HomeMy WebLinkAbout05.a. Follow-up discussion to August 29, 2017 meeting on development of a local vendor preference programPage 1 of 16
Item 5.a.
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
September 26, 2017
TO: FINANCE COMMITTEE
FROM: PHI LI P LEI BER, DI RECTOR OF FI NANCE AND ADMI NISTRATI ON
REVIEWED BY: ANN SASAKI, DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
SUBJECT: FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION TO AUGUST 29, 2017 MEETING ON
DEVELOPMENT OF A LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE PROGRAM
Central San's current purchasing policy does not provide for specific bid preferences for local vendors. In
2015, the Board considered, but did not approve such a program.
On August 29, 2017, during the routine expenditure review, the Finance Committee requested staff to
bring forward for further consideration a local vendor preference program. This memorandum is in
response to that request. The alternatives contained here are for further discussion, and to obtain an initial
sense of the Committee as to whether they should be further developed, different alternatives selected, or
not considered at all. Review of program terms for agencies that have implemented local preference
programs shows that it is important to address several parameters including: (1) which vendors are
considered "local" or other "good standing" type requirements; (2) the nature of the preference;
(3) which procurements are eligible for and excluded from the local preference program; and (4)
provisions regarding administration of the program.
Alternative Proposals
Staff understood the initial request from the Finance Committee for a local vendor preference program
that:
• is simple and not overly complex
• provides for a degree of discretion by the General Manager
Two alternative proposals (Attachment 1), aim to achieve this by:
Option 1 A: "5% Preference for Cost Based Bids"
• Provides that the General Manager can award a cost based bid to local vendors (as defined) if the
price difference between the local vendor and the lowest bid, does not exceed 5% (and not to
exceed $10,000), and the General Manager concludes that factors exist that would benefit Central
San in selecting the local vendor, which are listed as either direct benefits to Central San in terms of
cost savings, or indirect benefits such as local economic development.
• For qualification based bids, two options are offered:
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 82 of 100
Page 2 of 16
• Soft -language that indicates an evaluation panel shall consider the benefits of selecting a local
company. No explicit point preference is specified.
• Firm -Central San shall award 5% of the points for an RFP to local companies.
• A definition for local companies is provided. It allows for companies with headquarters or a branch in
any town/city in the Central San service territory. A company majority owned by an individual residing
within Central San service territory would also qualify. The local company would need to have a
presence for a least six months prior to the publication of the call for bids. Some jurisdictions that
have a local business preference policy also require the business to be certified as a "small
business"; this would be an option for this policy.
Option 1 B: "Local Firm can match low bidder"
• An alternative proposal, previously considered in 2015, would allow a local bidder to match the low
bid of a non -local bidder.
Considerations
1. Which vendors are considered local: Significant variations are possible here. The key issue is the
degree of presence required to be considered local. Some localities also require the business to be
a small business, as defined. Some localities (particularly cities or counties) also require that the
bidder be in "good standing", which includes being current on taxes.
2. Nature of the preference: Many agencies offer an explicit 5% preference; that is what is proposed in
Option 1 A, subject to a cap of $10,000 per procurement. Option 1 B offers a local vendor the
opportunity to match a low bid. This could be limited to the offer to match if the local vendor's bid is
within a specified percentage of the low bid.
3. Scope: Which purchases are eligible for, and excluded from the proposal has been drafted to
include:
. Services (including professional services/consulting)
• Goods
It would exclude:
• Goods or services procured under a cooperative purchasing agreement (piggyback contract), or
other qualified exemption from the competitive process (example: some vehicles are bought on a
piggyback contract. Based on this exclusion, this would continue, when applicable).
• Public Works or sealed bid procurements.
• Procurements that are explicitly excluded when announced.
4. Administration concerns: Important goals would be (a) clarity of what procurements it applies to, and
how it applies; (b) minimizing additional steps in the procurement process; and (c) avoiding or
minimizing disputes over the operation of the program.
Option 1 A presents some potential for concerns in some of these areas. As the proposal provides for
discretion by the General Manager to consider the benefits of a local vendor, additional time and the
potential for disputes exists.
Option 1 B is likely preferable in terms of administration, in that it provides for less subjectivity, potential for
disputes, and need to involve the General Manager.
Advantages and Disadvantages of Proposals
The following are potential advantages and disadvantages of local vendor preference programs as
proposed.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 83 of 100
Advantages
Option 1 A: 5% Preference for
Cost Based Bids
Recognition that Central San is
supportive of and has taken steps
within its ability, to enhance the local
economy.
As Central San receives a portion of
overall funding from ad valorem
taxes, a strong local economy can
mean higher property values, a
stronger tax base, and higher funding
to support Central San's mission.
Disadvantages
Option 1 B: Local Firm can match
lower bidder, if Local firm's bid is
within 5% of lowest bidder
• Same
Option 1 A: 5% Preference for Cost
Based Bids
• Same
Additional explicit cost to Central San
procurement if a higher cost local vendor is
selected. Difficult to quantify up front as
amount may vary. Could be tracked
subsequently, at additional administrative
cost. In the alternative proposal where a
local vendor would be given the opportunity
to match the lowest cost bid, this would be
avoided.
Cost of staff time in administering program,
including:
(1) additional steps required by Purchasing
Division staff;
(2) For the General Manager consideration
of factors that may warrant award to the
local vendor proposal, there would be the
cost of General Manager time for this
consideration;
(3) staff time related to analysis of bids,
resolution of the winning bidder, interfacing
with non -selected vendors, and reporting
out on the program.
Page 3 of 16
Option 1 B: Local Firm can match lower
bidder, if Local firm's bid is within 5% of
lowest bidder
• No incremental cost to Central San
• Also present
• Eliminated
• Also present (More time would be
needed to explain that there is a local
firm that has "X" days to match the low
bid, then if award is made to the local
firm, we need to explain to the low
bidder why they weren't awarded the
contract
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 84 of 100
Page 4 of 16
Practice at Other Agencies
Based on a survey from 2015 when this issue was last reviewed, Central San did not find local preference
programs at sister agencies including Delta Diablo, EBMUD, Union San, Dublin San Ramon, CCWD, and
West County San. S F P UC had a local preference policy that only applied to their public works
procurements.
Some California local government agencies provide local preference programs. A presentation by one
locality considering such a program (City of Huntington Beach) cited 35 California cities that have a form of
a local vendor preference program. A survey listing the status of other agencies with local vendor
preference programs is included in the memorandum presented two years ago on this issue (Attachment
2).
Recommendation
Staff has developed two proposals for additional discussion by the Finance and/or Administration
Committee. Staff will work further on the proposal after receiving direction from the Committee.
Strategic Plan re -In
GOAL THREE: Be a Fiscally Sound and Effective Water Sector Utility
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 85 of 100
• Also present
(4) Potential for increased bid protests
based on real or perceived legality
• Also present
concerns.
(5) Potential to discourage competition and
reduce the pool of competing bidders.
Also present
(6) Definition and application of "local"
could be subject to interpretation and
possible legal challenge.
Issues related to definition of "Local'.
Example:
• Are national retailers going to receive
the 5% preference if they have a
• Also present
branch is our jurisdiction (i.e. Home
Depot)? As written, yes.
• With respect to qualification if the
majority owner lives in the service
• Also present
territory, there would be the issue of
verifying owner's personal residency
(we could rely on an attestation only).
Practice at Other Agencies
Based on a survey from 2015 when this issue was last reviewed, Central San did not find local preference
programs at sister agencies including Delta Diablo, EBMUD, Union San, Dublin San Ramon, CCWD, and
West County San. S F P UC had a local preference policy that only applied to their public works
procurements.
Some California local government agencies provide local preference programs. A presentation by one
locality considering such a program (City of Huntington Beach) cited 35 California cities that have a form of
a local vendor preference program. A survey listing the status of other agencies with local vendor
preference programs is included in the memorandum presented two years ago on this issue (Attachment
2).
Recommendation
Staff has developed two proposals for additional discussion by the Finance and/or Administration
Committee. Staff will work further on the proposal after receiving direction from the Committee.
Strategic Plan re -In
GOAL THREE: Be a Fiscally Sound and Effective Water Sector Utility
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 85 of 100
Page 5 of 16
Strategy 2 - Manage Costs
GOAL SIX: Embrace Technology, Innovation and Environmental Sustainability
Strategy 2 - Evaluate Business Processes and Optimize Business Operations
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Local Vendor Preference Program Options
2. Previous 2015 Local Vendor Preference Options
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 86 of 100
OPTION 1A
For cost -based bids:
Page 6 of 16
If a bidder with a material service area presence (a "Local Company") submits a bid that is not more than
S% (not to exceed $10,000) higher than a bid submitted by a bidder that does not have a service area
presence, the GM may award the bid to the Local Company after consideration of factors (see list below)
that would accrue to Central San from selecting the Local Company.
Factors in Consideration of the Benefits of a Local Company:
1. The value of improved responsiveness of the Local Company
in addressing service, maintenance, warranty or other issues
that may arise with respect to the procured good or service.
2. The value of Central San staff time in interfacing with the
vendor in initial good or service delivery, or in addressing
future follow-up service, maintenance, or warranty issues.
While it is recognized that there may be general economic
development advantages that can accrue to local government
from spending within the local government's jurisdiction, this
factor alone is not considered sufficient to justify a local bid
preference.
For qualifications based procurements:
Alternative A: Implicit:
• In consideration of the ability of a vendor to best meet Central San's needs, the evaluation panel
shall consider the benefits of selecting a Local Company.
Alternative B: Explicit:
In consideration of a vendors to provide goods or services in response to an RFP, Central San
shall explicitly allocate S% of RFP's evaluation points to a Local Company based on the
consideration of factors that would accrue to Central San from selecting a such a Local
Company.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 87 of 100
Page 7 of 16
OPTION 1B
If a bidder with a material service area presence (a "Local Company") submits a bid for a Central San
procurement, and that bid that is not more than S% higher than a bid submitted by a bidder that does
not have a service area presence, then Central San will allow the Local Company the option to match the
bid of the lowest bidder and Central San may award the bid to that Local Company.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 88 of 100
Page 8 of 16
Common Terms
(Applicable to Option 1A or Option 16)
Definition of Local
Material service area presence is defined as a bidder that meets either of the following criteria:
(a) is headquartered or has a branch or local office in a city or locality
in the Central San Service territory to include Lafayette, Moraga,
Orinda, Walnut Creek, Danville, Alamo, San Ramon, Concord,
Pacheco, Martinez, Concord, Clayton or other unincorporated areas
within Contra Costa County in the Central San service territory; or
(b) is majority owned by an individual residing in the cities or
locations noted above.
The local company shall meet the requirements of clause (a) or (b) for at least six (6) months prior to
publication of the call for bids.
Bidders claiming Local Vendor Preference must submit an Affidavit of Eligibility with their bid or quote
response, unless an approved Affidavit is already on file.
Contracts Excluded
Local preference shall not apply to the following categories of contracts:
1. Goods or services provided under a cooperative purchasing
agreement or similar "piggyback" contract or other qualified
exemption from the competitive process."; and
2. Any bid announcement which specifically provides that the general
local preference policies set forth in this policy are suspended due to;
the unique nature of the goods or services sought, the existence of
either a local emergency as determined by the Board, or where such
suspension is, in the opinion of District Counsel, required by law.
3. Public works projects or sealed bid projects.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 89 of 100
Page 9 of 16
Reference Materials
Example Policies:
Placer County: 5% not to exceed $5000
https://www.placer.ca.gov/departments/admin/procurement/localvendorpref
Huntington Beach: 5% not to exceed $5000 for commodities. 5% point preference for qualifications based/professional
services
http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/announcements/attachments/Local%20Vendor%2OPreference%2OMay%202,%202011.pdf
Other General Resources:
https://ilsr.org/rule/local-purchasing-preferences/
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 90 of 100
Page 10 of 16
Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
WREFN—
Feb ruary 19, 2015
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
VIA,1 ROGER S. BAILEY, GENERAL MANAGER JSK
FROM: DAVID HEATH, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATION
STEPHANIE KING, PURCHASING& MATERIALS MANAGER
SUBJECT: LOCAL VENDOR PREFERENCE POLICY INFORMATION
The Board has directed staff to evaluate options the District may have in creating a local
vendor preference policy to support local businesses. The attached summary breaks
down the various options of a local vendor preference policy based on research of other
public agencies' policies. Also included is a table which lists various public
organizations' respective attributes of their policies for comparative purposes.
District Counsel, Kent Alm, wi [I be present to discuss legal en cern and restrictions to
keep in mind regarding a local preference policy.
The Administration Committee reviewed this matter at its January 13, 2015 meefing and
regio rrmended this information be presented at an upoo rning Board rneefi'ng.
This matter was agendized for the February 5, 2015 Board meeting but was continued
to this meeting. Staff is seeking Board input and direction.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 91 of 100
LOCAL PROCUREMENT PREFERENCE,
SUMMARY — RESEARCH FINDINGS
OVERVIEW
Page 11 of 16
Local prete rence policies give kicial vermiors. an advantage i n pu b lin contracti ng.
Curtently., the 131strIct I noludes and ani raves k)ca I t�usinesses to pa rticipate in
solIcItations enaver possiblo; however, the Disildd nDt have a policy in plcace to
give any type of preference or ed am to k>cal businesses.
Fo r the most parl, the reasons many public se=r entities 0 da pt 1al prate rance
pol Ic les Is to stimulate the looal e. conomyr., support the local bu si n e as co m m -unity a nd
constituents, and possibly create now jobs and/or protect existing jobs. The general
concerns of th e so pol is ies tend to be rel ated to the possibility of reducin q cc rn Pe 11 ti on If
the non - local vendors deo I Inn to, bid d u e lo t he p refe re noe, whIch 1 rr to rn may pi3ten 1! idilly
i n crease prices ova r time. T -)e legal perm is:s ibi I ity of ce rtain appfoache$ Iso Uarl be a
concern.
Nu rnerous cities and coon Ues th rc.0 g hoot 1 he State of Cali fomia have looal prof erente
policies. It appears to be leas co m rn on I n voate r and wastELwAter djstrin the Bay
Area to have this t" of a policy.
The information in this paper is based on researching other public entifies and their local
preference pollicieq. The data, includes some specifics of 1hese other entities for
comparative purposes.
E LE M ENT S TO BE CON Sl D E R ED WHEN DESIGN IN G A POLI CY
1, What Lype of focM preference?
MatcfieRo rcen tag e bbd ;s - why on the, local bidders bid is within a ce -ta in
pe i-Centage, -of th ,� t of the lawc-st b id by � rron-loncall bkkW r- the loci I b idler
may be awarder the bid" or th P, locra.1 bi dde r is given Uhe opportunity to m ate h
the non. local bidde r"'s price I 1%,;10 st c ons mon)
Tie -bids - when the bid of a I -oval b Idd e. i Is [he same amount of that of a non -
local bid; prefe ranee go es to the Iona I b.,dde r
AbWvte - regtilres ' )u risd ict ion to purchase cor'. ain wm mod'Iffies withi n
designated area
2. How will a kpcai preference be appfied 9
If the low bid is not $L l.l vendor, ani{ rasponsive local -verKJor who submittec[
a bid wfthin x% of the lowest res laonsive bid sha havo the option at
s ubm Irti lig a new bid ithi n x hou rsJdays. The new bld must be 1 n an amou rpt
E�` aa v e eri i 19. Feb. 5. 1
Icral Vrnz7,-, r P " fe rq r -,:.q P I r rr :1 - w7% n
A 0
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 92 of 100
Page 12 of 16
less than or equal to the lowest responsive bid for award., (( ;untra
Count's model, 5%)
In some jurisd tiona, Uhe bid preference percentage is applied to k)cal bids
Daly for the pu rpose of evafu ati n q whether IN Wall bMe r is the lowest
responsible bidder- When the ilocal ve, ndor is within x1% of ffie low bidder,
they will be awarded the cot b ut at the it o rigirial peri c&. so th e ag e ncy will
pay a higher price,
what types Otpro0weme-nis WRIth JO L;p,-,efersnce appfy to ("s and dWlar
ranges)
Suppiles, equipment., male tials, n-on-prafessional service,. prolesslonal
services (consult -Ing), "struction..
Minimum dollar thrashold Imaxi mum, dollar threshold c�msideratiws
Example: Contra Cocsta Coiunlyms local prO'efenoeNlicy -a
-pplies only to
supplies. equipment and materials that aFG aver $25k.
Exam ple-: City of Conte rd's local p reTerence policy applie s to auppl ies,
equipment, and services (except professional or consuRant) with a $I 00k
maximum limit.
4. How does a bus)ness qualify as a "local business?rr
Virtually ao jL.I I i ictiWS Fequi re Ihal (h
e busines's havo a place of business
withi n the ju risdiction; some attach ti m e 1i mitahons (i. e. 11hat the bu si ness has
be&n doing business In the juri Ictlon for a ce rtai•n period of filme p rio r to
seeking the pref erenoe). Most j uri l ie 11 o ns als� requi re th at the business
hdVe a bu$ines$ license issued by either the jijrisdiCtLon or in the case of
MQSt CO%UAtie$l a jUlri diction within the - county- Some jurisdictions also have
requi re nn -o nts reg. -L rding amp as (ii -e., that a ce main numbe r of e rnploy ees
reside in the jiurisel UJon) . and some jurisdictions also give local bid
p(ele re to co r-4- i p� r i yes offerlirvg prod ucLs made vwith In the Ju r isdi utic ri.
Exam [.- le, Contra Costa Co unky Req u Irements: 1 ) Buslness w�ii ch has its
hpa&i i j:: --tri rF; d i -r- tri h i itin n pa in I or W e nghii� 1 It dl i n r
havi ri g a :5trast address with i n CCC kir at least 6 monift botore th P.- bild
oppo rtupity 2) Kolds any mquifed busi ness license by a j urisd iction located
in GCC, and 3) Employs at least one full-time or two part-time empfoyees
v;ho8e pri=rnaFy residence is located within CCC, or if the busiiie;ss hae no
erTIPIGYM)S. sfialll be at leasil_510% wed ty one or roore persons whose
primary residence(s) is kiHcated within CGC.
So me j u risdichons onPy give prefem nee to local business, e s ii Uhey qualify as a
sin all bus-pness as well- Some Ju risdietlous. gIve a percentage preference for
businessies and -an additional per�entaga preforonce if they are sTri all
and crncrging local bus inaF;5cs (Alam a County).
I [) 117-4 ftVC*
11 kf Citic "/ 6$ u ne tho, i r pity coo rft moundariies to dote rmiw IOGality.
Since CC C SD boundaries are noot confined to sirn i lar borders, a decision wi 11
n e ed to be made on the boundarles lhat wl 11 be enforced to de terMine locality..
mrd MEW il g. Feb- B. 2015
LSI Ve ndo r Pfele re noe Poilcy INkmWii3p
=J'igr.;J veil ::
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 93 of 100
Page 13 of 16
It I r)& D istric t 'Ale re to inGlUd e a re as o utsid-e of the Distriict (1.e. Concord,
Clayt,on, parte of Sari Ramon.. and parts of MartInez), It may be more
c ha 11 a n ging to cL�tblinh the hznef i t to tho Di riot aw the intention -of the
Policy -
5. Ho Pv. does a bvs.laess dernonsirale !hit d is a Ocal business?
• AlamedaCO Unty Gertif i 05175r .-5i a s sm a 11 an on local 1.
• LA County requires th at b u ai no ssez; be ce r5fied as small by the State.
• Nevada County requires that bush esses seeking a prefefence musl submit
m atepials dem on strati ng that they q ua lify with til ei r bid documents.
Contra Costa Coiu ntv require s that ve ndo rs seeking a local bi d p refefe rice
su b m i t a csrhfii�atlon i ri -%vrltlng along with their Wd , anod rRs&rvr_--.9 I hc- rirjh I la
im pose a, penalty (, n e I igibi 11h; to transact U u siness with the Cou Pty for 3 -24
months) for any business falseliy claiming to be locall-
Mea suring the impact of the policy
Identify any additional req Fife mei-its/repoTts to measurs- su Cf -� r 3 p rQ m.
rJ e -- - 11 Q. -0b 5. 2015
%!,'I I::. Ir P-eflerarm! Pn ;ry 1r-e,:rr;6:r,
J.4e 0 'j,
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 94 of 100
LOCAL PREFERENCE POLICY BE,NCHMARKS
Say A reg:- cffios a rlej CDL atloa
Local
Preference
Agency %
Ci ty 0 f -Con Lb rd
5%
CGun ty a f dont ra r
5u':, Loc a I,
Co u n t -v cif .413n -i Ld a 55'- S 1 n'; I I
10%
2% (.51iiglit ly
I a rger loca I
C ity a rid ',-.o u nty of San F ra n ciiscD bu 5i messes)
Ho.,lr-,l Wmdra, Feb. 5, 2015
U i::;i PrIvrimo PaUqy lnfcdri;: fin -i
Page 14 of 16
Su pplies, equipment,, arvd servicas (except
profemlonal or consuftant). 5% 15 for eYffIfl,a do n
p u rposes, it I pay the higher price If withi n 5%,
� 100, k max,
Only commodities (supplies, rriawla 1, equilpry- e ri U
�k - Local vendor wIthi n S% of non-kmal low
t.-idder -n;ay submit new bid wIthi n 48 hours (not
i-i0u�inR weekends and holidays'e- --theriewbidis
lc�,zs tihi3 n or equal to the low bids aw-a ril Uzes to th-u
IQLd Iva ridor. No additional coit to t1�L!p Cc u n Ly -b%- ith
this methood,
Goods, _qervices., a rid pr.UfF slip nal wryiws :- S 2 5k.
Local 8uii - ics_ - having f xL!d of kip a nd h r7 a
street address wyalLiji thc-, County for ak least six (6)
month s prioi to the issue date of any RFP IQ be ink;
responded to: and which holds a yal id business
I icense issued k)y the -County Qir a city with in the
County- AISO applies to AL-arneda Ux unty prod ucts
defimd as Pf oductg kl�t a r� grown, mi nepi ,
fabricated,. manufactu red, processed or produced
within the CDunty. Small Locol and Emerp, ir R
10 usi n6ss J5LE B� - A:5rna 11 basin s•5 is defined by the
U ftite� St8tes small Business Adm ini5tration (5 BAI
as haying no more tha ri th* ritimber of ern ployei!�s
or aVeFagff annUal gross recel pts over the last 3
years required per S -_DA standa rds based on the
sma 11 bu�`iness's a P P ro P nate North Arneric.i n
I nd ij.;t Py Claufficarion 5yit;6m (NAICSI W -e- An
-Hrnergi rig businiPvq is derin ed by 0be CQunty as
havin 6tht-ir armL a! grog s re- ceifats of I -ass thin
on-e-hialf (1/2) that of a smill business OR having
le5s than one-half (1 21 the num beir c f e roployees
AN D that has been -in busi ness 1e&5 than " 1,5)
y E!, a r5
10% preference: Must be small and kwall. Applies
to constrix-tion and professional serw1ce contracts
uincler SID mil liun.
2% Pref erence; May be Might ly la rger thia n srnia 11
IJUSi MeSStA and rn uSt b6 loni-
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 95 of 100
C it V of %11 IP ita S
City of Oaklaind
5M Small
Other Cri idemia Public A, nces3s
Page 15 of 16
App,l ie S to Su p p lies, materla Is. eiq u ipr-- L! i 11.
noinjDfof-eSS Gi LPI a 10% i� -a pplied Li 10 t r, u
�c a,9
ndor has the oppoctunIty to redo L L! ( he. r
M r
(I r- -in amount eqLml to the amount of the lowest
re rid in'e bid (non -local). Al lcfw 5 business days
for R I To lower Iiid.
const rzi-:tio n. c ommod itles and service bids.
Preference po ir is for local pa rtk lip@ Lion o n
prufer,.5in, n all .5erviices
7
Boa rd WeW g. Feb. 5, 2015
Lw -:-ll VqnWr Ptelerqroa Poky IffVmajjcn
R&W t pr 6
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 96 of 100
prefere nee
Agency
%
rqW*S
6.00dsr Sanrlvilcas, and Coinsul-tiank Q3 retracts. (5 oods an d
S -a WleeS -C_0ntrACB 2% d iSeouint qff thp bid pric-P
for Sm, alli Local Susicess Enterprise or Emergl ng Loci I
aur5iines5 E riterprisle prime contrac-Lors, or 2% -d iSCO Ll Ot
off the t3W pr iQu fQr prime ci?ntract.q rs a rh ievi ri� the
volvntip ry 6:nval pf Q% f9r 5LBE Gr E_BF s ij hrontrai7-, r,%r
participation set forth. Discount dogs riot a p p ly i I d ri
award to the discounted bidder woLi Idi resuit in a tot I
cointiract cost of $ 101 in excess of the low,. riga -i
d iwn tj rited hi d d e r. Consu Itant Contracts; For pro po sa Is
ra r king a5 qualified or KCePtal?ler aPPIY ;0 maximLorn of
12 adc-i I iunal po int N fo -- SLBE or E LBE participatitm (20%
ja rtlel patlon=5 Iaoiriksl. '25'A pi rt idipatloin10 poi rits.
CAW of Son Diego
-),I RIF r, r F IBE as D rirre cc n t r,3 c i: o r=12 pol-nts.
Ni Jsk be LULJ I ci ri -J must be -ci2 "J -i f i M Ly t 90 f-Ederal Smit 11
B u sines AdminIstratio n (SRA) or are regi ste red as. s iTi A I
o n t h e fe d e ra I Sy s tem for Award M a ri -a.E t� rr-) u i1 L (' .AP- )
data ba- Applies to Boody and 5ervice5. Pre fiere ne is
fpr -evaluation p i i rpows bvt doue5 not c1ha n ttie bid
d moor- I of conkract award. PnefpmnrQ not to exc"d
�513k fur � r y orae bldf propos all..
Tl% e yi -j 1-:x I ijvc a n ord iina nee establqithiiri. an 8%
CiDuii,ty of Los Ari8e Its
2%
10%
pref e,e it re f car Llisabled Veteran Business Enterprises..
PUbfic Wr%rk� RrGjeCU'r Max discoorit Wk
City of El Centro
City lof La nc aster
0 ri ly Foods -a nd servioRs under formal bid lira It,, /A to
SCA constructloo
City of Redding
5% Only taxa ole, goods - not 5erviice5
City of Santa Ana
7%, S M W1.1 Inca 1 1% Y not small! bit Qnly kwal
City of Santa Cruz
local w/1 em ploVee with,"in city li rn its, additions 14% for
owred
City of $oLith Cate
5%
City of Th at 5a rid Oaks
5%
Boa rd WeW g. Feb. 5, 2015
Lw -:-ll VqnWr Ptelerqroa Poky IffVmajjcn
R&W t pr 6
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 96 of 100
County of Imperial
County ot Inyo
C o Li nty of Socrarnento
County of Santa Clara
Cou rity of Tehama
5outh Tahoe Public Utility
D ictrl-cit
Page 16 of 16
5%
5% does not -apply to Public Wnrks
5% 1
1.50%
WaturlWrite wtiter Menc ies fn Ba v Area
7-- B M UO
5 F r- U C�
None
I
.�Lap. Nnte5i
r-, —. 3 1. 1 tiro ..- Le I i y. r.4% :7. L•..1 s
L-. ca I V s n %I.- :-' r z --. i E n, e :J ca i,%,, a
Ndbr-!5
-01-Contrack E� Lrity Program and Ecruar F mprnyrnent
Oinof tunity tequIres bidders to cur, d U L L L: u t reach to id 11
pot-ential-sukontf actofs to ensure tha t. up-pur I: un itie s ED
participate in -contracts a re pubilelzed as -.Yi d L! IV an. possIble.
Thi5 i:5 not a preference, but a req u i,e ni e Int to -b Id.
-5% ERE PreFence not to exc�edl S25t)k) to: it at13rii;o15,
supplies, general servica, and tDOMAtruction co ntract:5-
-'11-neouragement of locall husim:gs@V pafticiipafiqn., gut no
p reference a pplied.
Applies only to public workS/C-OnritFurtiQnger vfce5,,
co nstruct ion materia Is su pplies, conskruction equipment
rents I and/or trurking. Kequirernents are ba sed not an IV on
b usi nesses' location., but they also must be small/micro as
deierrni tied by a rap Pniaverage gross receipts from prioir (3)
I21,J r S, Z6 1011OWS:
P -) n Conitracto rA (A 8L B li-coonse.) S 14
-nillion S7rnillinti
Prnill ion 15mIII lon
GasrMatq�riials -and Fq.ji p mF-nt �iipplfp rs 57rail lion $3.5
r -nil I un
Gone ra I Services � I ;vi il Ii;) I I S�-s million
Tru c k i ng 3.5 ir 111 Ion 1. 7.5 million
Cerrifica tion process ranges kom 14 to biusliriess days,
whi ch --nc-.1 udes a -s'L P, vii.9it and interview e m plc yees/owwr at
10%
p 6 V F.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 97 of 100
Local
Preference
%
Union San
None
Dut)lin San Ramon
None
cc
None
Delta Diat)lo
None
West Co unty -$an
None
7-- B M UO
5 F r- U C�
None
I
.�Lap. Nnte5i
r-, —. 3 1. 1 tiro ..- Le I i y. r.4% :7. L•..1 s
L-. ca I V s n %I.- :-' r z --. i E n, e :J ca i,%,, a
Ndbr-!5
-01-Contrack E� Lrity Program and Ecruar F mprnyrnent
Oinof tunity tequIres bidders to cur, d U L L L: u t reach to id 11
pot-ential-sukontf actofs to ensure tha t. up-pur I: un itie s ED
participate in -contracts a re pubilelzed as -.Yi d L! IV an. possIble.
Thi5 i:5 not a preference, but a req u i,e ni e Int to -b Id.
-5% ERE PreFence not to exc�edl S25t)k) to: it at13rii;o15,
supplies, general servica, and tDOMAtruction co ntract:5-
-'11-neouragement of locall husim:gs@V pafticiipafiqn., gut no
p reference a pplied.
Applies only to public workS/C-OnritFurtiQnger vfce5,,
co nstruct ion materia Is su pplies, conskruction equipment
rents I and/or trurking. Kequirernents are ba sed not an IV on
b usi nesses' location., but they also must be small/micro as
deierrni tied by a rap Pniaverage gross receipts from prioir (3)
I21,J r S, Z6 1011OWS:
P -) n Conitracto rA (A 8L B li-coonse.) S 14
-nillion S7rnillinti
Prnill ion 15mIII lon
GasrMatq�riials -and Fq.ji p mF-nt �iipplfp rs 57rail lion $3.5
r -nil I un
Gone ra I Services � I ;vi il Ii;) I I S�-s million
Tru c k i ng 3.5 ir 111 Ion 1. 7.5 million
Cerrifica tion process ranges kom 14 to biusliriess days,
whi ch --nc-.1 udes a -s'L P, vii.9it and interview e m plc yees/owwr at
10%
p 6 V F.
September 26, 2017 Regular FINANCE Committee Meeting Agenda Packet - Page 97 of 100