![]() |
BOARD MEETING DATE: November 7, 2008
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
PROPOSAL:
SYNOPSIS:
COMMITTEE:
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Barry R. Wallerstein, D.Env. Background AB 2766 – Subvention Fund Program, chaptered into law as Health and Safety Code Sections 44220-44247, was enacted to authorize air pollution control districts to collect fees on motor vehicles. Fees are expended on mobile source air pollution reduction measures pursuant to the California Clean Air Act of 1988 or the AQMD’s AQMP pursuant to Article 5 of Chapter 5.5 of Part 3 of the Health and Safety Code. Health and Safety Code Section 44244.1(a) states that any agency receiving fee revenues pursuant to Section 44243 or 44244 shall, at least once every two years, be subject to an audit of each program or project funded. The audit is to be conducted by an independent auditor selected by the AQMD in accordance with Division 2 (commencing with Section 1100) of the Public Contract Code. Audit program guidelines for local government recipients of fee revenues under Health and Safety Code Sections 44220-44247 were prepared by the AQMD with input from the Technical Advisory Committee Audit Subcommittee of the Interagency AQMP Implementation Committee (IAIC), representatives of the Finance Committee of the League of California Cities and with CPA firms whose clients include local governments. These audit guidelines were approved by the IAIC, MSRC and by the Board on December 4, 1992 and further revised and approved in January 1995, and again in August 2003. This is the seventh biennial audit of these fee revenues and covers FYs 2005-06 and 2006-07.
Proposal On July 11, 2008, the Board approved an RFP to conduct the biennial audit of recipients of AB 2766 fee revenues. The audit will cover recipients in all three segments of the AB 2766 fee distribution to determine whether the fee revenues collected in FYs 2005-06 and 2006-07 were spent on the reduction of pollution from motor vehicles as described above. The primary purpose of the audit is to set forth an opinion regarding the propriety of the expenditures incurred, not the degree of efficacy in reducing air pollution. Outreach In accordance with AQMD’s Procurement Policy and Procedure, a public notice advertising the RFP/RFQ and inviting bids was published in the Los Angeles Times, the Orange County Register, the San Bernardino Sun, and Riverside County Press Enterprise newspapers to leverage the most cost-effective method of outreach to the entire South Coast Basin. Additionally, potential bidders may have been notified utilizing AQMD’s own electronic listing of certified minority vendors. Notice of the RFP/RFQ have been mailed to the Black and Latino Legislative Caucuses and various minority chambers of commerce and business associations, the State of California Contracts Register website, and placed on the Internet at AQMD’s Web site (http://www.aqmd.gov where it can be viewed by making menu selections “Inside AQMD”/“Employment and Business Opportunities”/“Business Opportunities” or by going directly to http://www.aqmd.gov/rfp/index.html). Information is also available on AQMD’s bidder’s 24-hour telephone message line (909) 396-2724. Bid Evaluation The AQMD received a total of four proposals from CPA firms that are qualified to perform audits in the State of California. All of the proposals were received by the 1:00 p.m., September 12, 2008 deadline. These proposals were evaluated by a technically-qualified panel in accordance with criteria contained in the RFP. Panel Composition The evaluation panel that was convened to evaluate the four proposals consisted of a member of the MSRC-TAC Administrative Subcommittee and four AQMD staff; a Senior Deputy District Counsel, a Planning and Rules Manager, and two Financial Analysts. Of the five panelists that scored the proposals, four are Caucasian, one Hispanic; four female, one male. Of the four proposals received, three were rated technically qualified to perform the audit of the AB 2766 program and were scored for cost. The evaluation results for the three proposals are:
The selection criteria used to rank the proposals included responsiveness to the RFP; technical expertise; qualifications and experience; past performance; cost; and SB/SBJV/DVBE/DVBEJV/DVBE/SB subcontractors/local business designation (non-EPA). Based on the panel’s assessment of the criteria, Thompson, Cobb, Bazilio and Associates, PC was selected to be recommended to the full Board. Resource Impacts: The maximum audit cost is $103,253. The total audit costs will be borne by the entities being audited as follows:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||