Arlington County Government Sealed Solicitation

Title: 22-DMF-RFP-538 Comprehensive Cost and Fee Structure Study for County Development Services

Deadline: 2/10/2022 1:00 PM   (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada)

Status: Awarded

Solicitation Number: 22-DMF-RFP-538

Description: The County is seeking a qualified contractor to
undertake a comprehensive review of Arlington County’s cost and fee structure for development services.
Arlington County, Virginia, is soliciting proposals from independent economic and fiscal analysis firms with
demonstrated competence and qualifications in establishing fee structures for building and land
development services, including the licensing and permitting of development and construction and
related activities.

Pre-Bid Meeting Date: 12/9/2021 1:30 PM

Pre-Bid Meeting Details: Please sign up if you plan to attend the pre-bid meeting.

Documents:

Documents as of 12/2/2021
22-DMF-RFP-538 Cost and Fee Study.pdf
22-DMF-RFP-538 Proposal Submittal Forms.pdf
Addition 1

Posted: 12/9/2021

Type of Addition: PreProposal Conference Notes and Sign-in

Documents:

Addition 2

Posted: 2/16/2022

Type of Addition: In Review

Addition 3

Posted: 5/4/2022

Type of Addition: Award Information

Overview: Award Notice For: A Comprehensive Review of Arlington County’s Cost and Fee Structure for County Development Services to MGT of America Consulting, LLC.

Documents:

Question 1

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: The RFP notes that this is a 5-year contract, with the first year addressing the County’s stated scope. Are year’s 2 - 5 more for any minor adjustments or services needed in relation to Year 1 work, or for specific updates?

Response: Years 2-5 are for any required follow-on work that could be addressed by a new task order with an additional scope of services.

Question 2

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Scope of Services point #2 (pg. 11) talks about assessing the development service process. However, this isn’t specifically addressed in the subsequent Phased outline. Is the County also looking for a process study in conjunction with the Fee Study, or just to review services and ensure they are captured, where appropriate, in fees?

Response: The County is not looking for a process study but is looking to capture the costs of all phases of permit review to incorporate into the cost recovery analysis.

Question 3

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Does the County have a specific timeline for project completion? The RFP does seem to identify Summer of 2022 as a timeframe, is that accurate? - If so, is the County looking to complete all phase in that timeframe? - Can the County be more specific regarding “Summer” (June, July, or August)? - When does the County intend to award / kickoff this project?

Response: The County would like to have initial proposals for fee changes by September to consider as a part of the FY 2024 budget process. The County anticipates awarding this contract as soon as possible after the evaluation/ negotiation process.

Question 4

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Is the County looking for onsite meetings, or are remote meetings acceptable where appropriate?

Response: Remote meetings are acceptable where appropriate.

Question 5

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Are both Exhibit D & E required to be submitted with the proposal, or just Exhibit D?

Response: Exhibit D is due from the Awarded Vendor at the time of Contract execution. Exhibit E is due quarterly from the awarded Vendor.

Question 6

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Does the County have a budget for this project? If yes, can the amount be shared?

Response: Yes, there is a budget. However, the County does not disclose its budget.

Question 7

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Does the County have any target dates for project milestones (e.g., completion of comprehensive review of existing fees, draft report, final report, etc.), that would help with developing a more detailed schedule to meet the County’s needs?

Response: The County would like to have initial proposals for fee changes by September to consider as a part of the FY 2024 budget process. Beyond that, the County is looking to the Offerors to define the timeline as they see it appropriate in their proposal

Question 8

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: RFP, Page 14, Phase III, Benchmarking Analysis, #1: How many comparable jurisdictions should be included in the comparative fee analysis task and will the County provide any recommended jurisdictions for benchmarking?

Response: At a minimum, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, and Washington, DC should be included in the comparative fee analysis. We would also look to the consultant to suggest other jurisdictions that they believe are a good comparator to Arlington whether because the jurisdiction has a good model of fees or is similar in size/scope to Arlington.

Question 9

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: RFP, Page 14, Phase III, Benchmarking Analysis, #3: Would the four jurisdictions listed (Alexandria, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, Washington, DC) be in addition to any identified jurisdictions in task #1, or desired benchmarking jurisdictions to be included in task #1?

Response: At a minimum, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, and Washington, DC should be included in the comparative fee analysis. We would also look to the consultant to suggest other jurisdictions that they believe are a good comparator to Arlington whether because the jurisdiction has a good model of fees or is similar in size/scope to Arlington.

Question 10

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: At this time, based on COVID-19 restrictions and/or current practices/policies, does the County anticipate that any necessary meetings with staff and stakeholders, community engagement meetings, or any of the nine (or more) meetings will be in-person or virtual?

Response: Virtual meetings are acceptable where appropriate.

Question 11

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Many privately held companies or partnerships do not release detailed financial statements, however, release other forms of financial information to evidence financial stability. This has previously been deemed responsive to other state agencies’ procurement requirements. Considering the uniqueness of the financial structure of such entities, will the County accept these alternative forms of financial disclosure in lieu of detailed financial statements request in this RFP, so as to ensure the broadest and most competitive pool of responses to the County’s RFP?

Response: Yes, if the County makes a request for a detailed financial statement for this contract.

Question 12

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: There appears to be contradictory language on Page 30, Item 27.E. and on Page 31, Item 35. Could the County clarify whether the Contractor must return all County Information to the County at the conclusion of the Contract, or retain all books, records, and other documents for at least five years after the final payment?

Response: The Contractor must return all County data information to the County at the conclusion of the Contract. If the County conducts an audit, then the Contractor should retain all books, records, and other documents for at least five years after the final payment that is kept in the Contract's holdings.

Question 13

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Would the County consider striking Section 52, Page 34, “Limited English Proficiency,” as not being appropriate to the requested services?

Response: This is an exception to the Terms and Conditions to the Sample Contract. Please review Section II. Information for Offerors, Item 14. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions and Section V. Proposal Requirements, item 7. Proposal Submittal Elements, H. Exceptions to the County’s Non-Mandatory Contract Terms and Conditions.

Question 14

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Page 30, Section C, Data Protection says that if requested, “the Contractor must also provide annually the results of an internal Information Security Risk Assessment provided by an outside firm.” We typically don’t give out the results directly from the third party provider. Would the County accept a summary of the results instead?

Response: Yes, a summary of the results may be accepted.

Posted: 12/9/2021

Type of Addition: PreProposal Conference Notes and Sign-in

Documents:

Posted: 2/16/2022

Type of Addition: In Review

Posted: 5/4/2022

Type of Addition: Award Information

Overview: Award Notice For: A Comprehensive Review of Arlington County’s Cost and Fee Structure for County Development Services to MGT of America Consulting, LLC.

Documents:

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: The RFP notes that this is a 5-year contract, with the first year addressing the County’s stated scope. Are year’s 2 - 5 more for any minor adjustments or services needed in relation to Year 1 work, or for specific updates?

Response: Years 2-5 are for any required follow-on work that could be addressed by a new task order with an additional scope of services.

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Scope of Services point #2 (pg. 11) talks about assessing the development service process. However, this isn’t specifically addressed in the subsequent Phased outline. Is the County also looking for a process study in conjunction with the Fee Study, or just to review services and ensure they are captured, where appropriate, in fees?

Response: The County is not looking for a process study but is looking to capture the costs of all phases of permit review to incorporate into the cost recovery analysis.

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Does the County have a specific timeline for project completion? The RFP does seem to identify Summer of 2022 as a timeframe, is that accurate? - If so, is the County looking to complete all phase in that timeframe? - Can the County be more specific regarding “Summer” (June, July, or August)? - When does the County intend to award / kickoff this project?

Response: The County would like to have initial proposals for fee changes by September to consider as a part of the FY 2024 budget process. The County anticipates awarding this contract as soon as possible after the evaluation/ negotiation process.

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Is the County looking for onsite meetings, or are remote meetings acceptable where appropriate?

Response: Remote meetings are acceptable where appropriate.

Posted: 12/10/2021

Question: Are both Exhibit D & E required to be submitted with the proposal, or just Exhibit D?

Response: Exhibit D is due from the Awarded Vendor at the time of Contract execution. Exhibit E is due quarterly from the awarded Vendor.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Does the County have a budget for this project? If yes, can the amount be shared?

Response: Yes, there is a budget. However, the County does not disclose its budget.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Does the County have any target dates for project milestones (e.g., completion of comprehensive review of existing fees, draft report, final report, etc.), that would help with developing a more detailed schedule to meet the County’s needs?

Response: The County would like to have initial proposals for fee changes by September to consider as a part of the FY 2024 budget process. Beyond that, the County is looking to the Offerors to define the timeline as they see it appropriate in their proposal

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: RFP, Page 14, Phase III, Benchmarking Analysis, #1: How many comparable jurisdictions should be included in the comparative fee analysis task and will the County provide any recommended jurisdictions for benchmarking?

Response: At a minimum, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, and Washington, DC should be included in the comparative fee analysis. We would also look to the consultant to suggest other jurisdictions that they believe are a good comparator to Arlington whether because the jurisdiction has a good model of fees or is similar in size/scope to Arlington.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: RFP, Page 14, Phase III, Benchmarking Analysis, #3: Would the four jurisdictions listed (Alexandria, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, Washington, DC) be in addition to any identified jurisdictions in task #1, or desired benchmarking jurisdictions to be included in task #1?

Response: At a minimum, Alexandria, Fairfax County, Montgomery County, and Washington, DC should be included in the comparative fee analysis. We would also look to the consultant to suggest other jurisdictions that they believe are a good comparator to Arlington whether because the jurisdiction has a good model of fees or is similar in size/scope to Arlington.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: At this time, based on COVID-19 restrictions and/or current practices/policies, does the County anticipate that any necessary meetings with staff and stakeholders, community engagement meetings, or any of the nine (or more) meetings will be in-person or virtual?

Response: Virtual meetings are acceptable where appropriate.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Many privately held companies or partnerships do not release detailed financial statements, however, release other forms of financial information to evidence financial stability. This has previously been deemed responsive to other state agencies’ procurement requirements. Considering the uniqueness of the financial structure of such entities, will the County accept these alternative forms of financial disclosure in lieu of detailed financial statements request in this RFP, so as to ensure the broadest and most competitive pool of responses to the County’s RFP?

Response: Yes, if the County makes a request for a detailed financial statement for this contract.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: There appears to be contradictory language on Page 30, Item 27.E. and on Page 31, Item 35. Could the County clarify whether the Contractor must return all County Information to the County at the conclusion of the Contract, or retain all books, records, and other documents for at least five years after the final payment?

Response: The Contractor must return all County data information to the County at the conclusion of the Contract. If the County conducts an audit, then the Contractor should retain all books, records, and other documents for at least five years after the final payment that is kept in the Contract's holdings.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Would the County consider striking Section 52, Page 34, “Limited English Proficiency,” as not being appropriate to the requested services?

Response: This is an exception to the Terms and Conditions to the Sample Contract. Please review Section II. Information for Offerors, Item 14. Exceptions to Terms and Conditions and Section V. Proposal Requirements, item 7. Proposal Submittal Elements, H. Exceptions to the County’s Non-Mandatory Contract Terms and Conditions.

Posted: 12/17/2021

Question: Page 30, Section C, Data Protection says that if requested, “the Contractor must also provide annually the results of an internal Information Security Risk Assessment provided by an outside firm.” We typically don’t give out the results directly from the third party provider. Would the County accept a summary of the results instead?

Response: Yes, a summary of the results may be accepted.