03/03/1994 MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

20 Board member Clifford made a motion to retain the Pace Group and authorize 1, 2, and 3 option under the alternative proposal. Chairman Cecil suggested they split this and agree on how much is to done. Board member Clifford made a motion, seconded by Mr. Curtis Fendley,that they define the tasks as the Flexible Incentive Program, Business and Retention Program, and the Vision and Economic Summit, which carried unanimously 5 ayes and 0 nays. Mr. Cecil asked that Mr. Lovorn knowing the parameters of what needs to be done, see if he could give the Board an answer regarding the expenses. Mr. Bray stated that in view of the firm having an office in Ft. Worth all of the mileage should be out of Ft. Worth. Mr. Lovorn advised that he needed to be in Paris a lot, and his mileage is for him to drive not fly. Mr. Lovorn advised that he felt on Phase I (Flexible Incentive Program) expenses should not go over $5,000.00. He said on the Existing Business Retention the amount is not going to be over $2,000.00 because when interviewing top twenty firms it will be done in one trip. He said in connection with the Visioning and Economic Sum~nit the cost would not be over $2,000.00. He said he thought the total expenses on all of these items would be less than $10,000.00, and they would provide actual invoices of expenses. Chairman Cecil asked if there were other questions. Mr. Cecil outlined what he felt were their options at this point. He advised he felt the Board had agreed at the last meeting that the proposal from Cornerstone Group was not going to fill their needs. He said that leaves two proposals, one from Day & Associates and one from the Pace Group. He stated the Board members had copies of the proposal from Day & Associates as to how it would break down in cost if the Board picked and chose. At this point, Mr. Cecil advised he would entertain a motion about the Board's desires in this matter. Board member Eric Clifford made a motion that the Board retain the Pace Group, with Curtis Fendley seconding the motion. Chairman Cecil asked if there were any questions. Board member Bray asked for Mr. Haynes to clarify the Board's position as to the low bid. Mr. Haynes advised the process the Board is using is not a bid process, although it had the appearance of being in that form because of the request from the Board to be price sensitive and to have price connected with different phases of the work that could be selected. Mr. Haynes said State Law states that it is against the law to bid for professional services, so this is not a bid for professional services. He also said State Law says when hiring a professional for professional services, the award will be based upon demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the services, and for fair and reasonable price. He said the cost is important and the qualifications is important. Mr. Haynes said the Charter states in the selection process for us to obtain the lowest and best bid, but does not instruct as to how to hire a professional service person, so we follow the State Law which says bids may not be taken. Mr. Haynes felt the Board should be sensitive to the two primary items considered that the cost be reasonable, and the other item is the qualifications of the person/firm providing the service. He stated if there is a significant difference in the price that you are able to hire two consultants then you should justify the difference.