Características del mercado del aceite esencial de orégano

Feedback from the external customers of the Procurement Department formed a fundamental and important element of the data-gathering strategy for this engagement. The County provided two lists of firms to contact using a WEB based survey seeking their views and

comments regarding customer service provided to them by the Procurement Department. The first list was of external customers providing goods or services under annual agreements and the second list was primarily architect and engineering firms that are listed in the County data base. It was made clear in the invitation that all responses would be handled in a confidential manner.

The survey consisted of 33 questions some of which were open ended. The Annual Agreement Survey was opened on April 11, 2011 and closed on April 29, 2011 and the Architect and Engineering Survey was opened on April 20, 2011 and closed on April 30, 2011. Out of the total of 214 Annual Agreement Survey and 216 Architect and Engineering Survey invitations, 72 and 68 survey responses were received, respectively. This represents a very good response rate of 33.6% and 31.4%, respectively, and ensured that the results were statistically valid. Complete results of the surveys are contained at Appendices C and D. Highlights of the survey responses are reflected below.

Demographics:

The following are the demographics of the respondents to the survey. They indicate that the respondents are well established companies that have been in business for many years and over 50% of the respondents are local companies. Additionally, almost 50% of the respondents have been doing business with the County for over 10 years.

Annual Agreements Architect and Engineering Business Type⁷²

Less than $100,000

$100 - $249 thousand

$250 - $499 thousand

$500 - $999 thousand

$1.0 million - $4.9 million

$5.0 - $24.9 million

$1.0 million - $4.9 million

$5.0 - $24.9 million

Small, Minority, Women or Veteran Business Yes

Years Doing Business With Sarasota County Less than one year

Specifications and Contractual Requirements Rating:

Question 11 stated: “Please rate your agreement with the following: In general, the invitation for bids and request for proposals from Sarasota County Procurement Department clearly communicate specifications and contractual requirements.” The results were:

74 Top three listed.

Figure 7 Specifications and Contractual Requirements Rating

Fair Competition Rating:

Question 12 stated: “Rate your agreement with the following: In general, the specifications from the Sarasota County Procurement Department provide fair competition.” The results were:

Figure 8 Fair Competition Rating 0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Annual Agreeement Architect and Engineering

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

Annual Agreeement Architect and Engineering

Strongly Agree Agree

Neutral Disagree

Strongly Disagree

Relationship with the Procurement Department Rating:

Question 14 stated: “Rate your agreement with the following: In your relationship with the Sarasota County Procurement Department, the staff is:” The ratings below are on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest.

Figure 9 Relationship with the Procurement Department Rating

Factors of Importance Rating:

Question 29 states: “Based upon your dealings with the Sarasota County Procurement Department, in your opinion, please rank the following factors in order of importance to Sarasota County.” The ratings below are on a scale of 1 to 5 with 5 being the highest.

Figure 10 Factors of Importance 3.40

Overall Rating as a Customer:

Question 31 states: “Overall how would you rate the Sarasota County Procurement Department as a customer?”

Figure 11 Overall Rating as a Customer

External Customer Survey Review:

Although the above results are very favorable and paint the Procurement Department as a procurement organization that is operating well, using clear specifications and bids and proposals that allow for fair competition the responses to the open ended questions paints another picture altogether. The Annual Agreement external customers appear to be more satisfied than the Architectural and Engineering external customers. The open ended responses from the Architectural and Engineering external customers indicate that all is not right with the County’s procurement program. Many of the responses are along the same lines as those reported in the external customer interviews. However, additional concerns surfaced that need the attention of the all concerned, as follows:

 Forms are cumbersome and are consistently revised.

 The combination of technical proposal and then a presentation is very costly and time consuming on our staff.

0.0%

5.0%

10.0%

15.0%

20.0%

25.0%

30.0%

35.0%

40.0%

45.0%

Annual Agreeement Architect and Engineering

Excellent Good Adequate Fair Poor

 When more than three firms are shortlisted, there is a huge cost in preparing for the 30 minute oral presentation. If you have to use oral presentations, then recommend only short listing the top three firms.

 The use of different experience forms rather than a standard Form 330.

 It would be beneficial to me as a vendor to have Sarasota state the beginning and ending contract dates in the original bid. I think Sarasota might use an actual date of award process, which is often unknown at time of actual bid and makes date administration difficult for vendors trying to enter a beginning and yearly end date in our computer systems to track the bid in its entirety.

 Questions and clarifications about the bid documents are not answered or the answers do not relate to the questions. Bid awards are steered to select vendors. To file a protest to a recommended award we had to pay $2,000. Our protest was very valid. The recommended vendor did not meet the required safety qualifications in the bid. Instead of allowing us to explain our protest utilizing the procurement procedures, they canceled the entire bid process and re-bid. These safety requirements were removed from the new bid, making the county liable for any injury or death from electrocution.

 Treat vendors equally and fairly so everyone has an opportunity to participate to the benefit of county. Otherwise bidding process becomes useless.

 When Procurement advertises a bid or RFP it should be easy for a local firm to find out about it.

 The bid document was byzantine and asked for much more than could be accomplished profitably.

 It appears that bigger firms are receiving the bulk of the work.

 As a consultant who works with Sarasota County Procurement, the problems we have encountered over the past three years include: Procurement seems to be constantly changing their bidding procedures from one job to the next. Bidding periods take much too long and extensions are far too common. We have seen less and less Contractors bidding Sarasota County work recently because of the burden – it’s just not worth the effort and headaches. Protesting is too easy and too common. This appears to be habitual with several Contractors. It delays the process and costs Sarasota County personnel and professional’s time and money which result in increased costs to Sarasota County taxpayers. Employee reduction and turnover has resulted in the education of personnel in the Sarasota County Procurement Department. Too much of a learning curve and too frequently. We have also had projects ready to go that have sat in the bidding queue for a month or longer due to lack of personnel.

 RFP's and/or RPS's are often written with the assistance of architectural companies that are crafted to favor their experience and skills. These same firms are not precluded from going after the work, and it is not uncommon for them to subsequently win the award as well. This practice should be stopped, or the participating company should be excluded from going after the work if they participated with County officials in crafting the RFP. It has also been our experience that architectural RFP's and RPSs have been

"wired"- meaning that it is known in advance what firm was going to be awarded the project- even before the selection by the County was made! Who is it within the administration that has that type of clout or position to influence the outcome in advance, and steer the selection committee's results? It takes a tremendous amount of time and money to put together proposals, only to learn later that the outcome had already been determined!

 Awards have been made to firms outside the area when local firms were capable of the work. When we have submitted for RFP's we were required to have our Sarasota staff sign and notarized not only that they worked in Sarasota County, but that they also lived in Sarasota County. Regardless, the award still went to folks outside our area or with a dummy office in the downtown (one man office who comes to town a few times a month). For some time, Manatee County was not counted as a reciprocal county although there had been an agreement in place with Sarasota/Manatee County and Manatee County had been recognizing Sarasota County on their RFP's. Also, the last RFP we responded to required that you had to have done work with the County in the last three years to get additional points in the RFP review. This makes selecting the same folks over and over much easier and with so many firms submitting a few points is a real advantage.

 The one representative we had a conversation with was unclear in his answer to questions and was very unwilling to provide the information in the first place - almost what I would consider rude.

 Some department PMs are quite professional and equitable in negotiating and overseeing projects that result in a good value for the County and fair compensation to the consultant. However, some CMS project managers foster what can almost be described as an adversarial relationship with their contractors. This ultimately leads to project delays and additional costs as the contractor is forced into taking a position to protect his interests.

 The County's storm water criterion is more stringent than the State's criteria. The result is a more costly project with little additional benefit. Also Low Impact Design for

roadways has a higher initial cost and then has a higher maintenance cost. Not sure LID is the solution for roadways.

 Two Recommendations: The Procurement of Construction Services for buildings uses a mixture of County-generated contracts, Supplemental Conditions, and AIA General Conditions. This amalgam of documents is not coordinated and leaves the County exposed to potential damages caused by inconsistencies between the documents. I believe a coordinated set of documents needs to be generated. It should be recognized that the construction of buildings, structures, and other "vertical" construction is inherently different from land development, roadways, utilities and other "horizontal"

construction. The bidding documents presently used for vertical construction were written for horizontal work. They are not at all suited to vertical work. There are many terms and conditions in the bidding documents that are specifically applicable to horizontal work (e.g.; FDOT references) but are irrelevant to vertical construction. The number of questionable items is so great that the bid specs could be considered tainted and might not survive a challenge by a motivated protester. A different set of bidding documents needs to be prepared that are specifically related to vertical construction.

External Customer Surveys Recommendations:

Recommendation 6.18: Create standardized competitive bidding documents that are reviewed by the County Attorney’s Office and locked so that changes can only be made after approval by the County Attorney’s Office. (Medium Term/Internal)

Recommendation 6.19: State the short listing criteria in the bidding documents and do not modify criteria after opening. (Medium Term/Internal)

Recommendation 6.20: Shortlist only the minimum number of proposers to complete the requirements of the job being bid. (Short Term/Internal)

Recommendation 6.21: Use a standardized qualification/experience form that is recognized in the industry. (Short Term/Internal)

Recommendation 6.22: Allow a time period for written questions at the beginning of the bidding process and provide timely accurate responses to bidder’s questions. (Short Term/Internal)

Recommendation 6.23: Provide contract administration and ethics training to the Project Managers. (Medium Term/Internal)

Recommendation 6.24: Do not allow Architectural and Engineering firms that prepare specifications and qualifications for a project to bid on the project. (Medium Term/Internal)

Section 7 Staff Assessment Review