Ann Arbor logo
Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: 18-2026    Version: 1 Name: 12/3/18 Resolution to Provide Support for Best-Value/Negotiated Agreements
Type: Resolution Status: Passed
File created: 12/3/2018 In control: City Council
On agenda: 12/3/2018 Final action: 12/3/2018
Enactment date: 12/3/2018 Enactment #: R-18-479
Title: Resolution to Provide Support for Best-Value/Negotiated Agreements
Sponsors: Elizabeth Nelson, Kathy Griswold


Resolution to Provide Support for Best-Value/Negotiated Agreements


The following resolution requests that the City Administrator provide additional detail for Council’s consideration when best-value/negotiated contracts are presented for Council approval.  Council’s fiduciary responsibility to the public is best served when Council can review the criteria used to select a firm when the selection is not based solely on lowest price, and be able to confirm that best value for the expenditure of public funds is obtained.

Budget and Fiscal Impact:  This resolution has no impact on the budget.


Reviewed by:  Howard S. Lazarus, City Administrator


Whereas, The City of Ann Arbor frequently uses requests for proposals to solicit professional and other consultant services using a best value methodology;


Whereas, City staff employ a matrix of evaluation factors in determining which proposals best meet the needs of the procurement;


Whereas, Council relies on the professional experience of city staff to review, evaluate, and recommend contracts to Council; and


Whereas, Council is best served in exercising its fiduciary responsibilities by understanding the selection methodology and basis underlying staff’s recommendations, particularly when staff determines that the lowest-cost proposal does not provide the best value to the city and the public;


RESOLVED, That the City Administrator will ensure that in support of contract award recommendations, staff will provide as part of the Council resolution a discussion of method by which the best value determination was made, including the criteria that support of the recommendation, a summary of any numeric scoring used in the evaluation, the resulting rank-ordering of qualified offerors, and the reasons any offerors were deemed to be non-responsive and/or non-responsible.


Sponsored by:  Councilmembers Nelson and Griswold