005 (12:00PM) - ' LC1724 relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services. (2) (a) The agency shall then select, based on criteria established under agency procedures and guidelines and the law, the firm considered most qualified to provide the services required for the proposed project. (b) The agency procedures and guidelines must be available to the Public and include at a minimum the following criteria as they relate to each firm: (i) the qualifications of professional personnel to be assigned to the project; (ii) capability to meet time and project budget requirements; (iii) location; (iv) present and projected workloads; (v) related experience on similar projects; and (vi) recent and current work for the agency. (c) The agency shall follow the minimum criteria of this part if no other agency procedures are specifically adopted. (d) The agency may adopt procedures that allow fee structures and projected fees to be considered along with the criteria in subsection (2) (b) and may use the fee information in the selection process described in subsection (2) (a) only if the agency has provided all interested firms with a detailed statement of the scope of the project and expected services. 2 LC 1724 Unofficial Draft Copy AS of: J~nuary 5, 2005 {12:00PM) LC1724 (3) The provisions of this section do not apply to procurement of architectural, engineering, and land surveying services for projects that the department of transportation has determined are part of the design-build contracting pilot program authorized in 60-2-135 through 60-2-137." {Internal References to 18-8-2o4: x18-8-205 x60-2-134 } Title : Agency: Phone : E-Mail: Leanne M. Kurtz Research Analyst Legislative Services Division 444-3064 lekurtz@state.mt.us} 3 LC 1724 REMARKS TO THE HOUSE LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMMI'I-rEE MONTANA LEGISLATURE Thursday, January 9, 2003, 3:00 p.m. Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the committee: My name is Gary Marks. I am the city manager of the City of Whitefish. I am here today to express the Whitefish City Council's support, and my personal support, for House Bill 147. House Bill 147 seeks to allow units of Montana government to consider proposed fees when evaluating and selecting professional architects, engineers and surveyors. Statutory procedures currently provided in MCA 18-8-204 limit governmental units to asking about fees only after an architect, engineer or surveyor has been selected - assuring that government will .NOT be able to consider the competitive fees of all professionals vying for the government project. PleaSe understand the issue here. The bill does not make the Iow bidder the king in the evaluation and selection of architects, engineers and surveyors. It only seeks to allow state and local governments to consider proposed fees as an element among many considerations, as prescribed in MCA 18-8-204(2)(b), when evaluating and selecting architects, engineers and surveyors. Under HB147, governmental units would be permitted to decide the degree to which price or fees should factor into the competitive selection process. Many projects undertaken by local governments are straightforward, where the scope of work is generally known and, therefore, the proposed fee can be readily calculated and provided by those professionals competitively vying for a project. In such cases, the proposed fee might play in as a larger consideration in the award decision of a governmental body. Yet, other times the scope of a project is much harder to define at the outset making consideration of proposed fees less of an overall consideration in the competitive process.. Please don't let anyone tell you that consideration of fees for architects, engineers and surveyors will lead to lesser quality public projects, Surely, private sector developers ask for proposed fees up front, consider such information and then make sound decisions that address both quality and the financial bottom line. The same should be true of government. As one who's career is in public sector management, I often hear the statement that government should be run more like business. Well, here is a great opportunity to make a change that will help government progress toward that goal. The first eight years of my career as a city manager were spent in Oregon where local governments were allowed to consider fees for architects, engineers and surveyors as part of the competitive selection process. After many years of such practices, there was absolutely no evidence that public facilities were suffering a quality gap in Oregon. I personally oversaw the administration of numerous professional services contracts that resulted from selection processes that considered fees. The professionals I dealt with were just that - professional. And, the projects they helped shape were - and still are - top-notch, quality public facilities. The only difference between oregon and Montana is that in Oregon the governments I served could provide a higher level of accountability and transparency to their taxpayers through the time-tested mechanism of competitive price comparison. Let's also remember that well over 80 percent of Montana cities have populations of less than 5,000 people and tax bases of proportionate size. They simply cannot afford, and do not have, professionals on their side of the negotiating table to help evaluate the after-the- selection fee negotiations. Many times it is the City Council itself- made up of an assortment of community folks from various walks of life - that must represent their communities in fee negotiations. Many times these individuals lack the background to truly understand whether the fee demand of a selected professional is in line or not. While no one should ever pay more than a fair price, it is the smaller cities and counties of Montana that can least afford to do so. Giving Montana's local government entities the advantage of competitive price comparison, as a factor in their overall evaluation processes, would surely go a long way in introducing financial transparency to such processes, assuring that both quality and financial requirements are evaluated within a competitive environment in relation to public projects. Montana taxpayers are demanding transparency, efficiency and accountability in government - as well they should. House Bill 147 provides an important change and move in that direction. On behalf of the City of Whitefish, I respectfully ask for the committee's support for this important legislation. Thank you. P.O. Box 158 * Whitefish, MT 59937 · (406) 863-2400 · Fax: (406) 863-2419 Talking Points in Support of HB147 By Gary Marks, Whitefish City Manager During the hearing last week, opponents tried to portray HB147 as a bill that would allow a "fee-based" or "iow bidder" process for the selection of consulting architects, engineers and surveyors. Contrary to those assertions, HB147 does no.~t allow such processes. Current law (MCA18-8-204) requires government agencies to make consultant selections based on criteria established under agency procedures and guidelines and the law. In fact, the law says that the agency SHALL select the consultant considered "most qualified" to provide the service required for the proposed project. Further, the law specifies that agencies MUST consider the following criteria - ATA MINIMUM - in determining the "most qualified" consultant; ¸ii) The qualifications of professional personnel to be assigned to the project; Capability to meet time and project budget requirements; Location; Present and projected workloads; Related experience on similar projects; and Recent and current work for the agency. HB147 does not change any of these requirements. The bill simply allows government agencies - at their option - to CONSIDER "fee structures and projected fees" in making consultant selections. However, the bill LIMITS this authority by specifically conditioning that fees may be considered ONLY if "considered along with the criteria in subsection (2)(b)..." (see above list). This authority is FURTHER LIMITED by the bill's stipulation that fee information may be used "only if the agency has provided all interested firms with a detailed statement of the scope of the project and expected services". HB147 only seeks to allow the consideration of fees along with the quality- based criteria already established in the law - and then only if all interested firms have been provided with a detailed statement of the scope of the project. Opponents have argued that government agencies Sometimes are unable to provide a detailed scope of work that adequately identifies and addresses the work to be performed. They argue that this lack of a detailed scope of work will make it impossible for consultants to provide accurate fee quotations. This ar.qument i.qnores the effect and intent of HB147. Under the bill, agencies are NOT allowed to consider fees unless a "detailed scope of work" is provided to consultants (see Section 2(d) of the bill). In Oregon, where government agencies may consider fees as part of an overall selection process, lacking a detailed scope of work is not a problem. An agency simply solicits proposals and selects a qualified consultant to develop a scope of work, which is then offered to interested consultants in a subsequent request for proposals. Through this process, government officials are afforded the ability to understand and make relative price comparisons as part of the overall selection process in both the development of the scope of work and the solicitation for services to fulfill the scope of work. This process has worked for many years in Oregon.