Subject: Request for Proposals

April1, 2016

Feasibility Study to determine costs associated with municipal services provided to the unincorporated areas of Box Elder County and determination of funding through proposed levy of a Municipal Service Tax on unincorporated areas of the county for municipal type services

Dear Interested Proposer:

Box Elder County is soliciting competitive proposals from qualified firms to conduct a feasibility study to levy a proposed municipal services tax on unincorporated areas of Box Elder County

Five (5) copies of your sealed proposal will be accepted until 5:00 p.m. on Friday, April 29, 2016at the Box Elder County Clerk’s Office, 01 South Main, Room , Brigham City, Utah 84302 No responses will be accepted after that date and time.

The sealed transmittal is to have “Municipal Service Tax Feasibility Study” clearly marked on the outside of the package. The proposal must include a cover letter indicating the firm’s willingness to enter into an agreement with Box Elder County.

If you have any questions regarding this “Request for Proposals,” please contact Tom Kotter, Box Elder County Auditor, 01 South Main, Brigham City, UT 84302.

Sincerely,

Tom Kotter, CFE

Box Elder County Auditor

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS

FEASIBILITY STUDY

FOR THE PROPOSED LEVY OF MUNICIPAL SERVICE TAX ON UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF BOX ELDER COUNTY, UTAH

Date of Issue:

April 1, 2016

Deadline for Submissions:

April 29, 20165:00 p.m.

Location for Submissions:

Box Elder County Clerk’s Office

01 South Main, Suite 10 Brigham City, UT 84302

Jeff Scott Stan SummersJeff Hadfield

Chairman

BOX ELDER COUNTY COMMISSION

01S. Main Street, Suite 26, Brigham City, UT 84302

[OFFICE] 435-734-3347 [FAX] 435-734-3380

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A.NOTICE TO PROFESSIONALS

B.SCOPE OF WORK

1.MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE WORK

2.CONSIDERATIONS

C.INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1.PROJECT TIMETABLE

2.PROCEDURE

3.PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

4.PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

5.ECONOMY OF PREPARATION

6.SUBMITTAL OWNERSHIP

7.COUNTY USE OF PROPOSAL IDEAS

8.QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

9.ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL

10.DISQUALIFICATION OF PROPOSAL

11.WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL

12.PROPOSAL COST

13.EVALUATION CRITERIA

14.GENERAL

D.CONTRACT REQUIREMENTS

1.AMENDMENTS

2.ALTERATION OF SPECIFICATIONS OR CHARACTER OF WORK

3.ASSIGNMENT

4.AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY COMMISSION

5.EXTRA WORK

6.INDEMNIFICATION

7.INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR

8.INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE

9.INSURANCE

10.INTERPRETATION

11.LEGAL

12.NO PRESUMPTION

13.NOTICES

14.PAYMENTS

15.PROPRIETARY INFORMATION

16.RULES OF PROCUREMENT

17.SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST

18.TERMINATION

19.WARRANTY

PROPOSAL RESPONSE FORM ...... Attachment A

CERTIFICATE OF NON-COLLUSION ...... Attachment B

SAMPLE AGREEMENT ...... Attachment C

A.NOTICE TO PROFESSIONALS

Through this Request for Proposals (“RFP”), Box Elder County is seeking proposals from qualified professional feasibility consultants to demonstrate qualifications and experience for a feasibility study of the proposed study of municipal services costs and proposed levy of municipal service tax on unincorporated areas of Box Elder County, Utah (“proposed municipal tax”).

In reference toUtah Code Ann. § 17-34-1(2)(b) which allows for a funding source for municipal services provided to unincorporated areas of the county by tax or other fees to persons or taxable property in the county outside the limits of cities and towns, the selected feasibility consultant shall:

Provide a complete feasibility study of the proposed municipal tax and submit the written results to the Box Elder County Commission no later than 90 days after the feasibility consultant is engaged to conduct the study.

Submit with the full written results of the feasibility study a summary of the results no longer than one page in length.

Prepare a short PowerPoint presentation (30 minutes or less) showing the results of the feasibility study and present it during a Box Eder County Commission meeting on a date and time yet to be determined at 01 South Main, Brigham City, Utah, and answer any questions posed by the County Commissioners and/or members of the public regarding the feasibility study.

Attend any public hearings and present the feasibility study results and respond to questions from the public at those hearings.

Responses to this RFP should include details about qualifications and related experience as described herein. They should include a proposal for the approach to the feasibility study. They should also include a grand total and complete compensation cost for the feasibility study and all related requirements of the feasibility consultant.

Box Elder County intends to compare and evaluate all qualifying submittals and select the most qualified feasibility consultant based on qualifications and experience, proposal contents, and costs.

This is a Request for Proposals only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation for services or as a contract for services. Submittals should be comprehensive, concise, and directly responsive to the goals and format as outlined in this RFP.

B.SCOPE OF WORK

1.MAJOR ELEMENTS OF THE WORK

Box Elder County anticipates that the feasibility consultant selected for the proposed municipal service tax shall fully comply with Utah Code Ann. §§ 17-34-1, 17-34-3, 17-34-4 and 17-34-5. Box Elder County further anticipates that a full complement of professional services shall be provided by the feasibility consultant selected for this feasibility study. These services shall include, but are not necessarily limited to, those outlined below:

a.Completing a feasibility study of the proposed municipal service tax and submitting the written results to the Box Elder County Commission of the proposed municipal service tax no later than 90 days after the feasibility consultant is engaged to conduct the study.

b.Submitting with the full written results of the feasibility study, a summary of the results no longer than one page in length.

c.Preparing a short PowerPoint presentation (30 minutes or less) showing the results of the feasibility study and presenting the PowerPoint presentation during a Box Elder County Commission meeting on a date and time yet to be determined at 01 South Main, Brigham City, Utah, and answer any questions posed by the County Commissioners and/or members of the public regarding the feasibility study.

d.Attending any public hearing and presenting the feasibility study results and responding to questions from the public at those hearings.

2.CONSIDERATIONS

a.The selected feasibility consultant shall consider the following:

1)population and population density within the unincorporated areas proposed for municipal service tax and the surrounding area;

2)current and five-year projections of demographics and economic base in the unincorporated areas of the county where the proposed municipal service tax would be levied and surrounding area, including household size and income, commercial and industrial development, and public facilities;

3)projected growth in the unincorporated areas of the county where the proposed municipal service tax would be levied and in adjacent areas during the next five years;

4)the present and five-year projections of the cost, including overhead, of governmental services in the unincorporated areas of the county where the proposed municipal service tax would be levied, including:

planning and zoning
business licensing
building permit and inspections
law enforcement;
fire protection:
ambulance services;
roads and public works;
weeds;

ix. government offices;

5)assuming the same tax categories and tax rates as currently imposed by the county and all other current service providers, the present and five-year projected revenue created by the proposed municipal service tax;

6)a projection of any new taxes per household that may be levied within the unincorporated area of the county within five years of instituting the municipal service tax; and

7)thefiscal impact on unincorporated areas, other municipalities, local districts, special service districts, and other governmental entities in the county.

8)the use of special service districts or other levies compared to a single county-wide municipal service tax

b.For purposes of Subsection B.2.a.4) above, the feasibility consultant shall assume a level and quality of governmental services to be provided to the unincorporated areas of the county in the future that fairly and reasonably approximate the level and quality of governmental services being provided to the unincorporated at the time of the feasibility study.

c.In determining the present cost of a governmental service, the feasibility consultant shall consider the county’s present and five-year projected cost of providing governmental service.

d.The costs calculated under Subsection B.2.a.4) above, shall take into account inflation and anticipated growth.

C.INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS

1.PROJECT TIMETABLE

The following timetable has been established for this feasibility study.

ITEM / DATE
Closing Date for Receipt of Proposals / Friday, April 29, 2016 at 5:00 p.m.
Awarding of Consultant Services Contract / On or before June16, 2016
Commencement of Feasibility Study / Immediately upon execution of Feasibility Study Agreement
Completion of Feasibility Study / Within 90 days of execution of Feasibility Study Agreement

2.PROCEDURE

a.The procedure for response to this RFP, evaluation of proposals, and selection of a feasibility consultant is as follows:

1)Interested entities will prepare and submit their proposals according to the Project Timetable contained in Subsection C.1;

2)Box Elder County and/or its representatives of the proposed municipal service tax will evaluate all submitted proposals to determine acceptance or rejection of the proposals.

3)A Feasibility Study Agreement will be executed between Box Elder County and the selected feasibility consultant.

3.PROPOSAL SUBMISSION

a.Each respondent must submit FIVE (5) COPIES of its SEALED proposal to the Box Elder County Clerk’s Office. The envelope containing the proposal must be clearly labeled “MUNICIPAL SERIVE TAX FEASIBILITY STUDY.” The proposal must be delivered to:

Box Elder County Clerk’s Office

01 South Main, Room 10

Brigham City, UT 84032

b.The deadline for receipt of proposals is set forth in Subsection C.1 “Project Timetable.”

4.PROPOSAL ORGANIZATION

All requested documentation must be included. Responses must be on the included forms. If the respondent requires additional space, a plain sheet(s) of paper may be used and attached to the form(s). The proposal must include (in the following order):

a.Transmittal letter stating the respondent’s intent to participate in the Agreement. The letter of transmittal shall be on official business letterhead and shall include the following:

1)A statement that the respondent will comply with all terms and conditions as indicated in the RFP.

2)A statement indicating whether the respondent is a corporation or other legal entity.

3)A statement of affirmative action that the respondent does not discriminate in its employment practices with regard to race, color, religion, age (except as provided by law), sex, marital status, political affiliation, national origin, or handicap.

4)A certification statement to the effect that the person signing the proposal is authorized to do soon behalf of the respondent.

5)Names of the key contact persons with their title and telephone numbers. Also, indicate first and second back-up contact persons if the person signing the proposal is not available to take a call from Box Elder County.

6)Name and complete mailing address of the respondent along with telephone number and fax number.

b.Completed Proposal Response Form (Attachment A) including all requested attachments.

c.Completed Certificate of Non-Collusion (Attachment B).

d.Certificate of Commercial General and Professional Liability insurance as required in Subsection D.9.a.

e.Certificate of current Workers Compensation insurance as required in Subsection D.9.b.

f.Proposal, including at least the following sections:

1)Introduction:

This section should consist of a cover letter, an executive summary (two pages maximum) and an organizational chart showing the team involved, including individual members, all organizations, relationships, and breakdown of responsibilities.

2)Proposer Qualifications:

This section should describe the feasibility consultant’s experience on similar feasibility studies, including the individual involvement on the specific feasibility studies described. Resumes of principals and other key staff scheduled to participate on the projects should be included. For all major participants, note the approximate full time equivalent hours to be devoted to the feasibility study. Provide a minimum of three references, including name, address, and telephone number of persons who can attest to performance on relevant feasibility studies.

3)Proposal:

This section should cover such things as the approach to the RFP; the proposed schedule of the work; the project strategy; the methodology to be used to control costs, maximize economy, and insure operational effectiveness; identify outputs to be delivered; and identify advantages of the proposal to Box Elder County.

5.ECONOMY OF PREPARATION

The proposal should be prepared simply and economically, providing straightforward, concise delineation of the feasibility consultant’s capabilities to satisfy the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity.

6.SUBMITTAL OWNERSHIP

All proposals (and the materials contained therein) submitted in response to this RFP shall become the property of Box Elder County and may be reviewed and evaluated by any persons at the discretion of the County. No proposal shall be returned to the respondent regardless of the outcome of the selection process. Proposers should carefully consider the items submitted before submitting items that would not be disposable to the feasibility consultant.

7.COUNTY USE OF PROPOSAL IDEAS

The County reserves the right to use any or all ideas presented. Selection or rejection of the proposal does not affect this right.

8.QUESTIONS AND CLARIFICATIONS

Questions regarding this RFP should be directed to:

Tom Kotter, Box Elder County Auditor

01 South Main, Suite 21

Brigham City, UT 84032

Business Hours: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

Telephone: (435) 734-3388

Fax: (435) 734-3360

Email:

9.ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL

a.Box Elder County reserves the right to reject any or all proposals or waive minor irregularities when to do so would be in the best interests of Box Elder County. Minor irregularities are those which will not have a significant adverse effect on overall competition or performance levels.

b.The responding party agrees that Box Elder County may terminate this procurement procedure at any time, and Box Elder County shall have no liability or responsibility to the responding party for any costs or expenses incurred in connection with this RFP, or such party’s response.

c.Failure of the successful feasibility consultant to enter into a written agreement consistent with the contents of the proposal, this RFP, and the attached Sample Agreement may result in cancellation of the award at County’s discretion.

10.DISQUALIFICATION OF PROPOSAL

a.The County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals received by reason of this request, or to negotiate separately with any source whatsoever in any manner necessary to serve the best interests of the County. The County may not award a contract solely on the basis of this RFP and will not pay for the information solicited or obtained. The information obtained will be used in determining the proposal that best meets the County’s needs and is the most advantageous proposal received. No oral, telegraphic, or telephonic proposals or modifications will be considered.

b.The occurrence of any of the following may result in disqualification of a proposal:

1)Failure to respond by the established submission deadline.

2)Failure to completely answer all questions posed in the RFP.

3)Use of any other type of form or format other than those indicated in the RFP.

4)Failure to provide requested documentation at the time of proposal submission.

5)Illegible responses.

6)If the proposer adds any provisions reserving the right to accept or reject an award or to enter into a contract pursuant to an award, or any other unauthorized conditions, limitations, or provisions.

7)If the feasibility consultant is unable to evidence a satisfactory record of integrity.

8)If the feasibility consultant is not qualified legally to contract.

9)Box Elder County Reserves the right to reject any or all proposals.

11.WITHDRAWAL OF PROPOSAL

The proposal may be withdrawn upon request by the respondent, without prejudice, prior to, but not after, the time fixed to receive proposals.

12.PROPOSAL COST

Cost for developing proposals and making proposal presentations are entirely the responsibility of the respondent and shall not be chargeable in any manner to the County.

13.EVALUATION CRITERIA

a.All requirements identified in this RFP must be satisfied in order for the proposal to qualify for consideration. The County desires to receive proposals from feasibility consultants who can demonstrate qualifications and capabilities.

b.All proposals will be evaluated by representatives of Box Elder County to identify the proposal that best meets the needs of Box Elder County as set forth in the RFP. A point-based system will be used to evaluate all proposals. The evaluation categories and their relative weights are listed on the Proposal Evaluation Worksheet. A brief description of each component includes:

1)Qualifications and Experience. This category deals with the feasibility consultant’s performance on similar prior feasibility studies, and the experience level of key personnel proposed for this feasibility consultant. Experience relates to the overall assessment of the feasibility consultant’s assigned personnel. Evaluation will be based on resumes that are provided, direct contact with identified current and previous clients, submitted information in response to the RFP, and on the evaluation team’s assessment of the various factors.

2)Scope of Work. This category represents an evaluation of the work plan submitted and the approach to be used to meet the County’s needs.

3)Cost Consciousness. This component pertains to the grand total and complete compensation cost for the feasibility study and all related requirements of the feasibility consultant.

4)Responsiveness of Proposal. Response to the overall proposal will be evaluated for logic, order, level of appeal, design, responsiveness, innovation, solutions, accuracy, timeliness of submission, and inclusion of required documents.

c.The evaluation of proposals will be conducted in two steps. The proposals will be evaluated in terms of the proposer’s ability to satisfy the requirements outlined in the RFP. After the evaluation, one feasibility consultant will be selected and an Agreement consistent with this RFP, including the attached Sample Agreement, will be executed by the parties.