The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutS01-Community Development - e1r'f OF SAN BERNARDr...,O - REQUF"1iT FOR COUN From: Kenneth J. Henderson, Director Subject: SELECTION OF CONSULTANT TO UNDER- TAKE MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY Dept: Community Development Date: October 28, 1987 Synopsis of Previous Council action: The Mayor and Common Council has previously discussed the issue of rent stabilization, established a Cititzens Mobile Home Park Fact-Finding Committee and adopted Ordinance Number 3805 establishing a moratorium on rents to be charged to mobile home park tenants residing in the City. On September 7,1987, the Mayor and Common Council directed staff to prepare a mobile home park survey RFP and report back to Council on September 21,1987. On September 21, 1987, the Mayor and Common Council authorized the issuance of a mobile home park survey RFP and directed staff to expedite proposal review and evaluation process. Recommended motion: That the Mayor and Common Council select mobile home park survey consultant as recommended by Proposal Review Committee and set forth in staff report to be passed our at the November 2, 1987 Council meeting. ~U~~1 Contact person: Ken Henderson/Maurice Oliva Phone: 5065 1-7 Supporting data attached: Staff Report Ward: FUNDING REQUIREMENTS: Amount: Source: (ACCT. NO.) (ACCT. DESCRIPTION) Flnanca: Council Notes: n.D2U Agenda Item No, s-/ 'CC'Y OF SAN BERNARVO - REQU/~'T FOR COUNCIL AC )ION STAFF REPORT On September 21, 1987, the Mayor and Common Council authorized staff to issue a previously prepared Request for Proposals (RFP) for a mobile home park survey and policy recommendations. Concurrent with that action, an agreement was entered into between the City, mobile home park owners and mobile home park tenants freezing rents for ninety (90) days, effective September 8, 1987. The deadline for submission of responses to the RFP was October 22, 1987, also the deadline for the Common Council regular agenda. Some fifteen (15) proposals were received, with one (1) proposal being submitted after the stated deadline. On Friday, October 23, 1987, staff summarized the proposals, reproduced same, refined the proposal evaluation document and established a proposal review schedule for the week of October 26, 1987. The Proposal Review Committee members are comprised of Sally Wilder, representing the M.O.R.E. organization, Clay Hage, representing Western Mobile Home Association, Val Mahabir, Consultant and Maurice Oliva, Housing Development Specialist. The Committee will complete its review and evaluation of the proposals late Thursday, (October 29, 1987) or early Friday (October 30, 1987) and a recommendation will be prepared for consideration by the Mayor and Common Council at the November 2, 1987 meeting. This item has been placed on the supplemental aqenda because of the severe time constraints associated with this proiect and to limit. to the extent possible. the number of davs between the expiration of the Memorandum of Understandinq (MOU) freezinq rents for ninety (90) davs and the date when the final report is to be submitted to the Mavor and Common Council. In addition, in order to meet the requirements of the Brown Act, the subject matter and proposed action had to be included in the posted agenda, which enables the Mayor and Common Council to act on the recommendations of the Proposal Review Committee (as recommended by City Attorney). _Il..-!l& ~ Kenneth J. Hen erson Director of Community Development KJH/lab 10/28/87 75.0264 - L CITY () SAN BERN,')IIIN~ INTrn(}FFICE MEM(}RA~UM ..5h /U0t /V' TO: Honorable Mayor Wilcox and Members of the Common Council FROM: Kenneth J. Henderson, Director of Community Development SUBJECT: SELECTION OF CONSULTANT TO CONDUCT MOBILE HOME PARK SURVEY -- AGENDA ITEM S-l DATE: October 30, 1987 COPIES: Proposal Review Committee; Deputy City Administrator-Development Services; File Recommendation: That the Mayor and Common Council select Connerly al'd Associates, Incorporated as, the consultant to undertake the Mobile Home Park SW'vey and Recommendations phase of the analysis of the need for rent control or similar measures in the City. ST AFF REPORT On September ZZ, 1987, the Mayor and Common Council authorized and directed staff to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the purpose of retaining a consultant to conduct a survey of mobile home park tenants and mobile home park owners located within the corporate boundaries of the City. Fifteen (15) proposals were submitted in response to the Community Development Department RFP for "Mobile Home Park Survey and Recommendations". However, one (1) proposal was disqualified because it was submitted after the 4:00 p.m. de'adline or. October ZZ, 1987 and another proposal was disqualified because i1 failed to detail each step listed in the RFP. Therefore, thirteen (13) proposals were considered eligible for review by the Proposal Review Committee (PRC). Proposal review was conducted on a two (Z) step basis. The first step (step "I") was directed at reviewing the manner in which the proposer addressed each of the seven (7) tasks as outlined in the RFP. The second step (step "Z") was designed to determine the proposer's ability, based on qualifications and experience to complete such tasks. A review sbeet (attachment ",A") designed as a continuum to measure quality of relative value, was developed to be used along with a list of questions (attachment "B"). The review sbeet and list of questions would ultimately assist in ranking each proposer in accordance with their ability to complete each of the seven (7) tasks in an acceptable manner. The questions were grouped into three (3) distinctive blocks which approxi- mated their relative importance in eliciting relevant responses. Each proposal was, assigned a position on the continuum for each of the fifteen (15) questions. Each of the blocks on the continuum was assigned a point value of one througb eight (1-8). Proposals were then ranked in accordance with points scored based on this system. Step "Z" consisted of conducting further indepth review of the three (3) highest scor- ing propo.als. These proposals were submitted by: 1. Connerly and Associates, Incorporated Z. The Social Research Advisory 3. Mission Associates /'/ \....-L1 L VI' 0.t\l_UL;..J....J.'1nJ.........J.J.'1V c INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM October 30, 1987 -. Page Two '-' ". ....) A review sheet (attachment "C") was designed to facilitate this step of the process. The focus was to determine which of the three (3) above listed proposals were best qualified to conduct the Mobile Home Park Survey and recommendations. The Committee Celt that sl'ch a determination should be weighted heavily on past exper- iences that were most relevant to the task at hand. In other words, the proposal that could best approximate past experience ill a similar field in the same geographic region should certainly be considered as having the best chance of conducting a survey within the RFP gddelines. Further, such a proposer would best be able to begin and complete work within the stringent timeframe of the project. After careful review, it is the unanimous recommendation of the Proposal Review Committee that Connerly and Associates, Incorporated ,be selected to undertake the Mobile Home Park Survey and that Connerly is significantly more qualified than the other proposals included in the final re view process. ~ Ker.neth J. Hen erson Director of Community Development KJH/lab attachments - I ~ \.- ,..... , ~ ","" Proposal Scoring Sheet Very Very Weak/Poor Weak/Poor Good Good Exce 11 ent 1. (a) ) I I I I (b) J I I I I (c) J I I I I (d) J I 1 I t (e) J r I I I (f) J J I t t Very Very Weak/Poor Weak/Poor Good Good Exce 11 ent 2. (a) J 1 I I 1 (b) I I I I (c) I , 1 I t (d) I I I I' I (e) I 1 I I I (f) I I I I t Very Very Weak/Poor Weak/Poor Good Good Excellent 3. (a) J , I 1 , (b) J I I I r I (c) I I I I I (d) 1 t I , I (e) , , f f f (f) I 1 I l I ATTACHMENT "A" c -. u -. \....) Prooosal Scorinq Ouest ions 1. (a) Proposal's demonstration of understanding of task to be completed. (b) Responsiveness of methodology to the department's needs. (c) What is the prospect of the sampling plan generating statistically reliable data? (d) How well does survey provide for informing (preparing) landlords and tenants of/for survey? (el How well does proposer combine various survey methods for obtaining reliable responses (such as phone calls, personal visits, mailers, follow-ups, etc.)? (f) Proposer's demonstration of knowledge of City of San Bernardino's mobile home park problems. 2. (a) Proposer's demonstration of knowledge of mobile home park assistance programs. (b) Proposer's demonstration of ability to provide alternatives to recommended program. (c) How well did proposal outline methodology to be used in project. (d) How well does survey plan provide adjustments for lack of response? (e) How well does proposal demonstrate an understanding of the various characteristics of mobile home parks, tenants, and landlords? 3. (a) Overall technical comprehensiveness of workplan. (b) Overall understanding of work to be completed. (c) Proposer's ability to complete task within specified (d) How well does proposer outline methods for analyzing results? VM/cmp/0553 ATTACHMENT "B" - c C(:)uLTANT EVALUATI~ .,. I , 1. Past experience in conducting similar studies: (a) Overall number of studies (b) Number of studies done for cities (c) Number of studies done within Southern California (d) Number of studies done in Inland Empire (e) Number of studies done in the last five (5) years 2. Experience with governmentally funded projects: (a) Number with City governments (b) Number in Southern California (c) Number in Inland Empire 3. Experience in conducting survey: (a) Developing survey instruments (b) Administering survey 4. Professional experience of principals: (a) Working with government entities (b) Coordinating various services 5. Capacity of firm: (a) Number of employees (b) Hardware such as computers (c) Networking with other organizations TOTAL ATTACHMENT "C"