2013 11:30:00 AM

Monday, January 28, 2013 11:30 AM
City Hall, Lower Level, 431 Prater Way, Sparks, NV

Item Number: 6

Title: Consideration, discussion and possible direction concerning an update to the City of Sparks Procurement Code (SMC 2.25).

Petitioner/Presenter: Dan Marran, CPPO, C.P.M. – Contracts and Risk Manager/Dan Marran, CPPO, C.P.M. – Contracts and Risk Manager

Recommendation: Receive information concerning a requested update to the procurement code and provide direction concerning any potential updates.

Financial Impact: N/A

Business Impact (Per NRS 237):
A Business Impact Statement is not required because this is not a rule.

Agenda Item Brief: The purpose of this item is to review the existing procurement code for the City of Sparks (SMC 2.25) and to discuss potential revision of the code for presentation at a future meeting of the City Council.

Background: Chapter 2.25 of the Sparks Municipal Code is the section of code specific to the City’s procurement practices. The code was last reviewed/revised in 2006. In the interim, procurement processes have changed due to streamlining as well as changes in law at the state level. Given that much of the City’s procurement code represents a copy of language that exists in NRS chapters, it has been the desire of the procurement function to update the code as well as delete sections that are already detailed in applicable state law. This will also allow for seamless changes to process as the Nevada Legislature makes changes to those same chapters. Concurrent with a planned revision of code, multiple issues have been discussed concerning potential changes to the code. These include: Emergency Procurements City Council Approval Requirements Change Order Approval Any other areas of concern

Analysis: The presentation offered under this subject will provide a first look at suggested changes to the existing procurement code. Attachment 1 to this staff report is a copy of the existing procurement code with suggested edits, noted in a strike-through format. Many of the changes are “clean-up” in nature. Others are complete deletions, noting that the language already exists in NRS. Noted areas of specific concern that should be highlighted are: Section 2.25.130 Emergency Procurements – This section has been re-worked to use the definition of emergency that exists in NRS. The previous definition was not as specific as the suggested edit. Language has been added to account for ongoing expenses related to any emergency and how that information may be shared with the City Council in the interim between the actual emergency and the next regular meeting of the City Council, where the information may be formally reported. Section 2.25.140 City Council Approval Requirements – This is a re-titled section that previously dealt with procurement processes at various dollar thresholds. Previously this section identified the top-end value that the City Manager or his designee were authorized to sign contracts. That value is currently $25,000.00. Continuing discussions have suggested that this limit might be re-examined. Adjusting this limit would allow for some segments of City business to move more quickly while saving the time and costs associated with drafting/approving staff reports and taking up time on the City Council agenda. To that end, Attachment 2 to this report is a spreadsheet, detailing the current governing board approval requirements for other local agencies within the state. It should be noted that the bulk of agencies have (minimally) moved their approval limits to match the current formal bidding limits established in NRS which are $50,000 for goods/services and $100,000 for construction. Attachment 3 to this report is a spreadsheet that shows the number of procurement related staff reports throughout the 2012 calendar year and the affect that a potential change might have to that business. Section 2.25.210 Change Orders – While the language change in this section is minimal, it clarifies the conditions under which a change order is brought back to the City Council for approval and addresses no-cost changes to contracts.

Alternatives:

Recommended Motion: None

Attached Files:

Attachment 1.pdf

Attachment 2.pdf

Attachment 3.pdf

Previous Item

Next Item

Return To Meeting