The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About7. MANAGERS REPORT 10/20/2009 Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS ",&1>. ~~ tOf'2t:fC7{ VEHICLE MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDENT OCTOBER 14, 2009 SUBJECT: PROPOSAL RECOMMENDATION FOR NEW PAINT SPRAY B ($128,500) Backaround In the Public Works Vehicle Maintenance Expansion Project there are targeted funds ($259,000) included in the Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for the procurement and installation of a new vehicle paint spray booth. " . This booth will replace the public works department's original paint spray booth that was installed when the public works facility was constructed in 1988. The original booth was removed as part of the vehicle maintenance exparision project in order to convert the floor space it occupied into a service bay for the fire department's towE;!r truck and engines. The new paint spray booth will be installed in a newly constructed bay at the west end of the vehicle maintenance area. The new bay features a custom-designed pit that will facilitate the downdraft air handling systems that are the industry and regulatory standard for modern paint spray booths. Our general contractor, Leopardo Companies, Inc. of Hoffman Estates, Illinois solicited price quotations for this purchase several months ago but did not receive any responses. After discussing the matter with Leopardo and reviewing the process with potential contractors, it was determined the most likely reason for this outcome could have been the non-union nature of the paint booth installation industry. Typically these companies are very small and employ non-union laborers to perform installation work. Leopardo is signatory to a collective bargaining agreement that requires them to hire union employees and sub-contractors. It is this requirement that the mostly non-union paint spray booth bidders found problematic when. considering a response to the Leopardo's original request for price quotations. Since then, we have met again with four (4) qualified spray booth companies to discuss our options and gain a better understanding of each company's products and recommendations. After this review we suggested to leopardo's staff that the village could hire a company directly to avoid this unique labor issue. The Village does not Proposal RecommendatIon for Paint Spray Booth ($128.500) October 14, 2009 Page 2 of3 have a contractual or regulatory obligation to hire only union contractors. The Village only has a statutory obligation to pay prevailing wages. Proposal Results Subsequently, the specifications for this work were modified and requests for proposals were circulated to three (3) paint spray booth vendors. Each of these vendors had previously met with staff, were familiar with the scope of work, and offered product solutions that staff determined would satisfy the Village's needs. On Tuesday, September 22, 2009, Leopardo received three (3) sealed proposals for the proposed purchase and installation of a new paint spray booth at Public Works. The results are as follows: Company Jones Equipment Company, Inc. Price Mundelein, IL $128,500 Wellman Systems L TO KMI Systems, Inc. Crystal Lake, IL $152,680 Crystal Lake, IL $233,700 Discussion The general contractor and staff have reviewed the proposal submittals and found Jones Equipment Company, Inc. of Mundelein, Illinois (JEC) offers the most attractive package and provides the lowest price. We must note, however, that the JEC proposal takes exception with a technical specification that requires a 4.8 million BTU (British thermal unit) burner. Instead, JEC has submitted a proposal featuring a 3.5 million BTU burner. Staff has examined this proposal thoroughly and concluded that the 3.5 million BTU burner solution suggested by JEC will, in fact, satisfy the Village's needs. Therefore, we recommend waiving this exception as informality and accepting the JEC solution as the lowest, responsive proposal. Additionally, it is relevant to note that JEC can provide a larger 4.8 million BTU burner, at a total cost of $148,300. This alternate solution would still be the lowest cost proposal. However, it is the opinion of staff that such a large burner is not necessary for our intended use. JEC has successfully installed similar vehicle paint spray' booths at a number of facilities throughout Illinois and the Midwest including Peterbuilt Central Illinois in Bloomington, Illinois and Rendel's GMC Trucks in Joliet, Illinois. Reference checks at these facilities revealed a very high degree of satisfaction with both the spray paint booth and JEC's customer service. Proposal Recommendation for Paint Spray Booth ($128,500) October 14,2009 Page 3 of 3 Proposal Recommendation I believe Jones Equipment Company's proposal offers the most attractive package. provides for the completion of this portion of the project and results in a substantial savings to the Village. I therefore recommend the Village Board waive requirements for the formal bidding process and accept the lowest cost proposal from Jones Equipment Company, Inc. of Mundelein, Illinois for the purchase and installation of a new paint spray booth in an amount not to exceed $128,500. There are sufficient funds for this proposed purchase within the existing Public Works Vehicle Maintenance Expansion Project budget. {l.J~- a es R. Breitzman ehicle Maintenance Superintendent I Concur. ~LZ ..._._..~ Glen R. Andler Director of Public Works c: Sean Dorsey, Deputy Director of Public Works JB H:\Administratlon\BIDS\RESUL TS\Palnt Spray Booth Rec for V-M 2009.doc TO: i=ROM: DATE: SUBJ: Mount Prospect Public Works Department INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM VILLAGE MANAGER MICHAEL E. JANONIS WATER & SEWER SUPERINTENDENT OCTOBER 5, 2009 REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS RESULTS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR DESIGN FOR SEWER LIFT STATION EMERGENCY GENERATORS (NOT EXCEED $57,088) Background The Village of Mount Prospect operates a wastewater collection system that includes three sanitary sewer lift stations and seven sanitary relief stations. The lift stations perform the vital work of pumping wastewater from a lower elevation to a higher elevation in sewer basins where mains are very deep. Without these stations, the drainage slope of the sewer mains would drive them too deep to discharge wastewater into the Metropolitan Water Reclamation District of Greater Chicago (MWRDGC) interceptor sewers. If lift stations become inoperable at any time, wastewater immediately begins to back-up in sewer mains and can result in basement back-ups. The relief stations also perform important work. However, relief stations usually run during or after wet weather events. These stations pump water from sanitary sewers Into the MWRDGC interceptor sewers under pressure. This pressurized discharge allows Village-owned sewers to dewater even when interceptor sewers are filled to a level above our discharge connection. If relief stations become inoperable during or after wet weather, wastewater immediately begins to back-up in sewer mains and can also result in. basement back-ups. All of the Village's sewer pumping stations, whether a lift station or relief station, normally operate off of electrical energy provided by Commonwealth Edison (ComEd). Additionally, each sewer pumping station has an external connection capable of accepting an electrical supply from a tow-behind generator during an emergency or loss of ComEd power. The Village currently owns two tow-behind generators capable of powering these facilities. One generator can power one station at a time. Needless to say, the aforementioned tow-behind generator response Is predicated on the notion that power outages won't be lengthy and are unlikely to affect more than two sewer pumping stations at a time. Unfortunately, experience has taught us that these assumptions are not valid. For example, in August 2007, the Village experienced a severe storm that disrupted electrical power throughout the Village for three to four days. All of the Village's sewer pumping stations were affected. Public Works deployed available generators to power lift stations and other vital services. In order to reduce neighborhood flooding, the Village rented additional portable generators for the sanitary relief stations and ran those units COTlstantly until utility power was restored. The Village was fortunate to have contacted rental firms quickly as rental inventories were quickly depleted. Nevertheless, flooding and basement back-ups were widespread because of the time it took to procure and mobilize generator power. To minimize the reoccurrence of this circumstance, staff proposes to purchase and install permanent stand-by generators for all sewer pumping stations. The proposed scope of work will include eight permanently installed emergency backup generators powering nine sewer pumping stations. It is relevant to note one of the lift stations, Huntington Lift Station, already has a permanently mounted stand-by emergency generator; it was just replaced in 2005. It will not be replaced or modified as part of this project. In addition, staff proposes to combine the electrical service for the North and South George relief stations into one electrical service. Since these two pump stations are geographically close, this modification will negate the need for two generators. The design for each station will include pad Page 2 of 2 Request for Proposals Results for Sewer Lift Station Emergency Generators October 5, 2009 mounted diesel generators with automatic transfer switches to allow the stations to run independently for up to four (4) days In the case of a localized or vlllage.wlde power failure. Requests for Proposals Staff prepared a Request for Proposals for electrical design, preparation of plans and specifications, bidding services, and construction engineering for the procurement and InstallatIon of the eight previously described emergency backup generators at specified sewer pumping stations. Four (4) area professional engineering firms that have experience with utility emergency power projects were solicited. Results Proposals were received on September 22, 2009. Three (3) firms submitted engineering and price proposals for review. CONSULTANT PRICE Burns & McDonnell $57 088 Farnsworth Group $57.290 Baxter & Woodman $57,500 HDR, Inc. No orooosal submitted Discussion All of the. professional services firms are capable of providing the needed and necessary design and engineering services to prepare bid specifications and documents for the project. HDR Incorporated of Chicago, Illinois responded that they were unable to submit a proposal for our consideration due to a heavy work load. Burns & McDonnell has performed several engineering projects for the Village in the areas of water system software modeling, video and security Improvements and water system vulnerabfllty assessment. A review of their proposal shows that Burns & McDonnell is very familiar with small emergency generator projects as they have recently completed such work for the Villages of Buffalo Grove, Northfield, Hoffman Estates, Lockport, the City of Elgin and the State of Illinois Department of Transportation. Mr. Randall Patchett of Burns & McDonnell who will be acting as Project Manager has working knowledge of the Village of Mount Prospect sewer operations and of the expectations of the Village. Recommendation I recommend accepting the professional services proposal from Burns & McDonnell of Downer's Grove, Illinois for the design of electrical upgrades; preparation of plans and specifications; bidding services; and construction engineering for the procurement and installation of emergency backup power at specified sewer pumping stations in an amount not to exceed $57,088. Sufficient funds for this proposed work exist in the current budget. ~Q~ Matt Overeem GI n R. Andler Director of Public Works Cc: Deputy Director of Public Works Sean P. Dorsey H:\Water\proJects\2009\sanitary sewer generalors\RFP BOARD AWARD RECOMMENDATION 1.doc Mount Prospect Village of Mount Prospect Mount Prospect, Illinois ~ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM FROM: MICHAEL E. JANONIS, VILLAGE MANAGER FINANCE DIRECTOR ~.~~ It> 20 eft TO: DATE: OCTOBER 8, 2009 SUBJECT: PROPOSALS FOR AUDITING SERVICES PURPOSE: Present to the Village Board a recommendation to accept a proposal for auditing services for e five-year period beginning 2009-2013. BACKGROUND: The Village last sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) in the Fall of 2004. At that time the Village Board accepted the proposal from Sikich LLP to perform the annual audit and prepare the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The original agreement was to cover four years (2004-2007). The agreement was subsequently extended for one additional year to be consistent with our Audit Policy which requires a turnover in auditors every five years. The five-year service limit was reached with the December 31,2008 audit. DISCUSSION: On August 31, 2009 the Finance Department, in conjunction with the Audit Committee, mailed a RFP for Auditing Services to six regional and national accounting firms that specialize in governmental auditing. The firms were: Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, Crowe Horwath, Lauterbach & Amen, McGladrey & Pullen, Miller Cooper, and Wolf & Company. The above firms were selected and mailed RFP's based on their participation in the IGFOA, knowledge and experience in municipal and governmental auditing, expertise with Governmental Accounting Standards Board pronouncements, and experience in ensuring that the CAFR conform to the standards required by the Government Finance Officers Association. The scope of services to be performed, as outlined in the RFP, include auditing the financial statements of the Village as well as performing the Single Audit on federal assistance and the TIF audit. In addition, we asked for a fee for performing an audit on the Library's financial statements. As in the past, the Village has incorporated the Library's audit into our RFP process as a means of keeping the Library's costs down. The Library does pay its own auditing fees however. Included in the scope of services for the first time is the review of the Forest River Fire Protection District. Our Intergovernmental Agreement with them requires that an annual audit be done by the Fire District. By including the Fire District review along with the Village audit we will be able to save close to $1,500 annually over having an audit done separately. Audit Proposal Recommendation October 8, 2009 Page 2 In addition to the basic required auditing services, we asked each audit firm to present a fee quotation to perform certain optional services. These services include typing and preparing the comprehensive annual financial report, preparing the Comptrollers Annual Report, and preparing the Illinois Department of Insurance Reports for the Police and Firefighters' Pension Funds. The RFP asked firms to provide a fee quotation for auditing services for the fiscal years ending December 31, 2009 through 2013. Multi-year proposals are usually requested due to the fact an audit firm makes a substantial investment of time during the first year of an audit and the fee is usually more reasonable if the first-year costs can be amortized over a multi-year period. Of the six RFP's distributed, five were received. Only Miller Cooper declined to submit a proposal, stating that they would not be able to direct adequate staff to our audit. Upon receipt of the proposals, each was reviewed to ensure they were able to meet the requirements of the engagement as outlined in the specifications. In consultation with the Audit Committee Chair, three firms were selected to be interviewed. The three firms were Baker Tilly Virchow Krause, Lauterbach & Amen and McGladrey & Pullen. Interview questions were prepared and an interview team was assembled. The interview team consisted of the Audit Committee Chair, Finance Commission Chair and Deputy Finance Director. Attachment I is the recommendation from the interview team along with the agenda and questions used for the interviews. Attachment II is a summary of the fee quotations as submitted by each of the five audit firms. It is recommended that the Village Board accept the proposal from Lauterbach & Amen based on their municipal experience and experience with other units of government, flexibility in timing of work, thoroughness of process for conducting the audit and competitiveness of their bid for services. The first year cost of the audit (excluding the Library) is $33,300. The amount paid to our auditor last year was $33,050. We have $40,500 included in the 2010 budget RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended the Village Board accept the proposal from Lauterbach & Amen for auditing services for the fiscal years ending December 31,2009 through 2013. Uc~C7. tL' DAVID O. ERB FINANCE DIRECTOR DOE/ H:\ACCT\AUDIT\2009 Audit RFP\Board Memo - Auditor Recommendation.doc Attachment I Recommendation of External Auditors for Village of Mount Prospect September 25,2009 Background: The Village received five responses for the Request for Proposal (RFP) to provide audit services. The audit firms were asked to make proposals for a five year period. On September 25 the Chair of the Village Audit Committee Tom Munz, Chair of the Village Finance Commission Vince Grochocinski, and Deputy Finance Director Lynn Jarog met to interview perspective firms. Previously the decision was made to seek the services of a different audit firm. Although the accounting firm used in the past had successfully performed the services, it was decided (as a best practice) to rotate the firm providing those services. In consultation with Tom Munz, Finance Director David Erb and Lynn Jarog screened the five applicants and selected three firms to interview as best qualified. The three firms were Lauterbach & Amen, Baker Tilly and McGladrey & Pullen. Interview Process: Each of the representatives presented an overview of their firms. The interview team asked a series of questions (attached is a copy of the agenda and questions). The results of the interview coupled with the costs associated with the proposals were the basis for the recommendation of a firm to perform audit services for the Village. Following the interviews the panel discussed the firms to reach a consensus as to the firm for consideration as the Village auditors. The Finance Department followed up with telephone calls to references. All references provided by Lauterbach & Amen, LLP were asked the same series of questions in regards to the engagement, the audit process, and the consistency of staff :from year to year. They were also asked to provide information about any problems and to provide any additional comments. Lauterbach & Amen, LLP's references checked out favorably with high regards. All references spoke fondly of Ron Amen, Sherri Lauterbach, and the staff. All mentioned how easy they are to work with and that they are always available if questions arise. The audit process is thorough and runs smoothly, the schedule is adhered to, and no problems were mentioned. Recommendation: Based on the interviews, the written proposals, and the information received from references, the Auditor interview team is recommending the Firm of Lauterbach, & Amen, LLP of Warrenville, IL be selected to provide audit service for the Village of Mount Prospect. Several factors lead to this recommendation: . Experience with other municipalities . Flexibility in timing of work . Process for working with Village in making changes and implementing the ongoing changes in accounting standards . Competiveness of their bid for services Audit Firm Search Interview Agenda and Questions . September 2009 Agenda for meeting: I. Introductions II. Opel'ling Remarks (Village) III. Firm Overview (Audit Firm) IV. Evaluation Questions (Village) V. Closing Comments (Audit Firm) 5min 5min 10 min 30min 5min Questions: 1. Please provide overview of the staff that would be assigned to the audits. 2. Give rough breakdown of how you would spend the hours assigned to the audit. · Planning · Review of prior work · Meetings with village staff · On-site audit time · Statement preparation · Presentation time . Etc 3. Explain how you approach the first year of the audit and transition from the work done by the prior auditor. 4. How would you differentiate your firm from your competitors? Anything included beyond the basics, for the time spent during this audit? 5. Without naming clients, can you please describe two or three of the most negative findings you have had from performing village audits? 6. Give examples where through the audit process you discovered deficiencies in the internal control and were able to provide suggestions for improvement. 7. The proposal included the concept of performing specific more in depth audit/control reviews. How do you see performing this type of work? 8. Describe some other value added services your firm could provide the Village that might distinguish your firm from another? H:\ACCT\AUDIT\2009 Audit RFP\Auditor Interview Questions 9-25-09.doc C") .... o 1Il~ -m 00 .50 =C'\I -, tflll GI GI a.~ III ~ eGlm 0. en 0 .. 0)0 ccC'\I 6 :e ..: """"0.... ..:::s~ Il-<(GI o~~ !,.e GI .!!D.'Q. =u..GI >It:en Attachment Ii Il- 000 000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 co '0 c 00 11) 0 In 000 0 In 0 In In ~ I'll coo vO ~ 000 0 C'\I C") In C") M"; ";a) .... MOO M ..; N M E co .....m ..... ..... C'\I .... C'\I .... 0 ..... .... C'\I C'\I 0 all ~c 000000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 f.!! 000000 0 0000 0 0 0 0 0 v.....IOIOOO In .....000 .... co 0 co q "0- Ll"i"Ll"i"C'liC'li"':C'Ii 'i c-JLri''''':'''': at M cD N I'll :s .... -0. 10..... co N vv 0 In ..... v <Ball ..... C'\I .... C") C") ::E J: C U GI I'll E -E!<( .!!alI :s ~ 0000000 00 000 0..... .....lOm ...:..; ";Mat M .....In ..... .... J: .. I'll ! o :J: GI ~ ~ o 0011)10000 coo coco co co In vO...............COv "":"':C'liC'lictScOoO co NO ..... C'\I j:: ~ GI .ll:: I'll m 0000000 0000000 00 11)10 11) CO.... "':Ll"i"M";Ll"i"Mat ..... .....'It ..... .... III GI U "~ GI en "0 f ":; III ~ ~ cr ~ Cl :m O~ .- a. (I) g. iii ~Su..~= 0::'0 en't:~:I:l ~ C:!:1- "0 '5."~ ~ E ,g -g fOO::..... (1).5<( '5 0:: 1il co ~ 8" ~ u..~(/)C::u..0l GI <( 0 <( .%? _ .5 It:Uu..(/)o:::;l-(/) 00000 0 00000 0 OCOI.C)It)CO In ctSc-JOOat at ~ ~~~ CD .... 00000 0 oocococo .... v.....cncno In r-:c-Jc-JC'liu)' ..; ..... C'\I C") C'\I 00000 0 00000 0 COI.C)I.C)I.C).... C'\I as";"":"":u)' ui' ..... ..........v en .... - ~ - ~ III GI C Q) U ,g ,g Q) .~ tll O.!:: GI (ija.u..en a. I I - ~ c: c: I'll a. .g.g 5 ~ee:s. :Js8.llllO .~~~ ~ ~iii ~~ a.a.'O Gltll~~~1- eng.~oo iii~oa.o. c::a.~Q)(I) 00::0.0::0:: :;:;~Eoo ou8gg GI Cl ~ :; III GI GI u.. iii ~ o o q .... C'\I o 0 o .... m v cD m .... In co ..... N C'\I In 0 .... C") co 'It 00 'It C'\I o o co cD .... o 0 o .... C") In ..; co .... m - .. :s :s <( ~ ~ .c ::i m - III fJ .~ GI en ~ I'll III III GI U GI Z ~ .e GI GI u.. ~ III GI >;- In GI .. GI Q. E o o o .. ~ :s o ::E: '0 ~ GI .Q E :s Z "0 GI 10 E :;:; III W