Search

City of Nashua

Purchasing Department
Administrative Services Division (603) 589-3330
229 Main Street - Nashua, NH 03060 GOEL IE) S SCE

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 (FB) - (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
e IF® 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.
* {FB’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.
e =6As with an IFB, the RFP must be announced to the public and specifies a due date.
«¢ AnRFP 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.
e There is no public opening requirement because receipt of the proposais is, under the RFP method, only
the first step, not the fast 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
e Experience with similar type/size projects in public or private television management services, outreach

activities, video production and technical experience ies
e 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
Overall Impression of Proposal
e Organization, clarity, conciseness and thoroughness.
* 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%

e 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 cantent

Additional Considerations (applicable only when not in conflict with state or federal guidelines)
e = Evidence of good organization and management practices
e 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
e Qualification of a Local preference
e 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 bath years 2 & 3 (from year 1 cost)
e 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
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 BSUS ES
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 soticiting bids.

Important distinctions between these in regards to competitive bidding:

IFB’s — competitive bidding
e |FB may be used when you know “what” and “how”
e An FB is advertised to the public, bids are publicly opened, and the award is publicly announced.
e Negotiation is net 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 REP must be announced to the public and specifies a due date.
e 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.
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 Factars
« 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

e 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
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
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%
e 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

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

e = 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)
e CNSG’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
¢ 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 EES ES) SESS)

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 negetiation 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:

[FB’s — competitive bidding
e |FB may be used when you know “what” and “how”
e §6AnIFB is 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 {FB’s are evaluated solely by costs and the contract will be awarded solely on the basis of price.
REP’s — competitive proposals
@ RFP 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.
« AnREP it is evaluated according to predetermined weighted standards that are stated in the RFP itself
e AnRFP 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
e Experience with similar type/size projects in public or private television management services, outreach

activities, video production and technical experience 40%
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.
e =Vendor must provide information that demonstrates they possess the technical expertise that is
required for this scope of work
Overall Impression of Proposal
e Organization, clarity, conciseness and thoroughness.
¢ 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
e Qualification as a DBE
e Qualification of a Local preference
e = 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}
e CNSG’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 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