offices and the web site. Please contact the Director of Board Services with questions at (407)

Transcription

1 On WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 26, 2018, the PROFESSIONAL SERVICES COMMITTEE of the Greater Orlando Aviation Authority met in the Carl T. Langford Board Room, One Jeff Fuqua Boulevard, Orlando, FL Vice Chair Ruohomaki called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. The meeting was posted in accordance with Florida Statutes and a quorum was present. Committee Members present: Stanley J. Thornton, Chair (joined meeting at 1:09 p.m.) Davin Ruohomaki, Vice Chair Mike Patterson, Director of Construction Pam L'Heureux, Director of Finance Also present: Robert Alfert, Legal Counsel (Nelson Mullins Broad & Cassel) Kathy Bond, Senior Director of Human Resources and Risk Management Deborah Silvers, Director of Risk Management Debbie McKeown, Project Controls Luis Aviles, Purchasing Bruce.Gant, Purchasing Jill Overstreet, Risk Management Maury Remmers, Risk Management Keila Walker, Emergency Management Joanne Regidor, Transcription Secretary Leslie Santos, Recording Secretary Others present: Fred Klapetzky, A Going Concern, Inc. LOBBYIST DISCLOSURE For individuals who conduct lobbying activities with Aviation Authority employees or Board members, registration with the Aviation Authority is required each year prior to conducting any lobbying activities. A statement of expenditures incurred in connection with those lobbying instances should also be filed prior to April 1 of each year for the preceding year. As of January 16, 2013, lobbying any Aviation Authority Staff who are members of any committee responsible for ranking Proposals, Letters of Interest, Statements of Qualifications or Bids and thereafter forwarding those recommendations to the Board and/or Board Members is prohibited from the time that a Request for Proposals, Request for Letters of Interests, Request for Qualifications or Request for Bids is released to the time that the Board makes an award. As adopted by the Board on September 19, 2012, lobbyists are now required to sign-in at the Aviation Authority offices prior to any meetings 'with Staff or Board members, In the event a lobbyist meets with or otherwise communicates with Staff or a Board member at a location other than the Aviation Authority offices, the lobbyist shall file a Notice of Lobbying (Form 4)detailing each instance of lobbying to the Aviation Authority within 7 calendar days of such lobbying. As of January 16, 2013, lobbyists will also provide a notice to the Aviation Authority when meeting with the Mayor of the City of Orlando or the Mayor of Orange County at their offices. The policy, form, and instructions are available in the Aviation Authority's offices and the web site. Please contact the Director of Board Services with questions at (407) ANNOUNCEMENT Any appeals of decisions made by the Professional Services Committee (PSC) must be filed with the Chief Executive Officer within five business days (no later than 4:00 p.m. on the fifth business day) of the rendering of that decision.

2 Page 2 of 10 CONSIDERATION OF FIRMS RESPONDING TO THE REQUEST FOR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES (PS-576) BUSINESS CONTINUITY PROGRAM (BCP) CONSULTING SERVICES 1. On August 15, 2018 the following seven firms responded to the Aviation Authority's advertisement for competitive proposals for the above-referenced services (in alphabetical order): A. Going Concern, Inc. Ankura Consulting Group, LLC Realized Intelligent Solutions Corporation RSM US, LLP Tetra Tech, Inc. The Olson Group Tidal Basin Government Consulting, LLC The proposed Agreement will be to provide on-site and off-site professional consulting services which may include, but not limited to, the following: creation and documentation of departmental plans and updates, policy revisions and updates, development of exercises and test scenarios, conducting such exercises and documenting the results, assistance with the refresh of standing materials in covered activates, contributing to the EMAP certification process, contract, format updates to plans and additional forms and procedures that are required to maintain and enhance the overall BCP. The Agreement period will be for sixty (60) months with the initial consulting services to commence on or about November 20, 2018, and with the Aviation Authority having options to renew the Agreement for one (1) additional period of sixty (60) months upon mutual agreement. The agreement between the successful Proposer(s) and the Aviation Authority will be nonexclusive. The following are minimum requirements outlined in the Request for Competitive Proposals (RFCP): 2.1 Each Proposer must certify in writing with its Proposal that Proposer is registered to do business in the State of Florida. If Proposer is awarded the Agreement, Proposer will provide a copy of such registration to the Authority with the signed Agreement. 2.2 Proposer shall provide an affirmative statement that it is independent of the Aviation Authority. 2.3 Experience: Each Proposer must provide verifiable evidence through references or otherwise, that the Proposer is an individual, a firm, a corporation, or other entity that is currently engaged in the business of providing Business Continuity Program Consulting Services; Each Proposer (including its proposed Lead individual) must provide verifiable evidence through references, that the Proposer, after taking into account the activities of a related predecessor (e.g. by merger or reorganization), affiliate, or principal of Proposer, has been actively engaged in such

3 Page 3 of 10 business for at least the three (3) years immediately preceding the date of Proposer's response to this RFCP; and Each Proposer (including its proposed Lead individual) must provide verifiable evidence through references, that the Proposer, after taking into account the activities of a related predecessor (e.g. by merger or reorganization), affiliate, or principal of Proposer, has satisfactorily provided Business Continuity Program Consulting Services for at least three (3) entities, including at least one (1) airport and/or governmental entity, during such three (3) year period. Each of the firms was evaluated based on the above minimum requirements established in the RFP as well as the following items: > Experience and Qualifications of the Proposer > Qualifications, Reputation and Experience of proposed Lead Individual > Team organization and Key Personnel > References > Methodology and Approach > Transition Plan > Licensed professional > Prior or Pending Convictions, Indictments, Investigations, Regulatory Investigations and Conflicts of Interest > Proposed Fees Vice Chair Ruohomaki requested that Legal Counsel review the information provided by the Proposers regarding Licensing and Claims. Legal Counsel expressed that this is a different type of service than the Aviation Authority generally goes through with the PSC, and that for the BCP consulting services, the evaluations are mainly from the review team rather than from Legal Counsel. Legal Counsel stated that with regards to claims disclosure, A Going Concern, Inc.; Ankura Consulting Group, LLC; Realized Intelligent Solutions Corporation; The Olson Group; and, Tidal Basin Government Consulting, LLC, provided adequate affirmative statements. Legal Counsel stated that Tetra Tech, Inc., and RSM US, LLP have inadequate claims disclosure, and recommended that, should the PSC elect to shortlist either firm, this must be contingent upon the receipt of a more affirmative disclosure of claims as set forth in the Submission Requirements. Vice Chair Ruohomaki requested Staff to review the references, Mr. Aviles stated that A Going Concern, Inc. (AGC) provided three references that verified the Proposer had developed a BCP that was relevant and appropriate for their operations; two of the references are public entities and one is private; and the proposed Lead Individual serviced all three accounts, which includes the Aviation Authority. Mr. Aviles stated that Ankura Consulting Group, LLC (ANKURA) provided three references that verified the Proposer developed a BCP that was relevant and appropriate for their operations, which includes Los Angeles World A.irports, State of Nevada Washoe County Office of Emergency Management, and Toho Water Authority; all three are public entities; and, the proposed Lead Individual worked on all three accounts. Mr. Aviles stated that Realized Intelligent Solutions Corporation (RISC) provided one reference that verified that the Proposer developed a BCP that

4 Page 4 of 10 was relevant and appropriate for their operations; however, RISC was formed in May 2018, which does not satisfy the minimum requirement of having three years of active engagement in such business. Mr. Aviles further stated that the lead individual and engagement team were actually employed with the agency that gave the reference, therefore making it an unacceptable reference. Mr. Aviles stated that RSM US, LLP (RSM) provided one reference, a private entity, that verified that the Proposer developed a BCP and a Business Impact Analysis (BIA) that was relevant and appropriate for their operations, along with three additional references that verified a BIA was conducted; of the three, one verified development of a model BCP plan, and the other verified Disaster Risk Assessment (DRA) work; the proposed Lead Individual serviced all five references that were able to be verified. Mr. Aviles stated that Tetra Tech, Inc. (TETRA) provided four references that verified the Proposer developed their Continuity of Operations Plan (COOP); two are public entities, City of Fort Worth, TX, and Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA). Mr. Aviles indicated that the Amtrak references, private entities, are separated into two divisions. Mr. Aviles further indicated that the proposed Lead Individual, Mr. Andy Johnson, was not verified by references; however, as noted in TETRA's proposal, Ms. Christina Parkins, a project manager, worked with the Amtrak divisions, and Mr. Jeremy Kaufman worked with one Amtrak division, and MARTA. Mr. Aviles stated that The Olson Group, Ltd. (OLSON) provided three references; one reference, a private entity, verified the development of a BCP, and the other two references, which are public entities, verified that OLSON only provided training and full scale exercise development; and the proposed Lead Individual serviced all three accounts. Mr. Aviles stated that Tidal Basin Government Consulting, LLC (TIDAL) provided two references, verifying that the Proposer developed a COOP, as stated in the scope of services within the RFCP; all four references are public entities; and the proposed Lead Individual developed the BCP while employed with Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority, not the Proposer. [Chair Thornton joined the meeting at 1:Q9 p.m.j Legal Counsel briefed Chair Thornton that Staff and the PSC have discussed licensing, claims, and references; continuing onto staff evaluations. Chair Thornton requested Staff to review staff evaluations, Ms. Silvers stated that all seven proposers provided all required information with regards to Section 1 of the Submission Requirements, Ms. Silvers further stated that with regards to Section 2, the three minimum requirements for references are to verify whether the Proposer provided BCP consulting services, the proposed Lead Individual and engagement team have been performing said services for at least three years preceding the date of submission of their proposal, and lastly, the Proposer has provided BCP consulting services for at least three entities in those three years with at least one being either an airport or governmental entity. Ms. Silvers stated that the review staff concluded that four of the seven proposers met all three minimum requirements of Sections 2.3.1, 2.3.2, and 2.3.3, which are AGC, AMKURA, TETRA, and TIDAL. Ms. Silvers explained the deficiencies of the remaining three proposers. RISC's references did not

5 Page 5 of 10 verify that the company itself had been conducting or engaging in services during the three years preceding the date of RFCP submission, it appeared that RISC was established in May 2018, and additionally, the references provided were actually three federal agencies under one umbrella federal agency and the proposed Engagement Team were employees of the umbrella agency; however, only one agency responded. RSM provided references that it is currently engaged with BCP services for the most recent three years, one being a governmental entity, Prince William County, VA; however RSM performed an internal audit on their BCP and did not develop or maintain the BCP program. OLSON provided three references, with the earliest service performed starting in April 2016, which did not capture the three year requirement, as well as not providing an airport or governmental entity BCP reference. Ms. Silvers stated that staff's evaluation was provided to the PSC members and used a scale of outstanding, very good, good, and fair, Ms. Silvers commented that the four Proposers that met the minimum requirements had an equal evaluation of this scale. Legal Counsel asked for a recap of which proposers clearly met all the minimum requirements. Ms. Silvers responded AGC, ANKURA, TETRA, and TIDAL. Chair Thornton recalled that the three proposers that did not meet the minimum requirements were RISC, RSM, and OLSON. Ms. Silvers confirmed yes. Mr. Patterson stated that in the RFCP advertisement, it clearly defines that the minimum requirements must be provided, otherwise the proposal is deemed non-responsive. Legal Counsel concurred, and stated that this procurement is unlike the construction professional services procurements, in which the Aviation Authority tends to use more preferential language, Legal Counsel further stated that, with this select industry with very sector-specific services, the Aviation Authority is very clear regarding what a Proposer must demonstrate, and it is written in a mandatory fashion. Ms. Silvers stated that RISC failed to provide a reference to verify that RISC itself had provided BCP consulting services within the previous three years; and noted that Mr. Banks worked with the federal government until May 2018, and then became president of RISC. Chair Thornton inquired if that is a material disqualifier. Legal Counsel stated that if the PSC agrees that it is a material requirement to have at least three years of history providing BCP services, then the Prosper would be precluded from further consideration. Legal Counsel asked Staff if they could discern from the totality of a Proposer's proposal that they certainly do meet that requirement, and not just disqualify them for a failure to provide a reference, if it is fairly clear in the overall package that the Proposer is engaged with these services over a period of time, Ms. Silvers responded that with regards to RISC, there were a couple places in the proposal, one is the resume of the lead individual, Mr. Banks, indicating that he was employed by the federal government until May 2018 while performing the continuity services, and both federal agency references indicated that the work was performed as outlined in RISC's proposal. Legal Counsel responded that RISC does not meet the three year requirement, which is a material requirement, to show the history of the firm performing these specific services. Ms. Silvers confirmed yes. Mr. Patterson commented that RISC also failed to meet the requirement of having performed BCP services with an airport or governmental entity. Legal Counsel asked the PSC if they agreed with Staff, that these are material

6 Page 6 of 10 deficiencies in their proposal, and if so, should the Proposer be precluded from further consideration. Legal Counsel further indicated that Staff was very specific for what they are seeking from this procurement, Mr. Patterson stated that he agrees with Staff, and that it is important for a Proposer to have completed, developed, and managed a BCP for an airport entity; RISC did not demonstrate this type of experience for a large public entity. Mr. Ruohomaki and Ms. L'Heureux concurred. Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Mr. Ruohomaki, vote carried to deem Realized Intelligent Solutions Corporation as non-responsive to the PS-576 solicitation. Ms. Silvers stated that RSM did not satisfy Section of the Submission Requirements, which includes the Proposer and proposed Lead Individual to provide verifiable evidence through references that BCP services have been satisfactorily provided for at least three entities, including at least one airport or governmental entity, during the previous three year period. Ms. Silvers further stated that with the five references RSM provided, there was one governmental entity; however, it was not for BCP consulting services, rather it was for an internal audit and assessment of the current BCP. Legal Counsel asked Staff if it can be discerned from RSM's resumes or any write-up in their proposal that they have in fact provided services to an airport or governmental entity. Ms. Silvers responded no, that RSM's proposal appears to be centered around being an audit and accounting firm, that many of their principals are CPAs, that they have been in business for a long time, both in the State of Florida and in the industry, and that the four other references, all private entities, were for BIA and DRA, which are components of a BCP; however, not in the range for the majority aspect of a BCP. Legal Counsel posed the same question to Chair Thornton, asking if the PSC agrees with Staff that this is a material requirement of the procurement and that this entity does not meet and therefore is non-responsive. Mr. Patterson responded that it was unclear, because RSM had mentioned references from the City of Orlando, and airports in Tampa and Jacksonville; however, those references were not provided. Chair Thornton stated that if the PSC is to declare that a Proposer did not initially meet the minimum qualifications for lack of experience, and deemed non-responsive, then this same standard will be held for all Proposers, and there will not be an opportunity for any of the Proposers to try and demonstrate the experience at a later time. Chair Thornton further stated that through this Proposal process, there will be a level playing field for all Proposers, and without any further explanation, a Proposer had to have either clearly met the minimum requirements or did not meet the minimum requirements. Legal Counsel concurred, and commented that this is in relation to the question about discerning the proposals' totality if there is any other evidence in the proposal that demonstrated that the company has performed the required services that has been required as a condition of precedence to moving forward, and if there is not, then the proposal should be considered non-responsive, and the same consequence if they are unclear, the burden is on the Proposer. Mr. Patterson stated that it is clear that RSM did not provide an airport or governmental entity reference as outlined in the minimum requirements.

7 Page 7 of 10 Mr. Ruohomaki stated that RSM did not meet the minimum requirements, recommended that RSM be deemed non-responsive. Ms. L'Heureux concurred. and Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Ms. L'Heureux voted carried to deem RSM US, LLP as non-responsive to the PS-576 solicitation. Ms. Silvers stated that OLSON provided three references, and that two are public entities; however, the references did not provide experience for the three years preceding the RFCP submission. It was short six or eight months, which is not as significant as them not providing BCP consulting services, with development and maintenance as requested in the scope of services, for at least one governmental or airport entity. Ms. Silvers further stated that OLSON performed full scale mass casualty types of exercises with Virginia Department of Emergency Management, and Washington County Department of Emergency Management. The only BCP reference was FNB Corporation, a banking corporation. Mr. Patterson mentioned that OLSON did not provide an airport reference. Legal Counsel responded that the requirement is for at least one airport or governmental entity, so if they did provide BCP services for a governmental entity for a period of at least three years prior to the proposal submission deadline, then the Proposer would meet this requirement. Ms. L'Heureux stated that OLSON's governmental entity reference dates back to April 2016, which does not meet the three year minimum requirement. Ms. Silvers stated that OLSON listed a number of public entities which may have airports attached, such as Delaware River and Bay Authority, and in OLSON's proposal, the write-up self-disclosed that they did plan, lead, design and conduct full scale exercises, which shows that their focus appears to be more on the full scale annual exercises for an entity in a COOP and operations type of capacity and not the BCP services that were advertised. Mr. Patterson inquired if OLSON has met the hurdle of having three years of experience with a governmental or airport entity. Ms. Silvers replied not completely, due to the references dating back to April 2016, when it needed to be dated back to at least August Legal Counsel stated that OLSON is six months short of this requirement. Ms. Silvers confirmed yes. Mr. Ruohomaki stated that with the procurement having strict criteria, this hurdle is a must. Legal Counsel confirmed yes. Mr. Ruohomaki replied that, based on OLSON not meeting this requirement, they should be deemed non-responsive from further consideration, Mr. Patterson concurred. Legal Counsel stated that with applying the same standard to all three proposers, whom Staff deemed did not meet the minimum requirements, unless the PSC and Staff can discern from another part of their proposals or their resumes that the Proposer definitely meets the continuous provision of services to an airport or governmental entity, then they must meet to same three year requirement. Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Ms. L'Heureux vote carried to deem The Olson Group as non-responsive to the PS-576 solicitation.

8 Page 8 of 10 Chair Thornton stated that prior to the review of fees, the approach to be used when assessing the fees should be based net on whether the fee is good or bad, but rather the focus should be on whether or not they met the requirements with providing their fees, as outlined by the Aviation Authority, with the information requested in order to evaluate their fees and competition, and if the Proposer does not, then the same rules apply as not meeting minimum requirements. Chair Thornton requested Staff to review fees. Mr. Aviles stated that AGC, ANKURA, RISC, RSM, TETRA, and OLSON submitted all of the required information. Mr. Aviles further indicated that ANKURA added a fixed fee, required the implementation and use of a web-based tool, which is $14,500 annually for the hosting and maintenance of the web-based tool which has also been included in each of the fixed fees for each year, and lastly ANKURA requires the Aviation Authority to sign a sub-license agreement, which is an addition to the hourly rate. Mr. Aviles further stated that RISC noted the number of hours projected for each year for each engagement team personnel. Mr. Aviles stated that TIDAL did not submit the RF-2 form; however, they gave hourly rates for a project manager, senior consultant, and consultant, with a not-to-exceed cap of $167,450, and also noted that any expenses will be billed separately at established GSA rates; however, the RFCP states that the hourly rates will include expenses. Chair Thornton stated that, with the exception of TIDAL, all met the requirements for submitting fees. Mr. Aviles confirmed yes. Legal Counsel raised a caveat to ANKURA, that they appear to condition their offer on the Aviation Authority signing a sub-license agreement, and there is concern regarding limitation of liability, and whether they are willing to engage in a contract with the Aviation Authority without the licensing agreement. If the PSC decides to shortlist ANKURA, there should be a discussion regarding this condition occurring during the interview, which is at the discretion of the PSC to interview this firm. Mr. Ruohomaki inquired if the Proposers are allowed to modify or caveat from the required forms, or if this is more mandatory for what the Aviation Authority wants. He continued by stating that, on the construction side, if the word "shall" is used, per the Florida Building Code, the proposal form must be completely submitted, Legal Counsel mentioned that ANKURA did sign the warranty form. Chair Thornton responded that it is not an unusual condition with purchasing agreements that the Proposers sign the pricing form and warranty agreement, which covers what the Aviation Authority has asked of them, and then place asterisks to show deviation. Mr. Aviles concurred. Legal Counsel stated that this situation has occurred before with nonconstruction professional services, and the proposer warranty, which is a required form, has been a saving grace for many proposers when they propose their conditions. The form does unequivocally state that the proposer is warranting that, if they are awarded the contract, they will sign the Aviation Authority's contract as proposed. Chair Thornton stated that ANKURA signed the pricing sheet appropriately, signed the warranty agreement, and then included a sub-license for proprietary software. He then stated that he interprets this as the Aviation Authority has access to the software while ANKURA provides the services, and

9 Page 9 of 10 without their services, the Aviation Authority cannot use ANKURA's software. Chair Thornton then asked if this conditions the price when contracting for the services, and access to the proprietary software, and invalidates the fees. Legal Counsel stated that annual hosting and maintenance of web-based tools is included in their price, but in order to use their web-based tool, their sub-license agreement has to be signed. Mr. Patterson stated that ANKURA has met the minimum requirements but placed a condition regarding their proprietary software, and in turn they could move forward with the selection process. Chair Thornton responded that it does not affect the pricing, or the ability to evaluate the pricing, it is just protecting their intellectual property. Legal Counsel stated that the price to use ANKURA's proprietary property is part of the fee, not an additive, and calls for an area of discussion if the PSC decides to conduct an interview with the firm. Chair Thornton stated that the PSC will qualify ANKURA through the interview process; however, it will not change the pricing, and unless something changes the terms of the Aviation Authority's contract, then that is when the firm v/ill be deemed non-responsive. The PSC agreed that ANKURA is not disqualified. Chair Thornton inquired about TIDAL not using the preferred fee form and also stated that they did sign the proposer warranty form, Mr. Patterson responded that TIDAL gave three rates but did not address Years Two, Three, Four, or Five. Chair Thornton replied that the Fee Form is required and the same standard must be used when evaluated against the other Proposers. Legal Counsel concurred, and stated that it deviates from the preferred fee form and it does not give rates over the course of the years that the Aviation Authority requires. Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Mr. Ruohomaki, vote carried to deem Tidal Basin Government Consulting, LLC as non-responsive to the PS-576 solicitation. Upon motion of Mr. Patterson, second by Mr. L'Heureux, vote carried to shortlist the three firms listed below for further consideration for the Professional Services (PS-576), Business Continuity Program (BCP) Consulting Services (in alphabetical order): A Going Concern, Inc. Ankura Consulting Group, LLC Tetra Tech, Inc.* *The PSC's shortlisting of these two firms is subject to resolution of the following discrepancies: Ankura Consulting Group, LLC: As required by the Submission Requirements, the proposer's firm should be prepared to discuss the statement to the Aviation Authority for signing a sub-license agreement, annual hosting and maintenance of web-based tools included in the pricing.

10 Page 10 of 10 Tetra Tech, Inc.: As required by the Submission Requirements, proposer's firm must provide adequate disclosure on their claims. the The PSC set a meeting date of Tuesday, October 16, 2018, at 2:30 p.m. to interview the shortlisted firms. Each firm will be provided 30 minutes for the introduction/interview process. Each firm will have up to 10 minutes to make its introduction to the PSC, following which the PSC will conduct a 20- minute question and answer session. Each firm should be represented by a principal representative of the firm, and the proposed Lead Individual. ADJOURNMENT 2. There being no further business for discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 1:47 p.m. anley J. ton, Chair Professional Services Committee Chief Operating Officer