Search

City of Nashua

Purchasing Department

Administrative Services Division (603) 589-3330
229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 GES ar
May 19, 2022
TO: Mayor Donchess
Finance Committee
SUBJECT: Clarity of RFP Process for Public Access Television Contract

As part of our response to the recent letter received by Roy Tilsley, Jr of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson
representing Community Media Services Group | wanted to provide some additional information regarding the
Request for Proposal process followed for this advertisement.

RFP vs IFB definitions as included in the City of Nashua’s 2019 published Purchasing Manual

Request for Proposal (RFP) - (1) Alldocuments, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting
{competitive} proposals. The RFP procedure permits negotiation of proposals and prices as distinguished from
competitive bidding and an Invitation for Bids. {2) The solicitation document used in the competitive negotiation
process. The procedure allows changes to be made after proposals are apened and contemplates that the nature
of the proposals and/or prices offered will be negotiated prior to award.

invitation for Bids (1FB) - (1) the salicitation document used for competitive sealed bidding, the customary method
used by state and local governments for the purchase of equipment, materials, supplies, and construction. (2)
All documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting bids.

Important distinctions between these in regards to competitive bidding:

IFB’s — competitive bidding
@ |FB may be used when you know “what” and “how”
« AnIFBis advertised to the public, bids are publicly opened, and the award is publicly announced.
e Negotiation is not normally used with competitive sealed bidding.
e =IF8’s are evaluated solely by costs and the contract will be awarded solely on the basis of price.
RFP’s — competitive proposals
e RFP may be used when you know “what” but not “how” or “how” may vary from one vendor to another.
As with an IF6, the RFP must be announced to the public and specifies a due date.
An RFP it is evaluated according to predetermined weighted standards that are stated in the RFP itself.
An RFP allows for negotiation and provides more flexibility in the awarding of the contract.
There is no public opening requirement because receipt of the proposals is, under the RFP method, only
the first step, not the last step since cost is not the only factor in the awarding of the contract.
e Evaluation of the criteria for the technical and cost factors must be taken before award the contract can
be made.

Additional Factors
e Responsible Responding Vendors
e Local Preference

Criteria for weighing these proposals

Criteria Weight

Qualifications and Experience:

Respondent must demonstrate adequate experience in the following areas: qualification, general
experience and technical competence of the project team

Innovative/unique solutions or techniques

Experience with similar type/size projects in public or private television management services, outreach
activities, video production and technical experience

Feedback from References with projects similar in size & scope

Expertise, experience and resources that can perform the necessary tasks required to deliver results.
Vendor must provide information that demonstrates they possess the technical expertise that is
required for this scope of work

40%

Overall Impression of Proposal

Organization, clarity, conciseness and thoroughness.

Approach to the scope of services and statement of works

Proposed project schedule

Completeness and thoroughness of the proposal, technical data and documentation, especially in the

following areas: television promotion, programming functions, and studio management (see RFP

‘Scope of Work’ for additional details)

Demonstration of understanding and support for the goals of PEG Access in general, and Nashua’s 10%

objectives for this service specifically
Program Implementation which best meets the goals of functions of the vendor as expressed in the
Scope of Work; also assuring the greatest Nashua community participation in the television facilities
and resources. To include: proposed hours of operation; sources of external programming; ratios of
original and locally vs. non-locally produced content

Additional Considerations {applicable only when not in conflict with state or federal guidelines)

Evidence of good organization and management practices

Governance structure & tools {incl. written policies and procedures)

Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of staff members and the Board of Directors
Proposed plan for broadest representation and inclusion of Nashua constituents in general 10%
membership and Board of Directors

Qualification as a DBE

Qualification of a Local preference

Use of Environmentally sound products in proposed solution

Cost Proposal:

Cost proposal should include any payment schedule setting forth the frequency and amount of progress
payments, and identifying the tasks and deliverables (“milestones”) to be completed for each payment to be 40%
deemed earned.

In regards to pricing on these particular proposals:

*

BRBTV’s cost is highest year 1 and is reduced in both years 2 & 3 (from year 1 cost)

CNSG’s cost is lowest year 1 with a 5% increase each year thereafter

CMSG proposed 4 different options — not all options are of equal cost and service to BRBTV’s proposal
CMSG has requested additional support requirements from the City that were not factored into their cost
outlay (i.e. designated contract administrator & finance manager)

Regards,

Kelly Parkinson
Purchasing Manager

City of Nashua

Purchasing Department

Administrative Services Division (603) 589-3330
229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 BSUS) oe
May 19, 2022
TO: Mayor Donchess
Finance Committee
SUBJECT: Clarity of RFP Process for Public Access Television Contract

As part of our response to the recent letter received by Roy Tilsley, Jr of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson
representing Community Media Services Group | wanted to provide some additional information regarding the
Request for Proposal process followed for this advertisement.

RFP vs IFB definitions as included in the City of Nashua’s 2019 published Purchasing Manual

Request for Proposal (RFP) - (1) Al! documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting
(competitive) proposals. The RFP procedure permits negotiation of proposals and prices as distinguished from
competitive bidding and an Invitation for Bids. (2} The solicitation document used in the competitive negotiation
process. The procedure allows changes to be made after proposals are opened and contemplates that the nature
of the proposals and/or prices offered will be negotiated prior to award.

Invitation for Bids (1FB) - (1) the solicitation document used for competitive sealed bidding, the customary method
used by state and local governments for the purchase of equipment, materials, supplies, and construction. (2)
All documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting bids.

Important distinctions between these in regards to competitive bidding:

iFB’s — competitive bidding
« IFB may be used when you know “what” and “how”
e An IFBis advertised to the public, bids are publicly opened, and the award is publicly announced.
® Negotiation is not normally used with competitive sealed bidding.
e = IFB’s are evaluated solely by costs and the contract will be awarded solely on the basis of price.
RFP’s — competitive proposals
@ RFP may be used when you know “what” but not “how” or “how” may vary from one vendor to another,
e As with an l€B, the RFP must be announced to the public and specifies a due date.
e AnRFP it is evaluated according to predetermined weighted standards that are stated in the RFP itself.
e An RFP allows for negotiation and provides more flexibility in the awarding of the contract.
e = There is no public opening requirement because receipt of the proposals is, under the RFP method, only
the first step, not the last step since cost is not the only factor in the awarding of the contract.
e Evaluation of the criteria for the technical and cost factors must be taken before award the contract can
be made.

Additional Factors
® Responsible Responding Vendors
@ Local Preference

Criteria for weighing these proposals

Criteria Weight

Qualifications and Experience:

® Respondent must demonstrate adequate experience in the following areas: qualification, general
experience and technical competence of the project team

e = Innovative/unique solutions or techniques
Experience with similar type/size projects in public or private television management services, outreach
activities, video production and technical experience

e Feedback from References with projects similar in size & scope

e Expertise, experience and resources that can perform the necessary tasks required to deliver results.

® Vendor must provide information that demonstrates they possess the technical expertise that is
required for this scope of work

40%

Overall Impression of Proposal
e Organization, clarity, conciseness and thoroughness.
e Approach to the scope of services and statement of works
e Proposed project schedule
e Completeness and thoroughness of the proposal, technical data and documentation, especially in the
following areas: television promotion, programming functions, and studio management (see RFP
‘Scope of Work’ for additional details} 10%
« Demonstration of understanding and support for the goals of PEG Access in general, and Nashua’s
objectives for this service specifically
e Program Implementation which best meets the goals of functions of the vendor as expressed in the
Scope of Work; also assuring the greatest Nashua community participation in the television facilities
and resources. To include: proposed hours of operation; sources of external programming; ratios of
original and locally vs. non-locally produced content

Additional Considerations {applicable only when not in conflict with state or federal guidelines}
® Evidence of good organization and management practices
® Governance structure & tools (incl. written policies and procedures)
® Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of staff members and the Board of Directors
® Proposed plan for broadest representation and inclusion of Nashua constituents in general 10%
membership and Board of Directors
® Qualification as a OBE
e Qualification of a Local preference
« Use of Environmentally sound products in proposed solution

Cost Proposal:
Cost proposal should include any payment schedule setting forth the frequency and amount of progress
payments, and identifying the tasks and deliverables (“milestones”) to be completed for each payment to be 40%

deemed earned,

In regards to pricing on these particular proposals:
e BRBTV’s cost is highest year 1 and is reduced in both years 2 & 3 {from year 1 cost}
@ €NSG’s cost is lowest year 1 with a 5% increase each year thereafter
e CMSG proposed 4 different options — not all options are of equal cost and service to BRBTV’s proposal
e CMSG has requested additional support requirements from the City that were not factored into their cost
outlay (i.e. designated contract administrator & finance manager)

Regards,

Kelly Parkinson
Purchasing Manager

City of Nashua

Purchasing Department

Administrative Services Division (603) 589-3330
229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 BANS) Soi
May 19, 2022
TO: Mayor Donchess
Finance Committee
SUBJECT: Clarity of RFP Process for Public Access Television Contract

As part of our response to the recent letter received by Roy Tilsley, Jr of Bernstein, Shur, Sawyer & Nelson
representing Community Media Services Group | wanted to provide some additional information regarding the
Request for Proposal process followed for this advertisement.

RFP vs IFB definitions as included in the City of Nashua’s 2019 published Purchasing Manual

Request for Proposal (RFP) - (1) Alldocuments, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting
{competitive} proposals. The RFP procedure permits negotiation of proposals and prices as distinguished from
competitive bidding and an Invitation for Bids. (2) The solicitation document used in the competitive negotiation
process. The procedure allows changes to be made after proposals are opened and contemplates that the nature
of the proposals and/or prices offered will be negotiated prior to award.

invitation for Bids (iFB) - (1) the solicitation document used for competitive sealed bidding, the customary method
used by state and local governments for the purchase of equipment, materials, supplies, and construction. (2)
All documents, whether attached or incorporated by reference, utilized for soliciting bids.

Important distinctions between these in regards to competitive bidding:

IFB’s - competitive bidding
« IFB may be used when you know “what” and “how”
e AnIFBis advertised to the public, bids are publicly opened, and the award is publicly announced.
« Negotiation is not normally used with competitive sealed bidding.
e = IFB’s are evaluated solely by costs and the contract will be awarded solely on the basis of price.
RFP’s — competitive proposals
e REP may be used when you know “what” but not “how” or “how” may vary from one vendor to another.
As with an IFB, the RFP must be announced to the public and specifies a due date.
An RFP it is evaluated according to predetermined weighted standards that are stated in the RFP itself.
An RFP aliows for negotiation and provides more flexibility in the awarding of the contract.
There is no public opening requirement because receipt of the proposals is, under the RFP methad, only
the first step, not the last step since cost is not the only factor in the awarding of the contract.
® Evaluation of the criteria for the technical and cost factors must be taken before award the contract can
be made.

Additional Factors
* Responsible Responding Vendors
¢ Local Preference

Criteria for weighing these proposals

Criteria

Weight

Qualifications and Experience:

Respondent must demonstrate adequate experience in the following areas: qualification, general
experience and technical competence of the project team

Innovative/unique solutions or techniques

Experience with similar type/size projects in public or private television management services, outreach
activities, video production and technical experience

Feedback from References with projects similar in size & scope

Expertise, experience and resources that can perform the necessary tasks required to deliver results.
Vendor must provide information that demonstrates they possess the technical expertise that is
required for this scope of work

40%

Overall impression of Proposal

Organization, clarity, conciseness and thoroughness.

Approach to the scope of services and statement of works

Proposed project schedule

Completeness and thoroughness of the proposal, technical data and documentation, especially in the

following areas: television promotion, programming functions, and studio management (see RFP

‘Scope of Work’ for additional details}

Demonstration of understanding and support for the goals of PEG Access in general, and Nashua’s

objectives for this service specifically
Program Implementation which best meets the goals of functions of the vendor as expressed in the
Scope of Work; also assuring the greatest Nashua community participation in the television facilities
and resources, To include: proposed hours of operation; sources of external programming; ratios of
original and locally vs. non-locally produced content

10%

Additional Considerations (applicable only when not in conflict with state or federal guidelines)

Evidence of good organization and management practices

Governance structure & tools (incl. written policies and procedures}

Clearly defined roles and responsibilities of staff members and the Board of Directors
Proposed plan for broadest representation and inclusion of Nashua constituents in general
membership and Board of Directors

Qualification as a DBE

Qualification of a Local preference

Use of Environmentally sound products in proposed solution

10%

Cost Proposal:

Cost proposal should include any payment schedule setting forth the frequency and amount of progress
payments, and identifying the tasks and deliverables (“milestones”) to be completed for each payment to be
deemed earned.

40%

In regards to pricing on these particular proposals:

BRBTV’s cost is highest year 1 and is reduced in both years 2 & 3 {from year 1 cost)

® CNSG’s cost is lowest year 1 with a 5% increase each year thereafter
« CMSG proposed 4 different options — not all options are of equal cost and service to BRBTV’s proposal
® CMS5G has requested additional support requirements from the City that were not factored into their cost
outlay (i.e. designated contract administrator & finance manager)
Regards,
Kelly Parkinson

Purchasing Manager

Jim Donchess

Mayor e« City of Nashua
To: Board of Aldermen
From: Mayor Jim Donchess
Date: May 11, 2022
Re: Multi-Year Contract Award - Generator Maintenance for the Energy Recovery Facility

Pursuant to NRO: § 5-74/B: Acontract that extends from the current fiscal year into succeeding
fiscal year(s} in which no funds have been appropriated nor otherwise designated for this purpose
shall be approved by the full Board of Aldermen before the contract shall become binding on the

City.

The Finance Committee has approved and placed on file the notification of the award of the
referenced contract at the May 18, 2022 meeting and as such | am requesting the full Board of
Alderman approve the following contract:

Item: 3-year Maintenance for the Generators in the Energy Recovery
Facility
Value: $277,014
Vendor: Southworth-Milton {dba Milton CAT)
Purchasing Memo#: 22-274 dated May 11, 2022
Contract Term: 3 Years to terminate 4/15/25
Thank you.

229 Main Street * PO Box 2019 » Nashua, New Hampshire 03061-2019
603.589.3260 * fax 603.594.3450 * NashuaMayor@NashuaNH.gov
www. NashuaNH.gov

To:

From:

Re:

B. Motion:

Discussion:

City of Nashua, Public Works Division

Board of Public Works Meeting Date: February 24, 2022

David L. Boucher, Superintendent
Wastewater Department

Maintenance Contract for Energy Recovery Generators

To approve the Energy Recovery generator 3-year maintenance contract with
Southworth-Milton, Inc. (Milton CAT) of Milford, MA in an amount not to
exceed $277,014. Funding will be through Department: 169 Wastewater; Fund:
Wastewater; Account Classification: 54 Property Services.

The Energy Recovery facility was recently upgraded to include 2 new generators,
purchased form Milton Cat, that run on digester gas generated from the primary
and secondary sludge digesters. The installation of the new generators was
completed in August 2021.

Milton CAT provided an O&M manual for the new generators that includes
different ievels of maintenance required based on hours of operation. Milton
CAT has been performing oil changes and other maintenance related work on a
temporary basis until a maintenance contract is established and approved.

Quotes for a 3-year maintenance contract was sent to several vendors. Only
NEESCO and Milton CAT responded back with a maintenance proposal and
quote. It was difficult to compare the proposals duc to the different maintenance
approach offered by each company. Although NEESCO’s quote was lower than
Milton CAT, Milton CAT has specific knowledge on the functions of these
specialty generators and can provide ready access to spare parts as they are the
authorized representative of Caterpillar. This would also minimize long lead
times for repairs should any generator parts fail.

Milton CAT have provided a quote for the 3-year maintenance on two generators
in the amount of $277,014. Their costs include a top end engine overhaul between
years 2 and 3, which was quoted at $42,380 per generator.

Milton cat

LONG TERM SERVICE AGREEMENT

| Project name: Nashua WWTP Engine 1 | Project #: KARO0959

Contract Duration Whichever occurs first Contract End date: | 4/15/2025

3 years or 13,140 hrs

Project name: Nashua WWTP Engine Z Project #: KAR00960

Contract Duration Whichever occurs first Contract End date: | 4/15/2025

3 year or 13,140 hrs

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION 1 EXHIBITS

SECTION 2 DEFINITIONS

SECTION 3 MCAT RESPONSIBILITIES

SECTION 4 C ER RESPO IE
SECTION 5 PEFORMANCE OF SERVICE\RESPON
SECTION 6 COMMUNICATION

SECTION 7 PAYMENT TERMS

SECTION 8 TERM AND TERMINATION

SECTION 9 WARRANTY

SECTION 10 § NTRACTING AND PERSONNEL
SECTION 11 ESCALATION

SECTION 12 FORCE MAJEURE

SECTION 13 SUR NTS
SECTION 14 INDEMNITY
SECTION 15 DISPUTE R TION

SECTION 16 MISCELLANEOUS