|
Reviewed and commented on the recommendation to authorize the General Manager to execute contract with Burson-Marsteller for community outreach, public education, and marketing services, for an amount not to exceed $7,700,000. The contract shall be for an initial three-year period with two optional one-year extensions.
Expressed concern that the Chairperson or other Members of the Committee should be consulted whenever an item not on the work plan is included on the agenda.
Staff noted that the new memorandum clarifies the statements raised in the San Jose Mercury News Article and the other concerns related to the agenda item. Staff explained that $7.7 million is the maximum amount proposed for the combined public outreach efforts for all projects in the next five years.
Referred to the e-mail dated September 13, 2004 from VTA to K/F Communications and suggested that the process of being registered at VTA website should be included in the background of the memorandum. Inquired if finalists are listed on the memorandum.
Staff noted that VTA received five proposals and three firms were interviewed. Staff stated that the firm selection process was discussed in Attachment A (Board Memorandum dated August 10, 2004) but the names of the firms were not listed.
Commented that the names of the finalists should be included in the memorandum as it provides the opportunity for the Board to choose an alternative firm. Requested information on what the other finalists’ packages and associated costs.
Staff noted that the solicitation summary that lists all proposals and composite scores in table form is available and will be provided to the Board.
Commented that $7.7 million is a huge amount of money for public relations outreach program. Inquired what made Burson-Marsteller rise to the top and further inquired about the firms’ accomplishments.
Noted importance of reviewing the firm’s past experience on projects of the same magnitude, former clients, specific projects, and gathering feedback from former clients to validate the written proposal.
Commented that VTA has done a good job in terms of community outreach and inquired about the impacts of the contract to current internal staff and the cost savings associated with the contract.
Commented that the composition of the team is interesting and inquired about the involvement of each firm in the team and their contribution to public outreach.
Staff stated that some members of the team will not be utilized as much as others.
Inquired about the involvement of each team member in similar major projects and further inquired if there were local firms that applied and how these firms rated. Noted that the responsibilities and past experience should be listed for each of the members of the team.
Noted that internal staff does an outstanding job and inquired about the potential to do this work internally.
Stated that the timing is unique because of the issues that the San Jose Mercury News is raising. Noted the importance of ethics and stated that there should be proper framework to illustrate to the public that the process is legitimate. Added that this is an important tool to rebuild the public’s trust in VTA.
Inquired whether the $7.7 million is expected to be used over first three years as the contract has optional two one-year extensions. Staff clarified that the $7.7 million is the maximum amount projected to be expended over the next five years and added that the bulk of what is assumed for the BART project is in the last two years.
Noted that it is beneficial to know that that the BART portion is the vast majority of the $7.7 million and added that the timing of the expenditure is appropriate to know as well.
Verified if the consultant for public relations for the DTEV Project was part of the original Burson-Marsteller team and inquired if this firm was added in the negotiation.
Staff responded Burson-Marsteller stood out as the strongest team and that they brought a new type of community outreach and noted that staff requested Burson-Marsteller to add a team.
Noted that there should be flexibility in adding and removing members of the team. Inquired if the contract includes media and printing.
Noted that $7.7 million over the next five years is reasonable if it includes media, printing, and radio and inquired who extends the options. Staff responded that a true option is decided at the time the contract is entered and does not return to the Board unless staff does not want to exercise the option.
Stated opposition to extending the contract without Board approval. Requested outlining current staff and the work of current staff to clearly see what kind of work is done internally. Noted the importance of narrowing down the work by year, by budget, and by firm to illustrate the actual work scope, the rationale for the work, and the performance of the firm.
Staff clarified that the $7.7 million is not something that Burson-Marsteller came up with. Noted that the agenda item is just like a Request for Qualification (RFQ).
Expressed that the Burson-Marsteller team composition looks strange for transportation. Inquired how the team was created and further inquired who was on the panel. Staff responded that the panel is composed of the Chief Development Officer, Director of Marketing, Chief of Staff, Sales Program Manager, Customer Service Manager, Contract Administrator, and Management Analyst.
Inquired if staff thought of having outsiders look at the proposals to assist in the selection of consultants. Noted that it may be beneficial to have new eyes look at the process since it is VTA’s first time to do a public outreach contract of this magnitude.
Suggested using a matrix to show how the money is used to make it clearer and easier for the public to understand. Referred to the construction contracts with specific percentages of disadvantaged businesses or small business participation.
Inquired about the performance measures and standards, and the performance evaluation process.
Staff noted that VTA has not quantified these skills ahead of time. Staff noted that the language of the contract allows VTA to terminate the contract for any reason and at any time.
Noted that the general expectation from the firm should be included.
| 
Rider's Links 
