Monday June 27, 2011
NOTE: The committee evaluation document and cover letter are below the following news release.
The city will immediately resume its search for a director of Metro Animal Services who can turnaround the troubled agency and move it toward being a national model in which no adoptable animal is euthanized, Mayor Greg Fischer announced today.
The action follows the recommendation of a committee to not contract adoption and sheltering services with a private organization. Only one group -- No Kill Louisville -- submitted a proposal to oversee sheltering and adoptions and it didn’t meet the requirements set forth in the request for proposals.
“Our goal is to develop Metro Animal Services into a world-class agency,” Fischer said. “We must now strive to find a leader who is innovative and experienced to make that happen. We need a leader who can bring together animal advocates and our entire community. ”
The review committee decided against awarding No Kill a contract based on several factors including;
· the group is an all-volunteer organization and was formed just last year;
· it had no experience operating an animal shelter or managing a staff of at least 30;
· it requested Metro Government provide $800,000 to $1 million above the proposed contract to manage shelter and adoptions.
“Metro Animal Services is an agency facing many challenges,” Fischer said. “But, in recent weeks, we have already seen some improvement, including better communication with rescue groups that has led to more animals being adopted. Animal Services staff also responded well to the recent threat of floods. It leaves me hope that, with the right leadership, we can transform the agency.”
The search for a new director will continue using resumes submitted several months ago when the city announced its search.
Fischer has directed that Sadiqa Reynolds, Chief of Community Building, move forward as quickly as possible to find a director.
“While we did not accept the proposal submitted, we fully expect to work with community partners like Alley Cat Advocates, No Kill, The Kentucky Humane Society and others because it is clear that it takes the entire animal community working together to significantly reduce the number of animals euthanized,” Reynolds said.
Jim Brammell, an executive with the Louisville Water Co. who was a member of a six-person team that completed an extensive review of Animal Services, said he supports the Mayor’s decision to resume the search.
“The agency needs the right leader to undergo a complete turnaround,” Brammell said.
June 24, 2011
Chief of Community Building
Office of the Mayor
4th Floor, Louisville Metro Hall
527 W. Jefferson Street
Louisville, KY 40202
Dear Ms. Reynolds:
On behalf of the RFP Review Committee, I am writing to inform you that the proposal submitted by No Kill Louisville on June 6, 2011 in response to Louisville Metro Animal Services RFP #2407 has been reviewed. As an outcome of the review process and in consultation with the Purchasing Division, Office of Management and Budget, the proposal has been determined to be not susceptible to award based on the following:
(1) Organizational Structure
Volunteer-supported organization formed in April 2010 that currently has no paid employees.
(2) Record of Organizational Performance
Organization has no prior experience in operating an animal shelter or managing the proposed staff of 33 employees.
(3) Cost to Louisville Metro Government
Proposer has requested that Metro Government pay for items that would require additional funding in the estimated range of $800,000 to over $1M in excess of the proposed contractual amount.
I appreciate the opportunity to serve in this important capacity and would be happy to respond to any questions you might have about the review process.
Kim M. Allen, Executive Liaison
RFP Review Committee
RESPONSE TO RFP #2407
a. Cost to Louisville Metro Government. Both the dollar amount of proposed cost and the proportion of the proposed contract price to the total of projected revenues shall be considered. A projection for income from other sources will also be considered.
· Proposer projects income from other sources (i.e. cash and in-kind donations and grants) and plans to seek external funding for supplies and equipment.
· Proposer requested items to be funded by Metro Government that would require an estimated range of $800,000 to over $1M in funding over the annual contracted amount, which is in excess of available Metro funding.
b. Contractor’s competence, experience of key staff, and past experience in operating animal shelters.
· Proposer’s organization was formed in April 2010 as a volunteer-based organization.
· In requested narrative self-analysis, proposer stated: “Our weakness is the volunteer-based approach to our organization as a whole.”
· Organization currently has no paid employees.
· Organization has no history or experience in personnel management or operating an animal shelter.
· In the absence of existing employees, no staff bios or work history could be provided; thus, the proposer’s competence and experience of key staff in operating animal shelters could not be determined.
c. Organization of staff and operations, use of protocols and guidelines, and other means of insuring that a high quality of care is consistently provided.
· Proposer plans to utilize 33 staff and provided listing of anticipated staff titles, but no organizational chart included.
· Job qualifications provided though limited in scope—focused primarily on broad attributes as opposed to specific educational or certification requirements; length and type of prior experience; and essential skills.
· Proposer did not provide anticipated numbers of intakes and services provided as requested in Section I, C., 5, c. (proposed budget provided without accompanying budget narrative to determine basis of calculations).
· Proposer indicated intent to follow national standards and guidelines (i.e., disaster preparedness protocol of Humane Society of the U.S.; adoption and behavioral assessment models of ASPCA, cleaning protocol based on research conducted by UC Davis Koret Shelter; and position on trap-neuter-return endorsed by multiple national organizations)
· Provided Summary of Policies & Procedures, but limited in scope to general operations, intake, animal care and disposition. No SOPs related to agency personnel issues were provided, i.e. disciplinary action, sick and vacation leave, standards of ethical conduct, and harassment. No SOPs were provided on financial management, computer usage or operation of agency vehicles.
· Proposer provided no information regarding plans for maintenance and retention of financial records.
· Proposer presented positive ideas for changing intake process, preventing disease and cross-contamination, and providing incentives for returning pets to owners; however, there is no record of performance in operating a large shelter to demonstrate the ability to insure that a high quality of care would be consistently provided.
d. Organizational commitment to goal of finding a home for all healthy and treatable animals.
· Clear commitment to goal of reducing the euthanasia rate to less than 10%.
e. Past record of performance with Louisville Metro Government or other jurisdictions.
· Other than Neighborhood Development Funds appropriated by the Metro Council and administered by the Office of Management and Budget in the amount of $13,200 for spay/neuter services (pursuant to Ordinance No. 37, Series 2011), the proposer has no record of performance as a contractor with Louisville Metro Government or other jurisdictions.
· Organization has provided volunteer-supported services in the community since April 2010 and helped to advertize LMAS animals in an effort to promote adoptions and rescues. Additional services include promoting pet retention (established food bank); facilitating rescues; funding spay/neuter programs; raising funds for medical care of pets with serious illnesses or injuries; and educating the public on the “no kill model” through local events.
f. Corporate structure—oversight of a Board of Directors over the operation with local board members; contractor to include Corporate Charter and Bylaws with proposal.
· Unable to evaluate as proposer did not submit a list of the organization’s Board of Directors, Corporate Charter or Bylaws as requested above.
· Proposer described organization as “coalition of groups,” but no list provided of organizations represented.