City and County of San Francisco

Request for Qualifications to Provide Public Health Consulting Services
RFQ# CON2004-3

Sponsored by the Office of the Controller
Issue Date: October 8, 2004 Deadline for Questions about the RFQ: October 22, 2004, 12:00 noon Deadline For Submission: November 10, 2004, 12:00 noon

Table of Contents
Page

I. II. III. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

Introduction Scope of Work Submission Requirements Evaluation Criteria RFQ Clarification and Schedule Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Responses City Contract Requirements Protest Procedures

1 4 6 10 12 12 19 20

Appendices
A. HRC Forms to be Submitted in Separate Packet as Part of Response Only one copy of the HRC forms should be submitted with your response in a separate, sealed envelope addressed to Selormey Dzikunu, HRC Contract Compliance Officer

HRC Forms 1, 2A and 2B, 3, 4, 5, and 6
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfhumanrights/dbe/Attachment%203-wf-09-02-04.doc Chapter 14A Rules and Regulations (Word)

B.

Standard City Forms to be Submitted and Approved Prior to Contract Award • Vendor Profile Application
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/oca/purchasing/forms/vendorprofile/application.doc

Vendor Profile Application Instructions
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/oca/purchasing/forms/vendorprofile/app_instructions.doc

Commodity Codes for Reference in Filling Out Application •
• • http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/oca/purchasing/forms/vendorprofile/commodity_codes.doc IRS Form W-9 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fw9.pdf Business Tax Declaration http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/oca/purchasing/forms/p_25a.doc

HRC Form 12B-101 (Declaration: Nondiscrimination in Contracts and Benefits)
http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfhumanrights/forms/12b101.pdf Minimum Compensation Ordinance http://www.sfgov.org/oca/lwlh.htm Health Care Accountability Ordinance http://www.sfgov.org/oca/lwlh.htm Insurance http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/oca/purchasing/forms/ins_requirements.doc

• •

Fulfillment of the City’s insurance requirements is not required as part of your RFQ response. However, fulfillment prior to contract award is required. C. Agreement for Professional Services (form P-500) – Contract Template
http://mission.sfgov.org/FormCenter/forms/7/P-500%20(8-04).doc

I.

Introduction
Table of Contents

A. Background San Francisco San Francisco is the fourth largest city in California and serves as a center for business, commerce and culture for the West Coast. One of the most diverse communities in the United States, San Francisco has a population of approximately 800,000 spread over a 46.7 square mile area. The City and County of San Francisco (the “City”) established by Charter in 1850, is a legal subdivision of the State of California with the governmental powers of both a city and a county under California law. The City’s powers are exercised through a Board of Supervisors serving as the legislative authority, and a Mayor and other independent elected officials serving as the executive authority. The services provided by the City include public protection, public transportation, construction and maintenance of all public facilities, water, parks, public health systems, social services, planning, tax collection, and many others. Department of Public Health The City’s Department of Public Health (DPH) strives to achieve its mission through the work of two Divisions - the Community Health Network (CHN) and Population Health and Prevention. The CHN is the City's health system and has locations throughout the City including San Francisco General Hospital Medical Center, Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, and over 15 primary care health centers. The Population Health and Prevention Division has a broad focus on the communities of San Francisco and is comprised of the Community Health and Safety Branch, Community Health Promotion and Prevention Branch, the Community Health Services Branch, and Behavioral Health Services. In 1997, the CHN embarked on an organizational restructuring plan to meet the challenges of a rapidly evolving health care environment. Established as the division of the Department of Public Health that encompasses all personal health care services, the CHN has the unique role of addressing the broad health needs of all San Franciscans, with a special emphasis and commitment to serving the City’s most vulnerable, diverse populations. The CHN encompasses a wide array of services across a continuum of care. Major service components include primary care (provided at sites throughout the City), specialty care, acute care, home care, long-term care, and emergency care. Laguna Honda Hospital and General Hospital Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center (LHH) provides high quality long-term care and rehabilitative inpatient services. In FY 2003-2004 LHH provided the following services: • 378,445 Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) days • 1,621 Acute Days • Served 1,671 residents • 1,038 Average Daily Census • 10.3 days = Average length of stay in the acute units • 348.2 days = Average length of stay in the SNF units The total number of admissions to LHH from all sources increased by 8 percent from 899 in FY 01-02 to 973 in FY 02-03.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 2

The number of admissions from SFGH to LHH increased by 11 percent from 451 in FY 01-02 to 502 in FY 02-03. Total LHH discharges to the community increased by 17 percent from 231 in FY 01-02 to 270 in FY 02-03. In FY 03-04, the Department’s Primary Care Clinics and San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) provided the following services: • 325,389 Primary Care Visits (at 18 sites) • 161,816 Specialty Visits • 8,299 Dental Visits • 11,142 Urgent Visits • 60,013 Emergency Visits • 52,914 Medical Emergencies (15.6% Admitted) • 7,099 Psych Emergencies (36.4% Admitted) • 104,727 Acute Inpatient Days • 21,870 Home Health Care Visits • 10,125 SFGH Skilled Nursing Days • 30,791 Mental Health Rehabilitation Skilled Nursing Days As a result of recommendations from a Blue Ribbon Committee charged by the Mayor, the San Francisco Behavioral Health Center, formerly known as the Mental Health Rehabilitation Facility, is currently being reconfigured to provide not only skilled nursing but multiple levels of care so that the mentally ill can receive a continuum of care within one facility. Fifty-nine (59) beds for skilled nursing remain licensed by the State Department of Health Services (DHS) for patients who have complex, sub-acute medical problems in addition to their primary psychiatric diagnoses. As of July 2004, the facility also has a 47 bed Mental Health Rehabilitation Center licensed under the State Department of Mental Health (DMH). This program provides long term mental health services to the severely and persistently mentally ill that have more psychiatric versus medical conditions. In addition, a 27 bed residential care facility and 14 bed residential treatment program are in the planning and development phases for Fall of 2004. These programs are for patients needing assistance with daily living skills or group therapy as a means to transition back into the community. Patient Flow Project The Department of Public Health (DPH) initiated the Patient Flow project in February 2004. The goal of the project is to improve patient flow from San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) to Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH), significantly reducing staff time spent on transfers and the number of days spent by patients at SFGH awaiting transfer to a “lower level of care.” Though many factors contribute to the issues around patient flow, DPH has greatest control over the flow within its own system. The issue of patients spending days in acute beds at SFGH while at a “lower level of care” is a major problem for DPH for several reasons. First, the cost of a bed at SFGH is substantially

P-590 (4-04)

Page 3

higher than at LHH due to differences in acuity and staffing. Fixing this problem by moving patients who are ready to transfer to LHH in a timely manner could save millions of dollars without inappropriately decreasing services for anyone. Additionally, an inability to transfer patients to LHH in a timely way results in SFGH being on diversion for a substantial number of hours, often preventing LHH patients from receiving care at SFGH as well as SFGH patients being kept in the ED for long periods of time. Both of these issues result in sub-optimal care for patients in DPH’s system. Like all hospital-based SNF’s in San Francisco, DPH wanted to prioritize the patients in its own system before accepting patients from outside the system. The Patient Flow Committee has seen a number of changes in patient flow due to efforts over the past few months. Here are a few examples: · Increase in new admissions to LHH from SFGH: There has been an increase in admissions from SFGH to LHH in 2004, particularly in the month of March, where new admissions also increased overall. In 2004 (Jan-April), 79 percent of LHH’s 199 new patient admissions were from SFGH, 12 percent were admitted from other facilities and 8 percent from home/other. In this same time period in 2003 (Jan-April), 53 percent of LHH’s 200 new admissions came from SFGH, 34 percent from other facilities and 13 percent from home/other. · Decrease in SFGH’s average daily census: The only months in which the SFGH average daily census fell below the budgeted census and the year’s average was in March and April 2004, when it was 262 and 258 respectively. · Little change in the percentage of patients admitted from SFGH Acute to LHH and discharged to an acute provider within 7 and 30 days: This is a marker of quality that LHH regularly tracks. Though the number of discharges has increased when compared to past time periods, the percentage has not increased considerably from last year. Discharges within 7 days are 0.8% higher in 2004 than they were in 2003, and discharges within 30 days are 0.1% lower than they were in 2003. · SFGH diversion has decreased: Diversion has dropped to 7% for the second consecutive month and diversion was suspended only twice, the lowest point since June of 2002. Controller’s Office Proposition C, passed by the City’s voters in November 2003, amended City Charter Section 3.105 to instruct the City’s Controller to also serve as City Services Auditor. With this new role, the Controller’s Office is responsible for monitoring the level and effectiveness of services rendered by the City to its residents. To implement this new Charter-mandated function, the Controller’s Office City Services Auditor Division is seeking technical expertise in public health consulting services to evaluate and improve the City’s continuum of care between acute and long-term care services, to improve intake and billing documentation procedures for revenue maximization, and to provide other as-needed public health-related consulting services including audits, analyses, and technical assistance for future projects.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 4

B. Intent of this Request Based on responses to this Request for Qualifications (RFQ), it is the intent of the City to create a pre-qualified pool of public health consultants from which the City shall choose prospective contractors on an as-needed basis for consulting projects indicated below in Section II, Scope of Work. Respondents may submit responses for one or more project areas. Multi-project responses should include a separate set of Qualifications, Rates, and References for each project area type (if information differs between project areas). See Section III, Submission Requirements for more details.

II.

Scope of Work

This scope of work is intended to be a general guide to the work the City expects to be performed, and is not a complete listing of all services that may be required. The first two project areas are more specific. The third project area is more general, which will allow respondents with more varied experience in public health projects, to respond. A. Project Areas 1. Evaluate and improve the City’s continuum of care between acute and long-term care services. a. Project Goals/Deliverables • Reduce the wait for long-term care beds at Laguna Honda Hospital (LHH) for patients at San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) and decrease the number of reimbursements denied annually. • Develop a management plan for the San Francisco Department of Public Health that most effectively utilizes both current and future capital and operating resources for long-term care services, particularly focusing on the interrelationship between SFGH and LHH. • Develop a management plan that details how DPH’s capital resource outlay for long-term care may be impacted by programs operated or authorized by MediCal, the US Department of Health and Human Services, and the US Department of Housing and Urban Development. b. Project Tasks • Assess the current inpatient units, outpatient services and management practices at both SFGH and LHH and develop recommendations for more effective synergies, coordinated management and use of resources between the two hospitals. • Identify the barriers in the broader community to meeting the long-term care service needs of the target population through community-based facilities (e.g., inadequate reimbursement rates for non-institutional setting) and develop recommendations to allow for potentially expanding the long-term care provider pool in San Francisco.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 5

• • •

Assess the cost and revenue aspects of the scope of services to be provided to assure that the plan is financially viable. Identify financial policies that could be addressed through waivers or other interventions at the State or Federal levels. Explore the application of “best practices” of other large urban safety net systems that have effectively addressed the connections between acute and long-term care to DPH’s delivery system. Assess the current medical services model at LHH and develop strategies for maximizing revenue and increasing efficiencies of service. Determine appropriate level of staffing including specialties based on client needs.

2. Expedite claim processing and maximize City revenues by evaluating and improving the City’s health center and clinic intake and billing documentation procedures. a. Project Goals/Deliverables • Create and document comprehensive patient eligibility, registration and service charge procedures in flowchart and narrative form for the City’s Health Centers and San Francisco General Hospital clinics. • Reduce number of patient registrations missing charges and/or diagnosis codes and the amount of time before claims can be processed. • Assure that pricing for all billable services and that coding information determining how charges are reflected on the City’s claims are current and complete. b. Project Tasks • Conduct reviews of the City’s Health Centers and San Francisco General Hospital (SFGH) clinics current procedures for registering patients, documenting charges for services, and validating registration and billing information prior to processing. In the typical Emergency Department (ED) setting, charts are matched up with registration face sheets and batched at the end of a day so that patient accounting gets the information necessary to bill. Registrations with incomplete charge documentation, are followed up on in the ED, and sent on for processing when the package is complete. • Conduct a full review of the City’s Charge Description Master including a review of the charge capture documents in departments to make sure they are complete and electronically match to a model charge master to identify problems. 3. Provide other as-needed public health and hospital consulting services. The City will also consider responses from consultants illustrating experience in other types of public health project areas that may be of interest and use to the City for asneeded public health and hospital consulting services. The City is particularly interested in experience related to maximizing revenues and increasing operational efficiency of public health and hospital facilities. Work may include auditing, analyzing and evaluating City operations and services, comparing findings with other jurisdictions, examining best practices for benchmarking, measuring compliance with legal and political requirements, and technical assistance.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 6

B. Workload and Use of Pre-Qualified Respondents Contractor(s) selected from the pre-qualified pool may work on a per project basis subject to an agreement for each project specifying the maximum number of hours, due date, and hourly rates to be charged. Contractor(s) may also be asked to use and train City staff in conducting projects. There is no guarantee of a minimal amount of work or compensation for any of the respondents selected for pre-qualification. The City may select contractors from the pre-qualified pool in its sole and absolute discretion. C. City Support and Assistance The City will arrange for contractors’ use of office space, equipment and access to the City’s data, as deemed appropriate by the City. The City will make appropriate staff available to provide reasonable assistance to selected contractors where necessary. Such assistance may include coordinating fieldwork, identifying locations of required records and documentation, and other such tasks. Contractors shall use the City’s online financial system to the fullest extent possible to research transactions and analyze account balances in conjunction with their work.

III. Submission Requirements A. Time and Place for Submission of Responses Responses and all related materials must be received by 12:00pm Noon on Wednesday, November 10, 2004. Postmarks will not be considered in judging the timeliness of submissions. Responses may be delivered in person to the Reception Desk at City Hall, Room 316 or mailed to: Esther Reyes Office of the Controller City Hall, Room 477 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94103-0948 Respondents shall submit an original copy (for original signatures) and five (5) complete copies of the response and one (1) copy, separately bound, of required HRC Forms (see Appendix A) in a box or envelope clearly marked RFQ #CON2004-3 Public Health Consulting Services to the above location. Responses submitted by fax or e-mail will not be accepted. Late submissions will not be considered. Note that respondents hand-delivering responses to City Hall may be required to open and make packages accessible for examination by security staff. B. Requirements for Consideration Prior to Submission 1. Administrative Requirements – In advance of submitting response. If you or your responding firm has not already done so, review, complete and submit the forms referenced as Appendix B prior to submitting your response. The City may only consider responses from qualified respondents that at the time of response submission have already fulfilled the administrative requirements for doing business with the City. Fulfillment of this requirement will be verified prior to presenting responses to the review panel. Responses that fail to meet this requirement may be deemed non-

P-590 (4-04)

Page 7

responsive on a case-by-case basis. Contact Esther Reyes at (415) 554-7819 or at esther.reyes@sfgov.org for information and assistance on meeting this requirement. 2. Subcontracting Requirement – As part of your response submission (Appendix A). The subcontracting participation goal for this contract is a 15% Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) participation of San Francisco Human Rights Commission certified firms. Please see information in Appendix A and be sure to submit required HRC forms in a separate envelope as part of your response (see Section VI.N of this RFQ for complete details on required forms and rating discounts for HRC-certified DBEs responding as primes or as part of a joint-venture prime). Current List of Certified Vendors/Subcontractor Contacts - DBE Directory http://www.sfgov.org/site/uploadedfiles/sfhumanrights/directory/vlist_1.htm C. Format and Content of Responses Submit the following information in the order specified below. Three-hole binders are recommended for ease of review by the selection panel. 1. Cover Letter An introductory cover letter should be submitted, including: a. Company name and address of the responding firm(s). b. Statement identifying for which project areas (Section II.A.1, II.A.2, or II.A.3 of this RFQ) the qualifications should be evaluated. c. Name, address, telephone number, fax number and e-mail address of the person(s) to be used as contact(s). These contacts must be authorized to make representations for the responding entity. d. City’s Vendor Number assigned to responding entity. Possession of this number serves as partial verification that responding firm(s) has completed the City’s administrative requirements. e. Statement that the respondent has fulfilled the City’s administrative requirements. Fulfillment is defined as completion, submission and approval by applicable City agencies of the forms referenced in Appendix B. f. Statement that the respondent is willing to meet all of the City’s terms and conditions as stated in the City’s standard contract boilerplate (referenced as Appendix C). Respondents wishing to negotiate modification of the City’s terms and conditions must refer to the specific portion of the contract to be changed, and show proposed changes (deleted sections with a strikeover and added sections in boldface type). The City, in its sole discretion, may reject any response based on objections to the City’s contract terms. g. Statement that submission of this letter constitutes a representation by the responding firm(s) that the responding firm(s) is willing and able to perform the commitments contained in the response. h. Signature by a person authorized by the responding firm(s) to obligate the responding firm(s) to perform the commitments contained in the response.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 8

2. Qualifications a. Minimum Qualifications If respondent is requesting consideration for more than one City project area, respondent should submit separate statements of qualifications for each area in accordance with Section III.C.2.b below. As applicable, respondents must have successfully implemented at least three (3) projects similar to: i. one or both of the projects described in Section II.A.1-2 of this RFQ; and/or ii. those proposed by the respondent in response to Section II.A.3 of this RFQ. The lead staff assigned to the proposed project(s) must individually have had a similar lead role in two comparable projects. Respondents not meeting these minimum qualifications will not be considered and their RFQ responses will not be evaluated. The respondent must clearly state in its response how it meets or exceeds these minimum qualifications for each area it proposes consideration. b. Qualifications Respondents must submit a separate statement of qualifications for each project area it wishes to be considered. Each statement of qualifications must provide all of the information listed below. Service Qualifications for all projects • Significant leadership experience in clinical or administrative projects with large urban public hospital systems, particularly demonstrating experience in making management change within those systems that resulted in more efficient operations. • Expertise in public health policy and financing, particularly in understanding local, state and federal funding sources, designing cost-effective models of care (including integrated acute and long-term care models) and accessing and coordinating multiple funding sources. • Demonstrated success working on high-profile projects with high-level public officials in local, state and federal governments. • Ability to work collaboratively with City management, staff and users to assess City’s needs and requirements and to define and document overall project scope, plan, timeline, deliverables, quality control, contingency plan and change management procedures. • Ability to manage large, complex projects in a time-pressured environment with abilities to anticipate, analyze and resolve issues and problems effectively using an appropriate level of independence. • Ability to commit sufficient time and resources for projects to meet the City’s needs.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 9

Service Qualifications for continuum of care projects (in addition to general service qualifications above) • Experience in working with other key long-term care stakeholders, including advocates, advocacy agencies, consumers, families, providers, funders and regulators. • Experience developing and implementing long-term care strategies, from the financial, operational and policy levels including expertise designing and implementing Medicaid long-term care waiver programs, including integrated long-term care/acute care programs, home and community-based services waiver programs, and consumer-directed long-term care programs. • Intimate knowledge of and experience with the clinical, operational, financing and regulatory aspects of all levels of long-term care services, including experience in a range of disciplines and a range of settings serving persons with varying disabilities and elders. c. Staff Qualifications i. Names and contact information of account manager and team members that will be assigned to project(s). ii. Statement of the qualifications of the key individuals identified, including their applicable experience. Include a statement of the education and the training program(s) provided to, or required of the identified individuals, and any experience with public health-related accounting and auditing, technical assistance, practices and procedures. iii. Statement of the respondent’s total size and size of staff of the local or regional office responding to perform services. Provide a further breakdown showing the components of professional and administrative staff by major function, e.g. IT consulting, audits, etc. iv. If applicable, include a statement of any joint venture arrangements with other firms with a percentage breakdown of workload. Include within this percentage breakdown, involvement of any Human Rights Commission-certified Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) firms. Include a brief description of the respondent’s efforts to solicit inclusion by Human Rights Commissioncertified firms (see Section VI.N of this RFQ). d. Previous Project Description Concise description from inception through completion of one project completed within the past two years with services similar to those proposed in response to this RFQ. If respondent is requesting consideration for more than one City project area, respondent should submit a previous project description for each area. For each previous project description, describe the: (1) roles and responsibilities of the firm and firm lead staff in the project; (2) approach to project planning, roll-out, and evaluation; and (3) methods used to monitor and evaluate progress on deliverables and acceptance processes. 3.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 10

Rates Provide hourly billing rates and any other charges for the work outlined in this RFQ. State clearly which project areas for which the rates will apply. Separate rates for each project area, if different, should be submitted for those bidding on multiple projects. The hourly rate is intended to fully compensate respondents for all services. No additional expenses are allowed, including reproduction costs associated with the services, as well as travel, lodging, meals, miscellaneous and any other expenses related to the completion of services. The City intends to select respondents that it considers will provide the best overall services, and reserves the right to accept other than the lowest-hourly-rate offers and to reject all responses that are not responsive to this RFQ. 4. References Respondents must provide a list of a minimum of three (3) local government governmental agencies and/or relevant industry clients that the local or regional office and proposed staff have provided services to over the past five years. At least two of the three references must be from entities other than the City and County of San Francisco. Separate reference lists should be submitted for each project area for those bidding on multiple projects. Indicate each organization’s name and address, reference contact person, phone number, nature of services provided, dates of the engagement(s), and the names of respondent’s staff who worked on these engagements.

IV. Evaluation Criteria This section describes the guidelines used for analyzing and evaluating the various responses for respondent pre-qualification. It is the City’s intent to pre-qualify respondents that will provide the best overall service package to the City inclusive of fee considerations. Consultants selected for pre-qualification will remain eligible for consideration for contract negotiation on an asneeded basis for a period of two (2) years after pre-qualification determination by the City. Consultants selected for pre-qualification are not guaranteed a contract. This RFQ does not in any way limit the City’s right to solicit contracts for similar or identical services if it determines the pre-qualified pool is inadequate to satisfy its needs. Responses will be evaluated by City staff based on the following criteria to determine which responses will best meet the needs of the City. The City reserves the right to interview any, all, or none of the respondents to further clarify responses. As in all professional service contracts, the City reserves the right to accept other than the lowest price offer and reject all responses that are not responsive to this request. A. Minimum Qualifications Responses not meeting the minimum qualifications stated in Section III.C.2 of this RFQ will not be considered and will not be evaluated. Each respondent must clearly state how it meets or exceeds these minimum qualifications in its response.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 11

B. Pre-Qualification Criteria 1. Respondent Qualifications for Each Requested Project Area (70 points) a. How well does the response address project tasks and goals as stated in the RFQ? b. How well do the proposed strategies and solutions meet the City’s needs? c. Does the response demonstrate relevant qualifications and experience to deliver proposed services? d. Are the proposed staff appropriately qualified? e. Are the proposed hourly rates reasonable? If a response does not receive a score of 50 or above out of the 70 possible points in this section, the respondent will not be pre-qualified. 2. Respondent References (30 points) How did the references rate the respondent’s quality of services for previously completed projects? Did the respondent adhere to schedules, budgets, and deadlines? If a response does not response a score of 21 points or above out of the 30 possible points in this section, the respondent will not be pre-qualified. C. Contractor Selection Criteria Following establishment of the pre-qualified consultant pool, the City, at its sole and absolute discretion, will contact pre-qualified consultants to negotiate specific projects and contracts. Due to the varied nature of the services to be performed, the Controller’s Office reserves the right to contract with any or all of the respondents selected as qualified for the pool. The City may issue Request(s) for Proposals from the pre-qualified consultant pool to better assess qualifications for a specific scope of service, which may include staffing, scheduling, deliverable, and cost considerations. The selection of any pre-qualified respondent for contract negotiation shall not imply acceptance by the City of all terms of the response, which may be subject to further negotiation and approvals before the City may be legally bound thereby. If a satisfactory contract cannot be negotiated in a reasonable time with any pre-qualified respondent, then the Controller’s Office, in its sole discretion, may terminate negotiations and begin contract negotiations with any other remaining pre-qualified respondents. The Controller’s Office, in its sole discretion, has the right to approve or disapprove any staff person assigned to a firm’s projects before and throughout the contract term. The Controller’s Office reserves the right at any time to approve, disapprove, or modify proposed project plans, timelines and deliverables.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 12

V.

RFQ Clarification and Schedule

A. Clarification of RFQ In lieu of a pre-response conference, respondents may submit questions in writing by 12:00 P.M. on October 22, 2004. Questions may be faxed to Esther Reyes at 415.554.7568 or emailed to Esther.Reyes@sfgov.org. A summary of the substantive information, questions, and answers pertaining to this RFQ will be issued as a written addendum to this RFQ for posting on the Controller’s Office website at http://www.sfgov.org/controller. B. Schedule The following is a summary of key dates related to this response and pre-qualification selection process: Phase RFQ is advertised and issued by the City Deadline for RFQ clarification questions (12:00 p.m.) Summary of clarification info available Responses due (12:00 p.m.) *Date subject to change. Date October 8, 2004 October 22, 2004 October 25, 2004* November 10, 2004

VI. Terms and Conditions for Receipt of Responses A. Errors and Omissions in RFQ Respondents are responsible for reviewing all portions of this RFQ. Respondents are to promptly notify the Controller’s Office, in writing, if the respondent discovers any ambiguity, discrepancy, omission, or other error in the RFQ. Any such notification should be directed to the Controller’s Office promptly after discovery, but in no event later than five working days prior to the date for receipt of responses. Modifications and clarifications will be made by addenda as provided below. B. Inquiries Regarding RFQ Inquiries regarding the RFQ and all oral notifications of an intent to request written modification or clarification of the RFQ, must be directed to: Esther Reyes Office of the Controller City Hall, Room 477 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94103-0948 Fax: (415) 554-7568 Email: esther.reyes@sfgov.org

P-590 (4-04)

Page 13

C. Objections to RFQ Terms Should a respondent object on any ground to any provision or legal requirement set forth in this RFQ, the respondent must, not more than ten calendar days after the RFQ is issued, provide written notice to the Controller’s Office setting forth with specificity the grounds for the objection. The failure of a respondent to object in the manner set forth in this paragraph shall constitute a complete and irrevocable waiver of any such objection. D. Addenda to RFQ The Controller’s Office may modify the RFQ, prior to the response due date, by issuing written addenda. Addenda will be posted on the Controller’s Office website at http://www.sfgov.org/controller. The Controller’s Office will make reasonable efforts to post notification of modifications in a timely manner. Notwithstanding this provision, the respondent shall be responsible for ensuring that its response reflects any and all addenda issued by the Controller’s Office prior to the response due date regardless of when the response is submitted. Therefore, the City recommends that the respondent call the Controller’s Office or check the Controller’s Office website before submitting its response to determine if the respondent is aware of all addenda. E. Term of Response Submission of a response signifies that the proposed services and prices are valid for 120 calendar days from the response due date and that the quoted prices are genuine and not the result of collusion or any other anti-competitive activity. F. Revision of Response A respondent may revise a response on the respondent’s own initiative at any time before the deadline for submission of responses. The respondent must submit the revised response in the same manner as the original. A revised response must be received on or before the response due date. In no case will a statement of intent to submit a revised response, or commencement of a revision process, extend the response due date for any respondent. At any time during the response evaluation process, the Controller’s Office may require a respondent to provide oral or written clarification of its response. The Controller’s Office reserves the right to make an award without further clarifications of responses received. G. Errors and Omissions in Response Failure by the Controller’s Office to object to an error, omission, or deviation in the response will in no way modify the RFQ or excuse the vendor from full compliance with the specifications of the RFQ or any contract awarded pursuant to the RFQ. H. Financial Responsibility The City accepts no financial responsibility for any costs incurred by a firm in responding to this RFQ. Submissions of the RFQ will become the property of the City and may be used by the City in any way deemed appropriate. I. Respondent’s Obligations under the Campaign Reform Ordinance

P-590 (4-04)

Page 14

Respondents must comply with Section 1.126 of the S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, which states: No person who contracts with the City and County of San Francisco for the rendition of personal services, for the furnishing of any material, supplies or equipment to the City, or for selling any land or building to the City, whenever such transaction would require approval by a City elective officer, or the board on which that City elective officer serves, shall make any contribution to such an officer, or candidates for such an office, or committee controlled by such officer or candidate at any time between commencement of negotiations and the later of either (1) the termination of negotiations for such contract, or (2) three months have elapsed from the date the contract is approved by the City elective officer or the board on which that City elective officer serves. If a respondent is negotiating for a contract that must be approved by an elected local officer or the board on which that officer serves, during the negotiation period the respondent is prohibited from making contributions to: • • • the officer’s re-election campaign a candidate for that officer’s office a committee controlled by the officer or candidate.

The negotiation period begins with the first point of contact, either by telephone, in person, or in writing, when a contractor approaches any city officer or employee about a particular contract, or a city officer or employee initiates communication with a potential contractor about a contract. The negotiation period ends when a contract is awarded or not awarded to the contractor. Examples of initial contacts include: (i) a vendor contacts a city officer or employee to promote himself or herself as a candidate for a contract; and (ii) a city officer or employee contacts a contractor to propose that the contractor apply for a contract. Inquiries for information about a particular contract, requests for documents relating to a Request for Qualifications or Proposals, and requests to be placed on a mailing list do not constitute negotiations. Violation of Section 1.126 may result in the following criminal, civil, or administrative penalties: a) Criminal. Any person who knowingly or willfully violates section 1.126 is subject to a fine of up to $5,000 and a jail term of not more than six months, or both. b) Civil. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in a civil action brought by the civil prosecutor for an amount up to $5,000. c) Administrative. Any person who intentionally or negligently violates section 1.126 may be held liable in an administrative proceeding before the Ethics Commission held pursuant to the Charter for an amount up to $5,000 for each violation. For further information, respondents should contact the San Francisco Ethics Commission at (415) 581-2300. J. Sunshine Ordinance In accordance with S.F. Administrative Code Section 67.24(e), contractors’ bids, responses to RFQs (or RFPs) and all other records of communications between the City and persons or firms seeking contracts shall be open to inspection immediately after a contract has been awarded. Nothing in this provision requires the disclosure of a private person’s or organization’s net worth

P-590 (4-04)

Page 15

or other proprietary financial data submitted for qualification for a contract or other benefits until and unless that person or organization is awarded the contract or benefit. Information provided which is covered by this paragraph will be made available to the public upon request. K. Public Access to Meetings and Records If a respondent is a non-profit entity that receives a cumulative total per year of at least $250,000 in City funds or City-administered funds and is a non-profit organization as defined in Chapter 12L of the S.F. Administrative Code, the respondent must comply with Chapter 12L. The respondent must include in its response (1) a statement describing its efforts to comply with the Chapter 12L provisions regarding public access to respondent’s meetings and records, and (2) a summary of all complaints concerning the respondent’s compliance with Chapter 12L that were filed with the City in the last two years and deemed by the City to be substantiated. The summary shall also describe the disposition of each complaint. If no such complaints were filed, the respondent shall include a statement to that effect. Failure to comply with the reporting requirements of Chapter 12L or material misrepresentation in respondent’s Chapter 12L submissions shall be grounds for rejection of the response and/or termination of any subsequent Agreement reached on the basis of the response. L. Reservations of Rights by the City The issuance of this RFQ does not constitute an agreement by the City that any contract will actually be entered into by the City. The City expressly reserves the right at any time to: 1. 2. 3. 4. Waive or correct any defect or informality in any response, response, or response procedure; Reject any or all responses; Reissue a Request for Qualifications or Request for Proposals; Prior to submission deadline for responses, modify all or any portion of the selection procedures, including deadlines for accepting responses, the specifications or requirements for any materials, equipment or services to be provided under this RFQ, or the requirements for contents or format of the responses; 5. Procure any materials, equipment or services specified in this RFQ by any other means; or 6. Determine that no project will be pursued. M. No Waiver No waiver by the City of any provision of this RFQ shall be implied from any failure by the City to recognize or take action on account of any failure by a respondent to observe any provision of this RFQ.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 16

N. Disadvantaged Business Enterprises Goals The requirements of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Ordinance set forth in Chapter 14A of the San Francisco Administrative Code as it now exists or as it may be amended in the future (collectively the “DBE Ordinance”) shall apply to this RFQ. 1. Chapter 14A. Requirements a. DBE Subconsultant Participation Goals

The DBE subconsulting goal for this project is 15% of the total value of the goods and/or services to be procured. A respondent may request that the Director of HRC waive or reduce the subcontracting goals by submitting the reasons for the request in writing with its response. The factors that the Director will consider in evaluating such a request are set forth in S.F. Administrative Code §14A.14(G). Denial of the request may be appealed to the Human Rights Commission. Each person responding to this solicitation shall demonstrate in its response that it has used good-faith efforts to employ DBE subcontractors, and shall identify the particular DBE subcontractors to be used in performing the contract. For each DBE identified as a subcontractor, the response must specify the value of the participation as a percentage of the total value of the goods and/or services to be procured, the type of work to be performed, and such information as may reasonably be required to determine the responsiveness of the response. DBEs identified as subcontractors must be certified with the San Francisco Human Rights Commission at the time the response is submitted, and must be contacted by the respondent (prime contractor) prior to listing them as subcontractors in the response. Any response that does not meet the requirements of this paragraph will be non-responsive. “Good-faith efforts” when required of a professional services provider shall mean the steps undertaken to comply with the goals and requirements imposed by the City for participation by DBEs as subcontractors, and shall include the following: (1) Attending any presolicitation or prebid meetings scheduled by the City to inform potential contractors of DBE program requirements for the project for which the contract will be awarded; (2) Identifying and selecting specific items of the project for which the contract will be awarded to be performed by DBEs to provide an opportunity for participation by those enterprises; (3) Advertising for DBEs that are interested in participating in the project, not less than 10 calendar days before the due date for responses to the solicitation, in one or more daily or weekly newspapers, trade association publications, trade journals, or other media, specified by the City. This paragraph applies only if the City gave public notice of the project not less than 15 calendar days prior to the due date for responses to the solicitation; (4) Utilizing HRC lists of enterprises that are certified by the Director of HRC as DBEs not less than 15 calendar days prior to the due date for responses to the solicitation.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 17

(5) For each specific trade identified in HRC’s lists of certified enterprises, providing written notice of interest in submitting a bid or response for the contract to the following numbers of certified DBEs not less than 10 calendar days prior to the due date for responses to the solicitation: • • • • • If the HRC list of certified enterprises identifies 1-25 available DBEs for the identified trade, the potential contractor must contact all of the identified firms. If the HRC list of certified enterprises identifies 26-50 available DBEs for the identified trade, the potential contractor must contact 75% of the identified firms. If the HRC list of certified enterprises identifies 51-75 available DBEs for the identified trade, the potential contractor must contact 50% of the identified firms. If the HRC list of certified enterprises identifies 76-100 available DBEs for the identified trade, the potential contractor must contact 30% of the identified firms. If the HRC list of certified enterprises identifies 101 or more available DBEs for the identified trade, the potential contractor must contact 25% of the identified firms.

(6) Following up initial solicitations of interest by contacting potential DBE subcontractors to determine with certainty whether those enterprises were interested in performing specific items of the project; (7) Providing interested DBEs with information about the plans, specifications, and requirements for the selected subcontracting or material supply work; (8) Requesting assistance from community organizations; local contractor or professional groups; local, state or federal small or disadvantaged business assistance offices; or other organizations that provide assistance in the recruitment and placement of small or disadvantaged business enterprises, if any are available; (9) Negotiating in good faith with interested DBEs, and not unjustifiably rejecting as unsatisfactory bids or responses prepared by any DBEs, as determined by the City; (10) Where applicable, advising and making efforts to assist interested DBEs in obtaining bonds, lines of credit, or insurance required by the City or contractor; (11) Making efforts to obtain DBE participation that the City could reasonably expect would produce a level of participation sufficient to meet the City's goals and requirements. Responses which fail to comply with the material requirements of S.F. Administrative Code §14A.14 and this RFQ will be deemed non-responsive and will be rejected. During the term of the contract, any failure to comply with the level of DBE subcontractor participation specified in the contract shall be deemed a material breach of contract. Subconsulting goals can only be met with HRC-certified DBEs located in San Francisco. b. DBE Participation

P-590 (4-04)

Page 18

The City strongly encourages responses from qualified DBEs. Pursuant to Chapter 14A, the following rating discount will be in effect for the award of this project for any respondents who are certified by HRC as a DBE, or joint venture partners who are certified as a DBE at the time that the response is submitted. Certification applications may be obtained by calling HRC at (415) 252-2500. The rating discount applies at each phase of the selection process. The application of the rating discount is as follows: (1) A 5% discount to a joint venture with a DBE participation that equals or exceeds 35%, but is under 40%; or (2). A 7.5% discount to a joint venture with DBE participation that equals or exceeds 40%. (3) A 10% discount to: • A DBE; or • A joint venture between or among DBEs.

c.

HRC Forms to be Submitted with Response

(1) All responses submitted must include Human Rights Commission (HRC) Form 1 (included in Appendix A) whether or not a rating discount is applied for. (2) HRC Forms 2A and 2B, 3, 4, 5, and 6 (also included in Appendix A) are to be submitted with the response. If these forms are not returned with the response, the response may be determined to be nonresponsive and rejected. HRC Schedule A must be submitted if applicable. (3) Please submit only one copy of the above forms with your response. The forms should be submitted in a separate, sealed envelope addressed to: Selormey Dzikunu, the HRC Contract Compliance Officer (4) If applying for a rating discount as a joint venture: The DBE must be an active partner in the joint venture and perform work, manage the job and take financial risks in proportion to the required level of participation stated in the response, and must be responsible for a clearly defined portion of the work to be performed and share in the ownership, control, management responsibilities, risks, and profits of the joint venture. The portion of the DBE joint venture’s work shall be set forth in detail separately from the work to be performed by the nonDBE joint venture partner. The DBE joint venture’s portion of the contract must be assigned a commercially reasonable dollar value. If you have any questions concerning the HRC Forms, you may call Selormey Dzikunu, the Human Rights Commission Contract Compliance Officer for the Controller’s Office at 415-274-0511.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 19

VII. City Contract Requirements A. Standard Contract Provisions Pre-qualified respondents, if selected for a contract, will be required to enter into such contract substantially in the form of the Agreement for Professional Services, attached hereto as Appendix C. Failure to timely execute the contract, or to furnish any and all certificates, bonds or other materials required in the contract, shall be deemed an abandonment of a contract offer. The City, in its sole discretion, may select another firm and may proceed against the original selectee for damages. Respondents are urged to pay special attention to the requirements of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (§43 in the Agreement), the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (§44 in the Agreement), and the First Source Hiring Program (§45 in the Agreement), as set forth in paragraphs B, C and D below. B. Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO) Pre-qualified respondents, if selected for a contract, will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Minimum Compensation Ordinance (MCO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12P. Generally, this Ordinance requires contractors to provide employees covered by the Ordinance who do work funded under the contract with hourly gross compensation and paid and unpaid time off that meet certain minimum requirements. For the contractual requirements of the MCO, see §43 in the Agreement Note that the gross hourly compensation for covered employees increases to $10.00 for ForProfit entities on January 1, 2002, and increases 2.5% annually thereafter for 3 years. The MCO rate for non-profit corporations and government entities shall remain at $9.00, because the Joint Report referred to in the MCO found that, according to the financial analysis specified in the MCO, sufficient funds were not available to raise the wage to $10.00 per hour. However, as a result of concerns for parity and fairness, the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors were able to allocate funds in the Fiscal Year 01-02 budget to pay non-profit corporations $10.00 per hour for hours worked by employees covered by MCO. Because the $10.00 rate is not mandated by the MCO, the 2.5% per year adjustment described in the MCO is not applicable. Additional information regarding the MCO is available on the web at http://www.sfgov.org/oca/lwlh.htm. C. Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO) Pre-qualified respondents, if selected for a contract, will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the Health Care Accountability Ordinance (HCAO), as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 12Q. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the HCAO is available on the web at http://www.sfgov.org/oca/lwlh.htm.

P-590 (4-04)

Page 20

D. First Source Hiring Program (FSHP) If the contract is for more than $200,000, the successful respondent will be required to agree to comply fully with and be bound by the provisions of the First Source Hiring Program ordinance, as set forth in S.F. Administrative Code Chapter 83. Generally, this ordinance requires contractors to notify the First Source Hiring Program of available entry level jobs and provide the Workforce Development System with the first opportunity to refer qualified individuals for employment. Contractors should consult the San Francisco Administrative Code to determine their compliance obligations under this chapter. Additional information regarding the FSHP is available on the web at www.sfgov.org/moed/fshp.htm.

VIII. Protest Procedures A. Protest of Non-Responsiveness Determination Within five (5) working days of the City's issuance of a notice of non-responsiveness, any firm that has submitted a response and believes that the City has incorrectly determined that its response is non-responsive may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth (5th) working day following the City's issuance of the notice of non-responsiveness. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the respondent, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFQ provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protestor must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. B. Protest of Establishment of Pre-Qualified Consultant List Within five (5) working days of the City's issuance of a notice of intent to establish a prequalified consultant list, any firm that has submitted a responsive response and believes that the City has incorrectly selected another respondent for pre-qualification may submit a written notice of protest. Such notice of protest must be received by the City on or before the fifth (5th) working day after the City's issuance of the notice of intent to establish a pre-qualified consultant list. The notice of protest must include a written statement specifying in detail each and every one of the grounds asserted for the protest. The protest must be signed by an individual authorized to represent the respondent, and must cite the law, rule, local ordinance, procedure or RFQ provision on which the protest is based. In addition, the protestor must specify facts and evidence sufficient for the City to determine the validity of the protest. C. Delivery of Protests All protests must be received by the due date. If a protest is mailed, the protestor bears the risk of non-delivery within the deadlines specified herein. Protests should be transmitted by a means that will objectively establish the date the City received the protest. Protests or notice of protests made orally (e.g., by telephone) will not be considered. Protests must be delivered to: Esther Reyes - Office of the Controller

P-590 (4-04)

Page 21

City Hall, Room 477 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94103-0948 Fax: (415) 554-7568 Email: esther.reyes@sfgov.org

P-590 (4-04)

Page 22