Loading...
Contract # : C20-1042 - MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING LLC, DBA MGT CONSULTING GROUP - Execution Date: 11/20/2020 C20-1 042 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT (Not Construction Related) WITH MGT OF AMERICA CONSULTING,LLC This Professional Services Agreement("Agreement")is entered into and effective between CITY OF GLENDALE, an Arizona municipal corporation("City")and MGT of America Consulting,LLC,dba MGT Consulting Group,a Florida Limited bility Company,authorized to do business in the State of Arizona, ("Consultant")as of the a.O day of IW jak ,20 JO ("Effective Date"). RECITALS A. City intends to undertake a project for the benefit of the public and with public funds that is more fully set forth in Exhibit A,Project(the"Project"); B. City desires to retain the professional services of Consultant to perform certain specific duties and produce the specific work as set forth in the attached Exhibit B,Project Scope of Work("Scope"); C. Consultant desires to provide City with professional services("Services")consistent with best consulting or architectural practices and the standards set forth in this Agreement,in order to complete the Project;and D. City and Consultant desire to memorialize their agreement with this document AGREEMENT The parties hereby agree as follows: 1. Key Personnel;Other Consultants and Subcontractors. 1.1 Professional Services. Consultant will provide all Services necessary to assure the Project is completed timely and efficiently consistent within Project requirements,including,but not limited to,working in dose interaction and interfacing with City and its designated employees,and working closely with others,including other consultants or contractors,retained by City. 1.2 Project Team. a. Project Manager. (1) Consultant will designate an employee as Project Manager with sufficient training, knowledge, and experience to, in the City's opinion, complete the project and handle all aspects of the Project such that the work produced by Consultant is consistent with applicable standards as detailed in this Agreement,and (2) The City must approve the designated Project Manager. b. Project Team. (1) The Project Manager and all other employees assigned to the Project by Consultant will comprise the"Project Team" (2) Project Manager will have responsibility for and will supervise all other employees assigned to the Project by Consultant. c. Discharge,Reassign,Replacement (1) Consultant acknowledges the Project Team is comprised of the same persons and roles for each as may have been identified in Exhibit A. (2) Consultant will not discharge, reassign, replace or diminish the responsibilities of any of the employees assigned to the Project who have been approved by City (' 1 10/6/2020 without City's prior written consent unless that person leaves the employment of Consultant,in which event the substitute must first be approved in writing by City. (3) Consultant will change any of the members of the Project Team at the City's request if an employee's performance does not equal or exceed the level of competence that the City may reasonably expect of a person performing those duties, or if the acts or omissions of that person ate detrimental to the development of the Project d. Subcontractors. Consultant shall not engage any subcontractor for the work or services to be performed under this Agreement 2. Schedule. The Services will be'undertaken in a manner that ensures the Project is completed timely and efficiently in accordance with the Project. 3. Consultant's Work 3.1 Standard. Consultant must perform Services in accordance with the standards of due diligence, care, and quality prevailing among consultants having substantial experience with the successful furnishing of Services for projects that are equivalent in size,scope,quality,and other criteria under the Project and identified in this Agreement. 3.2 Licensing. Consultant warrants that a. Consultant currently holds all appropriate and required licenses, registrations and other approvals necessary for the lawful furnishing of Services("Approvals");and b. Neither Consultant nor any Subconsultant has been debarred or otherwise legally excluded from contracting with any federal,state,or local governmental entity("Debarment"). (1) City is under no obligation to ascertain or confirm the existence or issuance of any Approvals or Debarments,or to examine Consultant's contracting ability. (2) Consultant must notify City immediately if any Approvals or Debarment changes during the Agreement's duration. The failure of the Consultant to notify City as required will constitute a material default under the Agreement 3.3 Compliance. Services will be furnished in compliance with applicable federal, state, county and local statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances, building codes, life safety codes, and other standards and criteria designated by City. Consultant must not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment on the basis of race,color,religion,sex,national origin,age,marital status,sexual orientation,gender identity or expression, genetic characteristics, familial status, U.S. military veteran status or any disability. Consultant will require any Sub-contractor to be bound to the same requirements as stated within this section. Consultant, and on behalf of any subcontractors, warrants compliance with this section. 3.4 Coordination;Interaction. a. For projects that the City believes requires the coordination of various professional services, Consultant will work in close consultation with City to proactively interact with any other professionals retained by City on the Project ("Coordinating Project Professionals"). b. Subject to any limitations expressly stated in the Project Budget, Consultant will meet to review the Project, Schedule, Project B»clget, and in-progress work with Coordinating Project Professionals and City as often and for durations as City reasonably considers necessary in order to ensure the timely work delivery and Project completion. 2 10/6/2020 _ c. For projects not involving Coordinating Project Professionals, Consultant will proactively interact with any other contractors when directed by City to obtain or disseminate timely information for the proper execution of the Project 3.5 Work Product a. Ownership. Upon receipt of payment for Services furnished, Consultant grants to City exclusive ownership of and all copyrights, if any, to evaluations, reports, drawings, specifications, project manuals, surveys, estimates, reviews, minutes, all "architectural work" as defined in the United States Copyright Act, 17 U.S.0 § 101, et seq., and other intellectual work product as may be applicable("Work Product"). (1) This grant is effective whether the Work Product is on paper(e.g.,a"hard copy"), in electronic format,or in some other form. (2) Consultant warrants,and agrees to indemnify,hold harmless and defend City for, from and against any claim that any Work Product infringes on third-party proprietary interests. b. Delivery. Consultant will deliver to City copies of the preliminary and completed Work Product promptly as they are prepared. c. City Use. (1) City may reuse the Work Product at its sole discretion. (2) In the event the Work Product is used for another project without further consultations with Consultant, the City agrees to indemnify and hold Consultant harmless from any claim arising out of the Work Product (3) In such case,City will also remove any seal and title block from the Work Product 4. Compensation for the Project. 4.1 Compensation. Consultant's compensation for the Project, including those furnished by its Subconsultants or Subcontractors will not exceed $35,000 as specifically detailed in Exhibit D ("Compensation"). 4.2 Change in Scope of Project The Compensation may be equitably adjusted if the originally contemplated Scope as outlined in the Project is significantly modified. a. Adjustments to Compensation require a written amendment to this Agreement and may require City Council approval. b. Additional services which are outside the Scope of the Project contained in this Agreement may not be performed by the Consultant without prior written authorization from the City. c. Notwithstanding the incorporation of the Exhibits to this Agreement by reference,should any conflict arise between the provisions of this Agreement and the provisions found in the Exhibits and accompanying attachments, the provisions of this Agreement shall take priority and govern the conduct of the parties. 4.3 Allowances. An"Allowance"may be identified in Exhibit D only for work that is required by the Scope and the value of which cannot reasonably be quantified at the time of this Agreement a. As stated in Sec. 4.1 above, the Compensation must incorporate all Allowance amounts identified in Exhibit D and any unused allowance at the completion of the Project will remain with City. b. Consultant may not add any mark-up for work identified as an Allowance and which is to be performed by a Subconsultant c. Consultant will not use any portion of an Allowance without prior written authorization from the City. 3 10/6/2020 d. Examples of Allowance items include, but are not limited to, subsurface pothole investigations, survey, geotechnical investigations, public participation, radio path studies and material testing. 4.4 Expenses. City will reimburse Consultant for certain out-of-pocket expenses necessarily incurred by Consultant in connection with this Agreement, without mark-up (the "Reimbursable Expenses"),including,but not limited to,document reproduction,materials for book preparation, postage, courier and overnight delivery costs incurred with Federal Express or similar carriers, travel and car mileage,subject to the following a. Mileage,airfare,lodging and other travel expenses will be reimbursable only to the extent these would, if incurred, be reimbursed to City of Glendale personnel under its policies and procedures for business travel expense reimbursement made available to Consultant for review prior to the Agreement's execution, and which policies and procedures will be furnished to Consultant; b. The Reimbursable Expenses in this section are approved in advance by City in writing;and c. The total of all Reimbursable Expenses paid to Consultant in connection with this Agreement will not exceed the "not to exceed" amount identified for Reimbursable Services in the Compensation. 5. Billings and Payment. 5.1 Applications. a. Consultant will submit monthly invoices (each, a"Payment Application')to City's Project Manager and City will remit payments based upon the Payment Application as stated below. b. The period covered by each Payment Application will be one calendar month ending on the last day of the month. 5.2Bayment a. After a full and complete Payment Application is received, City will process and remit payment within 30 days. b. Payment may be subject to or conditioned upon City's receipt of: (1) Completed work generated by Consultant and its Subconsultants;and (2) Unconditional waivers and releases on final payment from all Subconsultants as City may reasonably request to assure the Project will be free of claims arising from required performances under this Agreement 5.3 Review and Withholding. City's Project Manager will timely review and certify Payment Applications. a. If the Payment Application is rejected, the Project Manager will issue a written listing of the items not approved for payment b. City may withhold an amount sufficient to pay expenses that City reasonably expects to incur in correcting the deficiency or deficiencies rejected for payment. 6. Termination. 6.1 For Convenience. City may terminate this Agreement for convenience, without cause, by delivering a written termination notice stating the effective termination date,which may not be less than 15 days following the date of delivery. a. Consultant will be equitably compensated for Services furnished prior to receipt of the termination notice and for reasonable costs incurred. 4 10/6/202D �1 b. Consultant will also be similarly compensated for any approved effort expended, and approved costs incurred, that are directly associated with Project closeout and delivery of the required items to the City. 6.2 For Cause. City may terminate this Agreement for cause if Consultant fails to cure any breach of this Agreement within seven days after receipt of written notice specifying the breach. a. Consultant will not be entitled to further payment until after City has determined its damages.If City's damages resulting from the breach,as determined by City, are less than the equitable amount due but not paid Consultant for Services furnished,City will pay the amount due to Consultant,less City's damages,in accordance with the provisions of Sec.5. b. If City's direct damages exceed amounts otherwise due to Consultant,Consultant must pay the difference to City immediately upon demand;however,Consultant will not be subject to consequential damages more than $1,000,000 or the amount of this Agreement, whichever is greater. 7. Conflict. Consultant acknowledges this Agreement is subject to A.R.S. § 38-511, which allows for cancellation of this Agreement in the event any person who is significantly involved in initiating, negotiating, securing, drafting, or creating the Agreement on City's behalf is also an employee, agent, or consultant of any other party to this Agreement. 8. Insurance. For the duration of the term of this Agreement, Consultant shall procure and maintain insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of all tasks or work necessary to complete the Project as herein defined. Such insurance shall cover Consultant,its agent(s),representative(s),employee(s) and any subcontractors. 8.1 Minimum Scope and Limit of Insurance. Coverage must be at least as broad as: a. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01, including products and completed operations, with limits of no less than $1,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury, and property damage. If a general aggregate limit applies,either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit. b. Automobile Liability: Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 0001 covering Code 1 (any auto),with limits no less than$1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage. c. Professional Liability. Consultant must maintain a Professional Liability insurance covering errors and omissions arising out of the work or services performed by Consultant, or anyone employed by Consultant, or anyone for whose acts, mistakes, errors and omissions Consultant is legally liability, with a liability insurance limit of$1,000,000 for each claim and a$1,000,000 annual aggregate limit. d. Worker's Compensation: Insurance as required by the State of Arizona, with Statutory Limits, and Employers' Liability insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury or disease. 8.2 Indemnification. a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant must defend, indemnify, and hold harmless City and its elected officials, officers, employees and agents (each, an "Indemnified Party," collectively,the"Indemnified Parties")for,from,and against any and all claims, demands, actions, damages, judgments, settlements, personal injury (including sickness, disease, death, and bodily harm), property damage (including loss of use), infringement, governmental action and all other losses and expenses,including attorneys' fees and litigation expenses (each, a "Demand or Expense" collectively "Demands or Expenses") asserted by a third-party(i.e. a person or entity other than City or Consultant) and that arises out of or results from the breach of this Agreement by the Consultant or 5 10/6/2020 the Consultant's negligent actions, errors or omissions (including any Subconsultant or Subcontractor or other person or firm employed by Consultant),whether sustained before or after completion of the Project b. This indemnity and hold harmless provision applies even if a Demand or Expense is in part due to the Indemnified Party's negligence or breach of a responsibility under this Agreement,but in that event, Consultant will be liable only to the extent the Demand or Expense results from the negligence or breach of a responsibility of Consultant or of any person or entity for whom Consultant is responsible. c. Consultant is not required to indemnify any Indemnified Parties for, from, or against any Demand or Expense resulting from the Indemnified Party's sole negligence or other fault solely attributable to the Indemnified Party. 8.3 Other Insurance Provisions. The insurance policies required by the Section above must contain, or be endorsed to contain the following insurance provisions: a. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be coveted as additional insureds of the CGL and automobile policies for any liability arising from or in connection with the performance of all tasks or work necessary to complete the Project as herein defined. Such liability may arise,but is not limited to,liability for materials,parts or equipment furnished in connection with any tasks,or work performed by Consultant or on its behalf and for liability arising from automobiles owned,leased,hired or borrowed on behalf of the Consultant General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Consultant's existing insurance policies,provided such endorsement is at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10, 11 85 or both CG 20 10 and CG 23 37,if later revisions are used. b. For any claims related to this Project, the Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance with respect to the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers shall be in excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it c. Each insurance policy required by this Section shall provide that coverage shall not be canceled,except after providing notice to the City. 8.4 Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a current A.M.Best rating of no less than A:VII,,unless the Consultant has obtained prior approval from the City stating that a non-conforming insurer is acceptable to,the City. 8.5 Waiver of Subrogation. Consultant hereby agrees to waive its rights of subrogation which any insurer may acquire from Consultant by virtue of the payment of any loss.Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation. The Workers'Compensation Policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by the Consultant,its employees,agent(s)and subcontractor(s). 8.6 Verification of Coverage. Within 15 days of the Effective Date of this Agreement,Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements,or copies of any applicable insurance language making the coverage required by this Agreement effective.All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by the City before work commences. Failure to obtain, submit or secure the City's approval of the required insurance policies, certificates or endorsements prior to the City's agreement that work may commence shall not waive the Consultant's obligations to obtain and verify insurance coverage as otherwise provided in this Section. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including any endorsements or amendments, required by this Agreement at any time during the Term stated herein. 6 ]0/6/2020 • Consultant's failure to obtain, submit or secure the City's approval of the required insurance policies, certificates or endorsements shall not be considered a Force Majeure or defense for any failure by the Consultant to comply with the terms and conditions of the Agreement,including any schedule for performance or completion of the Project 8.7 Subcontractors. Consultant shall require and shall verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all requirements of this Agreement 8.8 Special Risk or Circumstances. The City reserves the right.to modify these insurance requirements, including any limits of coverage,based on the nature of the risk,prior experience,insurer,coverage or other circumstances unique to the Consultant,the Project or the insurer. 9. E-verify, Records and Audits. To the extent applicable under A.R.S. §41-4401, the Consultant warrant their compliance and that of its subconsultants with all federal immigration laws and regulations that relate to their employees and compliance with the E-verify requirements under A.R.S. § 23-214(A). The Consultant or subconsultant's breach,of this warranty shall be deemed a material breach of the Agreement and may result in the termination of the Agreement by the City under the terms of this Agreement The City retains the legal right to randomly inspect the papers and records of the other party to ensure that the other party is complying with the above-mentioned warranty. The Consultant and subconsultant warrant to keep their respective papers and records open for random inspection during normal business hours by the other party.The parties shall cooperate with the City's random inspections,including granting the inspecting party entry rights onto their respective properties to perform the random inspections and waiving their respective rights to keep such papers and records confidential: 10. No Boycott of Israel. The Parties agree that they are not currently engaged in and agree that for the duration of the Agreement they will not engage in,a boycott of Israel,as that term is defined in A.R.S.§35- 393. Unless and until the District Court's injunction in Jordahl v Braovich,336 F.Supp.3d 1016 (D.Ariz.2018) is stayed or lifted,the Anti-Israel Boycott Provision(A.R.S.§35-393A1 (A)) (if applicable to this agreement) is unenforceable and the City will take no action to enforce it 11. Attestation of PCI Compliance: When applicable, the Consultant will provide the City annually with a Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard(PCI DSS)attestation of compliance certificate signed by an officer of Consultant with oversight responsibility. 12. Notices. 12.1 . A notice,request or other communication that is required or permitted under this Agreement(each a"Notice")will be effective only if: a. The Notice is in writing and b. Delivered in person or by overnight couriet service (delivery charges prepaid), certified or registered mail (return receipt requested). c. Notice will be deemed to have been delivered to the person to whom it is addressed as of the date of receipt,if (1) Received on a business day before 5:00 p.m. at the address for Notices identified for the Party in this Agreement by U.S: Mail,hand delivery, or overnight courier service;or (2) As of the next business day after receipt,if received after 5:00 p.m. d. The burden of proof of the place and time of delivery is upon the Party giving the Notice. e. Digitalized signatures and copies of signatures will have the same effect as original signatures. 7 10/6/2020 12.2 Representatives. a. Consultant Consultant's representative (the "Constiltant's Representative") authorized to act on Consultant's behalf with respect to the Project, and his or her address for Notice delivery is: J.Bradley Burgess 2251 Harvard Street,Suite 134 Sacramento,CA 95815 916-443-3411 BBurgessatngteonsulting.com b. City. City's representative ( City's Representative") authorized to act on City's behalf,and his or her address for Notice delivery is: City of Glendale do Megan Ellgen .5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale,Arizona 85301 With required copy to: City Manager City Attorney City of Glendale City of Glendale 5850 West Glendale Avenue 5850 West Glendale Avenue Glendale,Arizona 85301 Glendale,Arizona 85301 c. Concurrent Notices. (1) All notices to City's representative must be given concurrently to City Manager and City Attorney. (2) A notice will not be deemed to have been received by City's representative until the time that it has also been received by the City Manager and the City Attorney. (3) City may appoint one or more designees for the purpose of receiving notice by delivery of a written notice to Consultant identifying the designee(s) and their respective addresses for notices. d. Changes. Consultant or City may change its representative or information on Notice, by giving Notice of the change in accordance with this section at least ten days prior to the change. 13. Financing Assignment City may assign this Agreement to any City-affiliated entity, irithiding a non- profit corporation or other entity'whose primary purpose is to own or manage the Project. 14. Entire Agreement;Survival;Counterparts;Signatures. • 14.1 Integration. This Agreement contains,except as stated below,the entire agreement between City and Consultant and supersedes all prior conversations and negotiations between the parties regarding the Project or this Agreement a. Neither Party has made any representations,warranties or agreements as to any matters concerning the Agreement's subject matter. b. Representations,statements,conditions,or warranties not contained in this'Agreerdent will not be binding on the parties. c. Inconsistencies between the solicitation, any addenda attached to the solicitation,-the response or any excerpts attached as Exhibit A,and this Agreement,will be resolved by the terms and conditions stated in this Agreement 8 :Kviwzozo , , • • 14.2 Interpretation. a. The parties fairly negotiated the Agreement's provisions to the extent they believed necessary and with the legal representation they deemed appropriate. b. The parties are of equal bargaining position and this Agreement must be construed equally between the parties without consideration Of which of the parties may have drafted this Agreement c. The Agreement will be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Arizona. 14.3 Survival Except as specifically provided otherwise in this Agreement, each warranty, representation, indemnification and hold harmless provision, insurance requirement, and every other right, remedy and responsibility of a Party, will survive completion of the Project, or the earlier termination of this Agreement. 14.4 Amendment. No amendment to this Agreement will be binding'unless in writing and&mited by the parties.Electronic signature blocks do not constitute execution for purposes of this Agreement Any amendment may be subject to City Council approval. 14.5 Remedies. All rights and remedies provided in this Agreement are cumulative and the exercise of any one or more right or remedy will not affect any other rights or remedies under this Agreement or applicable law. 14.6 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is voided or found unenforceable, that determination will not affect the validity of the other provisions,and the voided or unenforceable provision will be reformed to conform with applicable law. 14.7 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts,and all counterparts will together comprise one instrument 15. Term. 15.1 Renewals. The term of this Agreement commences upon the effective date and continues for a four(4)year period.renewable on an annual basis.Consultant will be notified in writing by the City of its intent to extend the Agreement period at least thirty(30)calendar days prior to the expiration of the original or any renewal Agreement period.Price adjustments will only be reviewed during the Agreement renewal period and will be a de ermining factor for any renewal.There are no automatic renewals of this Agreement. 15,2 &tension for Procurement Process. Upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement, including the initial term and any renewals, at the City's sole discretion, this Agreement may be extended on a month-to-month basis for a maximum of six (6) months to allow for the City to complete its procurement process to select a vendor to Provide the services/materials similar to those provided under this Agreement The City will notify the Contractor in writing of its intent to extend the Agreement at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the Tani. Any extension provided under this subsection will continue under the same terms and conditions as in effect immediately prior to the expiration of the then-current term. 16. Dispute Resolution. Any controversy or claim arising out of or relating to this contract, or the breach thereof, shall be settled by arbitration administered according to the American Arbitration Association's Commercial Arbitration Rules,and judgment on the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any court having jurisdiction thereof. 17. Cooperative Use of Contract. This agreement may be extended for use by other governmental agencies And political subdivisions of the State. Any such usage by other entities must be in accord with the ordinances,charter,rules and regulations of the respective entity and the approval of the Contractor and City. For a list of SAVE members,dick on the following link: hftp://www.inesaaz.gov/businessipurchasing/save 9 10/6/2020 18. Exhibits. The following exhibits,with reference to the term in which they are first referenced,are incorporated by this reference. Rxhibit A Project Pxhibit B Scope of Work R,rhibit C Schedule Exhibit D Compensation (Signatures appear on the following page.) { ' I 10 i0A/2020 The parties enter into this Agreement effective as of the date shown above. City of Glendale, corp 2t... an Arizona municipal orp ration cvi By: Kevin R.Phelps Its: City Manager ATTEST: /fulie K over (SEAL) City Clerk. APPROVED AS TO FORM: Millaelp'•' City Attorney mpa.of America Consulting,LLC, an. 0 .... By ..,. t,ra. , Burgess : Execui,.e Vi... 'resident i 1 1 I i 1 li 1 1 11 10/6/2020 EXHIBIT A Professional Services Agreement PROJECT To deliver an acceptable Cost Allocation Plan and Indirect Cost Rate in compliance with all Federal OMB Circulars and Federal 2 CRF Part 200 Guidelines including identifying the central support and operating departments in the City,identifying the functions and services provided by the central departments,identifying allocable and non- allocable costs associated with the City's central service departments,determining the indirect allocation rate under OMB Omni Circular and distdbuting costs to operating departments in a fair and equitable manner. ti • EXHIBIT B Professional Services Agreement SCOPE OF WORK PER ATTACHED f • 4 EXHIBIT C Professional Services Agreement SCHEDULE See Rxhibit B EXHIBIT D Professional Services Agreement COMPENSATION METHOD AND AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION Compensation for all work performed and expenses earned by Consultant shall not exceed a total cost of$35,000. Billings and Payment shall be made in accordance with the provisions of the Exhibt B for delivery of plan. In addition there is an option to lease the MGTCAP software for$6,400 annually and/or MGT Consulting Group will be compensated$4,900 to perform annual updates to the plan or$150 per hour fox other related work. NOT-TO-EXCEED AMOUNT The total amount of compensation paid to Consultant for full completion of all work required by the Project dining the entire term of the Project must not exceed$35,000. DETAILED PROJECT COMPENSATION See Exhibit B Revised Pricing Worksheet - 5 eteradete DESCRIPTION: COST ALLOCATION PLAN DUE DATE AND Timm October 5,2020 at 5:00 PM(Local Time) Best and Final Offers must:be submitted via EMAIL. Please submit your response to: Megan Ellgen at mellgen@glendaleaz.com. Failure to provide this information within the stated time period may result in your proposal being deemed non-responsive,therefore,not considered for award: BEST 'i -►‘. • 'FFEROR INFORMATION: Alp�� JratMGT of America Consulting,LLC .,. orized Si 1 : I 1 r` Company's Legal Name J.Bradley Burgess 2251 Harvard Street,Suite 134 Printed Name Address Executive Vice.President Sacramento,CA 95815 Title City,State&Zip Code 916-595-2646 n/a Telephone Number FAX Number 10/5/2020. bburgess@mgtconsultnjcom - Date E-mail Address ti Wage • eletidele REVISED PRICING WORICSHEET Instructions: Offerors shall completely fill out the Pric3ns Worksheet. Offeror's pricing shall include, but is not limited to, labor, salaries, employee benefits, vehicles, equipment, tools, materials, supplies, fuel, travel licenses,expenses, shipping, hcenses; fees, insurance, profit, and any other associated direct or indirect costs necessary to provide the requested product and services (except sales taxes)., Sales tax shall not be included in the Unit Price. All prices quoted shall be firm and fixed for the specified contract period.The.City.shall NOT be invoiced at prices higher than those stated in the resultant contract. Other than contract pricing,NO additional cost,fees or surcharges shall be allowed by the City:. Item . Unit of Estimated Extended Description ' . Quantity Unit Price' Amount No: . . • _ Measure � (A) Cost Allocation Plan for Internal.Allocations as per Scope of Work Pls.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 1 $.. :. .. : Project 1 $ 14,646 $ 14,646 Indirect Cost for Grant Awards as per Scope. of Work Pls.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 2 $ Project 1 $ .3,588:. $3,588 No. and 2) $ 18,234 Total Amount(Item 3. PROCUREMENT CARD ORDERING CAPABILITY: Please check appropriate box. [ YES,I will accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card 0 NO,I will not accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card. 4, -DISCOUNT/PAYMENT TERMS:The City standard is 2%20 days. Comply: YES [] NO [3. If your answer is NO,please state terms offered: Discount has already been applied in the BAPO above. 5. TAX AMOUNT:Do not include any use tax or federal tax in your proposal. 3fPage City of Glendale,AZ WIICostAllccatloriPlen • • • ' - fsttmated Brte7lded • . • Item No: • .. ; :17esolpton 1'P:tatre. Mm Unit Pries(a)"Amount.. • Full Cost Allocation Plan. IA3 (Ax B) , • CostARecatton'Ptanfor lntemel Allocations as . • . . . Work . . •. Pls.breakdowndetailsofUnitPikebelow: .. . 1 Initiation. $ � • ' Develop arcel-based CAP Update Model. ' $ 3,645• ' • . . . . . 1 2 Project 1 $ .15,920 $ 15,9211 • ' .. •Interview Central Service Stuff $.2,430 . 3 . • .4. Collect nate $ 1.750 • 5 Prepare Draft Federal CAP S•2,755. • . . 6. Revise and Finalize CAP $ 1.750 7 Present CAP Results $ S85 . 8:TraMQtyFlmn issStagtoUpdateCAP1 $• 905 .• ' • Federal DostAllocatlon Flair'(conversion) Plano*Al be prepared wen:meth,the Ueutsmd tees below detar ; -. oomertlngena full CAP teeth,federally t otw+a -Indirect Cost forGtantAwards . . ' • as perScope of Work. ' Pls.breakdown details ofUnit Price below: . . 1 initiation. $. . 2 2:Develop Bald-basedCAP.Update Model. S. 875 Project 1 . Dev 3,900 $ 3.40D 3 interview Central Service Stiff: $ -. ' 4••Collect Data. •' ' .. . •$ . ._. . . •, . . . •5 Prepare Draft Federal CAP .. $.1430. • 6. Revise and Finance Federal CAP $ . 660 ' ' .7 Present CAP Reordis . $ 585 . 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP $ 350 - 8AFO.Redaction . - lid altd'IAFO .7ot lAm !).ountlkemFte.landS• 19.620 il6 •$• '.1,536 .$. .1094 , . Software QUA . Could trots please prelude us tntortmtlon on what th esofware lease Qntnis7 What is the price of the lease and what anthems are we abie.to downhta the software? ' . ' • Thesoftgiare lease relates toMUTCAP and et'sanannuil lease.The lease amount ls$6,400.7herebnoaddmortalaostfbrthebeefupdMa.mode9.Anyupdatnktothes,Rwares IN bepravldedireeof"7 diar6e to ill l�e.hokkrs . MGFCAP.s tire tul proprletery system we use.eve11day acoatthe nation:Anythligl an be des n8ed or ripdated within that system.Most ofour dlamswtio consider.leasing thead8ware.end up dIoems.s • to use an update model intheoifyearn at they ask usWdoquMcptanupdatesvrftAsmaferswpesthanful studies.'• • .. . . . The Excel update mode!is deslened for cities to.updetecmtof living fa tors,dines,bridgetqumbern,eto.the facet models apj reptlatatorusewiththeFuO Cott AloadanPion,hut note*Feder� CAP.We an exrfelnwhy this istheaseIlyou'rewondentt. - - Wedbe happy topravrde.youa Ono oftheMGTCAP:Christine Rernoldswas ipinknicontrict you tads;(leis)to Sat up.u•time:. ' . .: .. PROPOSAL SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 4***4• M I. REQUEST FOR QUOTATION CONSULTING GROUP SUBMITTED BY: J. BRADLEY BURGESS EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT 2251 HARVARD STREET,SUITE 134 • SACRAMENTO,CA 95815 FULL• COST • 916.443.3411 bburg.essRTgtconsulting.com •ALLOCATION PLAN & FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN s . CITY OF GLENDALE, ARIZONA • WWW.MGTCONSULTING.COM • CITY OF GLENDALE, AZ RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN & FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN SEPTEMBER 17, 2020 TABLE OF CONTENTS OFFER SHEET 4 PRICING WORKSHEET 6 COMPANY PROFILE 8 MGT HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE 8 MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS I I PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS 12 CLIENT REFERENCES 18 PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS 22 STAFFING PLAN AND AVAILABILITY 22 PROJECT TEAM RESUMES 24 PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN 32 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING 32 IVIGT'S APPROACH TO THE PROJECT 33 QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS 34 MGT'S COST ALLOCATION PLAN SOFTWARE 34 WORK PLAN 35 PROJECT TIMELINE 38 PROJECT DELIVERABLES 38 COST PROPOSAL 40 PROPOSAL EXHIBITS Exhibit I. Project Team Organizational Chart 22. Exhibit 2.Roles and Responsibilities 24 Exhibit 3.Comparison of Cost Allocation Methodologies 33 +�®*i MGT WWW.MGTCONSULTING.COM CONSULTING GROUP �SS M G T CONSULTING GROUP September 17,2020 City of Glendale Attn: Megan Ellgen, Budget Analyst 5850 W. Glendale Avenue Glendale,AZ 85301 Subject: Response to RFQ for Cost Allocation Plan and Indirect Cost Rate Dear Ms. Ellgen, MGT of America Consulting, LLC(MGT)appreciates this opportunity to present our qualifications, proposal,and pricing to assist the City of Glendale(City)with the preparation of two separate cost allocation plans:A Full Cost CAP that the City will use for internal allocations and a Federal CAP that can be used to measure indirect cost for federal or state grant awards. This proposal is in response to your Request for Quotation(RFQ). MGT has reviewed the scope of services requested by the City in the RFQ and we fully understand the services the City is requesting. MGT has provided these same cost allocation plans to hundreds of governmental agencies for over 30 years.Our team of professional consultants will be available to begin this engagement as soon as a final agreement is executed with the City. The goal of this proposal is to provide the City with the confidence that MGT has the highest level of interest in your project,qualified CAP experts who are prepared to prepare your plan, and the most long-term experience successfully providing CAP services across the nation. This cover letter supplements our proposal by summarizing the advantages of selecting MGT to provide the requested services and providing contact information regarding our proposal. Below are the key advantages of choosing MGT to provide the requested cost allocation services. I. Glendale will receive services from a senior team that has extensive national experience with similar projects.The MGT project team includes staff with dozens of years of experience preparing cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates for local governments,state agencies,and not-for-profit entities. In all, MGT prepares more than 500 cost allocation plan, indirect cost rates and related projects each year.Our proposed project team has the experience and. availability necessary to complete this project. 2. Glendale will receive a cost allocation plan model.The City requested a CAP model that it can update the plan with new costs or factors.The model should also allow for hypothetical services and costs to be included. MGT has some immediate solutions for this request and one amazing future option: • Best in Class: MGTCAP is our firm's proprietary cost allocation plan system.This is the software that will be used for the City's plan. It is available for lease in subsequent years. It is fully 2 CFR Part 2 compliant and produces exceptional cost allocation plans. No `♦�♦e MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 1 CONSULTING GROU1P RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN OFFER SHEET ♦ e • spreadsheet system has the functionality, robust features,and legacy management reports like MGTCAP. Both the Full Cost CAP and the Federal CAP will be generated by this system. ♦ A Terrific Update System:Once we produce the City's plans in MGTCAP,we can export the plans into Excel which will be fully tabbed and will guide the user on how to update the annual costs(CPI,salaries,etc.)to use the existing study in an updated way.This is a good one to two-year option for cities wanting to model and update costs between full studies.After two years (and possibly earlier),the City should prepare a new plan that reflects all the City's changes. • Future Innovation: MGT is currently developing a cloud-based CAP system using the best features and ideas from MGTCAP.We are determined to have the finest cloud- based system possible but maintain the simplicity and user-friendly aspects clients appreciate.The City's legacy data from MGTCAP can be uploaded to the cloud,and new features and functionality will be available. 3. Glendale will receive an accurate and defensible cost allocation plans.The MGT project team follows a proven process,and each cost plan undergoes several levels of quality assurance.The combined result is a cost plan that is accurate and defensible in the event of an audit or questions from users. MGT builds on the experience of our Arizona clients as well as those in other states to provide advice and counsel that will benefit the City by knowing the hot-button issues for audits, and to better understand best-practices for allocation methodologies. 4. Glendale will receive useful comparison and trend data with the cost allocation plans. MGT's proprietary cost allocation software, MGTCAP, allows for an unlimited number of departments, functions and allocation methods to be used and performs double step-down allocations that allow for the full recognition of the cross-support provided between allocated departments. MGTCAP also automatically generates a whole suite of comparison reports which compare the current plan to the plan from the prior year, as well as trend reports which compare all inputs and outputs over multiple cost allocation plan years. 5. Glendale will receive services beyond cost allocation plans. MGT's work plan and deliverables include extra services above and beyond just a cost allocation plan.We will have a kick-off presentation for project stakeholders to ensure all involved staff are appropriately engaged in the cost allocation plan process. We will also provide training for interested City personnel on the new CAPs and show how both plans can and should be used to enhance recovery. These extra services are provided to raise awareness of the cost allocation plans among City staff,which ultimately leads to better engagement as well as more accurate results. By aligning with your project goals, MGT will fully understand your organization and desired outcomes. M�°°� CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEIOBER 17,2020 PAGE 2 eUL71I"IV. RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN OFFER SHEET MGT Consulting considers Glendale to be a premiere potential client.The City is the 88t largest city in the nation and has a healthy$43.5 million fund balance.Our firm has a thriving practice in the Maricopa County region,and we would greatly appreciate the opportunity to work with Glendale. If you have any questions about our proposal please contact me at 916.595.2646 or bburgess@.mgtconsulting.com. As an Executive Vice President with MGT, I am authorized to submit the enclosed proposal for cost allocation plan services which is valid for 120 days from receipt of proposal. I am also authorized to negotiate and execute any subsequent agreement with the City for the services outlined in this proposal. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Ak %i� tie . dley Burges Executive Vice President MGT of America Consulting, LLC CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 `CONSULTING MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 3 CONSULTING GROUP OFFER SHEET .** M GT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 • PAGE 4 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I.FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN-&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN .. City of Glendale CITY OF•GLENDALE Budget and Finance Department 5850 West Glendale 17 Glendale REQUEST FOR QUOTATION Avenue,Suite Glendale,Arizona COST ALLOCATION PLAN 85301 OFFER SHEET • OFFER Supplier certifies that they have read, understand, and will fully and faithfully comply with this request for quotation, its attachments and any referenced documents. Supplier also certifies that the prices offered w-.e '' -':gently developed without consultation with any of the other Bidders or potential AOP '1 MGT of America Consulting,. LLC "rize. ig = Company's Legal Name J. Bradley Burgess. 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard Printed Name Address Executive Vice President Tampa, Florida 33609 Title City,State&Zip Code 888.302.0899 850.385.4501 Telephone Number FAX Number Proposals@mgtconsulting.com 09/09/2020 Email Address Date For questions regarding this offer:(If different from above) Contact Name Phone Number Fax Number Email Address FEDERAL TAXPAYER ID NUMBER: 81-0890071. Arizona.Sales Tax No, . . Not Applicable .•Tax Rate Bidder certifies it is a:Proprietorship Partnership Corporation X Minority or woman owned business:Yes No X . LLC(Limited Liability Company), (FOR CITY OF GLENDALE USE ONLY) ACCEPTANCE OF OFFER This Offer is hereby accepted. The Supplier is now bound to sell the materials or services specified in the Agreement, including all terms and conditions,specifications,amendments,etc.,and the Supplier's Offer as accepted by the City. Supplier is cautioned not to provide any material or commence any billable work under this agreement until Supplier receives a purchase order,contract release document or written notice to proceed. City of Glendale City Manager or Designee Signature: Printed Name and Title: Date: a 9 PRICING WORKSHEET • • • �••, MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 6 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN City of Glendale CITY OF GLENDALE Budget and Finance Department 5850 West Glendale 317 Glendale REQUEST FOR UOTATION Avenue, uit Arizona ARIZONA Glendale,Arizona COST ALLOCATION PLAN 85301 PRICING WORKSHEET :Instructions: Offerors shall completely fill out the Pricing Workbook. Offeror's pricing shall include, but is not limited to, labor, salaries, employee benefits, vehicles, equipment, tools, materials, supplies, fuel, travel expenses, shipping, licenses, fees, insurance, profit, and any other associated direct or indirect costs necessary to provide the requested product and services (except sales taxes). Sales tax shall not be included in the Unit Price. All prices quoted shall be firm and fixed for the specified contract.period. The City shall NOT be invoiced at prices higher than those stated in the resultant contract. Other than contract pricing, NO additional cost,fees or surcharges shall be allowed by the City. Unit of Estimated Extended (Item No. Description Quantity Unit Price(B) Amount Measure (A) (A x B) Full Cost Allocation Plan Cost Allocation Plan for Internal Allocations as per Scope of Work PIS.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 1 Initiation $ 1,900 1 :2 Develop Excel-based CAP Update Model $ 3,845 Project 1 $ 15,920 $ 15,920 3 Interview Central Service Staff $ 2,430 4. Collect Data S. 1,750- 5 Prepare Draft Federal CAP $ 2,755 6 Revise and Finalize CAP , . . . $ 1,750 7 .Present CAP Results ' $: 585 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP $ 905 Federal Cost Allocation Plan(conversion) Plans will be prepared concurrently,the hours and fees below are for converting the full.CAP to the federally compliant plan. Indirect Cost for Grant Awards ' as.per Scope of Work Pis:breakdown details of Unit Price below: 2 1 Initiation $ - Project 1 $ 3,900 $ .-3,900 2 Develop Excel-based CAP Update Model . $ 875 3 Interview Central Service Staff $ 4 Collect Data - $ 5 Prepare Draft Federal CAP . $ 1,430 6. Revise and Finalize Federal CAP $ 660 7 Present CAP Results $ 585 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP •$_ 350 Total Amount(Item No.1 and 2) $ .19,820 City of Glendale CITY OF GLENDALE Budget and Finance Department 5850 West Glendale Avenue,Suite Glendale REQUEST FOR QUOTATION 17 Glendale,Arizona COST ALLOCATION PLAN 85301 PRICING WORKSHEET :Instructions: Offerors shall completely fill out the Pricing Workbook. 3. PROCUREMENT CARD ORDERING CAPABILITY: Please check appropriate box. Q YES, I will accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card. ❑X NO, I will not accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card. 4. DISCOUNT/PAYMENT TERMS: The City standard is 2%20 days. Comply: YES 0 NO ® If your answer is NO,please state terms offered: 30 days 5. TAX AMOUNT: Do not include any use tax or federal tax in your proposal. No tax is included in our proposal. 8 COMPANY PROFILE MGT HISTORY AND ORGANIZATION STRUCTURE MGT of America Consulting, LLC(MGT) began operations in r 1974 as a higher education research firm and has expanded FIRM PROFILE its consulting capabilities and client offerings over the years. We area national consulting firm specializing in assisting MGT of America Consulting, public sector clients to operate more efficiently and LLC is a financially stable effectively.A significant portion of MGT's work is repeat national consulting firm with business, reflecting a high level of customer satisfaction in local offices and 115+ staff our ability to provide exceptional professional services. throughout the country. MGT is organized as a privately held,employee-owned and Founded in Florida in 1974 as a financially stable limited liability company with a deep roster public-sector research firm, MGT has always taken pride in of experienced cost allocation experts,support resources, providing fiercely independent and a commitment to serve the public. MGT is owned by the analysis and thoughtful advice current and retired partners, principals, and consultants of to each client. the firm.The advantage of this ownership structure to our clients is that every member of the firm has a vested interest MGT Consulting is a privately in the successful completion of every project,for every client. held, employee-owned and This ownership structure creates a mindset that permeates quickly growing limited liability through every MGT owner: we are continuously building a company with a deep roster of growing,yet stable firm based on trusting long-term experienced cost allocation relationships,both within the firm and with all our clients. experts and resources. MGT has acquired a keen understanding of the structures, operations, and issues facing public agencies.This understanding comes from over 46 years of extensive experience providing financial and management consulting services to state and local governments, and the prior work experience of our consultants.We are not the biggest,oldest,or highest profile consulting firm;just the best for combining firm qualifications and consultants' cost allocation expertise with the needs of cities,counties and state agencies. Prior to working as consultants, many of our consultants worked in government agencies as managers and staff.This inside knowledge and understanding of government gives our consultants an ability to hit the ground running from the very start of a project. MGT consultants understand what it means to work within constrained timelines, and the need to produce a product that concisely and clearly articulates findings and results. MGT OFFICE LOCATIONS MGT's headquarters are in Tampa, Florida,with additional locations across the country. 4 o* CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 8 1 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN COMPANY PROFILE NATIONAL FIRM LOCAL FOCUS CALIFORNIA ILLINOIS OHIO • Sacramento I Pasadena Chicago Columbus T COLORADO MASSACHUSETTS TEXAS Denver Boston Dallas 4 � . ki. . 1111.111 - 0 FLORIDA MICHIGAN VIRGINIA 1114ii , , Tallahassee I Tampa Bay City Richmond KANSAS NORTH CAROLINA Wichita Raleigh MGT employs over 125 professionals and is structured into several primary consulting divisions.The MGT Financial Solutions Group will be responsible for completion of the project. MGT Financial Solutions consists of over 40 experienced costing consultants—the largest group in our firm. MGT MAJOR CONSULTING LINES OF BUSINESS Government Consulting Diversity and Inclusion Everything from an organizational analysis Disparity research and diversity studies to ititto a jail privatization study to a strategic provide an organization or community with . plan to move an organization from reactive a more equitable and inclusive mode to proactive mode. environment. Education Solutions Financial Solutions From student outcomes and performance, Our nationally-recognized experts help to operational effectiveness,our solutions ® clients weather fluctuating market have impacted more than 50 million conditions and rising demands on their students across the globe. budgets using a variety of proven solutions. Human Capital• Cyber Security and Technology Specializing in classification and We hel• p IT and Cyber leaders navigate and com ensation studies,thispractice helps p p ino manage Cyber threats through a Cyber public agencies retain and attract the right Security Office program that provides an"a talent. la carte"menu for customization. THE MGT CONSULTING ADVANTAGE MGT offers an expert impartial perspective on organizational structure, processes, and V practices.As an independent entity, our only vested interest is that of our clients; therefore,we apply our extensive experience to generating objective independent solutions to meet our client needs. .*w*s MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 9 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN COMPANY PROFILE MGT leverages best-of-class data sources to inform policy development and service L400,1 delivery. Our team balances "gold standard" resources with our unique past performance lessons learned. MGT is.committed to offering useful recommendations that achieve real results and is ever mindful of the practical and political realities the City may face. MGT has an extensive track record of providing consulting services that are similar in scope to this project. Our solutions help the organizations we work with to more effectively and efficiently achieve their goals and serve constituents.We are committed to providing customized consulting services,objective research,creative solutions, and quality products that respond to each client's unique needs and time requirements. MGT provides solutions which are specifically tailored to meet the needs of our clients. to— The MGT team has an impressive track record of providing customized solutions, objective v research, creative recommendations, and quality products that respond to each client's d— unique needs and time requirements. MGT CONTACT INFORMATION ADMINISTRATIVE J.Bradley Burgess,Executive Vice President LEADER 2251 Harvard St.,Ste. 134 I Sacramento,CA 95815 P:916.443.3411 I Email: bburgess@mgtconsulting:com MGT of America Consulting,LLC MGT HEADQUARTERS 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard Tampa, Florida 33609 P:813.327.4717 I Fax:850.385.4501 I www.mgtconsulting.com F E I N:81-0890071 J.Bradley Burgess,Executive Vice President 2251 Harvard St.,Ste. 134 I Sacramento,CA 95815 P:916.443.3411 I Email: bburgess@mgtconsulting.com INDIVIDUALS Dr.Fred Seamon,Executive Vice President AUTHORIZED TO 516 North Adams Street I Tallahassee, Florida 32301 COMMIT FIRM P:850.386.3191 I E-mail:fseamon@mgtconsulting.com A.Trey Traviesa I CEO and Chairman of the Board 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard,Suite 200 I Tampa, Florida 33609 P:850.386.3191 I E-mail:ttraviesa@mgtconsulting.com Further information on MGT and its services are available at www.m_gtconsulting.com,and financial statements are available upon request. ASMGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 10 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN& PLAN FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION i MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS MGT has extensive experience in developing cost fn,f]CITIfs IIII COUNTIES , STATES OTHER allocation plans and indirect cost rates for state and 4.11 local governments across the U.S. _ 14"°- ft ...„6„,„ Art Each year, MGT consultants prepare more than 500 a,• e cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals, �Ap kiir and related projects for state and local government °° — ���inh ,ate ' agencies in all regions of the U.S.,as illustrated in ? + In MI r;1r .'' the map to the right. A1i! I _ pipe All members of our project team annually complete fkk, dozens of cost allocation plans CAPS indirect cost rate proposals (ICRPs), billed service rate and methodology development projects for state and local governments. Our cost allocation and related work is regularly submitted to and reviewed by federal cognizant agencies. Because we prepare so many cost allocation plans and indirect cost rate proposals,we have a significant amount of experience negotiating plans and rates with federal cognizant agencies. In just the past year, we have successfully negotiated plans and rates with U.S. Department of Health& Human Services, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Housing& Urban Development, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Interior, U.S. Department of Energy,the U.S. Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. In addition to indirect cost experience, MGT has an experienced consulting team that perform government cost analysis,charge-back rate development,operational analysis, program structuring and compliance. The extensive knowledge and experience of MGT's project team in preparing cost allocation plans, ICRPs,and related services for state and local government agencies makes MGT the best qualified company to provide the services requested.We believe the following supports this statement: • This is Our Core Business. Preparing cost allocation plans and cost-of-services studies is our core business.There are engineering firms and small CPA companies who dabble in these areas, but these firms are not committed to these core services over the long run. MGT has over 40 full- time consultants who prepare cost plans and indirect cost rate proposals every year.This focus and commitment allows us to provide better service and the best advice in these areas. Our experience in a wide range of government services is unmatched. • Team Experience: MGT project team members have completed literally hundreds of indirect cost studies over the course of their career in accordance with GAAP and federal cost principles. •� CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 •®� �� RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 11 & CONSULTING GROUP I MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS • • • All CAPS and rates which require federal/state submittal have been successfully negotiated with and approved by the appropriate cognizant agencies. • Public Finance Experience: MGT's project team members have extensive public financial consulting experience and practical experience working for state and local government agencies, averaging more than 15 years of public finance consulting experience. • Cost Identification/Recovery Experience:Our project team members are nationally recognized authorities on the identification and recovery of indirect costs by state and local government agencies. In addition to preparing ICRPs,Statewide Cost Allocation Plans (SWCAPs), billing rates and local and state agency cost allocation plans for over a decade,our team members regularly provide training on indirect cost identification and cost recovery related topics at Governmental Finance Officer Association development conferences. • Innovations. MGT's consultants have been responsible for many of the key innovations in cost allocation plan preparation and reports.We designed a cost allocation system that not only provides the most accurate double step-down methodology, but also has a management reports feature that allows the City to understand year-over-year changes in any of its allocations. Every number in our cost allocation plan can be easily traced to its source. • Government Consulting Experience: MGT's team has extensive public financial consulting experience working for state or local government agencies.All team members have completed multiple cost allocation and indirect cost rate proposal projects for local and state agencies, including large governmental entities.The utilization of experienced consultants will minimize City staff efforts during interviewing and data-gathering tasks,ensure an accurate evaluation of City processes and that the results that meet City objectives within the required time frame. • Decades of Regulatory Experience with the various federal costing regulations including: 2 CFR Part 200, OMB A-87, OASC-10,Title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. PRIOR EXPERIENCE WITH SIMILAR PROJECTS MGT has extensive experience in developing cost allocation plans and billing rates for state and local governments all across the U.S.A. Projects include the development of full-cost cost allocation plans and cost allocation plan prepared in accordance federal requirements as presented in 2 CFR Part 200 (formerly OMB A-87).The MGT project team has completed cost allocation plans for local and state agencies in over 30 states. In general,these projects,whether citywide, or for specific departments, have included many of the following scope items: • Acquiring and reviewing organizational and financial information. • Review of federal programs administered by the City. • Identifying administrative and support activities. • Determining City central services costs. • Preparing detailed cost schedules for each indirect organizational unit. • Preparing an indirect cost schedule. CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 I PAGE 12 �� MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN CONSULT-ING GROUP MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS • • • • Preparing a draft indirect cost rate(s). • Acquiring information on billed and allocated services. • Reviewing the draft cost allocation plans with City staff. • Providing a final cost allocation plan to the City incorporating any requested revisions. • Negotiation of approval of the cost allocation plan with the City's cognizant agency(if needed). • If necessary, providing a revised cost allocation plan incorporating any negotiated revisions. • Providing support on indirect cost recovery for one year after delivery of final cost allocation plan. MGT'S SPECIFIC COST ALLOCATION EXPERTISE The goal of city plans is to allocate centrally provided services to all departments in a fair and equitable manner. MGT prepares more cost allocation plans and user fee studies than any other firm in the United States We have provided similar services to many comparable cities nationally, as well as a numerous counties throughout the nation. We understand jurisdictions like Glendale and what it takes to have a successful engagement. CURRENT MGT ARIZONA COST ALLOCATION PLAN AND ICRP.PROJECTS Arizona Attorney General Arizona Game&Fish Department Arizona Office of the Governor Yuma County City of Flagstaff City of Goodyear City of Yuma Coconino County Cochise County Maricopa County . Navajo Nation Pinal County Arizona Department of Forestry&Fire Management MGT NATIONAL COST ALLOCATION CLIENTS—PAST FIVE YEARS MGT has prepared cost allocations for the following clients within the last five years. MGT Cost Allocation Plan Clients ALASKA Alaska Environmental Conservation -.. - ALABAMA Jefferson County Commission Alabama DCNR ARIZONA ' City of Flagstaff Coconino County Arizona Attorney General City of Mesa Maricopa County Sheriff Arizona Department of Forestry City of Surprise City of Phoenix Development Arizona Forestry&Fire Mgmt City of Yuma Pinal County Arizona Game&Fish Cochise County Yuma County _ Arizona Office of the Governor_ CALIFORNIA City of Alameda City of Roseville Lake County City of Anaheim City of Sacramento Lassen County City of Beaumont City of San Jose Los Angeles County CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 t ..41.4 MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 13 I CONSULTING GROUP _` MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS MGT Cost Allocation Plan Clients City of Chula Vista City of San Marcos Madera County City of Clovis City of Santa Ana Marin County City of Corona City of Santa Clara Modoc County City of Daly City City of Santa Monica Mono County City of Dublin City of Santa Rosa Napa County City of Encinitas City of Suisun Orange County City of Fremont City of Turlock Pkimas County City of Fresno City of Vallejo San Bernardino County City of Healdsburg City of West Covina Fire Dept San Joaquin County City of Industry Cali of Yuba City San Mateo County City of La Mesa Alpine County San Mateo County Sheriff City of Long Beach Amador County Santa Cruz County City of Newport Beach Butte County Sonoma Co Sheriff's Department City of Oakland Calaveras County Stanislaus County City of Pasadena Del Norte County Tuolumne County City of Rancho Cucamonga El Dorado County Ventura County City of Redlands 'Humboldt County Yolo County Community Services City of Rohnert Park lnyo County Yuba County City of Rohnert Park Public Safety LA County Metro Port of Oakland •L COLORADO City of Boulder Eagle County Park County City of Brighton Elbert County Pitkin County City of Carson Fremont County Rio Blanco County City of Colorado Springs Garfield County Routt County City of Loveland Gilpin County Summit County City of Rifle Grand County Teller County City of Westminster Gunnison County City and Co of Denver Fire.Rates Town of Castle Rock Jefferson County City and Co of Denver Special Dist. Adams County LaPlata County City and Co of Broomfield Arapahoe County Mesa County City and Co of Denver • Archuleta County Moffat County City and Co of Denver Public Works Boulder County Montrose County Colorado Dept of Public Safety Crowley County Otero County Denver Environmental Health Delta County Ouray County Denver Human Services Douglas CountY FLORIDA City of Margate Collier County Pinellas County Broward County Martin County SW Florida Water Management GEORGIA • --- City of Atlanta Kauai County _ Boone County DuPage County INDIANA Blackford County Jay County Vermillion County •• Mt-2r- . CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 %.•1 I RFC/I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 14 CONSULTING GROUP MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS MGT Cost Allocation Plan Clients DeKalb County Lawrence County Warrick County Delaware County Montgomery County Wayne County Fountain County Porter County Whitley County Jackson Count_y KANSAS . City of St. Marys Sedgwick County Kansas Department of Wildlife City of Topeka Kansas Corporation Commission Kansas Department of Commerce City of Wichita ' Kansas Department of Labor Wyandotte County Johnson County LOUISIANA City of Alexandria State of Louisiana Jefferson Parish City of Baton Rouge State of Louisiana Division of Lafayette Consolidated Government Administration(OSRAP) City of Lake Charles State of Louisiana HCM Orleans Parish District Attorney State of Louisiana Office of City of New Orleans -. Rapides Parish Technology Services Louisiana Department of Transportation&Development Baton Rouge Retirement System Rapides Parish Police Jury East Baton Rouge Parish District Louisiana Housing Corporation St.Charles Parish Attorney . . . Imperial Calcasieu Regional . Louisiana Office of Aircraft Services Planning&Development St.Tammany Parish Government Commission(IMCAL) - MARYLAND Frederick.County MICHIGAN City of Kalamazoo Grand Traverse County FOC Muskegon County Alcona County Grand Traverse County PA Newaygo County Alger County Gratiot County Oceana County. Alpena County . Hillsdale County Ontonagon County Arenac County Houghton County Osceola County Baraga County Huron County Oscoda County Barry County losco County Ottawa County Bay County Kalkaska County Presque Isle County Beniie County 'Lapeer County Roscommon County Calhoun County . . Leelanau County Saginaw County Cass County Livingston County Sanilac County Cheboygan County . . Luce County Schoolcraft County Clinton County Manistee County Shiawassee County Crawford County Marquette County St.Clair County Dickinson County Mason County- St.Joseph County Emmet County Menominee County Tuscola County Gogebic County . Missaukee County Van Buren County Grand Traverse County Montcalm County Wexford County Montmorency County American Public Power-Association MISSOURI Clay County St. Louis County Jackson County ••ii MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 15 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ IFULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN J MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS . . . MGT Cost Allocation Plan Clients NORTH CAROLINA City of Fayetteville Davie County Nash County City of Greenville Duplin County. Pitt County City of Hickory Forsyth County Randolph County City of Salisbury Greene County Richmond County City of Winston-Salem Guilford County Robeson County Town of Cary Harnett County Rockingham County Alleghany County Hertford County Rowan County Cabarrus County Hoke County Stokes County Camden County Iredell County Warren County Catawba County Lee County Wilson County Craven County Lincoln County North Carolina Dept of Environment Currituck County McDowell County NC Housing Finance Agency State of North Carolina Department of Environmental Quality NORTH DAKOTA State of North Dakota _ NEBRASKA Dawson County. Gosper County City of Lincoln NEW MEXICO City of Farmington New Mexico Dept of Health Los Alamos.County State of New Mexico NEVADA Nevada Department of Corrections State of Nevada OHIO Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District Ohio Division of Environmental Response and Revitalization Greater Cleveland Regional Transit OKLAHOMA City of Edmond City of Tulsa Oklahoma County OREGON Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission PENNSYLVANIA Beaver County Luzerne County TENNESSEE Nashville and Davidson County-Metro Government. TEXAS City of Abilene City of Midland Harris County City of Arlington City of Odessa Harris County Health Department City of Bryan City of Plano Kendall County City of College Station City of San Angelo Tarrant County City of Corpus Christi City of San Antonio Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts City of Dallas City of Waco Texas Department of Agriculture City of Fort Worth Cameron County Texas Office of the Attorney General City of Garland Collin County Texas Office of the Governor MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 16 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS • ♦ • MGT Cost Allocation Plan Clients City of Houston El Paso County Texas Veterans Commission City of Lewisville Galveston County Rio Grande Council of Government City of Longview UTAH State of Utah U.S.VIRGIN ISLANDS U.S.Virgin Islands Virgin Islands Econ Dev Authority VIRGINIA City of Newport City of Roanoke Loudoun County City of Newport News City of Suffolk State of Virginia DMME City of Portsmouth WASHINGTON City of Ocean Shores City of Spokane Sound Transit Authority State of Washington Office of Financial Management WISCONSIN Walworth County TRIBES Moapa Band of Paiute Indians Navajo Nation "A MGM" CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 17 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS ..♦ . CLIENT REFERENCES The following references are MGT clients who all have had cost allocation plans prepared by our firm. CLIENT NAME CITY OF TUCSON, ARIZONA(POP 535,000) Client project manager Leslie Ethen, Director,Office of Conservation and Sustainable. Development (520) 837-6930 Leslie.ethen@tucsonaz.gov Project description Cost of service analysis of the Planning&Development Services Department. Fiscal Choice was the subject matter expert and lead analyst on a project with BerryDunn, LLP accountants as prime contractor Types of services • Determined the cost of fixed and variable rate services for development projects, compare to current charges,and advise on policy to change rates. • Peer comparison of staffing and productivity. • Staff training to update the model. CLIENT NAME CITY OF RENO, NEVADA (POP. 240,000) Client project manager Matthew Taylor,Senior Management Analyst Finance Department - (775) 334-3104 tavlorm@reno.gov Project description • Reviewed costs and revenues of 650+fees in Planning& Development, City Clerk, Finance, Police, Fire, Public Works, and Parks &Recreation. • Developed cost allocation plans to support central administrative costs for user fee services. CLIENT NAME CITY OF FLAGSTAFF,ARIZONA(POP. 71,975) Client project manager Ms: Brandi Suda, Finance Director (928)213-2217 bsuda@flagstaffaz.gov Project description Annual preparation of the City's Full Cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plans, plus a conversion of the 2 CFR Part 200 cost plan.results into a.single,citywide overhead rate Types of services . Onsite interviews of department managers;data collection. • Cost plan and overhead rate preparation. • Comparison review and trend analyses of plan results year- over-year.. *SS MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 18 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN __� MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS ♦ • e • CLIENT NAME CITY OF GOODYEAR, AZ Z Client project manager Lauri Wingenroth Finance Manager—Budget and Research (623) 882-3061 Lauri.Wingenroth@goodvearaz.gov Project description MGT conducted a comprehensive citywide cost of service fee study in 2019-2020. For the Parks and Recreation Department, MGT analyzed the full cost of recreation programs; conducted a comparison survey of other local agencies to provide guidance to the Department in setting fees for a brand-new Recreation Campus;and analyzed the full cost of the City's MLB ballpark. Types of services • Cost Allocation Plan and User Fee Study CLIENT NAME ARIZONA OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR Client project manager Travis Price, CPA, Compliance & Procurement Manager (602) 542.1301 tprice@az.gov Project description Preparation and negotiation of the Agency's Indirect Cost Rate Proposal, annually, based on actual expenditures and data incurred by the Agency during the previous fiscal year. Types of services • Indirect Cost Rate Proposal CLIENT NAME COCONINO COUNTY, ARIZONA (POP. 140,776) Client project manager Ms. Megan Cunningham,Assistant Finance Director (928) 679-7184 mcunningham@coconino.az.Rov Project description Annual preparation of the County's Full Cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plans plus a conversion of the 2 CFR Part 200 cost plan results into multiple department overhead rates. User fee studies for every department in the county,split over a two-year period (each department's fees are reviewed every other year) CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 SUL MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 19 CONSULTING GROUP MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS Types of services • Onsite interviews of department managers &staff; data collection. • Cost plan and overhead rate preparation. • Comparison review and trend analyses of plan results year- over-year. • Cost analysis of fee-for-service activities. • Recommendations for fee adjustments based on county policy and A.R.S. legal requirements. • Report of findings; presentation of findings to Board of County Commissioners. CLIENT NAME CITY OF BUCKEYE, ARIZONA(POP. 68,500) Client project manager George Flores, Development Services Director 623.349.6209 gflores@buckeyeaz.gov Project description • Development user fee study- Building, Planning, Engineering, and Fire. CLIENT NAME CITY OF PHOENIX, ARIZONA(POP. I.626M) Client project manager Ms. Lyndee Cichon Department Budget Supervisor, Planning and Development 602. 534-5831 lyndee.cichon@phoenix.gov Project description • Analyzed the City's Planning and Development related fees, discussed best practices, and provided revenue projections. • Reviewed fee structure. Developed and proposed an updated fee structure. CLIENT NAME CITY&COUNTY OF DENVER, COLORADO Client project manager Stephanie Karayannis Adams Budget and Management Director 720.913.5512 Stephanie.Adams@denvergov.org Project description For more than 10 years, MGT has annually prepared the organization-wide Full Cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates. MGT performed user fee studies for Denver's Animal Control, Community Planning and Development,and Excise and License departments. MGT also prepared a retail marijuana study for Denver which identified the costs associated with administering and'enforcing the new legal status of marijuana. +SS MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 i CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 20 MGT EXPERIENCE PREPARING COST ALLOCATION PLANS . . . Types of services •. Cost Allocation Plan • User Fee Study • Cannabis Study CLIENT NAME CITY OF LAS VEGAS, NEVADA Client project manager Abbe Yacoben Deputy Director, Finance Department 702.229.6817 avacoben@lasvegasnevada.gov Project description Cost allocation plan and citywide fee study. Reviewed how all billed services are delivered, determined the cost of each, compared to current prices, and advised on price changes. Created a cost allocation plan to determine the cost of centrally provided overhead support to other departments and funds and used the results to help in identifying the full cost of activities.. Types of services • • • Cost Allocation Plan • Citywide Fee Study. . •*••, MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 ! RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 21 CONSULTING GROUP - PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS MGT has designated a.project team for Glendale's project with exceptional qualifications for completing the scope of work and assisting the City in maximizing the recovery,of costs.We intend to only assign senior consultants with extensive experience in preparing and negotiating cost allocation plans. MGT consultants to be assigned to this project have prepared numerous cost allocation plans over the past 25 plus years. Our project team will assure the development of a quality deliverable within the required time frame: MGT consultants participate in regular training on 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation issues to stay informed on all current and proposed regulations related to cost allocation for federal awards and can leverage our broad client base to bring best practices to the City's allocation process. STAFFING PLAN AND AVAILABILITY Following is a project organization chart for key staff and descriptions of each key staffs qualifications and relevant experiences. CITY OF GLENDALE Project Officer PROJECT EXECUTIVE Mr. Brad Burgess PROJECT DIRECTOR Mr. Bret Schlyer PROJECT MANAGER Ms. Michelle Garrett CONSULTANT DATA ANALYST&ICRP SPECIALIST Ms. Ellie Hennes Mr. Chris Brunette MGT PROJECT TEAM Exhibit 1.'Project Team Organizational Chart MGTCITY OF GLENDALE,AZ;I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 RFQ I.FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 22 CONSULTING GROUP PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS ♦ ♦ • This project team has the availability and bandwidth to successfully complete this project within the timeline identified by the City in its RFQ.The personnel described in our proposal are the professionals who will provide the services for this project. If circumstances dictate that additional resources are necessary to meet the City's deadlines, MGT has more than 30 additional experienced cost allocation consultants that it can call upon to augment the primary project team. PROJECT STAFF ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES City of Glendale Project Officer • TBD MGT suggests that City appoint a single point of contact to serve as the Project Officer.The Project Officer will have primary responsibility and final authority over all activities,and he/she will provide project guidance and direction to the MGT team.The Project Officer will approve the contract,work plan,and final report.All project correspondence,progress reports,and final reports will be delivered to the Project Officer. MGT Project Executive • Mr.Brad Burgess,Executive Vice President The MGT Project Executive will be the primary person responsible for ensuring the resources to conduct the study are available from start to finish and that the team fulfills all contractual requirements, produces a quality report,and.meets all project deadlines.The Project Executive is responsible for ensuring client success. MGT Project Director • Mr.Bret Schlyer,Vice President The MGT Project Director will address any questions or concerns throughout the project and will be available to attend on-site interviews, necessary meetings and present the final report findings to City staff and stakeholders. In addition,the Project Director will be responsible for the day-to-day management of all project activities,which includes refining procedures,assigning and monitoring all activities, and maintaining frequent contact with the Glendale Project Officer throughout the lifecycle of the project.The Project Director will be on-site for key meetings and presentations.He will also closely monitor the project timeline against milestones and deadlines. MGT Project Manager • Ms.Michelle Garrett The MGT Project Manager is the main point of quality control, has final authority for the project and deliverables, and helps resolve conflicts over any project issues.The Project Manager will be responsible for the completion of the scope of services and the provision of all deliverables.She will be actively involved in all tasks of our work plan and the development of all deliverables.The Project Manager will lead client meetings and interviews and be responsible managing the project on a day to day basis including the delegation of tasks,scheduling and operations of the project,including data gathering,data summation,creating the cost allocation model, and meeting with City staff to gather information and to review interim reports. �•e•� MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 23 cosuL _ GROUPRFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS . . . MGT Consultant Team Ms.Ellie Hennes,Project Consultant ■ Mr.Chris Brunette,Data Analyst These individuals will work in close contact with MGT's Project Executive,Project Director, Project Manager,and key City employees as appropriate,to customize and execute each work task and fulfill City's stated expectations. Under the supervision of the Project Manager,they will gather data, review the data to ensure fidelity and completeness,document the process,and assist with the preparation of communications with the City to discuss how the project is proceeding. Exhibit 2. Roles and Responsibilities PROJECT TEAM RESUMES . The resumes for the project team are provided on the following pages. • CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 MGT 4 RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE - CONSUOING GROUP PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS ♦ ♦ ♦ � . J. BRADLEY BURGESS ® ® ® Executive Vice President I Financial Solutions MGT CONSULTING GROUP Over the past 29 years, Mr. Burgess has become a trusted thought leader in `• i r tip governmental financial analysis and executive decision making. He is regularly retained i by public sector leaders throughout the nation to provide advice and solutions for difficult or complex public policy matters. He has provided expert testimony to state legislators,and is an adept negotiator who has successfully negotiated with state and y federal authorities on multi-million dollar audits and reviews. He has served as a corporate officer for the following consulting firms: MGT of America Consulting, LLC, MGT of America, Inc., Public Resource Management Group,LLC(founder), MAXIMUS, DMG-MAXIMUS,and David M.Griffith and Associates, Ltd. Mr. Burgess has personally served over 190 cities,and 49 of the 58 counties in California during his 29-year consulting career. He has also personally provided consulting services to 19 of California's 20 largest counties. Mr. Burgess also has extensive port experience having worked directly with San Diego Port, Port of Oakland, Port of San Francisco,as well as others. He has consulted with such districts as Los Angeles Metro Transit,SF Muni, BART,Charlotte Transit,and Sound Transit in Seattle. Recent projects include cannabis research and costing projects for the City and County of Denver,the State of Maryland and several counties in California. He also prepared the budget for Gary Indiana School Corporation as part of the Emergency Management Team hired by the State of Indiana in 2017. AREAS OF EXPERTISE •Trusted advisor to public executives •Cost-of-service analysis • Public leadership/policy alignment • Public and private entrepreneurship •Strategic analysis • Expert witness • Project management •Audit preparation and defense •Budgeting •Organizational transformation EDUCATION Master of Public Policy Studies, University of Chicago, Harris School of Public Policy Bachelor of Journalism, University of Missouri PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC,Executive Vice President,MGT Board of Directors,2007-present MGT of America, Inc,Senior Partner Public Resource Management Group LLC,Founding Partner MAXIMUS, Inc., Vice President DMG-MAXIMUS, Inc., Vice President David M.Griffith&Associates, LTD., Vice President, Director,Manager,Senior Consultant State of Illinois, Bureau of the Budget, Department of Transportation,Budget Analyst, LEADERSHIP EXPERTISE Mr. Burgess is an Executive Vice President at MGT Consulting and serves on the firm's Board of Directors. He is also the national manager responsible for MGT's Financial Solutions Division. Mr. Burgess was one of three founding partners of Public Resource Management Group(PRM). PRM became the fastest growing local government costing services practice in the nation. During his tenure with DMG and Maximus, Mr. Burgess ` MGTCITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 25 CONSULNSUL TING GROUP I PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS J. BRADLEY BURGESS Executive Vice President I Financial Solutions • MGT CONSULTING GROUP was responsible for the large,multi-million local government consulting practice,with over 40 professional consultants,and over 400 clients served per year. In addition to:state claiming and federal grant assistance, additional representative consulting studies include appropriation limitation studies,indirect cost rate proposal preparation,full cost and 2 CFR Part 200 federal cost allocation plans, user fee studies,development impact fee analysis,and legislative analysis. PERTINENT STATEWIDE EXPERIENCE Mr. Burgess served as the Associate Director of the California Cities SB 90 Service and the California.State Association of Counties SB 90 Service. In this capacity, Mr. Burgess worked,on behalf of all California local agencies to reach resolution on statewide issues such as the Open Meetings Act impasse;developing unit costs for several current mandates;and has assisted agencies such as San Francisco,Santa Barbara County, Orange County,Santa Clara County,Sacramento County, Monterey County, Marin County and San Mateo County,as well as large municipalities such as Los Angeles,Oakland and Sacramento to defend SB 90 claims under audit by the California State Controller. Mr. Burgess has also represented local agencies before the California Legislature,the Commission on State Mandates and the Bureau of State Audits.Additionally, Mr. Burgess has provided over 35 statewide training sessions on cost accounting theory, and presentations to over 20 state associations. PROFESSIONAL HISTORY Mr. Burgess has a broad background in government,public policy,and journalism. For three years,he edited and published a monthly professional magazine for the University of Missouri. Mr. Burgess was the IDOT budget analyst for Governor Thompson in the State of Illinois,and a consultant for Continental Illinois National Bank in Chicago. Mr. Burgess was a journalist for a daily newspaper in Kansas City,and had professional projects in Egypt, Israel and Saudi Arabia. `�®�i► MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 • i CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 26 PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS • • • BRET SCHLYER Vice President I Financial Solutions ® � MGT CONSULTING GROUP Mr.Schlyer has more than 25 years of experience assisting state and local government clients. His work and consulting project experiences have provided him with both theoretical and practical experience in the analysis and costing of governmental operations. He has extensive experience with federal cost determination standards; generally accepted accounting principles and procedures;and governmental budgeting,finance,accounting,and operations. Mr.Schlyer is nationally recognized as an authority on federal cost principles and its impact on state and local governments. He has made numerous presentations to and published articles for governmental organizations on the development and application of federal cost allocation plans,indirect cost rates,charge-back rates,and compliance with federal cost principles. He has provided training at several state Association of Governmental Accountants and Governmental Finance Officer Association professional development conferences. In addition,he has given presentations on federal costing principles,cost analysis, and cost recovery subjects to state agencies and local entities in more than a dozen states. AREAS OF EXPERTISE •Cost Allocation Plans(CAPs)in accordance with • Indirect cost policies,procedures,and models for federal cost principles(2 CFR Part 200)and sub-grantees. generally accepted accounting principles(GAAP) •Activity based cost of services and user fee studies •Statewide Cost Allocation Plans(SWCAPs). •Assisting agencies in maximizing general fund cost • Indirect Cost Rate Proposals(ICRPs). recoveries from federally funded programs, • Development and negotiation of charge-back rate enterprise and special revenue funds,and other methodologies and rates for Internal Service Funds. non-general fund sources • Daily Jail Rate, Booking Fee Analyses • Development and implementation of personnel activity reporting systems EDUCATION Bachelor of Science, Business Accounting, University of Kansas PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC, Vice President, Financial Solutions,2008-Present Maximus, Inc.,Director,Financial Services Division David M.Griffith&Associates, LTD.(DMG), Consultant Kansas Corporation Commission,Administrative Officer STATE GOVERNMENT EXPERTISE Mr.Schlyer has extensive experience and knowledge of 2 CFR Part 200 and its application and relevance to state governments in a variety of settings including the development and negotiation of cost allocation plans (CAP),state wide cost allocation plans(SWCAPs)and indirect cost rate proposals(ICRP). He also has experience with implementing and administering random moment sampling systems,and rate setting and administrative claiming for the Medicaid program. LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND NOT-FOR-PROFIT EXPERTISE Mr.Schlyer has significant experience with local government and not-for-profit cost recovery operations. His experiences have included managing and preparation of indirect cost rate proposals(ICRP),cost allocation plans(CAP)in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200 and GAAP for the identification of general fund costs provided CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 27 0.®ULTIMGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS 4 • • ♦ ® BRET SCHLYER • • , Vice President I Financial Solutions MGT CONSULTING GROUP to non-general fund entities,charge-back rates for billed services,and user fee studies. He has successfully negotiated CAPs and ICRPs with the over a dozen federal cognizant agencies including the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,Department of Interior,Housing and Urban Development, Department of Education, Department of Agriculture,and the Department of Justice. CLIENT SERVICE HIGHLIGHTS Indirect Cost Rate Proposal I Navajo Nation Mr.Schlyer prepared ICRPs for the Navajo Nation and successfully negotiated them with the U.S. Department of Interior. Prior to engaging with MGT,the Nation had not had a timely submission or a current indirect cost rate for over a decade.MGT initiated a project plan which brought the nation back into compliance with timely filing and successful negotiations. Mr.Schlyer also revised and negotiated previously submitted ICRPs to maximize the indirect cost recovery. Cost Allocation Plans and Indirect Cost Rates I St.Louis County,MO MGT prepared the 2 CFR Part 200 and Full Cost Allocation Plans with departmental indirect cost rates for St. Louis County.Mr.Schlyer led this project by successfully transitioning from a previous long-term vendor and enhancing the project through the increased inclusion of departmental staff throughout the process. Mr. Schlyer developed and presented a training session which was designed to increase the client staff's understanding of federal cost recovery as well as their understanding of the specific methodology utilized for the County's calculations. Statewide Cost Allocation Plans I State of Nevada Mr.Schlyer annually prepares the Statewide Cost Allocation Plan(SWCAP)for the State.This project includes both a central services cost allocation plan as well as the development of fund balance reconciliations for all billed service and insurance funds.The plan has been successfully negotiated with the U.S. Department of Health&Human Services each year,enabling the State to recover millions of dollars in federal funding. Mr. Schlyer also provides an annual training session to state budget and finance staff to review the methodology and identify any potential federal cost recovery issues that need to be addressed. Internal Service Fund Rate Setting I State of Louisiana Mr.Schlyer assisted the State of Louisiana with transitioning several services to Internal Service Funds by developing billing rate methodologies,cost models,procedure manuals and providing training for the Office of Aviation,Office of State Procurement,Office of Human Capital and the Division of Administrative Law. These projects enabled the State to accelerate cash flow, maintain compliance with federal cost principles, and to be able to maintain the models and rate setting process without the on-going need for consulting assistance. Enterprise Fund Transfer Policy City of Harrisonville,MO Following a state audit finding, Mr.Schlyer developed an enterprise fund transfer policy for the City to calculate and justify the transfers made to the General Fund.The project included the development of a cost . allocation model,a Payment-In-Lieu of Tax calculation,as well as a Franchise Fee calculation and policy for the City's enterprise funds.Mr.Schlyer provided a presentation and training to transition the annual maintenance of the project back to City staff at completion.The completion of the project protected more than$2.5 million in annual transfers to the General Fund. S. MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 I MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN I PAGE 28 CONSULTING GROUP l PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS MICHELLE GARRETT ® �♦ Manager I Financial Solutions • MGT CONSULTING GROUP Ms.Garrett is a Manager in MGT's Financial Solutions Group and has over fifteen years of cost accounting. consulting experience.Since joining MGT she has prepared cost allocation plans, user-fee studies and indirect cost rate calculations,and other management documents for numerous cities and counties throughout the country. Her experience also includes negotiation with federal and state authorities,audit defense and customized cost analyses for public-sector clients.She has proven experience complying with and negotiating cost allocation plans with state and federal cognizant agencies. Ms.Garrett received her Bachelor of Science in Business Administration degree with honors from the Northern Arizona University and her Master in Accountancy with honors from the University of Missouri. Ms.Garrett has prepared cost allocation plans,user fee studies and indirect cost rate calculations for cities and counties in Arizona,Hawaii, New Mexico,California, Florida,Tennessee,Oklahoma,and a particular emphasis in Colorado. Ms.Garrett has worked with over 75 cities and counties in Colorado,giving her a long and successful history of preparing exceptional cost allocation plans all over the state. AREAS OF EXPERTISE • Federal Cost Allocation Plans(2 CFR Part 200) • Indirect Cost Rate Proposals(ICRP) • Full Cost Allocation Plans(GAAP) •Charge Back and Billing Rate Models •User Fee Studies • Daily Jail Rate •Regulated Cannabis/Marijuana Cost Analyses EDUCATION Master of Accountancy, University of Missouri—Columbia Bachelor of Science in Business Administration, Northern Arizona University PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS Certified Public Accountant(inactive) PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC,Senior Manager,2007 —present Public Resource Management(PRM),Consultant Sloan's Lake HMO,Senior Accountant Reinsurance Group of America,Accountant Coopers&Lybrand, LLP,Senior Audit Associate CLIENT SERVICE HIGHLIGHTS Cost Allocation Plans I Delta County,CO Ms.Garrett worked with county personnel and Department of Human Services personnel to optimize the cash flow in the county. Improvements were made through the utilization of the State of Colorado Human Services reimbursement and the utilization of reimbursement from Federal and State Human Services programs via analysis of their cost allocation plan. Cost Allocation Plans,Special District Cost Rates I City and County of Denver,CO Ms.Garrett has led a team to provide the City and County of Denver with 2 CFR Part 200 and Full Cost Allocation Plans since 2003. More recently,she has been a part of the MGT project team to provide Denver with a cannabis study,user fee studies,and departmental and special district cost plans and rates. 4•4•♦ NIGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 29 PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS ELLIE HENNES ♦ Consultant I Financial Solutions ® � ® MGT CONSULTING GROUP Ellie Hennes is a dedicated consultant with a demonstrated pattern of success in her young career. Prior to joining MGT, Ms. Hennes has demonstrated her excellent analytical and communication skills as evident through success throughout her415 educational career as well as previous roles in the financial industry and public sector. Ms.Hennes work primarily focuses on cost allocation plans and jail rate studies.Ms. Hennes received her Master of Business Administration from Purdue University Global. _ EDUCATION Master of Business Administration, Purdue University Global,2020 Bachelor of Arts,Communication, University of Colorado-Denver,2017 PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC,Consultant,2018—present ALPS Fund Services,Mutual Fund Accountant Youth Advocate Programs,Inc., Youth Advocate Colorado State University Extension,AmeriCorps Member U.S. Food&Drug Administration,Administrative Support T. Rowe.Price,Adjustment Associate CLIENT SERVICE HIGHLIGHTS Cost Allocation I Town of Castle Rock,CO Ms. Hennes completed both federal and full cost allocation plans for the Town of Castle Rock,Colorado. Ms. Hennes managed the project to allow for several changes initiated by Town personnel while ensuring consistent communication to educate Town personnel new to the cost allocation plan process.The cost allocation plan is used to bill the Town's Community Center indirect costs to the General Fund. Cost Allocation I La Plata County,CO Ms. Hennes most recently engaged with La Plata County to complete a 2 CFR Indirect Cost Allocation Plan to submit to the State of Colorado for a reimbursement of indirect costs allocated to the Human Services Fund. As a result of MGT's guidance and the completed cost allocation plan,the county expects to receive a reimbursement of$234,000. Cost Allocation I City of Farmington,NM Ms. Hennes worked with the City of Farmington, NM to complete a Full Cost Allocation Plan primarily to charge enterprise funds,and specifically the Electric Fund,for indirect costs.The General Fund is able to recover nearly$2.6 million from the Electric Fund for their portion of the citywide indirect costs. RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE • Adams County,CO I-Cost Allocation Plan • Archuleta County,CO • Broomfield County, CO I Cost Allocation Plan • Elbert County,CO • Denver County,CO I Cost Allocation Plan • Rio Blanco County,CO • Gilpin County,CO I Cost Allocation Plan • La Plata County,CO • Jefferson County,CO I Cost Allocation Plan • Town of Castle Rock,CO • Otero County,CO I Cost Allocation Plan • City of Farmington, NM • Park County,CO I Cost Allocation Plan • Summit County,CO I Cost Allocation Plan s�♦�i MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 30 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT STAFF QUALIFICATIONS • • • CHRIS BRUNETTE ® ® ®♦ i Senior Consultant I Financial Solutions MGT CONSULTING GROUP Mr. Brunette is a consultant with MGT Consulting working primarily as a costing services technical analyst specializing in cost allocation and state/federal reimbursement tit AV" :: projects. Prior to that, he spent 16 years working on cost reimbursement claiming and data acquisition and manipulation projects.While working for Mandated Cost Systems, Inc.(and later as SI&A,Inc.), he prepared reimbursement claims for local agencies and A, school districts,as well as data analysis. He refined salary and budget information for hundreds of clients each year for use in reimbursement claims. As an associate consultant and consultant for MAXIMUS, Inc., he prepared reimbursement claims,formatted and processed raw data for salaries and claiming. He also managed smaller projects,created and updated claim forms,and managed a claiming database used by the mandated cost reimbursement department.At MGT Consulting, Mr. Brunette assists on cost allocation plan projects,uploading and reformatting data. His most recent cost allocation plan projects include cost plans for City of Long Beach,City of Santa Monica and Arapahoe County,Colorado. Mr. Brunette also manages MGT's practice for preparing and defending audits related to the CA Ground Emergency Medical Transport grants for local fire departments. He works with the cities of Beverly Hills, Newport Beach,West Covina and Glendale analyzing large EMS data sets,fire department expenditures and billing statistics to seek reimbursement from the State of California for medical transports. His efforts have helped local cities and counties recoup over$1 million in funds from the 2014 to 2017 fiscal years. AREAS OF EXPERTISE Mr. Brunette's processing and consulting experience has given him the knowledge and experience of governmental budgeting,finance,accounting and operations. •SB90 Claims and Processing •Cost Allocation Plans •ICRPs PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE MGT of America Consulting, LLC,Consultant,2014-Present MAXIMUS, Inc.,Associate Consultant/Consultant Mandated Cost Systems, Inc. (SI&A, INC.)In-House Staff/Product Support • RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE • City of Bakersfield SB90 • City of Sacramento ICRPs • County of Amador SB90 • County of San Mateo • City of Beverly Hills • City of San Jose SB90 • County of Lake CAP SB90 GEMT • City of Santa Clara SB90 • County of Monterey • County of Santa Cruz • City of Chico SB90 • City of Sunnyvale SB90 SB90 CAP • City of Colton SB90 • County of Alameda SB90 • County of Napa SB90 • City of Turlock CAP/ICRP • City of Fresno ICRPs • County of Amador CAP • County of Riverside SB90 ' City of Turlock SB90 • City of Newport Beach • County of Sacramento • County of Siskiyou SB90 GEMT SB90 • County of Yuba CAP CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 ♦�e�� MGT PAGE 31 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN PROJECT UNDERSTANDING MGT understands that it is the City of Glendale's desire to ensure that citywide administrative and support costs incurred on behalf Our methodology and of federal and other restricted-resource programs administered approach have been used by the City are recovered to the maximum extent possible.The by our project team best strategy for accomplishing this goal is to prepare two members to prepare separate cost allocation plans:A Full Cost CAP that the City will use ' hundreds of state and local for internal allocations and a Federal CAP that can be used to agency cost allocation plans. measure indirect cost for federal or state grant awards as defined _ _ _ by 2 CFR Part 200 federal guidelines.The citywide cost allocation will identify, aggregate and allocate all the citywide administrative costs to each department and/or funding source that benefit from the services provided based on fiscal year 2020 data. Full Cost CAPS allow the City to identify and incorporate most overhead costs,while 2 CFR Part 200 requires a local government agency wishing to recover costs of citywide or agency administration and support services from federally funded programs to annually prepare a federal cost allocation plan. Federal CAP calculations must include documentation on all costs that are billed to or recovered from federally funded programs using an allocation or billing methodology. The table below in Exhibit 3 describes the objectives,typical uses and considerations associated with both types of cost allocation plans. 40•®Pe MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 32 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN L PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN Exhibit 3. Comparison of Cost Allocation Methodologies COMPARISON OF COST ALLOCATION METHODOLOGIES PLAN TYPE OBJECTIVES TYPICAL USES CONSIDERATIONS ■ Identify the true costs of • Charging non-General Fund • Administrative and administering all city funds for administrative and support costs allowable departments,divisions support services. under GAAP.Plan and programs. ■ Recovering citywide conforms to 2 CFR Part ■ Justification for charging administrative and support 200 principles but is not as the proportional cost for costs in hourly and billing restrictive. city administration and rates. • Is not submitted for FULL COST CAP support to internal • Recovering citywide review to a cognizant sources,or external administrative and support agency. sources in the case of costs in use fees and rates. • Basis for transfer of billing rates and user • Budgeting and resource dollars from non-GF to the fees. General Fund. allocations. • Typically result in 15% higher returns than 2 CFR Part 200 plans. • Identify administrative • Charging overhead costs to • If this type of plan is used costs allowable under 2 federal grants. for grant or claim use,2 CFR Part 200 and • Charging overhead costs to CFR Part 200 requires that distributing those costs state grants and SB 90 an annual plan be FEDERAL CAP on an equitable basis. claims. prepared. (2 CFR PART 200) • Charging admin and • Provides a conservative • May be reviewed by a overhead costs to-grants, view of citywide cognizant agency. claims and other uses administrative and support that specifically require 2 costs. CFR Part 200 use. Our approach to this important project is further detailed in the following section. MGT'S APPROACH TO THE PROJECT To meet our commitment to the City,we will use a methodology and approach that has been used by our project team members to prepare hundreds of cost allocation plans and indirect cost rate proposals. The experiences MGT's project team members have acquired through the preparation of cost allocation plans across the country,allow us to develop and acquire approval of cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates that maximize the recovery of indirect cost from funded programs,and to establish accurate, +SS NIGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 r PAGE 33 coNSUL'rING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN • • • defensible billed service rates. Our technical approach will meet your objectives through interviews with agency managers,and a comprehensive data collection and review process. Embedded within our approach is our philosophy of close communications with our client on the progress of our work. Our management philosophy calls for interactive communication with City staff because it fosters an understanding of the work being performed and improves client satisfaction with our work.As our references will confirm,we are committed to meeting with the City as frequently as necessary to assure quality deliverables,full understanding, and implementation of project results. Given access and availability of City staff to provide organization,service, and financial information, MGT is qualified and staffed to complete all activities and tasks of the project. We will only require access to staff for brief interviews related to services.provided and their duties. We will also need assistance in the acquisition of organizational,financial, allocation base data, and other related information consistent with the City's commitment of resources identified in its RFQ. QUALITY ASSURANCE PROCESS MGT is committed to development of quality project deliverables and client satisfaction.We are used to having our work audited or reviewed by state and federal negotiators and auditors.We have established the following process to ensure the accuracy and quality of our work. • Detailed work papers and schedules are prepared, reconciled, and referenced to City source documents. • Cost Allocation work papers are maintained by plan section to enable rapid response to questions or issues that may arise during the review of the plan and indirect cost rates by City, the federal cognizant agency,or state auditors. • All schedules and interim project deliverables are continually,reviewed and cross-checked by the Project consultant. •_ All schedules and work papers are reviewed by the Project Director prior to the development of interim reports, and draft and final deliverables. • MGT's quality assurance coordinator ensures all work papers are properly identified and maintained in accordance with City and federal requirements. MGT'S COST ALLOCATION PLAN SOFTWARE The MGT Cost Allocation Plan System (MGTCAP) is a proprietary cost allocation software that incorporates a M double step-down methodology and incorporates years TCA of refinements and continual field use by MGT's project consultants. It is technically rigorous,detailed,and includes a one-of-a-kind self-auditing feature.Most importantly, its calculations have been reviewed and approved by state and federal cognizant agents all over the nation. +SS MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 • PAGE 34 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN The software enables the allocation of an unlimited number of cost pools using an unlimited number of different allocation bases. Report outputs included detailed schedules that will reconcile all costs allocated in the CAP to City financial statements. Data can be imported directly into the system, reducing the possibility for errors and enabling MGT staff to focus on methodology issues, rather than routine data entry. The MGTCAP software also generates custom management reports that compare the current cost allocation to the prior year cost allocation plan.These management reports will be provided to the City for each cost allocation plan prepared by MGT.These management reports both identify and explain variances in the plan inputs and results from one year to the next.They can be a very powerful tool in validating the overall accuracy and reasonableness of the allocation results. The management reports include: • Reconciliation of allocation results back to City financial statements. • Comparison of plan inputs-.expenditures, direct billings and allocation statistics—for each function within each central service department. • Comparison of Summary allocation results. - The MGTCAP software allows for variance thresholds to be set both by percentage and total dollars. — For allocation result variances beyond the set variance threshold,the management reports create an additional sub-report that identify the variances on a more detailed basis. • Unit cost summary for each function that will display the City's full cost of providing each central service function. — Examples include the cost of providing a paycheck,the cost of processing an accounts payable transaction and the cost to provide building maintenance services on a per-square- foot basis. • Matrix of cross allocations among all central service departments. WORK PLAN MGT's work plan for completing the requested scope of services is comprised of a series of individual tasks which will be performed consistent with the timeline from the City's RFQ. Regular progress and project review meetings are not shown on the narrative work plans but are planned.As our references will confirm,we are committed to connecting with City staff as frequently as necessary to assure a quality product, and full understanding of project results. PHASE I: DEVELOPMENT OF DRAFT COST ALLOCATION PLANS During this phase the required cost allocation plan documentation will be developed and compiled into draft cost allocation plans. Phase 1 tasks include the following: CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 35 ��i*s MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN CONSULTING GROUP PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN Task 1.1 Project Initiation At the onset of the project, MGT will connect with City staff to confirm the objectives,deliverables,and schedule,of the entire project. MGT staff understands the general objectives going into the engagement. However, having an initial meeting to set and determine specific objectives ensures the final product will meet City expectations. If necessary, any refinements in approach or schedule will be identified, discussed,and incorporated into a revised work plan and timeline,and submitted to City for approval. Task 1.2 Acquire and Review Organizational and Financial Information Annual financial and program reports,detailed expenditure reports, budgets, and agency-wide organization charts will be acquired and reviewed.Additional financial reports and organizational data will be acquired during and/or as a result of the initial project meeting and subsequent meetings with City staff. Additionally,the City's existing cost allocation plans the prior two years will be acquired and reviewed. MGT will evaluate all existing methodologies and identify areas for possible improvement, enhancement. MGT is always careful to not make methodology changes for the sake of change. Methodologies will only be modified when necessary for compliance with the appropriate regulations, or when they improve the overall accuracy of the plan. Task 1.3 Review of Federal Programs,and Other Restricted-Resource Programs,Administered by the City A review of City programs.will be conducted to identify federal programs and the source of their funding.The objective of this review is to determine the greatest potential for recovery of indirect costs and any issues associated with the recovery of indirect costs. Task 1.4 Identify Administrative and Support Activities This task focuses on identifying the activities of units responsible for providing administrative and support services throughout the department.We will interview supervisors of each administrative and support unit to discuss their services and activities. Task 1.5 Determine and Acquire Allocation Bases for Administrative and Support Activities This task is critical to ensuring administrative and support costs are allocated reasonably and to the greatest benefit of the City. Federal regulations (2 CFR Part 200) provides for substantial leeway in selecting allocation bases, but they must reasonably and equitably allocate costs in relationship to benefits received or derived.The selection of allocation bases will be reliant on Task 1.4 interviews,the availability of allocation data, and our previous experience in preparing CAPs that were submitted to and approved by federal cognizant agencies.Selected allocation base data will be acquired from administrative and support units and reviewed for appropriateness and completeness. Task 1.6 Prepare Cost Allocation Schedules MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 36 PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN For each administrative and support unit,a set of cost allocation schedules will be developed in our cost allocation software.A schedule will be developed providing each unit's costs by cost category and the distribution of the unit's costs to each activity of the unit.Any disallowed expenditures under federal guidelines will be deducted.Schedules will also be developed that allocate the total allowable costs of each unit activity to the benefiting City units. Task 1.7 Prepare Draft Full Cost Allocation Plan MGT will prepare a draft Full Cost CAP based on actual expenditures identifying all allowable indirect costs by organizational unit.The CAP will include cost allocation schedules on each central service and summary reports. In addition to summary reports providing the total allocated costs to each unit, a summary report in the CAP will be provided that identifies the amount allocated to each unit from each central administrative and support unit.All schedules and reports in the CAP will be reconciled to the City's most recent financial reports. Task 1.8 Provide Draft Full Cost Allocation Plan to the City The draft full cost CAP, reconciling schedules, information on billed and allocated costs,and other required documentation will be compiled into a single document and provided to the City. PHASE 2: COST ALLOCATION PLAN REVIEW, FINAL PLAN PREPARATION, TRAINING & SUPPORT The second phase involves final reviews and edits by the City, MGT preparing the final CAPs and providing training and support on indirect cost recovery.The final CAP will be provided within ten days after receipt the City comments on the draft CAP and indirect rate. Phase 2 tasks include the following. Task 2.1 Review of Draft Full Cost CAP and Federal CAP by the City Present an overview of the methodology for the CAP and citywide indirect cost rate. Review the draft reports.The intent of this review is to ensure the accuracy and applicability of the methodology,data and results. MGT-will introduce important operational implications for each plan,which will assist City management review. Task 2.2 Provide Final Full Cost CAP The final Full Cost CAP will be developed incorporating any comments and revisions identified during the review of the drafts during task 2.1.The final reports will be provided to the City within ten days after receipt of comments on the drafts.An electronic copy and three bound copies of the final reports will be provided to the City. Task 2.3 Provide Final Federal CAP MGT will convert the City's Full Cost CAP to a fully compliant Federal CAP once all allocation decisions are completed with the Full Cost plan.We will provide the City with three bound copies, and an electronic copy of the revised final Federal CAP document. ®P...♦ MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 37 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN . . • Task 2.4 Cost Allocation Methodology Training MGT staff will provide training to City staff on the preparation and implementation of both cost allocation plans and best uses for each plan. Task 2.6 Provide Indirect Cost Support MGT staff will continue to provide support to City on the application of both cost allocation plans including strategies for optimizing indirect costs through the end of the contract period. If either CAP is audited or questioned, regardless of when, MGT will be available to respond to questions and defend our work. PROJECT TIMELINE MGT will initiate work on the cost allocation plan immediately upon notice to proceed and the availability of the data necessary for the plan—assumed to be approximately September 30th.Tasks 1.1 through 1.8 would be provided over the next 6-8 weeks, culminating in the provision of the draft report in Task 1.9 to the City on or about November 30. Four weeks of time is scheduled for City review and any subsequent revisions,with the final results available prior to December 31. September 30, 2020 November 30, 2020 December 3 I , 2020 Initiate the first years' Provide draft cost allocation Final versions provided cost allocation plan plans to the City to the City PROJECT DELIVERABLES COST ALLOCATION PLAN DELIVERABLES • Comprehensive review of the City's current cost allocation methodology including a review of the allocation bases, indirect cost pools, methods of distributing costs to identify alternative methodologies which may favorably impact indirect cost recoveries. • Draft Full Cost Allocation Plan by November 30,or two months after project initiation. • Final Full Cost Allocation Plan and Federal Cost Allocation Plan by December 31,2020 in electronic format and up to 3 bound copies. CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 ♦�i�� MGT RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 38 CONSULTING GROUP PROJECT APPROACH AND WORK PLAN • COST ALLOCATION PLAN DELIVERABLES • Assistance in understanding and using the cost plan for internal management and budgetary purposes, internal charging for full overhead cost-based direct billing, and rate setting for internal purposes. • Instruction to City personnel in understanding the specifics of the cost allocation plan, including cost analysis, statistical collection and development techniques, plan summarization and organization, and theory of computation to ensure the plan is fully implemented. • •Provide assistance and defense services to the City if the plan is audited,or up to ten hours of assistance if the City needs to negotiate the cost allocation plan or indirect cost rates. ems♦ MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 39 CONSULTING GROUP COST PROPOSAL MGT proposes a fixed fee of$15,920 for completing City's Full Cost Allocation Plan, and an additional $3,900 to convert the Full Cost Plan to a 2 CFR 200 Federal Cost Allocation Plan.The total fee for the engagement as described is$19,820.As part of these fees, MGT will provide the requested scope of services, all stated deliverables, and perform all services proposed in the Work Plan Section. Pricing is based on the number of consulting hours required to complete the project, informed by our direct experience with similar projects. The pricing worksheet is included on the following pages. +SS MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 40 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN City of Glendale CITY OF GLENDALE Budget and Finance Department 5850 West Glendale Glendale REQUEST FOR QUOTATION Avenue,Suite 317 Glendale,Arizona COST ALLOCATION PLAN 85301 PRICING WORKSHEET :Instructions: Offerors shall completely fill out the Pricing Workbook. Offeror's pricing shall include, but is not limited to, labor, salaries, employee benefits, vehicles, equipment, tools, materials, supplies, fuel, travel expenses, shipping, licenses, fees, insurance, profit, and any other associated direct or.indirect costs necessary to provide the requested product and services (except sales taxes). Sales tax shall not be included in the Unit Price. All prices quoted shall be firm and fixed for the specified contract period. The City shall NOT be invoiced at prices higher than those stated in the resultant contract. Other than contract pricing, NO additional cost, fees or.surcharges shall be allowed by the City. Unitof Estimated Extended Item No.. Description i Quantity Unit Price(B) Amount Measure (A) (A x B) Full Cost Allocation.Plan Cost Allocation Plan for Internal Allocations as per Scope of Work Pls.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 1 Initiation . . $ 1,900 1 2 Develop Excel-based CAP Update Model $ 3,845 Project 1 $ 15,920 $ 15,920 3. Interview Central Service Staff $ 2,430 4 Collect Data $. 1,750 5 Prepare Draft Federal CAP. $ _2,755 6 Revise and Finalize CAP $ 1,750 7 Present CAP Results . . $ 585 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP $ 905 Federal Cost Allocation Plan(conversion) Plans will be prepared concurrently,the hours and fees below are for converting the full.CAP to the federally compliant plan. Indirect Cost for Grant Awards as per ScOpe of Work Pis.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 2 1 Initiation $ .- Project 1 $. 3,900 $ 3,900 2 Develop Excel-based CAP Update Model $ 875 3 Interview Central Service Staff $ - 4 Collect Data $ - 5 Prepare Draft Federal CAP $ 1,430 6 Revise and Finalize Federal CAP $ 660 7 Present CAP Results $ 585 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP $. 350 Total Amount(Item No.1 and 2) $ 19,820 C.7 City of Glendale CITY OF GLENDALE Budget and Finance Department 5850 West Glendale 17 Glendale REQUEST FOR QUOTATION Avenue,lal ,Arizona o Glendale, COST ALLOCATION PLAN 85301 PRICING WORKSHEET :Instructions: Offerors shall completely fill out the Pricing Workbook. 3. PROCUREMENT CARD ORDERING CAPABILITY: Please check appropriate box. YES, I will accept payment under.this contract with the Procurement Card. NO, I will not accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card. 4. DISCOUNT/PAYMENT TERMS: The City standard is 2%20 days. Comply: YES 0 NO ® If your answer is NO,please state terms offered: 30 days 5. TAX AMOUNT: Do not include any use fax or federal tax in your proposal. No tax is included in our proposal. 8 COST PROPOSAL env HOURLY BILLING RATES MGT's hourly billing rates are as follows: MGT Professional Staff Hourly Billing Rates , Project Executive $ 220 Project Manager $ 185 Senior Consultant $ 170 Consultant/Analyst $ 135 Additional services requested that fall outside the scope of this project shall be provided on a time-and- materials basis using the above hourly rates,with all expenses billed at cost subject to pre-approval.The hourly rate schedule is part of MGT's quote for use in invoicing for progress payments and for extra work incurred that is not part of this RFP. METHOD OF PAYMENT MGT.will provide monthly invoices to the City. It is customary for MGT to invoice 10%of the contract price at the time of contract execution.This invoiced amount covers MGT efforts on strategy sessions, preliminary on-site meetings, project planning and items not tied to fixed fee tasks outlined in the proposal.The amount due per month will then be based on the remaining amount of the fixed fee amount divided by the anticipated number of months to complete the project. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS Our work program and proposed fee for this project were developed with several key assumptions about the project. Changes to these assumptions may impact our methodology and proposed fee.We welcome the opportunity to meet with the City Project Officer to review these assumptions,validate or adjust these assumptions based on more complete information, and adjust the work plan and/or budget accordingly. Below,we present our assumptions: • The City will designate a City Project Officer for this project. This person will function as the primary point of contact for the project,and coordinate and facilitate the flow of information and communication between the City staff and MGT. • Two draft reports have been included in this proposal. Additional reports can be added for an additional fee. • Presentation of initial fee calculations will trigger a 45-day review period, during which any and all revisions will be incorporated. After this period, cost and revenue figures will be considered final. Changes to time, annual volume or financial data can be accommodated via scope addition. ♦�i+P MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 { PAGE 43 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN COST PROPOSAL . . . • MGT will have access to and will have the cooperation and participation of City staff and management. MGT expects to have reasonable, timely access to City personnel and data. If the City stops the project for any reason, MGT will be due all fees for services performed to date. • Meeting facilities will be arranged for and used at the expense of the City. Meetings may be conducted via video conferencing to comply with any COVID-19 precautionary measures. The City will provide all requested documents at its own expense. • All costs and other data provided by the City will be considered accurate and valid. MGT will not be responsible for the audit and/or verification of any cost or other data provided by the City. `.4 MGT CITY OF GLENDALE,AZ I SEPTEMBER 17,2020 PAGE 44 CONSULTING GROUP RFQ I FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN&FEDERAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN NATIONAL FIRM LOCAL FOCUS CALIFORNIA ILLINOIS MICHIGAN TEXAS Sacramento J Pasadena Chicago Bay City Dallas COLORADO KANSAS NORTH CAROLINA VIRGINIA Denver Wichita Raleigh Richmond FLORIDA MASSACHUSETTS• OHIO Tallahassee I Tampa Boston Columbus /1/4 • ,4„ • mGT CONSULTING GROUP 4320 West Kennedy Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33609 888.302.0899 I www.mgtconsulting.com Glendale DESCRIPTION: COST ALLOCATION PLAN DUE DATE AND TIME: October 5,2020 at 5:00 PM(Local Time) Best and Final Offers must be submitted via EMAIL. Please submit your response to: Megan Ellgen at mellgen@glendaleaz.com. Failure to provide this information within the stated time period may result in your proposal being • deemed non-responsive,therefore,not considered for award. BEST • 'i g6.0 toi FFEROR INFORMATION: •0o11 7r MGT of America Consulting,LLC rized Si. - Company's Legal Name J.Bradley Burgess 2251 Harvard Street,Suite 134 Printed Name Address • Executive Vice President Sacramento,CA 95815 Title • City, State&Zip Code • 916-595-2646 n/a Telephone Number • FAX Number • 10/5/2020 bburgess@mgtconsulting.com Date E-mail Address Wage L Meru:tale REVISED PRICING WORKSHEET Instructions: Offerors shall completely fill out the Pricing Worksheets Offeror's pricing shall include, but is not limited to, labor, salaries, employee benefits, vehicles, equipment, tools, materials, supplies, fuel, travel expenses, shipping, licenses, fees, insurance, profit, and any other associated direct or indirect costs necessary to provide the requested product and services (except sales taxes). Sales tax shall not be included in the Unit Price. All prices quoted shall be firm and fixed for the specified contract period: The City shall NOT be invoiced at prices higher than those stated in the resultant contract. Other than contract pricing,NO additional cost,fees or surcharges shall be allowed by the City. Item Unit of Estimated Extended Description ` Quantity Unit Price Amount No. Measure ... (A) (B) (A X B) Cost Allocation Plan for Internal Allocations as per Scope of Work Pis.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 1 $. . Project 1 $ 14,646 $ 14,646 $. . Indirect Cost for Grant Awards as per Scope. of Work. Pls.breakdown details of Unit Price below: 2 $ Project 1 $ 3,588 $ 3,588 $. Total Amount(Item.No. 1 and 2) $ 18,234 3. PROCUREMENT CARD ORDERING CAPABILITY: Please check appropriate box. YES,I will accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card. ❑NO,I will not accept payment under this contract with the Procurement Card. 4. DISCOUNT/PAYMENT TERMS: The City standard is 2%20 days. Comply: YES ❑ NO © If your answer is NO,please state terms offered: Discount has already been applied in the BAFO above: 5. TAX AMOUNT: Do not include any use tax or federal tax in your proposal. 3IPage • • City ofGlendale;AZ . • Full Cost Allocation Plan • ' Unit of Estimated' . •Extended• Item No. Description, Quantity Unit Price(B) -Amount .Measure (A) (A x B) • Full Cost Allocation Plan• - Cost Allocation Plan for Internal Allocations as per Scope of • • . Work • Pis:breakdown details of Unit Price below: • 1 Initiation. .5'.1,900 • Develop Excel-based CAP Update Model $ 3,845 . 1- •Z • Project. 1- . $ .15,920 $ 15,920 . Interview Central Service Staff • $ 2,430 • • 3 . • 4 Collect Data -$ 1;750' . 5' Prepare Draft Federal CAP- $ 2,755 • 6. Revise and Finalize CAP-' ` $'1,750. ' . .7 Present CAP Results $• 585. 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP . $ '.905•• • Federal Cost Allocation Plan.(conversion), • Plans will be prepared conairremiy,the hours and fees below are foi • . . • . converting the full CAP to the federally compliant plan. ' Indirect Cost for Grant Awards ' ' ' as per Scope of Work - • Pis.breakdown details of Unit Price below: • • '1. Initiation. $ . . 2 . 'Project ' 1 $ •3,900 .$ '3;900. •2 Develop Excelbased CAP Update Model $ '875 • 3 Interview Central Service Staff. $; -- . ' 4. Collect Data ' . ' $ - ' . '5. Prepare Draft Federal CAP $. 1,430 • • 6 Revise and Finalize.Federal CAP $ ,660 ' 7 Present CAP Results ' $ 585 ' • 8 Train City Finance Staff to Update CAP' ' $ 350. ' . WO Reduction -.Total Bid after BAFO Total Amount(Item No.1 and 2) -$ . 19,820. ' •87i $ 1,586 :$- ' .18,234: . -SoftwareQ&A . • Could you please provide us information on what the software lease entail's?What is the price of the lease and what updates are weable to do within the software? 'The software lease relates to MGTCAP and it's an annual lease The lease amount'Is 56,400.There is no additional cost for the Excel update model.Any updates to the software will be provided free of charge to all lease holders. - . MGTCAP is the full proprietary system we use every day across-he nation.Anything can be changed or updated within that system.Most of our clients who consider leasing the software end choosing to use an update model In the off years,or they ask us to do quick Plan updates with smaller scopes than full studies. . The Excel update model is designed for cities to update cost of living factors,,salaries,budget numbers,etc.The Excel model is appropriate for use with the Full Cost Allocation Plan,but not the Federal CAP.We can explain whythis is the case if you're wondering. , We'd be happy to provide you a demo of the MGTCAP:'Chnstine Reynolds was going to contact you today'(10/5j to setup a time.. - . • -