HomeMy WebLinkAboutResolutions - 1983.05.05 - 11668Miscellaneous Resolution No. 8 3133 Date: May 5, 198,3
By : PUBLIC SERVICES COMMITTEE - James E. Lanni, Chairperson
IN RE: AWARD OF oagrRAcr TO Pv4eRM INDEPENDENT MONITORING SERVICES FOR
FISCAL YEAR 1983, AUDIT NM' CES FOR FISCAL YEAR 1981, AND THE
RECRUI iv OF DOCUMENTATION AND/OR IN-KIND CCSTS FOR AUDIT RESOIXTION
TO THE OAKLAND =MY BOARD OF COMMISSICEENS
Mk. Chairperson, ladies and Gentlemen:
WHEREAS the Oakland Cbunty Board of Cbmmissioners by Miscellaneous Resolutions
Nia.. 6546 and Nb. 8883 applied for and was granted the designation as Prime Sponsor by
the U. S. Department of Labor to administer the provisions of the Comprehensive
EMployment & Training Act of 1973 and the °apprehensive Employment & Training Act
Amendments of 1978; and
WHEREAS the audit requirement of Fiscal Year 1981 must be received by the
Grant Officer no later than DeceMber 31, 1983, as stipulated by the U. S. Department
of Labor Field Memorandum NO. 30-83, dated December 16, 1982; and
20 CFR 676-75-2 currently requires prime sponsors to establish an .
Independent Mbnitoring Unit to ensure that sufficient, auditable and otherwise
adequate records are maintained in accordance with all administrative requirements
under the Act; and
WHEREAS the Office of Inspector General/U.S. Department of Labor will be
reviewing sUbgrantee audits in the next Fiscal Year 1982 Prime Sponsor Audit, which
requires the recruitment of additional documentation and/or in-kind costs for audit
resolution; and
WHEREAS the Prime Sponsor, in accordance with 41 CFR 29.70.216, solicited
and received nine proposals to conduct CPA services in the area of audit, independent
monitoring, and the recruitment of additional documentation and/or in-kind costs; and
WHEREAS the solicitation for CPA services was in accordance with the Request
for Proposal's Functional Work Statement, as received and approved by the Board of
Cemmissioners' Resolution No. 83040, dated February 24, 1983; and
WHEREAS the Prime Sponsor has budgeted $200,125.00 for professional services
for Fiscal Year 1983.
NOW 'fv•VIAIRE BE IT RESOLVED that the Oakland COunty Board of Commissioners
approve the award of a contract to the Certified Public Accounting firm of
COOPERS & LYBRAND in the fixed price not to exceed $51,965.00
to perform independent monitoring services for Fiscal Year 1983, audit services for
Fiscal Year 1981, and the recruitment of documentation and/or in-kind costs for
audit resolution.
Mr % Chairperson, on behalf of the Public Services Cbmmittee, I move the
adoption of the foregoing resolution.
PUBLIC SERVICES ozzaarrnsE
8 Thu he Ross & Co.
5 Jack Martin &
Company, P. C.
Young, Skutt &
Dreitenuisther
Stewart, Beauvais
& Whipple
Peat, Marwick
Mitchell &
Deloitte, Haskins,
& Sells
Arthur Anderson
& OanParlY
Alexander Grant
& Ompany
Cbopers & Lybrand
1,900 - 2,525
'DOTAL HUMS
SUBMITTED PER
REP #10 Oil
APRIL 6, 1983
$113,000
60,000
88,813
99,400
57,000
66,500
65,975
83,870
51,965
TOTAL CC6T
SUBMITIE0 ON
APRIL 26, 1983
OAKLAND CUJNIY
EMPIDYM12T & TRAINING AMINISTRATION
PROPOSED QUALIFIED BIDDERS LIST
CCM & PRICE ANALYSIS SHEET
4/22/83
°
AKL,6 0
Attachment B-1
Board Resolution #83040 COUNTY
LO IVT AND TRAINING ADMINISTRATION
PROPOSED QUALIFIED BIDDER'S LIST
SUMMARY SCORE SHEET
IN
ALPHABETICAL ORDER
AVERAGE SCORE
INDEPENDENT RECRUITMENT COMPOSITE
CERTIFIED PUBLIC MONITORING OF DOCUMENTATION AUDIT: SCORE:
ACCOUNTING FIRMS PERCENTAGE 75 Pts 75 Pts 75 Pts 225 Pts
Alexander Grant 51.63 61.88 64.63 178.14 79% & Company
Arthur Anderson 49.00 58.88 64.13 172.01 76% & Company
3
Coopers & Lybrand 44.01 41.13 50.51 135,65 60%
Deloitte, Haskins, 50.88 55.13 70.13 176.14 78% & Sells
,
Jack Martin & 55.00 61.25 62.25 178.50 79% Company, P.C.
6 Peat, Marwick 45.50 44.63 59.25 149.38 69% Mitchell & Co.
7 Stewart, Beauvais 36.88 55.25 54.13 146.26 65% & Whipple
8
Tbuche Ross & Co. 42.38 58.13 62.00 162.51 72%
9 Young., Skutt & 68.75 60.88 66.38 196.01 87% Breitenwischer
Size & Structure Qualifications of
aff: 15 Pts
Understanding of
Work: 10 Pts
Composite
Raw Score
Attachment B-2
TECHNICAL SCORE: 75 PTS
PROPOSAL EVALUATION SUMMARY SHEET FOR
PROFESSIONAL 6E:RVICEb' "f0 PERFORM ITZEPLNDENT MONITORING
Ability to meet time constraints of RFP. Size of task & limit- Ability to staff project Statement of problem
Proposals were to include "descriptions of ed time available, team possessing talent & indicating under-
qualifying experience to include project expertise in fields of standing & narrative
descriptions, costs, starting & completion evaluation design, re- plan for accomplish-
dates of projects successfully completed. search, accounting, man- ing work. NUMber of
agent systems & social hours expected to
service delivery systems. accomplish work.
Auditing Monitoring Auditing Monitoring Size in Locality Composition Supervision
Federal Federal St,Cntyor St,Chty or Relationtp of of of
Programs Programs Local Govt Local Gov't Monitoring Team Team Team
ORGANIZATION 15 Pts 15 Pts 5 Pts 10 Pts 1 3 Pts 2 Pts 10 Fts 5 Pts 10 Pt -
1. Alexander Grant &
Comp 9.75 7 5 4.25 3 2 6.50 4.50 9.63 51.63 any I
• Arthur Anderson &
Cbmpany 4.25 2.50 4.75 6 I 3 2 5 3.25 8.25 49
Coopers & Lybrand 9 7 4.50 .75 I 3 2 8 3.63 6.13 44,01
4.Deloitte,Haskins
&Sells 3 2 9.50 4.25 8.88 50.88
•Jack Yhrtin &
Company, CPA 13 9.25 4.75 7'25 4 4 i 7.75 55
11111111111111111111111
..Peat, Marwick,
Mitchell & CO. 9.50 5 4.75 1.25 I 2 7.75 4 8.25 45.50
°Stewart, Beauvais .50 3.25 4.75 1.25 I 2.75 -25 4 2 7.13 36.88 & Whi• de
Tbuche Ross & Co. 13.25 3.25 4.75 0 I 3 .) 4.50 4.25 7.38 42.38
9. Young, Skutt &
Breitenwischer 15 15 4,75 10 3 1 7.50 3.50 I 68.75
Size & Structure
of Firm: 5 Pts
Size of task &limit-
ed time available.
Organization Cortmercial Auditing
Nbnprofit Auditing Relation to
Se in Auditing Size
10 Fts 5 Pts
9.75 4.75
9.25 1 4.75
6.25 0
9.75 1 4.50
8.25 3
6.75 3.50
8.75 4.25
9.25 1 4.75
9,50 I 4,50
3
3
3
2.75
3
3
3 Fts
3
3
3
Onmposition
of
Team
Supervision
of
Team
LL
4.75 1 4.50
7.25 3.25
10.75
13.13 U 66.38
62
15 Pts 10 Pts
7
9.13
4
5 Pts
4.75
5.50 I 3.50
64.63
64.13
13.88
12.13
8 I 3.88 50.51
9.50 1 4.50 13.88 70.13
7.25
8.50 4.25
4 1 2
62.25
59.25
54.13
12.25
12.75
11.13
9
9.50
9.75
TECHNCIAL SCORE: 75 FTS
PROPC6AL EVALUATION SUMMARY SHEET MR
'PROITSSIOI'ML . SERVICES TO PIMMFIT AUDIT SERVICES
Attachment B-3
Composite
Raw Score Prior Experience: 40 Pts
Ability to meet time constraints of REP.
Proposals were to include "description of
qualifying experience to include project
descriptions, costs, starting 8z completion
dates of projects successfully completed.
Qualifications of
Staff: 15 Pts
Ability to staff project
team possessing talent &
expertise in fields of
evaluation design, re-
search, accounting, man-
agement systems & social
service delivery systems.
Understanding of
Work: 15 Pts
Statement of problem
indicating under-
standing & narrative
plan for accomplish-
ing work. Number of
hours expected to
accomplish work.
ORGANIZATION
1 Alexander Grant &
Company
2 Arthur Anderson &
Cbmpany
3
Coopers & Lybrand
Leloitte, Haskins
& Sells
Jack Martin &
Company, P.C.
Peat, Manvie,
Mitchell & Co.
' Stewart, Reauvais
& Whipple
8
Tbuche Ross & Co.
9 Young, Skutt &
Breitenwischer
Auditing Auditing
Federal St,Chty or
Pro Local Gov't
15 Pts 1 10 Pts
9.75 i 9.75
14.25
9.25
13.25
9.50
9.50
11.50
13.25
9.75
9.75
9
9.75
13
15
10 Fts ORGANIZATICUT 3 Fts 1 2 Pts 20 Pts 5 Pt s I5 Pts
61.88
58.88
41.13
7 12.25 3 1 2 5 1 14.75 Alexander Grant
:7'. Company
2
5.50 3 1 2 18.50 4.75 1 10.50 Arthur Anderson
& Compan
3
10.50 Coopers & Lybrand
55.13
61.25
11.63
17.25
10.75
14.75
17.50
55.25
58.13
60.88
Deloitte,Haskins,
& Sells
5 Jack Martin &
Company, P.C.
6 Peat, Marwick
Mitchell & Co.
7 Stewart, Beauvais
& Whipple
2
.25
2 Tbuche Ross & Co. 17.50
0
13.75
10
19.75
4.50
4.75
4.75
4.75
3
2.75
3
3
8.25
4
4.50
7 Young, Skutt &
Breitenwischer
Prior Experience: 40 Pts
Ability to net time constraints of RFP.
Proposals were to include "descriptions of
qualifying experience to include project
descriptions, costs, starting & completion
dates of projects successfully completed.
Qpalifications of
Staff: 15 Fts
Ability to staff project
team possessing talent &
expertise in fields of
evaluation design, re-
search, accounting, uan-
agement systems & social
service delivery systems.
Understanding of
Work.: 15 Pts
Statement of problem
indicating under-
standing & narrative
plan for accomplish-
ing work. Number of
hours expected to
accomplish work.
Size & Structure
of Firm: 5 Fts
Size of task & limit-
ed time available.
I
Auditing Auditing
Federal St, Chty or Recruiting
Programs Local Gov't Documentation II
Locality
of
Team
Composition
of
Team
Supervision
of
Team
Size in
Relation to
4.50
3
11.88
10.88
Composite
Raw Score
Attachment B TECHNICAL SCORE: 75 Pts
PRCPCGAL EVALUATION SUMMARY SHEET FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
FOR RECRUITMENT OF DOCUMENTATICN AND/OR IN-KIND (MISTS
May 1983 day
#83133 May 5, 1983
Moved by Lanni supported by Jackson the resolution be adopted.
AYES: Aaron, Caddell, Calandro, Doyon, Foley, Fortino, Geary, Gosling,
Hobart, Jackson, R. Kuhn, S. Kuhn, Lanni, Law, McConnell, McDonald, McPherson,
Moffitt, Moore, Nelson, Olsen, Perinoff, Pernick, Price, Rewold, Wilcox. (26)
NAYS: None. (0)
A sufficient majority having voted therefor, the resolution was adopted.
STATE OF MICHIGAN)
COUNTY OF OAKLAND)
I, Lynn D. Allen, Clerk of the County of Oakland and having a seal,
do hereby certify that I have compared the annexed copy of
Miscellaneous Resolution #83 13 3 adopted by the,Dakland County Boar
at their meeting held on May 5, 1983
with the original .record thereof now remaining in my office, and
that it is a true and correct transcript therefrom, and of the
whole thereof.
In Testimony Whereof, 1 have hereunto set my hand and affixed the
seal of said County at Pontiac, Michigan
this 5th
LYNN/D. ALLEN, County Clerk/Register of De
7.
Deputy Clerk
of Commissioners