Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout8.3 Contract Eval Criteria. ~~ . ~ I 0 0 ~3t~ CITY OF DUBLIN AGENDA STATEMENT CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 14, 1984 SUBJECT . Review of Contract Evaluation Criteria EXHIBITS ATTACHED . Contract review criteria for police services, animal control services and engineering services RECOMMENDATION , Review criteria and advise Staff of recommended changes FINANCIAL STATEMENT: None DESCRIPTION . See attached memoranda ---------------------=------------------------------------------------------ COPIES T0: ITEM N0. ~•~ • ~ • ~ M E M O R A N D U M T0: City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: Police Services Contract Review Criteria DATE: May 9, 1984 In accordance with City Council direction, Staff has arranged for a study session on May 21, 1984 to review and evaluate the services provided by several contract service providers including Police Services provided by the Alameda County Sheriff's Department. On April 28, 1983 the City Council conducted a ' formal evaluation of the Police Services provided to the community. Since that time the City Council has expressed an interest in having Staff revise some of the contract evaluation criteria; and to further develop some suggested criteria for , Council review prior to the formal evaluation. Staff has developed a revised set of evaluation criteria which is attached for City Council review. Please review these criteria and be prepared to make any comments regarding changes in the evaluation criteria in order that the list of criteria can be finalized at the May 14, 1984 City Council meeting. Once the City Council has finalized the evaluation criteria, I will prepare an evaluation form for City Council use prior to the May 21, 1984 study session. ~ ~ ~ POLICE SERVICES CONTRACT REVIEW CRITERIA 1. Quality of service provided a. Patrol Service b. Traffic Enforcernent c. Criminal Investigation d. Juvenile Investigation e. Narcotics Investigation f. Community Programs (1) Crime Prevention (2) Bicycle Safety (3) School Liaison g. Business Office Services h. Additional Police Services, if any, which need to be provided. 2. Public Relations & Communication a. Individual contact with citizens, merchants, and schools b. Public information dissemination c. Department visibility and identification 3. Administrative Services a. Communication of police activities to Manager and Council b. Contract administration and cooperation c. Police Service Planning (identification and communication of police service needs) 4. Overall Performance ~ M E M O R A N D U M T0: City Council ~ FROM: j~City Manager lJ~ SUBJECT: Contract Review - Santina & Thompson (Engineering Services) DATE: May 9, 1984 During December 1982, the City Council selected the firm of Santina & Thompson to provide City Engineering Services to the City. Santina & Thompson began providing engineering services to the City of Dublin on January 1, 1983 and officially became City Engineer for the City on February 1, 1983. In accordance with good management procedures and established practices, a review and evaluation of the services provided by Santina & Thompson is necessary to assure that engineering services are being provided to the City in a responsive, efficient and cost effective manner. In order to accomplish this evaluation, the City Engineer and I have developed a suggested list of criteria upon which to evaluate the contractual services performed during 1983. I have attached a copy of this list of criteria for your review and comment. I would appreciate it if-yo~u~would review this list of evaluation criteria and be preparea/to comment and finalize the evaluation criteria at the City Council meeting of May 14, 1984. Upon finalizing the evaluation criteria l will prepare an evaluation form for Council use prior to the study session to be held on May 21, 1984, at which time the services of Santina & Thompson will be evaluated. ~ ENGINEERING SERVICES CONTRACT EVALUATION CRITERIA 1. Contract Coinpliance a. Administrative b. Traffic Enginering c. Development ~eview d. Capital Projects 2. Availability (Public, Council, Staff) 3. Responsiveness (Public, Council, Staff) ~ 4. Cost Effectiveness a. Adequacy of control exercised over project costs during construction b. Ability to obtain grants to offset General Fund expenditures c. Can the same level of service be provided at a lower cost? 5. Program llevelopment and Implementation a. Are projects imple~nented in a timely manner? b, Are projects identified and developed that adequately address the City's needs? c. Is engineering inforination provided reliable and accurate?