FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN - BoardDocs

WWW.MGTCONSULTING.COM

PROPOSAL DECEMBER 18, 2019 RFP #20-016

SUBMITTED BY:

MR. MARK CARPENTER DIRECTOR

4320 WEST KENNEDY BOULEVARD SUITE 200

TAMPA, FLORIDA 33609 214.770.7153

[email protected]

FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS

4320 West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 200 | Tampa, FL 33609 | 888.302.0899 | mgtconsulting.com

December 16, 2019

Ms. Karen Sonley, Purchasing Supervisor City of Bryan 205 East 28th Street Bryan, Texas 77803

Dear Ms. Sonley:

MGT of America Consulting, LLC (MGT) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Bryan (City) to prepare a Full Cost Allocation Plan. Based on the project scope, MGT’s consultants will provide the following services to the City:

Full Cost Allocation Plan based on budgeted expenditures for FY 2021 in Year 1.

Full Cost Allocation Plan based on budgeted expenditures for FY 2022 in Year 2.

Our project team of highly experienced cost allocation experts stands ready to meet and exceed the City's expectations. We will leverage our relevant knowledge of the City's operations, structure, and objectives to ensure an accurate, timely, and meaningful project. We are proposing an initial 24-month contract with three additional option years at the City’s discretion.

Thank you for this opportunity to submit this proposal to the City of Bryan. If you have specific questions about the content of this proposal, please contact Mark Carpenter, MGT Project Director, at 214.770.7153 or [email protected].

Respectfully submitted,

J. Bradley Burgess Executive Vice President Authorized to bind the company

W W W . M G T C O N S U L T I N G . C O M

CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS RFP #20-016 | FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN DECEMBER 18, 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

A. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................ 1 FIRM INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART ................................................................................................ 4 FIRM EXPERIENCE ............................................................................................................ 4 ASSIGNED STAFF .............................................................................................................. 5 CURRENT CAP STUDIES .................................................................................................. 13 LITIGATION, CONTRACTS ............................................................................................... 13

B. RATES AND EXPENSES ......................................................................................................................... 2

C. PROJECT TIMELINE ............................................................................................................................... 3

D. METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 4 PROJECT UNDERSTANDING ............................................................................................. 4 DETAILED PROJECT PLAN ................................................................................................. 4 FIRM AND CITY RESPONSIBILITIES ................................................................................. 10

E. REFERENCES........................................................................................................................................... 11

F. FORMS ...................................................................................................................................................... 12

PROPOSAL EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1. Organizational Chart ..........................................................................................................................4 Exhibit 2. Estimated Hours for Team Members .......................................................................................... 12 Exhibit 3. Project Timeline ...................................................................................................................................3

CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS | DECEMBER 18, 2019 RFP #20-016 | FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN PAGE 1

A. QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

FIRM INTRODUCTION MGT of America Consulting (MGT) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Bryan (City) for a Full Cost Allocation Plan. Founded in 1974, MGT has extensive experience in cost allocation plans, user fee studies, and associated rate development in a wide variety of public agencies across the country, including many in Texas.

Over the past 45 years, the firm has judiciously expanded its consulting capabilities. We are a national consulting firm specializing in assisting public sector clients in operating more efficiently and effectively. A significant portion of MGT’s work is repeat business, reflecting the high level of customer satisfaction in the firm’s ability to do the job and do it right.

MGT was established by a group of former public sector administrators to provide management consulting services to assist state and local government clients. MGT has specialized in helping local agency clients achieve success in planning for their operational and long-range needs. We have a deep understanding of state and local government environments and the trends that impact governmental organizations needs for process audits. MGT’s clients appreciate and benefit from high-quality quantitative and qualitative analysis, detailed findings, and objective recommendations that are practical and actionable.

Part of our success is based upon our commitment to be flexible and responsive. MGT has successfully delivered more than 12,000 projects through a careful balance of addressing the immediate needs of our clients, while maintaining the vision and direction towards their long-term goals and monitoring industry best practices.

MGT’s headquarters are in Tampa, Florida, with additional locations across the country. The project will be managed and staffed from our Dallas-area consulting team.


CITY OF BRYAN, TEXAS | DECEMBER 18, 2019 RFP #20-016 | FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN

PAGE 2

MGT employs over 100 professionals and is structured into several primary consulting divisions. The MGT Financial Solutions Group will be responsible for completion of the project. MGT Financial Solutions consists of over 35 experienced costing consultants – more than one-third of the total firm staff.

The Financial Solutions Group provides a broad array of consulting services to state and local governments. Services our experienced state government consultants have provided include:

Preparation and negotiation of statewide cost allocation plans in accordance with GAAP and 2 CFR Part 200.

Preparation and negotiation of department/agency cost allocation plans in accordance with GAAP and 2 CFR Part 200.

Preparation and negotiation of indirect cost rate proposals in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200.

Identification of allowable federal program costs and the full recovery of appropriate costs from federal funding sources.

Cost of service/activity-based costing (ABC) studies.

Process reengineering studies.

Internal service funds management.

Development of charge-back methodologies and rates.

Facilities management.

Fleet management.

Information resource management.

Telecommunications management.



PAGE 3

The following graphic illustrates the extent of our national client footprint on projects similar to what’s been requested by the City.

THE MGT CONSULTING ADVANTAGE MGT offers an expert impartial perspective on organizational structure, processes, and practices. As an independent entity, our only vested interest is that of our clients; therefore, we apply our extensive experience to generating objective independent solutions to meet our client needs.

MGT leverages best-of-breed data sources to inform policy development and service delivery. Our team balances “gold standard” resources with our unique past performance lessons learned. MGT is committed to offering useful recommendations that achieve real results and is ever-mindful of the practical and political realities the City may face.

MGT has an extensive track record of providing consulting services that are similar in scope to this project. Our solutions help the organizations we work with to more effectively and efficiently achieve their goals and serve constituents. We are committed to providing customized consulting services, objective research, creative solutions, and quality products that respond to each client's unique needs and time requirements.

MGT provides solutions which are specifically tailored to meet the needs of our clients. The MGT team has an impressive track record of providing customized solutions, objective research, creative recommendations, and quality products that respond to each client's unique needs and time requirements.

Further information on MGT and its services are available at www.mgtconsulting.com.



PAGE 4

ORGANIZATIONAL CHART The organizational chart of the core management team is presented in Exhibit 1. The MGT team includes a highly experienced team of cost allocation plan consultants. Additional information on assigned team members is provided in the Assigned Staff section which follows.

Exhibit 1. Organizational Chart

FIRM EXPERIENCE The following narrative section introduces our firm and concentrates on the specific capabilities and experience that makes MGT uniquely qualified to prepare cost allocation plans for the City

The Financial Solutions practice within MGT provides cost allocation services to local and state governments in over 25 states, including Texas. In the past three years, our consultants have prepared more than 200 hundred OMB A-87 cost allocation plans, many with indirect cost rate calculations, and Full Cost allocation plans for agencies ranging in population from a few thousand to over two million. Additionally, MGT costing services consultants have successfully completed several thousand OMB A-87 cost allocation plans, indirect cost rates and Full Cost allocation plans for state and local governments in the past 30 years as consultants with MGT or as former consultants with PRM, MAXIMUS, DMG-MAXIMUS, Matrix Consulting Group, or David M. Griffith & Associates (DMG).

MGT is the preeminent cost allocation firm in the nation. The consulting staff members in our Financial Solutions Division are the most knowledgeable and experienced cost allocation and cost analysis experts across the United States. The following list does not include clients from years ago that are now with another firm, or for projects completed by consultants that have long left our firm. Rather, the following list is a sample of large and/or complex cities and counties currently or very recently receiving services from MGT costing services consultants similar to those requested by the City. The Texas localities are in BOLD. All of the Texas localities are clients where cost allocation plans have been completed within the last 36 months.

NO OTHER COMPANY that offers cost allocation plan preparation services can

provide as many highly trained, experienced cost allocation plan

consultants located in Texas. MGT provides the best combination of firm

qualifications and consultants’ cost allocation expertise to meet and exceed the needs of

our cost allocation plan clients.



PAGE 5

City and County of San Francisco, CA

City and County of Denver, CO

City of Abilene, TX

City of Arlington, TX

City of Bryan, TX

City of Carrollton, TX

City of College Station, TX

City of Colorado Springs, CO

City of Corpus Christi, TX

City of Dallas, TX

City of Fort Worth, TX

City of Houston, TX

City of Longview, TX

City of Miami, FL

City of Midland, TX

City of Oakland, CA

City of Odessa, TX

City of Plano, TX

City of Sacramento, CA

City of Waco, TX

Broward County, FL

Cameron County, TX

Collin County, TX

El Paso County, TX

Galveston County, TX

Harris County, TX

Jefferson County, CO

Maricopa County, AZ

Orange County, CA

Riverside County, CA

City of San Angelo, TX

City of San Antonio, TX

Shelby County, TN

Tarrant County, TX

ASSIGNED STAFF While the qualifications and experience of a firm are important, even more important are the knowledge and experience of the proposed project team. The proposed project team combines rich, deep knowledge and experience in preparing cost allocation plans and indirect cost rates across the State of Texas as well as direct experience providing cost allocation services to the City of Bryan.

There are three primary benefits to our proposed project team.

The first, and perhaps the greatest benefit, is the proposed project team’s current experience working with cities in Texas. For the past four years, members of our proposed project team have

successfully provided cost allocation services to the City of Bryan, the City of College Station, the City of Corpus Christi, the City of Dallas, the City of Fort Worth, the City of Longview, the City of Odessa, the City of Plano, the City of San Antonio, and the counties of San Patricio, Tarrant, and Cameron, among others. Additionally, for many years while employed at another firm, our proposed project manager and lead consultant successfully provided cost allocation services to a number of other local government entities in Texas and across the nation. During both periods of time, significant enhancements have been made to project processes, the supporting documentation provided by client departments has improved, the accuracy of the project results has increased, and there is an increased understanding within these cities and counties of the project, project results and project applications.

The second benefit is that the expertise of the team as a whole is greater than the sum of the team’s parts. The three team members bring unique education, skills, and experiences from

numerous local government cost allocation, user fee, management study, franchise fee/payment in lieu of taxes, and performance review consulting engagements, including prior work with the City of Bryan. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Swendig have worked with the City of Bryan in preparing cost allocation studies.

1

2



PAGE 6

The third benefit is that by placing three experts on the project, all phases of the project are completed in a timely manner that results in an overall on-time project.

Our proposed project team offers powerful advantages to the City:

A high performing team of Texas-based cost allocation, cost of service, and local government budget expertise, each with significant local government experience. This means the City will not rely on one “national expert” along with a revolving door of untrained, junior level staff.

A cohesive team who has worked together on related projects, means instant access to insight and perspectives from more than one over-scheduled consultant.

A team comprised of a mix of (1) prior experience with the City; (2) a fresh perspective of governmental entities outside of Texas; and (3) Texas-based consultants with years of experience providing similar services to Texas cities and counties.

PROJECT TEAM MEMBERS

MR. MARK CARPENTER PROJECT DIRECTOR

Mr. Carpenter will serve the City as Project Director. In this role, Mr. Carpenter will ensure the City is unconditionally satisfied with the services received from MGT consultants. In addition to client and quality assurance, Mr. Carpenter will ensure the project consultants have the resources they need, and that milestones and deadlines are met.

Mr. Carpenter is a Director with MGT, and has 30 years of experience in public sector financial consulting. Previously, he was the Texas State Manager for the Costing Services practice in another large governmental consulting firm, and has worked with cost allocation and cost of services projects for over 30 Texas clients. He has managed 2 CFR Part 200 and full cost allocation plan projects for the cities of Arlington, Bryan, College Stations, Fort Worth, Grand Prairie, Garland, Houston, Lubbock, Midland, Odessa, Plano, and San Antonio, among others in Texas. His range of experience includes full cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate proposals, user fee studies, long-range financial forecasting, jail rate studies, and management audits of a wide variety of departments and functions at both the state and local government levels.

Mr. Carpenter has recently, or is currently, managing and preparing cost allocation plans for the following Texas clients:

City of Dallas

City of Houston

City of Lewisville

City of Odessa

El Paso County

City of San Antonio

3

Responsiveness of MGT consultants is demonstrated from completing projects on-time, often despite obstacles and uncontrollable adverse circumstances. The entire project team has worked directly with many cities in Texas on similar projects.



PAGE 7

MR. BRETT SWENDIG PROJECT MANAGER

Mr. Swendig will serve the City as Project Manager. In this role, Mr. Swendig will have responsibility for the field work and deliverables of the project. His participation will include kicking off the project with the City, performing day-to-day activities, frequently communicating with City personnel, including formal status reports, and ensuring the project stays on schedule. This responsibility includes identifying allowable costs; data input; reviewing draft calculations; quality assurance, and working with City personnel to finalize the cost allocation plan.

Mr. Swendig is a Senior Consultant with MGT with over four years of experience working in and with non-profit and local government organizations including cost allocation services to local governments. Prior to joining MGT, he held various research and coordinator/manager positions with the Navajo Nation. He has prepared a number of cost allocation plans and cost of service studies for governments in Texas, including the City of Bryan.

Mr. Swendig has previously served, or is currently serving, as a project manager on cost allocation projects for the following Texas organizations:

City of Abilene

City of Arlington

City of Bryan

City of Carrollton

City of College Station

El Paso County

City of Garland

City of Houston

City of Longview

City of Midland

City of Odessa

City of San Angelo

MS. MEREDITH MILLER, TECHNICAL ADVISOR Ms. Miller will have responsibility for quality control activities to ensure cost models are accurate and complete. She can also assist as needed in the development of the cost allocation plan. She has prepared dozens of cost allocation plans for cities, counties, and state agencies. Ms. Miller has prepared cost allocation plans for the following governmental entities:

Abilene, Texas

Big Spring, Texas

El Paso, Texas

Fort Worth, Texas

McKinney, Texas

Sugar Land, Texas

Travis County, Texas

Victoria County, Texas

RESUMES

Resumes for assigned personnel are presented on the following pages. Cost study personnel shall remain available during the entirety of the project throughout the term of the contract as long as they are employed by MGT. The personnel described in our proposal are the senior-level professionals who will provide the services for this project.



PAGE 8

J. MARK CARPENTER

Director MGT CONSULTING GROUP | [email protected]

Mr. Carpenter has been performing governmental cost-of-service studies since 1989. Over the past 31 years, he has developed a broad background in local government consulting, with a primary focus on cost allocation development, cost of services and user fee rate development, and management auditing of government operations. He has worked with city, county, state and special district government agencies on cost accounting and mandated cost claiming projects. His range of experience includes:

Government Cost Allocation Plans (2 CFR Part 200, formerly OMB Circular A-87) Full Cost Allocation Plans (GAAP) User Fee Studies Indirect Cost Rate Proposals Jail Rate Studies Long-range Financial Forecasting Dual Taxation Analysis Development of Special Taxing and Benefit Districts Cost Analysis

In August 2010, Mr. Carpenter joined MGT. Prior to joining MGT, he was a Vice President with the Matrix Consulting Group for four years. Between 1989 and 2006 he held positions of responsibility with MAXIMUS, Inc., DMG-MAXIMUS, and David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG). Before becoming a local government consultant, Mr. Carpenter worked for the City of Fort Worth, Texas as a Management Analyst in the City’s Office of Management Services and as the Fiscal Administrator for the Fort Worth Police Department.

EDUCATION M.P.A., University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill B.A., Davidson College, North Carolina

WORK EXPERIENCE MGT Consulting of America, LLC. Senior Associate, 2010-present Matrix Consulting Group, Vice President Maximus, Inc., Senior Manager DMG Maximus, Inc., Senior Manager David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG), Senior Consultant

PROFESSIONAL AND BUSINESS EXPERIENCE Mr. Carpenter has personally prepared over 150 cost allocation plans and over 75 user fee and cost of services studies for government clients in 8 States. Specific examples from Mr. Carpenter’s experiences are described below:

2 CFR Part 200 (formerly OMB Circular A-87) and Full Cost (GAAP) allocation plans for cities and counties ranging in population from a few thousand to over two million. Many of these plans included strict cognizant agency audit and approval. 2 CFR Part 200 compliant Indirect Cost Rate Proposals for cities, counties and special districts. Many of these rate

calculations included strict cognizant agency audit and approval. User fee studies for cities and counties that encompass all governmental services including, but not limited to, Building,

Clerk, Courts, Public Safety, Development, Health, Planning, Recreation, Sanitation, and Planning/Zoning.



PAGE 9

J. MARK CARPENTER

Director MGT CONSULTING GROUP | [email protected]

REPRESENTATIVE CLIENTS City County Saginaw, Texas Bellaire, Texas Kaufman, Texas Weatherford, Texas Glenn Heights, Texas Greensboro, North

Carolina Bryan, Texas College Station, Texas Dallas, Texas

Fort Worth, Texas Houston, Texas Odessa, Texas Rockville, Maryland San Antonio, Texas San Francisco, California Los Angeles, California San Marcos, Texas Cooper City, Florida

Kendall County, Texas Denton County, Texas Spotsylvania County, Virginia Harris County, Texas El Paso County, Texas San Patricio County, Texas Denton County, Texas Prince William County, Virginia Placer County, California Raleigh, North Carolina Monterey County, California El Dorado County, California Allegan County, Michigan Broward County, Florida



PAGE 10

BRETT SWENDIG

Senior Consultant MGT CONSULTING GROUP

Mr. Swendig has been working as a research associate and consultant for over five years at MGT. Since beginning at MGT, he has worked as a consultant in the development of cost allocation plans (CAPs) in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP); development of CAPs in accordance with federal principles; assisting agencies in maximizing general fund cost recoveries from federally funded programs, enterprise and special revenue funds, and other non-general fund sources; as well as the development of indirect cost rate proposals (ICRPs).

Mr. Swendig’s consulting experience has given him the knowledge and experience of governmental budgeting, finance, accounting, and operations. In addition to his cost allocation plan experience, Mr. Swendig has expertise in user fee studies for cities including, but not limited to, Parks, Police, Fire, Building and Public Works related fees. He also assists MGT’s Disparity practice in developing market availability databases, vendor research, and market area availavilbilty and utilization statistical analysis.

Prior to working at MGT, he has experience working as a director of a nonprofit organization, managing a number of programs and over 30 employees within the organization. Mr. Swendig also has worked with San Juan County, Utah and the Navajo Nation governments as part of the Americorps VISTA program. During his time there, he managed a housing project and youth programs on the Navajo reservation. In graduate school, Mr. Swendig assisted the OneStar Foundation in developing a report that analyzed the infrastructure of nonprofit organizations within the state of Texas that provided capacity building services and support to other nonprofit organizations.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE Cost Allocation Plan Developement User Fee Analysis Costing Principles Indirect Cost Rate Development Statistical Analysis

EDUCATION Master’s Degree, Public Service and Administration, Texas A&M University, 2010 B.S., Kinesiology – Sport Management, Texas A&M University, 2005

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE City of Arlington City of Bryan City of Carrollton City of College Station City of Plano City of Houston

City of Fort Worth City of Garland City of Lewisville City of Longview City of San Antonio City of Dallas

City of Midland City of Odessa City of Richardson City of San Angelo City of Galveston City of Flagstaff

City of Corpus Chrisi City of Fort Myers City of Greensboro El Paso County Kerr County San Patricio County



PAGE 11

MEREDITH MILLER

Manager MGT CONSULTING GROUP

Ms. Miller has been performing governmental cost-of-service studies for the past eleven years. She has developed a broad background in local government consulting, with a primary focus on cost allocation development, cost of services and user fee rate development, Senate Bill 90 reimbursement, and management auditing of government operations for city, county, state, and special district government agencies.

AREAS OF EXPERTISE Government Cost Allocation Plans (2 CFR Part 200, formerly

OMB Circular A-87) Full Cost Allocation Plans (GAAP) User Fee Studies

Indirect Cost Rate Proposals Cost Analysis SB90 claim preparation and reimbursement

EDUCATION BBA, The University of Texas at Austin

WORK EXPERIENCE MGT Consulting Group, Manager 2019 MAXIMUS Consulting Services, Senior Consultant, 2008-2019 Prepared cost allocation plans, indirect cost rate studies, user fee studies, and claims for various cities, counties, and state

agencies in Texas, California, Colorado, Louisiana, and New Mexico. Managed program and staff for company SB90 practice. Developed cost of fee studies and set performance targets by conducting activity-based costing studies for numerous cities

and counties. Conducted organizational review and service delivery analyses for domestic and international clients.

RELEVANT PROJECT EXPERIENCE Abilene, Texas Big Spring, Texas El Paso, Texas Fort Worth, Texas

McKinney, Texas Sugar Land, Texas Travis County, Texas Victoria County, Texas



PAGE 12

ESTIMATED HOURS FOR TEAM MEMBERS

Exhibit 2 summarizes the estimated hours by task and project team member:

Exhibit 2. Estimated Hours for Team Members

CITY STAFF SUPPORT

At minimum, MGT will need access to the City of Bryan’s project manager to obtain the necessary data for completing the plan. We could potentially need to meet with representatives of each of the Central Service Departments to ensure the activities and allocations related to their respective department are accurately reflected in the cost allocation plan. However, MGT is flexible in the level of involvement of City personnel. City personnel can work intimately with the project team and be actively involved in every step of the process or can be moderately involved in the project and defer the day-to-day project details and data collection to the consultants. Either approach, or an in-between hybrid approach, will lead to the same successful project results.

TaskProject

DirectorProject

ManagerTechnical Advisor TOTAL

1. Conduct initial meeting 2 2 4

2. Conduct training session 2 2

3. Collect basic data 4 4

4a. Prepare for department interviews 8 8

4b. Conduct department interviews 12 12

5. Divide central service departments 2 2

6. Distribute central service costs into functions 4 4

7. Develop allocation bases 4 4

8. Process draft cost allocation plan 15 15

9. Internal quality control and review 1 8 4 13

10. Provide draft plan 2 2

11. Process Final Plan 8 8

12. Provide project results (paper & electronic) 2 2

13. Training, guidance, and assistance included included

14. Identify additional uses included included

15. Prepare recap memo 1 1 2

TOTAL 4 74 4 82



PAGE 13

CURRENT CAP STUDIES The list below identifies clients where Cost Allocation Studies are presently being conducted by MGT.

City of Abilene, TX City of Alexandria, LA City of Attleboro, MA City of Austin Code Department,

TX City of Banning, CA City of Boca Raton, FL City of College Station, TX City of Colorado Springs, CO City and County of Denver Human

Services, CO City of Denver PW, CO City of Edmond, OK City of Fresno, CA City of Gastonia, NC City of Goodyear, AZ City of Hampton, VA City of Harrisonville, MO City of Hollywood, FL City of Inglewood, CA City of Kansas City, MO City of Lake Charles, LA City of Lincoln, NE City of Long Beach, CA City of Rohnert Park, CA City of Sacramento, CA City of San Angelo, TX

City of San Antonio, TX City of San Marcos, TX City of Santa Ana, CA City of Virginia Beach, VA City of Waco, TX County of Alameda, CA County of Allegan, MI County of Alleghany, NC County of Broomfield, CO County of Broward, FL County of Cabarrus, NC County of Catawba, NC County of Coconino, AZ County of Collier, FL County of Franklin Municipal

Court, OH County of Ingham, MI County of Inyo, CA County of Loudoun, VA County of Madera, CA City of Midland, TX County of Moffat, CO County of Monterey, CA County of Okaloosa, FL County of Peoria, IL County of Roanoke, VA County of Sedgwick, KS

County of Tarrant, TX East Baton Rouge District Attorney,

LA Gulf States Marine Fisheries

Commission, MS Lafayette City-Parish Consolidated

Government, LA Los Angeles County Housing

Commission, CA Nevada Department of

Administration North County Transit District, CA Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer

District Sound Transit Authority, WA South Carolina Department of

Transportation Southwest Florida Water

Management District State of New Mexico Texas Office of the Attorney

General U.S. Virgin Islands Washington Office of Financial

Management

LITIGATION, CONTRACTS 8. Address any performance related litigation that your firm may be, or has been, involved in over the last five (5) years.

MGT of America Consulting, LLC has not been involved in any litigation in the last five years.

9. Identify if your firm has had any contracts terminated due to non-performance over the last five (5) years.

MGT of America Consulting, LLC has not had any contracts terminated due to non-performance over the last five years.

10. Identify adverse actions sanctioned by any regulatory authorities over the last five (5) years.

MGT of America Consulting, LLC has not had any adverse actions sanctioned by any regulatory authority over the last five years.


B. RATES AND EXPENSES

MGT will provide the proposed services for the fixed, all-inclusive fee of $25,500 for the 24-month contract, which is $12,750 for each year (12 months) of the project. This fee contains all direct and indirect costs including meetings, presentations, document production, etc. No additional expenses will be charged. The fee reflects the initial year of the contract commencing on the date of award through 24 months from commencement of contract. We propose to offer the same fee in any of the three option years the City requests.

Progressive payments are requested based on achieving project milestones. The following schedule is presented as an example of the payment schedule:

Completion of data gathering and progress report .......... 40% Delivery of Initial Draft Cost Allocation Document ........... 30% Delivery of Draft Report .................................................... 20% Delivery of Final Report .................................................... 10%

SEPARATE PRICE FOR TRAVEL

The $12,750 fee per year represents an all-inclusive fee, including all travel expenses. Travel expenses are budgeted at $750 and include one night of hotel (data collection meetings), vehicle mileage (car rental), meals, tolls, and gasoline for the Project Manager and the Project Consultant. These costs are built into the fee. However, if the City desires to have these expenses billed separately using the City’s travel reimbursement guidelines, MGT is happy to revise the fee to reflect that requirement.

This fee also includes incidental costs for postage, copying, telephone, etc. that may be associated with this project. No additional fees are identified or would be requested above and beyond this price.


C. PROJECT TIMELINE

MGT’s proposed project timeline to complete the City’s study is illustrated in Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 3. Project Timeline

3-4 weeks 3-4 weeks 2-3 weeks 2-3 weeks1. Conduct initial meeting2. Conduct training session3. Collect basic data4a. Prepare for department interviews4b. Conduct department interviews5. Divide central service departments6. Distribute central service costs into functions7. Develop allocation bases8. Process draft cost allocation plan9. Internal quality control and review10. Provide draft plan11. Process Final Plan12. Provide project results (paper & electronic)13. Training, guidance, and assistance14. Identify additional uses15. Prepare recap memo

Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4Task


D. METHODOLOGY

PROJECT UNDERSTANDING Based on our project manager’s (Brett Swendig) experience successfully providing similar services to the City in the past, our understanding of the City’s request includes the following project deliverable:

A Citywide full cost allocation plan based on budgeted expenditures for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2021 in Year 1 of the contract and a Citywide full cost allocation plan based on budgeted expenditures for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2022 in Year 2 of the contract.

Additionally, our understanding of the City’s request for services goes well beyond the project deliverable. We believe the City would benefit, in addition to the project deliverables, from the following services.

Access to more than one consultant so questions may be answered, and data may be turned into information expeditiously.

On-site review with City personnel to ensure the highest accuracy and assertive cost recoveries.

A professional, well-managed, accurate, and on-time consulting engagement.

A personable consulting team who is capable of performing the requested services with minimal disruption to, and minimal assistance from City personnel.

Assistance with integrating and applying the cost allocation plan results into ongoing City operations to maximize current indirect cost recovery and pursue new methods for indirect cost recovery.

Solid and transparent documentation to support the project deliverables.

Our staff is committed to providing the City of Bryan with a comprehensive, defensible, technically accurate cost allocation plan that can be used to allocate administrative costs to non-general fund departments.

DETAILED PROJECT PLAN The City’s RFP for cost allocation services requests a full cost allocation plan that equitably allocates costs across all benefitting departments. Our detailed technical plan for providing these services follows.

The following detailed task plan further identifies the activities necessary to complete this project. The Project Manager and Project Consultant will conduct the on-site work. The Project Manager will be

D. METHODOLOGY


PAGE 5

responsible for presenting all deliverables and maintaining consistent communication throughout the project.

TASK 1.0: PROVIDE DETAILED DOCUMENTATION AND CONDUCT AN INITIAL MEETING WITH DESIGNATED PERSONNEL

Provide a detailed document identifying and clarifying the proposed methodologies, approach, timeline, responsibilities and deliverables applicable to the entire project.

Meet with City personnel in Bryan who have responsibility or a high interest in the cost allocation plan and charges to the enterprise funds. This meeting will refine the specific objectives, requirements, measurements, and schedule of the consulting project. This meeting will assist the project consultants to further understand the unique aspects and project expectations of City personnel.

STAFF ASSIGNED Brett Swendig & Mark Carpenter

TIMEFRAME Phase 1 (3-4 weeks)

TASK 2.0: CONDUCT AN INTRODUCTORY TRAINING SESSION WITH ALL RELEVANT PERSONNEL (“COST ALLOCATION 101”)

Conduct an initial and introductory training session with key City personnel or a kick-off presentation for project stakeholders. The project consultants will work with City personnel to establish the objectives, content, and list of attendees for this meeting or presentation. This session is vital to successful project results including acceptance by City personnel and elected officials. Agenda items for this meeting or presentation could include:

Review the project objectives.

Review and confirm the federal and/or state requirements.

Finalize and document the project measurements.

Review and finalize the project schedule.

Review available financial data.

Review available allocation data.

Explain the cost allocation plan.

Summarize the purpose for preparing the project deliverables.

Explain how each meeting attendee is involved in the project deliverables.

Discuss example summary reports produced by the project.

Discuss example applications produced by the project.

Address potential areas for additional direct or indirect cost recovery.

Solicit questions and answers.

STAFF ASSIGNED Brett Swendig


D. METHODOLOGY


PAGE 6

TASK 3.0: COLLECT BASIC FINANCIAL AND OPERATIONAL DATA

Collect, review and update as needed data such as organization charts, expenditure statements, budgets, personnel counts, salary reports, and transaction statistics. The project consultants will work with City personnel to develop and gather the needed data in the most efficient way possible. The review of this data will provide the structure for the cost allocation plans including the determination of “allocating” and “receiving” departments.

Allocating departments are referred to as central service departments and will include, but are not limited to, accounting, purchasing, human resources, and information technology. Receiving departments will be all applicable City general fund departments or divisions and all other City non-general funds.

The project consultants will identify, evaluate, and inventory federal and state funded City programs and internal service funds so that central service support will be properly allocated.



TASK 4.0: CONDUCT DEPARTMENT INTERVIEWS

Meet with and interview each central service department to determine the allowable expenditures, services provided, charge backs or direct bills, personnel providing the services, the recipients of the provided services, and appropriate transaction data.



TASK 5.0: DIVIDE CENTRAL SERVICE DEPARTMENTS INTO FUNCTIONS

Divide the allowable costs in each central service department into functions. Functions represent distinct activities within a department.

Using information gathered in Task 4, the project consultants may complete Personnel Staffing Analysis (PSA) worksheets to assist in dividing departments into functions. The PSA provides a basis for the distribution of department costs into department functions. During interviews with central service departments, the project consultants will discuss assignments and duties of City personnel.

Determine and distribute departments into functions based on timesheets, assignments, activities, or other allowed methods. Once staff members and their corresponding salaries are distributed into functions, other department costs such as materials and supplies will also be distributed into the same functions. This task breaks a department into functional cost pools, which can then be allocated throughout the City using meaningful, measurable, and auditable allocation bases.



D. METHODOLOGY


PAGE 7

TASK 6.0: DISTRIBUTE CENTRAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT COSTS INTO FUNCTIONS

Distribute the allowable costs in each central service department, and the incoming costs into each central service department, into the functions determined in Task 5. Incoming costs are the costs from other central service departments determined by a double step-down calculation. The distribution of allowable department costs and incoming costs will determine the total cost of providing each distinct service within each central service department.

This step utilizes a feature in the MGT proprietary cost allocation software not available in most other cost allocation plan software. The MGT proprietary cost allocation software has the ability to analyze, display, and allocate the indirect costs of each central service department in great detail. This detail facilitates review, explanation, and understanding of incoming costs which leads to reduced errors, fewer reruns of reports, and the ultimate acceptance and approval of the cost allocation plans.



TASK 7.0: DEVELOP ALLOCATION BASES FOR CENTRAL SERVICE DEPARTMENT FUNCTIONS

Determine an appropriate allocation base for each function in each central service department. This determination will serve as the basis for allocating the allowable costs in each function to the recipients of the service. The project consultants will request corresponding transaction data or measurable units of service from central service department personnel.

Central service departments will allocate costs to all City general fund departments and non-general fund funds. This allocation methodology ensures the most fair and accurate distribution of costs as opposed to a methodology that singles out particular departments or funds for maximum allocation.



TASK 8.0: PROCESS DRAFT COST ALLOCATION PLANS

Process draft cost allocation plans using the MGT proprietary cost allocation software. The cost allocation plans will include summary and detail reports. The summary report in each cost allocation plan provides information on the dollar amounts allocated from each central service department to every receiving department. The detailed reports in the cost allocation plans provide information on the expenditures, allowable costs, incoming costs, personnel distribution, functions direct costs billed, and allocation bases for every central service department.

The MGT proprietary cost allocation software incorporates a double step-down methodology, is technical and detailed, has a self-auditing feature, and has been audited and approved by numerous federal and state officials.

The Microsoft Windows-based MGT proprietary software is written in a relational database and uses Microsoft Excel as a report writer. This platform provides unlimited flexibility in calculating, formatting, and reporting information. Charts and graphs can be used to explain and illustrate allocation information. Allocation information is automatically produced that compares allocation totals to receiving departments (funds) from year-to-year.

D. METHODOLOGY


PAGE 8

Additionally, the MGT proprietary cost allocation software automatically generates management reports. These reports provide:

A schedule comparing total allocated costs between fiscal years for every receiving department.

A schedule comparing allocated costs between fiscal years, by central service department, to receiving departments meeting defined criteria (for example, a variance greater than 10 percent or a variance greater than $10,000).

A schedule documenting unit costs of identified support activities such as the cost of payroll per employee or the cost per purchase order.

A self-auditing schedule that reconciles the sum of all central service department expenditures to the sum of all allocated costs.



TASK 9.0: CONDUCT INTERNAL REVIEW OF THE DRAFT COST ALLOCATION PLANS

The project manager, project consultants and quality assurance consultant will undertake an internal review process to raise the accuracy of the cost allocation plans and ensure City personnel do not waste time reviewing substandard or incomplete work.

STAFF ASSIGNED Brett Swendig, Mark Carpenter, Meredith Miller


TASK 10.0: PROVIDE DRAFT COST ALLOCATION PLANS

With applicable City personnel in Bryan provide and review draft results of the cost allocation plan. This step is an opportunity to review preliminary results, address questions or concerns, and make changes as necessary. Task 9 will ensure City officials review quality draft results and are not forced to spend hours editing and correcting substandard work. Last year, the project team did not conduct on-site data collection meetings. Rather, the on-site time was spent discussing the draft report and determining appropriate adjustments. If the City desires, we can substitute the data collection meetings for the draft report discussion meetings.



TASK 11.0: PROCESS FINAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN

Process the final cost allocation plans after addressing issues or concerns raised in Task 10. The final cost allocation plan will be professionally formatted and displayed.



D. METHODOLOGY


PAGE 9

TASK 12.0: PROVIDE FINAL COST ALLOCATION PLAN IN PAPER AND ELECTRONIC FORMAT

Provide three printed and bound copies and one electronic copy (Excel and/or Adobe PDF file) on CD-ROM or email of the final cost allocation plans to City personnel following confirmation that the work is final by the City’s project manager. Additionally, the project consultants will provide electronic copies (Excel or Adobe PDF file) of summary schedules, variance analyses, and management reports as requested.



TASK 13.0: PROVIDE CONTINUOUS TRAINING, GUIDANCE, AND ASSISTANCE

Provide continuous training, guidance, and assistance on reading, understanding and applying the results of the cost allocation plans and any associated calculations.

Informal training will take place concurrent with the preparation of the project deliverables as well as a formal training session after City acceptance of the final project results. Additional training and follow-up support may be provided to City personnel on an as-needed basis.

Upon request these informal and formal training sessions can include components to train City personnel to develop similar project deliverables in the future.

STAFF ASSIGNED Brett Swendig, Mark Carpenter


TASK 14.0: IDENTIFY ADDITIONAL USES FOR THE COST ALLOCATION PLANS

Provide the City with already identified uses for the cost allocation plan data, as well as, continuously explore additional applications of the cost allocation plans.



TASK 15.0: PREPARE A COST ALLOCATION PLAN PROJECT RECAP REPORT

Prepare a cost allocation plan project recap report for City personnel. This report will have two primary objectives. The first objective of this report is to provide City personnel an overview of the just-completed cost allocation plan. This overview will include:

Comments from City personnel involved in the project.

Aspects of the cost allocation plan project that went well.

Aspects of the project that need improvement.

Areas of emphasis for the next year.

The project consultant will then formulate this information into the following years’ work plan as applicable.

D. METHODOLOGY


PAGE 10

The second objective of this report is to provide City personnel an overview of the project results and project applications. This overview will include:

Specific instructions on applying the results of the project into existing City operations.

Ideas for additional applications of the cost allocation plans.

Potential opportunities for further cost recovery or revenue enhancement activities.



FIRM AND CITY RESPONSIBILITIES MGT requests access and availability of City staff to provide organization, service, and financial information; MGT is able, qualified, and staffed to complete all activities and tasks of the project. We only will require access to staff for brief interviews related to services provided and their duties. We also will need assistance in the acquisition of organizational, financial, allocation base data, and other related information.

As mentioned in Section A, we are flexible in the level of involvement of City personnel. Regardless of the level of involvement of City personnel, every step in our methodology encourages and welcomes questions from City personnel. Our methodology also allows for, and encourages, an ongoing dialogue between City personnel and the project consultants to address concerns, issues, or problems, while jointly creating associated solutions.

The MGT Consulting team will request only the information that is necessary to produce robust, technically accurate cost allocation plans. Duties and responsibilities by City Staff should be similar to the commitment of staff involved in the project in past preparations of the cost allocation plan with MGT.


E. REFERENCES

The following list includes some of MGT’s current Texas-based references for similar cost allocation plan projects specific to project team members included in this proposal. In fact, all of these clients are current clients who have retained MGT’s services over a number of years. For the references below the scopes of service for these projects are very similar to what the City is requesting. All include preparation of cost allocation plans, departmental indirect cost rates, and allocation of central service costs to enterprise funds, including utilities (cities only).

H. RYAN GADDY, CPA, MBA, Assistant Director of Finance | City of San Angelo 72 West College Avenue | San Angelo, Texas 76903 (325) 481-2649 ext. 1230 | [email protected] Project Details: Full cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plan development. Project included the development of six department indirect cost rate proposals each year.

MARY ELLEN LEONARD, CPA, Director of Fiscal Services | City of College Station 1101 Texas Avenue | College Station, TX 77840 (979) 764-3645 | [email protected] Project Details: Full cost cost allocation plan development.

ANGELA COEN, Director of Finance | City of Longview 300 West Cotton Street | Longview, TX 75601 (903) 239-5521 | [email protected] Project Details: Full cost cost allocation plan development.

JAMIE RADCLIFF, MPA, Budget Manager | City of Midland 300 North Loraine | Midland, TX 79701 (432) 685-7214 | [email protected] Project Details: Full cost & 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plan development.

MARJORIE KNIGHT, Assistant Director of Finance | City of Abilene 555 Walnut Street | Abilene, TX 79604 (325) 437-4913 | [email protected] Project Details: Full cost and 2 CFR Part 200 cost allocation plan development. Project included the development of four department indirect cost rate proposals each year.


F. FORMS

The following forms are included:

Certification Page

Form 1295

Addenda Acknowledgement Form(s) MGT is in receipt of the questions and answers posted online.

MGT confirms its willingness to sign the City of Bryan’s Standard Form of Agreement.

FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN - BoardDocs

Documents

Transcript of FULL COST ALLOCATION PLAN - BoardDocs