Laserfiche WebLink
Deletes examples of the "related services" category which have also been selected via QBS and <br />included many services that the City uses during the planning and permitting for an infrastructure <br />project, such as facilities planning services, environmental impact studies, wetland delineation <br />studies, hazmat studies, etc., and left it open-ended. Leaving the definition of related services <br />more general like this could be helpful because there won't be a need to fit to specific services in <br />a list. On the other hand, it will cause other questions. All in all, I don't see the need for this <br />change, but I don't think it will affect the way we operate. <br /> <br />Many of the changes are housekeeping edits. One of the more significant changes in the bill <br />appears to clarify that local agencies are subject to follow the same rules regarding QBS that state <br />agencies must follow related to contracts for architects, engineers, surveyors, photogrammetry or <br />related services. This change doesn't affect the City, because our purchasing rules already require <br />QBS. <br /> <br />The bill clarifies that price may not be used to make a selection even between two equally <br />qualified candidates. <br /> <br />Eliminates the ability to make direct appointments for smaller consulting contracts. This <br />provision is troublesome, because it reduces local control of the City's selection process. <br />Eliminating this ability will add months of time and significant additional staff expense to process <br />consultant selections. <br /> <br />If this provision is removed, there will be little impact to the City and we would be neutral. <br /> <br />However, until this provision is removed, I believe we should oppose the bill. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jenifer Willer PWE 2/22/2011 Pri 2 Oppose <br /> <br />Comments: Adding photogrammetry to the engineers, architects and land surveyors list for procurement <br />procedures will not significantly change the City's processes as we already treat them the same <br />way. <br /> <br />In my opinion, the real issue with this bill is removing the local agency's ability to direct appoint <br />a consultant for smaller value contracts. This change would have a significant effect by slowing <br /> <br />down projects and increasing agency costs by adding to the processes. <br /> <br />Contact Respondent Dept Updated Priority Recommendation <br />Jamie Garner CS-FIN 2/22/2011 Pri 2 Oppose <br /> <br />Oppose unless amended <br />Comments: to reinstate the provision that the amendments to ORS 279C.110 apply <br />only to state contracting agencies or unless the following deleted provision is reinstated: <br /> <br />"[Adjustments to accommodate a contracting agency’s objectives may include provision for the <br />direct appointment of a consultant if the value of the project does not exceed a threshold amount <br />as determined by the contracting agency.]" <br /> <br />Removing this provision and attempting to remove the restriction to state agencies would have a <br />significant negative impact to the City's current process for contracting with architects/engineers. <br />The City's contract review board currently allows direct appointment for these services up to <br />$25,000 in a fiscal year and up to $75,000 if the vendor has been admitted into a qualified pool. <br />This process streamlines contruction and building projects and allows the City to procure these <br />5 | Page <br />March 16, 2011 IGR Committee Meeting <br />