HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010 01 25 Regular 600 Review Report of Findings from Phase II Forensic Investigation COMMISSION AGENDA
Consent
Informational
ITEM 600 Public Hearing
Regular X
January 25, 2010 MGR. /DEPT.
Regular Meeting Authorization
REQUEST: City Manager requesting the City Commission to review the Report of
Findings from Phase II of the Forensic Investigation and provide direction as
deemed necessary or appropriate.
SYNOPSIS: Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant have completed Phase II of their forensic
investigation and have provided the attached final report. Representatives from
Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant will be in attendance to present their findings.
CONSIDERATIONS:
On February 23, 2009, the City Commission authorized the City Manager to proceed
with a forensic investigation and approved a "two- phased approach" to facilitate this
process (only Phase 1 was authorized at that time).
Phase I included authorization for the City Manager to enter into a contract with
Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant, CPA's to perform the following tasks:
Meet with the Mayor, City Commission and key staff to discuss and determine the
specific concerns regarding the need for a forensic investigation.
Review specific accounting records and other appropriate documents to assist the
firm in developing a scope of services for Phase II.
Issuing a Report of Findings to include a Scope of Services and Budget for Phase
II.
Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant completed Phase I of the Forensic Investigation and
presented it to the City Commission at the Regular Meeting on April 27, 2009. The City
Commission motioned to have Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant continue with Phase II
and to include in the scope of services the following three procedures:
Review of controls in selected areas.
Review of current procedures with best practices in selected areas.
Evaluate the sustainability of the current employee benefit programs.
Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant has now completed its work under Phase II and issued
the attached report (a representative from Berkowitz, Dick, Pollack Brant will be in
attendance at this meeting to present the report).
*Note: This report was previously provided to the Commission on 12/10/09 via email.
There was an error on page 12 of the report that was received via email. The attached
report is the corrected version.
FISCAL IMPACT:
$7,000.00 Phase I
$23,750.00 paid -to -date for Phase II
$1,250 due for Phase II
Total amount for Phase I and Phase II: $32,000.00
COMMUNICATION EFFORTS:
Non Applicable.
RECOMMENDATION:
The City Manager recommends that the City Commission accept the report as presented
and provide direction as deemed necessary or appropriate.
IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Phase II Report of Findings.
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
01 0/ 1 1
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Table of Contents
Introduction and Scope 2
Summary of Procedures and Findings 2 -3
Detailed Testing Information 4 -5
Detailed Findings 5 -8
Possible Governance Considerations 9
Appendices:
A -List of Exceptions/Notations Found 10
B-1 2007 Selections Greater than $25,000 11
B -2 2007 Selections Greater than $2,500 and less than $25,000 12
B -3 2008 Selections Greater than $25,000 13
B -4 2008 Selections greater than $2,500 and less than $25,000 14
C Sole Source Determination Form 15 -16
D Blanket Purchase Order Procedures 17
E Sample Commission Item Summary 18
azeta
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Introduction and Scope
Pursuant to an engagement letter dated April 21, 2009 Berkowitz Dick Pollack Brant Certified
Public Accountants Consultants, LLP "BDPB was retained to assist the Mayor and
Commission of the City of Winter Springs Florida "Winter Springs in evaluating the need for a
forensic investigation. The work was designed to be done in two phases as follows:
Phase 1
1. Interview the Mayor and Commission to determine what their specific concerns are
regarding the need for a forensic investigation.
2. Interview key purchasing and accounting personnel to help identify potential risk areas.
3. Review selected accounting records to determine scope and time required for Phase 2.
4. Develop preliminary analysis report and define Phase 2 scope and budget.
Phase 2
1. Extract detailed information to be tested in high risk areas for a period of 24 months.
2. Schedule information for all purchases /expenditures identified above.
3. Where necessary compare measurable data for number of units purchased, standard
unit pricing etc.
4. Interview employees to determine their understanding of policies and procedures.
5. Document results and recommend if additional work is required.
6. Compare results to best practices and make recommendations for improvement.
Phase one was completed and a report issued April 16, 2009; this report is in response to Phase two,
which was authorized by the engagement letter dated April 21, 2009.
BDPB did not audit, review or compile the financial statements of Winter Springs, nor did BPDB
perform any type of audit or review of Winter Spring's books and records.
Summary of Procedures and Findings
Procedures
Phase Two included detailed testing of selected vendors, review of the procedures and policies
related to purchasing and comparison of those procedures to best practices as defined by the
Government Finance Officers of America (GFOA) or similar organization.
2
Ran
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
BDPB extracted a list of vendors to test from the population of total vendors. We then performed
the following procedures, the scope of which is described in our findings below:
1) For sample selected, checked that proof of bids/RFP's exist.
a. If there was no proof of bid we looked for a reasonable explanation why, such as a
piggyback provision or sole source classification.
b. We also reviewed vendor expenditures that were under the RFP/bid limit for proof of
informal bids or quotes.
c. We then looked at vendors where no requirement existed to ensure the purchase
orders accounted for the total expenditures.
2) For sample selected, reviewed that all expenditures were covered by purchase orders.
3) For sample selected, reviewed documentation for acceptance of lowest or best bidder (where
Tice was not the determining factor).
4) Where applicable, reviewed commission action accepting bids and or quotes.
We also interviewed selected employees, primarily department directors, to determine how and to
what extent purchasing policies were being adhered to.
We then compared those interview results between departments to better understand the results
from our testing.
Finally, we reviewed best practices for areas needing improvement and documented them.
Findings
We tested a total of 40 vendors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007 and a total of 41
vendors for fiscal year ended September 30, 2008. We found exceptions in 3 cases and had
comments for an additional 5 cases which represent 3.7% of the total amount tested.
We noted a wide disparity among the purchasing practices between departments. Some
departments were very good at document retention and attention to detail, others were not.
We noted an inconsistency of the application of sole source designation.
Finally, we were unable to determine how and why professional firms were hired, as the
documentation for the Request for Qualifications was very old and contracts were renewed from
year to year without evidence of re- evaluation.
3
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Detailed Testing Information
The following is a summary from the vendor information provided and our samples selected:
Year Ended 9/30/2007 9/30/2008
Est. vendors with expenditures exceeding $25,000/year 100 100
for vendors exceeding $25,000 per year in 1,000's $19,500 $15,200
Est. vendors >$2,500 less than $25,000 285 280
Approximate total vendors 2200 2300
for vendors $2,500 less than $25,000 per year in $1,000's $2,284 $2,449
Approximate total expenditures in 1,000's $22,500 $18,200
Total Number of Vendors Tested with purchases exceeding 19 20
$25,000/ year
Percentage of vendors tested exceeding $25,000 /year 19% 20%
for vendors tested exceeding $25,000/year in 1,000's $5,629 $3,568
Percentage of tested for vendors exceeding $25,000/year 28.87% 23.47%
Total number of vendors tested >$2,500 less than $25,000 21 21
Percentage of vendors tested >$2,500 less than $25,000 7.4% 7.5%
for vendors selected >$2,500 less than $25,000 $245 $259
Percentage of tested >$2,500 less than $25,000 10.73% 10.57%
4
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
We analyzed the expenditure histories for the fiscals years ended September 30, 2006 through 2008
as well as the year to date history through April 2009. We found that less than 5% of the total
vendors account for over 85% of all expenditures (excluding payroll) and an additional 12% of the
vendors account for additional 10% or more of total expenditures. In summary, less 20% of all
vendors account for over 95% of all expenditures. We performed our testing within that 20%
vendor population.
We selected 19 and 20 vendors for each of the fiscal years ended September 30, 2008 and 2007 with
annual expenditures exceeding $25,000 per year. We also selected an additional 20 vendors for the
fiscal year ended September 30, 2008 and 21 vendors for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2007
with total expenditures over $2,500 but less than $25,000. For those vendors we tested all
expenditures during that fiscal year.
We excluded from our sample vendors that we felt were not representative of the population such
as Waste Pro Services who provides solid waste services and whose contract preceded our testing
period or vendors where there is no alternative vendor such as Florida Power and Light or
Seminole County.
We received purchase order history for each of our selections and judgmentally determined the
criteria to be tested.
1. If there was any single purchase order exceeding $25,000 we requested to see the formal
Request for Proposal or Request for Qualifications and the bid package including the City
Manager's (Ron McLemore) recommendations. We also requested all supporting
paperwork associated with the bid.
2. If no purchase order exceeded $25,000 but did exceed $2,500 we expected to see evidence of
price quotes and we requested the details to support those quotes.
3. If no purchase order exceeded $2,500 we reviewed the purchase orders, checked the math
for the expenditures and did no further testing.
See appendix A for the list of exceptions or notations by vendor and appendix B for the list of all
vendors tested.
Detailed Findings
We found that the paperwork received from department to department varied greatly. Some
departments had near perfect paperwork. Other departments had disposed of critical documents in
order for us to make a determination if the purchasing procedures had been adhered to. Other
departments, while they did not violate any specific guidelines, often had practices which need
significant improvement in order to comply with the spirit of the purchasing guidelines.
5
AVM
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
In almost all cases, if a deficiency or area needing improvement existed, the problems were
systemic. Specifically, we found that there was no uniform description nor documentation of what
constituted the sole source exception for purchasing. We have recommended a sole source form be
used in the future (see Appendix C) and that sole source guidelines be developed and circulated.
The following are examples of bases for sole source acquisitions:
a. The supplies or services to be acquired are unique to a contractor.
b. Time is of the essence and only one known source can meet the City's needs within
the required timeframe.
c. Data is unavailable for competitive procurement.
d. It is necessary that the item being acquired from the one source be compatible and
interchangeable with existing equipment or intellectual property.
The following elements must be addressed in the sole source justification:
a. State clearly the City's requirements. Make sure that the entire requirement is covered
by the justification.
b. Explain why the contractor is the only company that can meet the City's requirement.
The documentation necessary to adequately substantiate the two most common bases of
sole source is discussed below:
(1) If the contractor has a unique capability, whether it be an item or service, it is
insufficient to simply say that the contractor is unique. If the item is unique to
the contractor, the unique characteristics must be set forth. If the contractor has
unique expertise, that expertise must be described. If the contractor has unique
equipment or facilities or he has proprietary data, it must be explained.
(2) If only one contractor can perform within the required timeframe, the
timeframe must be explained:
(a) Provide the date by which the supplies or services must be
delivered.
(b) Indicate how that date was determined and its significance.
(c) Indicate the impact of delay beyond that date in terms of
program schedules, milestones, etc.
(d) State how long it would take another contractor to acquire the
capability to perform (learning period), how much it would cost
another contractor to get up to speed, and if appropriate, what it
would cost the City in terms of dollars and manhours to get
another contractor up to speed. State the bases for the above
estimates.
c. State how the decision to go sole source was reached. Generally, technical personnel's
knowledge and experience can be used to support sole source. The following are
examples of documentation supporting this element:
(1) Explain requisition originator's experience that would indicate that he knows
that only one source can perform.
6
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
(2) Explain that technical publications, symposiums, or conferences clearly indicate
that only one company can perform. List publications read and symposiums and
conferences attended.
Additionally:
a. The two most often cited bases for sole source are uniqueness and timeframe.
They are often confused and inappropriately interchanged. If a contractor is
unique and if his uniqueness is adequately substantiated, a discussion of
timeframe is inappropriate. If the basis for sole source is timeframe, a
discussion of uniqueness should not be made or alluded to. Timeframe does not
make a contractor unique.
b. Statements that a contractor has the best capability, offers the lowest price, or is
the only qualified source are not bases for sole source. Such determinations can
only be made through competitive bids. A strong presentation which merely
establishes that the recommended source is most highly qualified to perform but
does not establish why other sources cannot perform is unacceptable.
c. Incumbency does not justify sole source.
Administrative delay or lack of adequate advanced planning do not create an urgency
that justifies sole source acquisition.
We also found evidence of multiple purchase orders purchasing the identical items within one year
where each purchase order by itself would not require bids or quotes but collectively, they may
have. We recommend that in those cases blanket purchase orders be implemented so proper
bidding when applicable can be utilized. Blanket purchase orders are a simplified method of
ordering recurring high volume items from a single vendor. Once a purchase order has been
executed, items are ordered from the vendor through a standing order release. See Appendix D for
sample procedures for blanket purchase orders.
We found very good compliance with piggy -back provisions where you were purchasing based upon
another government's contract. Purchase orders in these cases were well documented and clearly
stated.
We found poor documentation regarding renewals of professional services contracts. The few
vendors we tested had extensions to existing contracts which were originally negotiated prior to our
testing period. The file documentation did not clearly indicate the reasons for not going back out to
bid or renewal of the contract or other extension. We recommend that a list of all of these contracts
be developed with the contract end date and extensions available, if applicable. The Commission
can then determine which contracts they wish to re -bid. In the current climate, if may be possible to
re- negotiate certain contracts and save money.
7
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Additionally, we found two cases in the same department where the lowest bidder was not selected
nor was there adequate evidence in the file to indicate why the lowest bidder was not chosen. It was
represented to us that the documentation did exist but it was disposed of and that the records were
supposed to be scanned prior to disposal. We could not find any evidence of a formal authorization
to destroy those public records nor did we find any evidence that the records were in fact scanned.
This was the most serious of the cases we found. Several improvements must be made:
1. A formal records retention policy must be written.
2. A formal procedure for destruction of public records must be initiated.
3. If records are to be destroyed after electronic scanning, the originator must sign off that
the scanned copies are legible and an adequate substitute for the original records.
4. Where the lowest bidder is not accepted, a lowest and best bidder policy can be selected,
however adequate documentation as to why the bidder was rejected must be in the bid
package. Failure to adequately document this could leave the City open for bid protests
which could prove costly.
5. The Commission should be given a one page summary with all required signatures intact
prior to approval of purchasing at the Commission level. (See appendix E for sample).
Finally, we found one case where the bid documents were not found.
In summary, we had exceptions in 3 cases of the 81 tested or 3.7% for a dollar total of
approximately $225,000 or 2.3% of the total dollars tested. These exceptions while
significant do not indicate widespread problems across all departments. They do however
indicate many areas with deficiencies which require immediate attention.
We noted an additional 6 cases where significant improvement is needed (not an exception)
in 6.2% of the cases.
There were 72 vendors tested without exception or with items for improvement which were
not deemed significant or 88.9% of the vendors tested.
8
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDING PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Possible Governance Considerations
Due to the inconsistencies in our results from testing a variety of departments we recommend that
you consider centralized purchasing. This could provide better compliance with the prescribed
policies and procedures. Additionally, it could ensure that management or their designee do not
simply select those they like or favor to receive contracts.
We previously mentioned the following items for consideration:
1. Require sole source requirements to be documented -as per a prescribed form or format.
2. Blanket purchase orders be implemented.
3. A standardized form should be used in Commission packages to ensure that all steps
have been complied with..
Better documentation for the lowest and best bidder system must be developed. If you are not
doing a simple invitation to bid (lowest bidder), the number of points allocated for each area and
the results of the tabulations must accompany the bid package and be attached to the commission
item.
Finally, you should consider competitive bidding and listing qualified firms for a variety of necessary
services who can be rotated. This permits you to competitively bid things such as asphalt repairs,
sidewalk repairs, electrical repairs etc. and you are not forced to go out and get emergency quotes.
You simply bid the service, select the top two or three vendors, and then rotate the work to those
selected. The bidders need to understand they are °bidding for a one year (or Ionger) period of time
and this should save both time and money when unexpected purchases arise. We can provide a
sample of this process if you wish to discuss it further.
This report is based upon the scope of work described previously and the information obtained to
date. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention
that would have been reported to you.
h/
Miami, Florida
October 23, 2009
9
1
APPENDICES
azitv
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix B -1
2007 Selections greater than $25,000
RUBY BUILDERS,INC 2,670,341.00
SOUTHEAST ENVIROSCAPE, INC 1,212,392.29
FRAMENSONS, INC. 381,159.95
DAWNALEE CORPORATION 294,007.85
CPH ENGINEERS, INC. 164,270.74
SEVERN TRENT ENVIRONMENTAL SERV.INC 118,964.82
MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT 113,934.00
VILA SON LANDSCAPING CORP 100,078.00
GODWIN PUMPS OF AMERICA INC 68,889.68
SUNSTATE METER SUPPLY, INC. 67,474.49
WSTC ASSOCIATES, LLC 66,875.50
OVERHEAD DOOR CO OF ORLANDO, INC 55,681.00
PAVER SYSTEMS OF ORLANDO 51,320.05
GREEN'S ENERGY SERVICES, INC. 51,115.72
WALDO SPORTS, INC. 47,052.90
SOFTWARE HOUSE INTERNATIONAL 42,683.85
SOLAN TRUCKING EXCAVATING, INC 32,190.00
A BUDGET TREE SERVICE, INC. 31,900.00
AMERICAN AUDIO VISUAL, INC. 29,775.00
PDF SOLUTIONS INC 28,532.45
5,596,771.19
11
ageez
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix B -2
2007 Selections greater than $2,500 and Iess than $25,000
MV CONTRACT TRANSPORTATION,INC 23,045.30
DOVER KOHL AND PARTNERS 21,318.82
LOCKE WELL PUMP INC 20,899.00
CHALLENGER LIFTS, INC 24,798.00
GUARDIAN EQUIPMENT,INC 19,985.00
SERVELLO SON INC 18,540.90
KUSTOM SIGNALS, INC. 16,714.24
PREMIER PYROTECHNICS 16,500.00
HD SUPPLY WHITE CAP CONST. SUPPLY 14,311.88
FLORIDA BUSINESS FURNITURE INC 13,921.15
CLARKE MOSQUITO CONTROL PROD.INC 13,066.97
THE HON COMPANY 10,027.32
ALL NATIVE, LLC 9,600.00
OFFICE TEAM 8,892.21
COBB'S TRIANGLE TRACTOR, INC. 7,387.14
TOKAY SOFTWARE INC 6,530.00
FLORIDA WATER FEATURES,INC 9,980.90
YEN YEN RESTAURANT 3,048.35
SPEEDY QUICK PRINTING 3,581.50
THE SPIVEY GROUP,INC 7,480.00
245,537.93
12
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix B -3
2008 Selections greater than $25,000
THE MIDDLESEX CORPORATION 1,987,777.92
A.D. ARNOLD CONSTRUCTION COMPANY 578,466.85
CENTRAL FLORIDA LANDSCAPING 149,405.28
SUNSHINE BUILDING DEVELOPMENT 96,891.95
ODYSSEY MANUFACTURING CO 91,527.75
P L LAWN MAINT IRRIGATION, INC. 81,929.86
SHAW MECHANICAL SERVICES, LLC 74,192.06
REW CUSTOM LANDSCAPE,LLC 63,135.62
ANNAN LANDSCAPE CO LLC 60,059.67
THE LAKE DOCTORS, INC 55,926.00
CUSTOM COVERINGS PAINT TEXTURE LLC 46,214.13
CHINCHOR ELECTRIC, INC. 36,996.09
LAW ENFORCEMENT SUPPLY, CO. 33,120.26
COASTAL EQUIPMENT SYSTEMS,INC 32,306.48
STARMER RANALDI PLANNING ARCH,INC 31,480.26
PLATTER CONSTRUCTION, INC 31,427.00
K W WELDING, INC. 31,275.00
SCHULLER CONTRACTORS, INC. 30,855.14
PRODUCT MARKETING GROUP, INC. 28,788.00
GLEN EAGLE HOMEOWNERS ASSOC INC 26,207.87
3,567,983.19
13
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix 11-4
2008 Selections greater than $2,500 and less than $25,000
TRUGREEN CHEMLAWN 24,500.01
MCLANE EXCAVATING CO 23,940.00
BOGDAHN CONSULTING LLC 23,000.00
PAT'S PUMP BLOWER, LLC 22,054.96
AQUA AEROBIC SYSTEM, INC. 14,386.15
CLARK SALES DISPLAY, INC. 14,082.95
LIGHTSCAPES OUTDOOR LIGHTING SYSTEMS 12,498.49
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS/RENT 12,453.03
OUTDOOR DESIGN WORKS LLC 12,291.50
TWC SERVICES, INC. 12,055.67
THOR GUARD, INC 11,710.74
DGG TASER INC 11,672.77
CASTILLE COMPANY INC 8,992.00
FLORIDA FIRE AND SOUND, INC. 8,857.50
LEWIS JANITORIAL SUPPLY, INC 8,841.93
THE SIGN KING 8,432.00
LAND DESIGN INNOVATIONS,INC 8,020.82
LUXURY FLUSH SERVICES 7,881.41
PRECISION AMMUNITION LLC 6,263.12.
WILLIAM P PARDUE, JR 4,000.00
MESSAGING SOLUTIONS, LLC 2,850.00
258,785.05
14
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix C
Sole Source Determination Form
The service or material listed is sole source and competition is precluded for reasons indicated
below. There are no substitutes available for this material.
Restricted to the following source. Provide original manufacturer's name. (If a sole source
manufacturer distributes via dealers, ALSO provide dealer information.)
Manufacturer:
Manufacturer POC Phone Nr.
Mfr. Address
Manufacturers Dealer/Rep
Dealer/Rep Address/Phone Number
Description of the item or service required, the estimated cost, and required delivery date.
Specific characteristics of the material or service that limit the availability to a sole source (unique
features, function of the item, etc.). Describe in detail why only this suggested source can furnish
the requirements to the exclusion of other sources.
The requested material or service represents the minimum requirements of the City.
15
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix C continued
FILL IN ALL APPLICABLE BLANKS BELOW
The material/service must be compatible in all aspects (form, fit and function) with existing systems
presently installed. Describe the equipment you have now and how the new item /service must
coordinate, connect, or interface with the existing system.
A patent, copyright, law, regulatory requirement or proprietary data limits competition as follows:
These are "direct replacements" parts/components for existing equipment. Identify and briefly
describe the existing equipment below:
Other information to support a sole source buy:
I CERTIFY THAT STATEMENTS CHECKED, AND INFORMATION PROVIDED ABOVE,
ARE COMPLETE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. I
UNDERSTAND THAT THE PROCESSING OF THIS SOLE SOURCE JUSTIFICATION
PRECLUDES THE USE OF FULL AND OPEN COMPETITION.
Signature
Title
Date
16
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
October 23, 2009
Appendix D
Blanket Purchase Order Procedures
1 Blanket Purchase Order requisitions are prepared using a Purchase Requisition.
Follow the same procedures as a regular Requisition, except that the number of units is not
I listed on the description.
**Instead, it will state that the requisition is a Blanket Requisition Purchase Order.
2 The Requisition will specify:
*The beginning effective date of the blanket Purchase Order.
*The ending effective date of the blanket Purchase Order.
F S
e]The person(s) authorized to place orders.
*The maximum dollar amount to be obligated under the order.
Note: All blanket Purchase Orders must have an ending date of no later than September 30
of the current fiscal year.
3 A Blanket Purchase Order Addendum should be completed and attached to the Requisition
17
CITY OF WINTER SPRINGS FLORIDA
REPORT OF FINDINGS PHASE 2
EXHIBIT E COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida; WaMng 517
Vote, The Formal Competitive Bidding. Requirements And Authorizing The. Administration to Issue A
Purchase Order To CVDS, Inc., For The Purchase And installation Of A ComLog NP192 Digbal Voice
Recorder For The Public Safety Communications Unit E911 Telephone Answering Equipment In The
Amount Of $28,136.00.
Intended Outcome Sup orted:
hcrease resident ratings of public safety services.
Sorting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): Safety was ranked No. 1 by residents as p ane of
he changes that aril make Miami Beach a better place; safety across the Cfy was one of the most
important areas affecting the quality of fife.
Issue:
Shall the ComMissinri Adoptthe Resolction?
item Summa 1Recommendation:
There are trio ComLog voice recorders, manufactured by and purchased from CVDS, Inc., currently
operational Vii, the Public Safety Communications Unk (PSCU). The main recorder model number
DLS2420, is located at the Police Department's -911 call cam and was installed at 2001. The 'other
recorder, model number NP72, was installed at the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) in 2009.
While other brandsof recorders will work wkh the existing Poskron equipment installed at the PSCU, there
are other factors to be considered beyond simply recording the telephone system at thatlocation. These
factors include: the current ComLog is also being used to record radio traffic; user compatrbilky, and c toss-
compatibrl ywrith the ComLog recorder located the EOC.
in order" to Maintain operational cotnpatfblity and redundancy with the EOC, the ComLog recorder at the
main 911 call center in the Pace Department is in need of an upgrade to both hardware and software as
this equipment was installed over eight (8) years ago.
The ComLog NP192 system is an upgrade to allow the PSCU to be Wine with cumerrttec hnologyrelativeto
speed, storage capacky and durabiity, and compatlbrlkywith newer public safetytechnotogies:
The funding fortis project is to be reimbursed from the State of Florida E-911 Grant. The effective datesof
this program are Novembers, 2008 through November 4, 2009. Per the terms of Agreemenl j the City
does not complete the implementation by the end of the program year the City will lose the funding.
The Administration recommends a y. vat.
Advisory Board. Recommendation:
1wA
Financial Information;
W-� w..�ae __.ri: _i+[:..: �•t! :.h•:. :•if..LF:i :'tiv�54 ,'v
Smote :tLn .A''4i::-. i f:.:4 f i.: •.ti
of ..r.,f '.:.t' t• Lti1•:i ''�f9;•:L a�'=::�:. ,o.
:'5. ...w. .:YS•SKtY,' >'�Rg :,e:. f
Funds:
Ponce Itl
Department
:."x $28,136.00 195 -6146- 000674
1 ri4 State of Florida E -911 Grant
:4• A
F-.: c'r:
tat3lai r
=`mss $28,135.00
Financial Ina act Summa
City Clerk's Office Legis a' Tracking
Gus Lopez, Procurement
Sign -Offs:
RM CN POW 1Ni%
T_• IAGENDA1 Octi4ZConsenaCom ogWaiverSurnmarydoc
6 1 MIAMI BEACH J1rGlE$DA Min
227