HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-2008-027 Joint Purchasing Assessment - NIGP; National Institute of Governmental PurchasingRESOLUTION NO. R-2008-27
A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City Manager of the City of Yakima to execute
an Interlocal Agreement with Yakima County for 'a Joint Administrative
Purchasing Assessment through the National Institute of Governmental
Purchasing, Inc.
WHEREAS, the City of Yakima, desires to enter into an Interlocal Agreement with Yakima
County for a Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment through the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing, Inc. (NIGP); and,
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of RCW 39.34, the City of Yakima may enter into
interlocal agreements with other public agencies; and
WHEREAS, Yakima County has agreed to enter into the attached agreement with the City
of Yakima, which will enable both entities to enter into an agreement with the NIGP to perform
the assessment and evaluate the potential for future consolidation of the purchasing functions;
and
WHEREAS, the City Council deems it to be in the best interest of the City of Yakima to
contract with Yakima County for the joint assessment under the terms and conditions set forth in
the attached agreement, now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF YAKIMA:
The City Manager of the City of Yakima is hereby authorized and directed to execute the
attached "Interlocal Agreement for a Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment" through the
NIGP with Yakima County, which is attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof.
ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL this 5th day of February, 2008.
David Edler, Mayor
/- 2DCie"--'7
Interlocal Agreement for a Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment through the
National Institute of Governmental Purchasing
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into by and between the City of Yakima, hereinafter
denominated as the "City", and Yakima County, herein denominated as the "County".
WHEREAS, such agreements are authorized by RCW Chapter 39.34 — Interlocal Cooperation
Act.
WHEREAS, the City and County desire to execute an Interlocal agreement for a joint
administrative purchasing assessment through the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing
(NIGP) to evaluate each entities purchasing function and the potential for consolidation of the
purchasing functions.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and promises
contained herein, the parties hereto mutually agree as follows:
A. The City and County shall agree to execute the Joint Administrative Purchasing
Assessment contract as submitted by the NIGP.
B. The City and County agree to share equally in the costs of the NIGP contract mentioned
above unless either the City or County requests additional services beyond the original
scope of the NIGP contract. Any additional costs for services beyond the original
contract scope must be agreed to in writing if costs are to be shared equally between the
City and County.
1. HOLD HARMLESS.
a. The County agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the City, its elected
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all suits,
actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including
reasonable attorney's fees) (also including but not limited to claims related to
alleged mistreatment, or injury) which result from or arise out of the sole
negligence of County, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents in
connection with or incidental to the performance or non-performance of the
County's services, duties and obligations under this Agreement.
b. The City agrees to hold harmless, indemnify, and defend the County, its elected
officials, officers, employees, and agents from and against any and all suits,
actions, claims, liability, damages, judgments, costs and expenses (including
reasonable attorney's fees) which result from or arise out of the sole negligence of
the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents in connection with
or incidental to the performance or non-performance of the City services, duties
and obligations under this Agreement.
c. In the event that the officials, officers, agents, and/or employees of both the
County and the City are negligent, each party shall be liable for its contributory
share of negligence for any resulting suits, actions, claims, liability, damages,
judgments, costs and expenses (including reasonable attorney's fees).
1
d. Nothing contained in this Section of this Agreement shall be construed to create a
right of indemnification to any third party.
2. IMPLEMENTATION. The County and the City shall be jointly responsible for
implementation and proper administration of this Agreement and will refer problems of
implementation to the governing bodies for resolution if necessary.
3. TERMINATION. Termination of this Agreement by either party may be accomplished
on thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. All costs that have been incurred to
the date of termination shall be allocated according to the terms of this agreement.
4. DURATION OF AGREEMENT. The duration of this Agreement shall be from the date
of execution of this document through December 31, 2008 unless otherwise terminated in
accordance with Section 9. of this Agreement.
5. PROPERTY. It is not anticipated that any real or personal property will be acquired or
purchased by the parties solely because of this Agreement.
6. EQUAL OPPORTUNITY. Neither party shall discriminate against any person on the
grounds of race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, marital status, political
affiliation or belief or the presence of any sensory, mental or physical handicap in
violation of the Washington State Law Against Discrimination (RCW chapter 49.60) or
the Americans with Disabilities Act (42 USC 12110 et seq.). In the event of the violation
of this provision, the other party may terminate this Agreement immediately.
7. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement, or any interest herein, or claim hereunder, shall not be
assigned or transferred in whole or in part by the County or the City to any other person
or entity without the prior written consent of the County or the City. In the event that
such prior written consent to an assignment is granted, then the assignee shall assume all
duties, obligations, and liabilities as stated herein.
8. NON -WAIVER. The failure of either party to insist upon strict performance of any
provision of this Agreement or to exercise any right based upon a breach thereof or the
acceptance of any performance during such breach shall not constitute a waiver of any
right under this Agreement.
9. SEVERABILITY. If any portion of this Agreement is changed per mutual Agreement or
any portion is held invalid, the remainder of the Agreement shall remain in full force and
effect.
10. INTEGRATION. This written document constitutes the entire Agreement between the
City and the County. There are no other oral or written Agreements between the parties
as to the subjects covered herein. No changes or additions to this Agreement shall be
valid or binding upon either party unless such change or addition are in writing and
executed by both parties.
11. NOTICES. Unless stated otherwise herein, all notices and demands shall be in writing
and sent or hand -delivered to the parties to their addresses as follows:
2
City of Yakima:
Yakima County:
Sue Ownby, Purchasing Manager
129 N. Second Street
Yakima, WA 98901
Craig M. Warner, Budget Director
128. N. Second Street, Rm 232
Yakima, WA 98901
or to such other addresses as the parties may hereafter designate in writing. Notices
and/or demands shall be sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, or hand -
delivered. Such notices shall be deemed effective when mailed or hand -delivered at the
addresses specified above.
a. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of Washington.
b. APPROVAL AND FILING. Each party shall approve this Agreement by
resolution, ordinance or otherwise pursuant to the laws of the governing body of
each party. The attested signatures of the Mayor and the Yakima County
Commissioners below shall constitute a presumption that such approval was
properly obtained. A copy of this Agreement shall be filed with the Yakima
County Auditor's Office pursuant to :.CW 39.34.040.
CITY OF YAKIMA %, OARD OF YAKIMA COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
, awl-, City of Yakima
R. A. Zais, Jr., City Manager
Date: 01/7/0
o
ATTEST:
4-4—Atn-15‘4U ami_
Michael D. Leita, Commissioner
Constituting the Board of County Commissioners for
Yakima County, Washington
\\\\N \( �,KIMA C,1/,.
15th day of January, 2008
Ronald F. Gamache, Chairman
Iliott, Commissioner
Clerk
CITY CONTRAC r
RESOLUTION
,.` O •• ••• OAMst
• •' of W AVh,
() •
hiina S. Steiner, Clerk of the Board
▪ •
�6//rr , I,• S�,`Api�roved as to form:
3
Paul E. Mcllrath,
Senior Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
Prac+,/rernenI Mgnc9etzient
Assistance Program
PROPOSAL
For a
Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment
Submitted to
The City and County of Yakima, Washington
July 10, 2007
Submitted by
National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc.
151 Spring Street, Suite 300
Herndon VA 20170
(703) 736-8900 ext. 246
e-mail: dmccarthv@nigp.org
Excellence in Public Procurement
�„tilf^x�N �52`1+5iti'zatxNi:�Y.
'Nu- Excellence to Puolc Procurement
PROCUREMENT
MANAGEMENT REVIEW
Presented to the City and County of Yakima, Washington
GENERAL SCOPE OF SERVICES
NIGP proposes to conduct a joint administrative review of the City and County of Yakima's
overall procurement program. Two NIGP-certified consultants will be assigned to this project.
The consultants are backed up by our network of more than 25 procurement professionals who
serve as consultants and 2600 member agencies from which we gather benchmarking data and
best practices. NIGP will employ a phased approach designed to allow the consultant to study
the operation before the site visit and therefore maximize his effectiveness during the visit.
Phase One: Planning and Preparation
During this initial preparation phase, the NIGP Consultants will establish the necessary working
relationships with both City and County Procurement departments. Major work elements during
this phase will include:
1. Review of the Procurement Regulations, Policies and Procedures to identify potential
changes to provide for more effective and efficient operations.
2. Review of current operating Purchasing Methods for potential changes to streamline the
method of operations.
3. Review and analysis of the NIGP Procurement Agency Satisfaction Survey (PASS)
administered to procurement clients in advance of the on-site visit to obtain feedback about
both procurement operations.
4. Develop data collection templates for the on-site phase.
5. Obtain data regarding departmental budgets, workload statistics and staffing (including
organization charts and position descriptions).
Phase Two: On -Site Data Collection and Interviews
The on-site phase will commence with an entrance meeting with the Directors of Procurement
to ensure a common understanding of the corporate vision, expectations and concerns related
to the consolidation of the procurement functions.
1. Conduct structured interviews with procurement staff and senior management officials at
both the City and County to assess the current operation and define opportunities for
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 2 of 16
July 10, 2007
developing more efficient methods of operation. Specifically, the following functions and
aspects will be assessed:
• Enabling legislation, statues and codes
• Purchasing Policies, Procedures, Methodology, Control of Requisitions and Purchase
Orders
• Interdepartmental Relationships to include levels of delegation of authority to using
departments
• Purchasing Card program
• Electronic commerce initiatives
• Management Reports
• Organization and Staffing
• Benchmarking and "Best Practices"
2. Review and analysis of procurement management data maintainedby both the City and
County concerning the above -listed functions. This data will allow the consultants to assess
the current workloads and staffing.
3. Develop a benchmark of both the City and County's procurement function based on NIGP
and associated research studies.
4. Conduct a limited review of the City and County's automated purchasing system and what
data it provides to enhance operations of the procurement function and how it could best be
used to facilitate greater efficiency on consolidation.
5. Review of previous audit reports pertaining to the purchasing activity.
At the conclusion of the on-site phase, the Consultants will present an exit briefing, outlining
preliminary findings and potential areas for recommendation.
Phase Three — Analysis and Report Generation
During this phase, the Consultants will assess the data collected during the on-site visitation
and evaluate the observations, findings during the previous phases, and the customer survey
responses.
At the conclusion of the analysis phase, NIGP will deliver a draft report to include findings as
well as specific action -oriented recommendations that are both meaningful and relevant.
Recommendations will directly respond to both the City and County's interest in making its
procurement activity expeditious, efficient, and effective. In order to help form the basis for a
business improvement plan, recommendations will be detailed as Short Term (0 — 3 months),
Medium Term (3 — 12 months) and Long Term (over 12 months) with an indication in each case
whether the recommended action would better be conducted by internal or external resources.
All deliverables will be presented to the City and/or County in draft format for review and
comment prior to delivery of the final report.
Support Provided by the Client
The lead agency shall:
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 3 of 16
July 10, 2007
• Forward the reports and information requested to the Consultants for review prior to
beginning Phase 1.
• Provide access to files and policies and procedures.
• Identify suitable workspace for the Consultant with access to a telephone and a
photocopier.
• Identify both City and County personnel to be interviewed and schedule interviews.
Experience
• Procurement Management Review, City of Louisville/Jefferson County, KY
NIGP conducted a comprehensive review of the Purchasing Department that serves both
the City of Louisville and Jefferson County. The review included policy and procedures;
organization and staffing; buying assignments and workload; procurement methods;
information and computer technology; user's perception of the program and a
comparative analysis with cities of similar size.
• Procurement Management Review and e -Procurement System Review, City of
Naperville, Illinois
Phase one consisted of a limited scope procurement management review which resulted
in adoption of a new procurement ordinance and staff re-classification. Phase two
consisted of a comprehensive e -procurement system review.
• Procurement Management Review, Policy Development and Regulations,
Public Health Trust of Miami -Dade County.
NIGP conducted a limited scope procurement management review, focusing on policies
and staffing. Subsequently, NIGP was engaged to draft both the new procurement
policy and regulations. The policy was adopted December 19, 2005 and the Regulations
on February 1, 2006.
• Procurement Practices Review, Architectural and Engineering Design
Services, Pima County, Arizona
NIGP conducted a comprehensive review of the County's procurement of design and
construction services. In its report to the Board of Supervisors, NIGP made specific
recommendations with respect to the County's Procurement Code, policies, procedures
and workflows to improve transparency of the process.
• Centralized Procurement Model, Policies and Organization, City of Pasadena,
Texas
NIGP drafted a Procurement Code and Regulations for the City. In addition, NIGP
conducted a benchmark analysis to determine staffing levels and provided
recommendations and an implementation play} regarding centralization of the purchasing
process.
• Procurement Management Review, Miami -Dade County, Florida
NIGP conducted a review of Miami-Dade's procurement practices to include existing
policies and authority, organization and staffing, procurement methods and practices,
information technology applications, and an assessment of customer satisfaction. These
findings were compiled into an Executive Summary with specific recommendations for
program enhancement.
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 4 of 16
July 10, 2007
• Comprehensive Business Process Review, City of Kansas City, Missouri
NIGP interviewed internal and external customers of the City's Division of Purchasing
and Supplies. NIGP also examined the City Charter, Code of Ordinances, Administrative
Regulations and the Manual of Instructions. Additionally, NIGP assessed the City's
procurement organization, studied methods of procurement, reviewed the use of
technology, surveyed customer satisfaction, reviewed supplier relations, and identified
benchmarks and 'best practices'.
• Organization & Staffing Study, Office of Contracting & Procurement,
Washington, DC
NIGP conducted desk audits with about 110 purchasing personnel working in 21
different agencies in the District to determine exactly what purchases were being made
where and by whom. This data was combined with financial system generated data and
applied to a specially developed model to analyze the District's procurements. The
resulting report made recommendations for a new organization designed to centralize a
portion of the business and to redistribute staff positions accordingly.
• Operational Analysis of Procurement Processes, City of Miami Beach, Florida
NIGP conducted an operational analysis of the City's current processes relative to the
issuance of solicitations. Emphasis was placed on significantly increasing the number of
respondents to City bids, RFPs and RFQs.
• Development of Policy & Procedures Manual, City of Baltimore, Maryland
NIGP reviewed City Charters, Codes and Administrative Manuals and developed a
Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual to be followed by the Bureau of Purchases and
the City's requesting agencies. The manual also incorporated recommendations made
following a review of City Audit Reports.
• Procurement Management Review, State of New York, Office of the State
Comptroller
NIGP reviewed the purchasing process to include organization and staffing, staff
assignments, workflow, and performance measurement and made recommendations for
improvement.
• Develop Position Descriptions, Prince William County Public Schools, VA
NIGP administered a questionnaire designed to capture the significant duties and
responsibilities of the purchasing staff and developed new position descriptions for the
department.
• Procurement Management Review, City of Santa Monica CA
NIGP conducted a comprehensive review of the purchasing function in the City and
responded to 20 detailed issues prepared by the City. The report presents over 40
recommendations designed to improve purchasing in the City of Santa Monica by
revising policies, embracing new technology, and infusing best practices into the
operation.
• Procurement Policy Manual Review, Coconino County, AZ
NIGP reviewed the draft Procurement Policy Manual for Coconino County and made
recommendations to make the manual a more comprehensive and complete manual.
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 5 of 16
July 10, 2007
• Procurement Policy Manual Review, Workers Compensation Board, Alberta,
Canada
NIGP reviewed the draft Procurement Policy Manual for the Workers Compensation
Board and made recommendations to make the manual a more comprehensive and
complete manual.
• Procurement Management Review, City of Burbank, CA
NIGP reviewed the Purchasing Department to determine whether the purchasing
process supported the needs of the City. The resulting report was briefed to the City
Council who accepted the report and is closely monitoring the City's progress in adopting
our recommendations. NIGP is assisting in the implementation phase of the project by
reviewing plans, policies, and procedures.
• Procurement Management Review, New York City Board of Education, NY
NIGP reviewed the purchasing practices of the central purchasing office for City's school
system. The comprehensive review resulted in a report containing 18 recommendations
for immediate improvement of the operation.
• Procurement Management Review, City of Chicago, IL.
NIGP reviewed the purchasing process and made recommendations for its improvement.
We addressed the contract award process, enabling state and municipal laws, and the
contract modification process. The final report outlined six areas of concern and made
41 specific recommendations.
• Procurement Management Review, City of Manchester, NH
NIGP subcontracted. for Melanson, Heath & Co to write the audit protocol and to guide
the analysis and propose recommendations for an audit of the City of Manchester, NH.
• Procurement Management Review, City of Gallup, Gallup, NM.
This audit was a comprehensive review of the purchasing and material management
function for the city. The scope included policy and procedures; organization and staffing;
buying assignments and workload; procurement methods; information and computer
technology; user's perception of the program; and a comparative analysis with cities of
similar size.
• Procurement Management Review, City of Yuma, Yuma, AZ
This audit was a comprehensive review of the purchasing and material management
function for the city. The scope included policy and procedures; organization and staffing;
buying assignments and workload; procurement methods; information and computer
technology; user's perception of the program; and a comparative analysis with cities of
similar size.
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 6 of 16
July 10, 2007
NIGP's Leadership in Public Procurement
NIGP Commodity and Service Code
In 1983, NIGP conducted a survey in North America on procurement automation. Of
those responding, 79% indicated a need for assistance in automating their procurement
process, and 83% expressed a strong interest in a standard commodity/services code.
As a result, NIGP released the first version of the NIGP Code in 1984. Since then the
NIGP Code has been adopted by more than 1,400 government users and continues to
grow. The Code is now available as a 3 -digit class code, a 5 -digit class -item code, a 7 -
digit class -item -group code; and a detailed 11 -digit code. The NIGP Commodity and
Service Code is the solution that, when mixed with a good procurement software
package, brings order and efficiency to public procurement programs. As of 2006, the
NIGP Code has been translated into Spanish as well as cross -walked to the NAICS and
the UN/SPSC coding systems.
NIGP's Sponsorship of Procurement Automation in the mid/late I980's
Also as a result of the 1983 survey, NIGP entered into a marketing agreement in the
mid- 1980's with Advanced Procurement Systems (APS) to promote adoption of the first
PC-based procurement automation system specifically designed for state and local
governments. NIGP helped APS identify members who were willing to participate
as beta sites for development of the software. NIGP conducted workshops at the
annual Forum that focused on the benefits of automation and the process for successful
implementing an automated procurement system. Through this partnership, NIGP and
its members helped define the functional requirements that were written into
the software application, thus meeting the unique needs of public purchasers. This
marketing agreement was allowed to expire in the early 1990's once a number of
competing solutions had been introduced and initial reluctance by public entities to
adopt procurement automation had been overcome.
NIGP's Participation in Standardization through NECCC and OASIS
National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council
The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP) serves on the National Electronic
Commerce Coordinating Council (NECCC) as an Executive Committee Signatory.
The National Electronic Commerce Coordinating Council is an alliance of national state
government organizations dedicated to the advancement of electronic commerce within the
states. Its board of directors expects to pursue strategies to advance electronic commerce
within the states that include:
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page+,' of 16
July 10, 2007
facilitating the coordination of electronic commerce adoption in the states through
various means, such as participation in pilot projects and the dissemination of best
practices in state electronic commerce,
conducting an annual conference to study innovations in technology and review
successful electronic commerce projects, and
maintaining and expanding its web site for promotion and the distribution of
association materials.
Additionally, five issues -related work groups have been formed to address current
technology issues:
Citizen Confidence and Trust
Electronic Government Best Practices
Electronic Procurement
Electronic Signatures
Research and Development
NIGP joins a select group of signatory associations including the National Association of
State Auditors, Comptrollers and Treasurers (NASACT) . and the National Association of
Secretaries of State (NASS). Affiliate organizations include the Information Technology
Association of America, the National Automated Clearinghouse, the National Association of
State Chief Administrators, the National Association of State Treasurers and the National
Association of Government Archives and Records Administrators.
Through its alignment with NECCC, NIGP plays an active role as a strategist for
eGovernment and eProcurement issues.
Organization for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards
The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP) is a member of the Organization
for the Advancement of Structured Information Standards (OASIS) - a not-for-profit, global
consortium that drives the development, convergence and adoption of e-business
standards.
OASIS has more than 600 corporate and individual members in 100 countries around the
world. OASIS and the United Nations jointly sponsor ebXML, a global framework for e-
business data exchange. OASIS also operates XML.orq, a community clearinghouse for XML
application schemas, vocabularies and related documents.
OASIS produces worldwide standards for security, Web services, XML conformance,
business transactions, electronic publishing, topic maps and interoperability within and
between marketplaces.
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 8 of 16
July 10, 2007
NIGP's key involvement is focused on the development of Global Electronic Procurement
Standardization. The OASIS Electronic Procurement Standardization (EPS) Technical
Committee works to analyze requirements for electronic procurement processes, identify
gaps, and recommend new standards as needed.
To facilitate the adoption of its work, the OASIS EPS Technical Committee has secured
broad global representation from the entire supply chain. Participants include NIGP as well
as the National Association of State Procurement Officials (NASPO), the Institute for Supply
Management (ISM), the Information Society Standardization System of the European
Standards Committee (CEN/ISSS), RosettaNet, SeeBeyond, and others.
NIGP's Research into e -Procurement and e -Commerce through the Public
Procurement Research Center
As part of its regular research agenda, NIGP annually surveys its membership on issues and
initiatives related to e -Commerce and e -Procurement. Results from these surveys serve as
benchmarks for the profession, as well as springboards for further scholarly research
through the Public Procurement Research Center (PPRC), a partnership between NIGP and
Florida Atlantic University. Each year the PPRC delves into components of e -Commerce and
e -Procurement, the results of which are published in the Journal of Public Procurement and
through presentations to the NIGP membership and procurement symposiums world-wide.
NIGP's Annual e -Procurement Symposium
2006 marks the fifth year of NIGP's e -Procurement Symposium. As the world of
government e -procurement technology continues to mature, government procurement
officials often face decision-making situations without a credible base of knowledge. This
symposium provides the educational platform where participants can identify the
advantages and disadvantages of a variety of available solutions, as well as creates the
opportunity for valuable dialogue between the experts and the decision -makers.
Within its membership, NIGP has found a strong cadre of e -Procurement technology experts
who are enthusiastic about sharing their knowledge with fellow practitioners. Respected
practitioners in state and local governments and specialized authorities give presentations
based on their experiences. Each presentation includes first-hand perspectives on
implementing, managing and developing systems as solutions. Additional networking
sessions allow participants to interact in a free exchange of ideas.
Each year, the relevant agenda allows attendees to begin to develop their own strategy for
success amidst the changing rules and government climate
NIGP'S Sponsorship of the Original 1979 and 2000 Revision of the American Bar
Association's Model Procurement Code
The concept of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Model Procurement Code for State and
Local Governments as a standard for state and local procurement law. NIGP believes that
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 9 of 16
July 10, 2007
the Code has serves as a useful basis for improving the statutes and ordinances that provide
the legal framework for state and local procurement; and
The NIGP Board endorses the concept of the original Model Procurement Code established
in 1979 and its subsequent 2000 revision by providing financial support to revise and update
the Code on a continuing basis. The Code, as currently drafted, contains model language
that states and local governments can use to align their enabling authority with continuing
changes in society, technology, and procurement practices. When adopted by a state and
local government, these provisions authorize electronic commerce, facilitate cooperative
procurement, encourage the delegation of procurement authority, and provide the
procurement officer with greater flexibility in special circumstances.
Financial Proposal
Professional Fees
NIGP proposes to perform the tasks associated with this project for the not -to -exceed fee of
$28,000 for professional services. Should it be requested by the client, NIGP proposes to
perform an on-site presentation of the final report for the not -to -exceed fee of $4,000 for
professional services. The detailed cost proposal for this engagement is as follows :
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 10 of 16
July 10, 2007
Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment
Task
Function
Senior
Consultant
Consultant
TOTAL
1
Planning and Preparation
20
16
36
1.1
Review Background Info.
16
16
32
1.2
Develop Interview Documents
4
0
4
2
On -Site Data Collection
38
38
76
2.1
Team Planning Session
2
2
4
2.2
Interviews:
Purchasing Staff
8
8
16
Senior Management
6
6
12
NP, IT, Legal, etc.
10
10
20
2.3
Data Collection, Workflow
2
6
8
2.4
Technology Assessment:
4
4
2.5
Review Assessment Analysis
4
4
8
2.6
Review Assessment Mtg.
2
2
4
3
Analysis, Conclusions
36
12
48
3.1
Consolidation Analysis
4
4
8
3.2
Benchmark Analysis
4
0
4
3.3
Technology Analysis
4
0
4
3.4
Policy Analysis
4
0
4
3.5
Draft Report
20
8
28
3.6
Final Written Report
4
0
4
TOTAL HOURS
94
66
160
Hourly Rate
$175
$175
Total Fees
$16,450
$11,550
$28,000
Travel and Administrative
Task 2
Air Fare
$400
$500
$900
Lodging
900
900
$1,800
Meals
260
260
$520
Car Rental
400
$400
Local Transportation
125
125
$250
Contingency
115
115
$230
Travel Total
$2,200
$1,900
$4,100
Administrative
$2,500
0
$2,500
ENGAGEMENT TOTAL
$34,600
Any work beyond the scope of this engagement, as well as any work following on directly from
this engagement, is subject to prior approval by the lead agency on behalf of the City and
County. It will be performed at the hourly professional fees quoted in the following section.
NIGP PMAP Proposal - City and County of Yakima, WA - Page 11 of 16
July 10, 2007
Consultant Fee Schedule
Lead Consultant
Senior Consultant
Junior Consultant
$200 per billable hour (on projects over 200 hours)
$175 per billable hour
$150 per billable hour
Travel Expenses
Professional fees do not include travel costs. Travel costs include coach airfare, lodging meals
($45 per day per consultant), car rental, local transportation, parking, and other reasonable and
customary expenses. The City/County shall reimburse NIGP for actual costs incurred for travel
expenses. Travel expenses for this engagement are estimated to be $4,100.
Progress Payments
Based on the following schedule, progress payments shall be due within thirty calendar days
following receipt of an invoice from NIGP:
Completion of Phase 2: On -Site Data Collection 30%
Submission of Draft Report 50%
Submission of Final Report 20%
In the event that the project is delayed by more than fourteen days, NIGP may request
additional progress payments for work completed.
Project Schedule
Upon acceptance of this proposal, NIGP's Consultants will develop a project schedule in
consultation with the project's authority.
In the event that additional on-site meetings are required, they shall be deemed additional
consulting services. For any on-site visit, there is a minimum fee of eight billable hours at the
appropriate rates shown above.
Indemnification
NIGP agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, exonerate, and hold harmless the City and County,
its elected officials, agents, officers, and employees (hereinafter "parties protected") from (1)
any and all claims, demands, liens, lawsuits, administrative and other proceedings, and (2) any
and all judgments, awards, losses, liabilities, damages (including punitive or, exemplary
damages), penalties, fines, costs and expenses (including legal fees, costs, and disbursements)
for, arising out of, or related to any actual or alleged death, injury, damage or destruction to
any person or any property to the extent solely or concurrently caused by, arising out of, or
related to any actual or alleged act, action, default or omission (whether intentional, willful,
reckless, negligent, inadvertent, or otherwise) resulting from, arising out of, or related to NIGP's
provision of services.
NIGP further agrees that it specifically and expressly waives its immunity under industrial
insurance, Title 51 RCW, or immunity under any other provision of law to, the extent of the
obligations assumed to the parties protected hereunder.
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 12 of 16
July 10, 2007
Insurance
a. Commercial Liability Insurance.
Before this Agreement is fully executed by the parties, NIGP shall provide the City and County
with a certificate of insurance as proof of commercial liability insurance with a minimum liability
limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined with single limit bodily injury and property
damage. The certificate shall clearly state who the provider is, the coverage amount, the policy
number, and when the policy and provisions provided are in effect. Said policy shall be in effect
for the duration of this Agreement. The policy shall name the City and the County, its elected
officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, and shall contain a clause that
the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first giving the City thirty (30)
calendar days prior written notice (any language in the clause to the effect of "but failure to
mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company" shall be
crossed out and initialed by the insurance agent.) The insurance shall be with an insurance
company or companies rated A -VII or higher in Best's Guide and admitted in the State of
Washington.
b. Commercial Automobile Liability Insurance.
Before this Agreement is fully executed by the parties, NIGP shall provide the City and County
with a certificate of insurance as proof of commercial automobile liability insurance with a
minimum liability limit of One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit bodily injury
and property damage. The certificate shall clearly state who the provider is, the coverage
amount, the policy number, and when the policy and provisions provided are in effect. Said
policy shall be in effect for the duration of this Agreement. The policy shall name the City and
the County, its elected officials, officers, agents, and employees as additional insureds, and
shall contain a clause that the insurer will not cancel or change the insurance without first
giving the City thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice (any language in the clause to the
effect of "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon
the company" shall be crossed out and initialed by the insurance agent.) The insurance shall be
with an insurance company or companies rated A -VII or higher in Best's Guide and admitted in
the State of Washington.
c. Professional Liability Insurance.
Before this Agreement is fully executed by the parties, NIGP shall provide the City and County
with a certificate of insurance as evidence of Professional Errors and Omissions Liability
Insurance with coverage of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and an
annual aggregate limit of at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00). The certificate shall
clearly state who the provider is, the amount of coverage, the policy number, and when the
policy and provisions provided are in effect. The insurance shall be with an insurance company
rated A -VII or higher in Best's Guide. If the policy is on a claims made basis, the retroactive
date of the insurance policy shall be on or before September 1, 2005, or shall provide full prior
acts. The insurance coverage shall remain in effect during the term of this Agreement and for a
minimum of three (3) years following the termination of this Agreement.
PROJECT CONSULTANT
The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing is pleased to recommend the selection of the
professional listed below as primary consultant for this engagement.
NIGP PMAP Proposal - City and County of Yakima, WA - Page 13 of 16
July 10, 2007
Philip E. Scales, CPPO — Senior Consultant
Mr. Scales is a senior -level PMAP consultant for NIGP. Mr. Scales has provided
comprehensive consulting services to state and local governments in purchasing and
materials management. Prior to joining the NIGP PMAP team in 1995, Mr. Scales was
Director of Purchasing for the County of Lake, Illinois. In 1996 Mr. Scales served as a
technical advisor to the State of New Jersey Procurement Task Force and prepared the
final report submitted to then -Governor Christine Todd Whitman. Mr. Scales has led
and served on Procurement Management Review teams from the National Institute of
Government Purchasing (NIGP) in the City of Chicago; Lousiville/Jefferson County
Kentucky, for the Houston Community College System, District of Columbia Public
Schools; Miami Public Health Trust, as well as consulted for Pennsylvania State
University. Other projects include the development of procurement staffing and
organizational plans for: the. District of Columbia; procurement reviews for the State of
Kansas; and reviews for the cities of Aurora, Colorado, Baltimore, Maryland, and San
Jose, California, Pasadena, Texas, and Pima County, Arizona.
It must be noted that the final selection NIGP consultants is dependent upon the tentative
award of the contract to NIGP and the ensuing dates when the work must be completed. Each
NIGP consultant serves other NIGP contracts as well as business concerns — and may not be
available to serve this project at the time of award. For this reason, NIGP and agency
representatives shall negotiate the final selection of NIGP Consultants prior to the execution of
the agreement.
The City and County will be working with Dr. Donna McCarthy, CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M., NIGP's
PMAP Program Director and contact for administrative matters with regard to this engagement.
Donna T McCarthy, PhD. CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M. — NIGP's PMAP Program Manager
The County's contact at NIGP shall be Donna McCarthy, CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M., Director of
Research and Technical Resources for the Institute. Dr. McCarthy has worked in the
procurement field for over 25 years, serving in both the public and private sectors. She
has served as a Purchasing Director for Counties, Special Taxing Districts and School
Districts.
NEXT STEPS
The City and County are encouraged to review this proposal to ensure consistency with the
intended outcomes. The scope can be expanded or modified if desired. If the scope is modified,
a discussion on the proposed approaches should then be pursued so a revised cost proposal
can be generated. If you have any questions regarding this proposal, please contact Dr. Donna
McCarthy, CPPO, CPPB, C.P.M., Director, Research and Technical Resources, 800-367-6447
x246.
The National Institute of Governmental Purchasing (NIGP) looks forward to working with the
City and County of Yakima.
SUBMITTED BY:
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA = Page 14 of 16
July 10, 2007
Rick Grimm, CPPO, CPPB
NIGP Chief Executive Officer
NIGP PMAP Proposal — City and County of Yakima, WA — Page 15 of 16
July 10, 2007
ACCEPTED BY:
ATTEST:
Deborah J. Moore; City Clerk
ATTESt:
,;•. 0` .
11111111
by
by
by
by
kla /1 1 1\22 \c
Christina S. Steiner, Clerk of the Board
Tiera L. Girard
Deputy Clerk of the Board "
CITY OF YAKIMA
R.A. Zais, Jr., trey Manager
YAKIMA COUNTY
Ronald F. Gamache, Chairman
tuz
and Elliott, Commissioner
Michael D.`Ceita, Commissioner
Constituting the Board of County Commissioners
for Yakima County, Washington
ED AS TO FORM:
Deputy Prosecuting Attorney
of Yakima Coo
NIGP PMAP Proposal - City and County of Yakima, WA - Page 16 of 16
July 10, 2007
•
r
BUSINESS OF THE CITY COUNCIL
YAKIMA, WASHINGTON
AGENDA STATEMENT
Item No. ' t5
For Meeting of February 5, 2008
ITEM TITLE: A Resolution authorizing an Interlocal Agreement with Yakima
County for a Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment through
the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Inc.
SUBMITTED BY: Dave Zabell, Assistant City Manager - 575-6040
CONTACT PERSON: Sue Ownby, Purchasing Manager - 576-6695
SUMMARY EXPLANATION:
Staff respectfully requests approval to enter into an agreement with Yakima County to
execute a Joint Administrative Purchasing Assessment through the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing, Inc. (NIGP).
The assessment will evaluate each entities procurement operation and the potential for
future consolidation of the purchasing functions.
The City and County will share equally in the costs of the NIGP study.
Such agreements are authorized by RCW Chapter 39.34 - Interlocal Cooperation Act.
Resolution X Ordinance _ Contract _ Other (Specify)Agreement
Funding Source: $17,300 - General Fund Resery
APPROVED FOR SUBMITTAL:
City Manager
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution authorizing and directing the City
Manager of the City of Yakima to execute an Interlocal Agreement for a Joint Administrative
Purchasing Assessment through the NIGP.
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION: Adopt Resolution