Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
As a reminder, components of the I~roposal included, but were not limited to the following: <br />1. Identification of the proposed management team and their qualifications to operate the <br />shelter. <br />2. Statement reflecting the phil~~sophy of shelter operations; <br />3. References from members of the animal shelter management industry that could attest <br />to the successful previous work experience of each member of the proposed <br />management team. <br />4. The team's detailed propose I detailing the manner in which they propose to address: <br />a. Staffing and supervision of the Shelter; <br />b. Volunteers; accounting for time and role in the operation of the shelter <br />c. Customer relations; <br />d. Records management; <br />e. Animal population control; <br />f. Disease prevention; <br />g. Reporting and communications with the County, including a narrative monthly <br />report discussing the previous month's operation; <br />h. Adoption and Reclamation Policies and Procedures; <br />i. After-hours emergency response service. <br />(Note: The proposal indicated that veterinary services would be contracted directly by <br />the County and should nut be included in the proposal, however both firms <br />interviewed indicated a willingness to provide veterinary services as an additional cost <br />option.) <br />5. Identification of any upfront costs for which the respondent expects the County to be <br />responsible. This could include such items as capital equipment, supplies, advance <br />monthly payment to cover p<~yroll, etc. <br />6. Insurance costs covering all business exposures of the successful respondent, including <br />worker's comp coverage for employees. All policies would include Orange County as an <br />additional insured. <br />7. Respondent would cite a lump sum monthly cost to perform the services contained in the <br />proposal. <br />8. The term of the agreement ~~pproved with the successful respondent would be through <br />June 30, 2004, with extension at the Commissioner's discretion. <br />Proposals were received from threE: firms: <br />• Animal Care and Equipment Services (ACES); Denver, CO <br />• Animal Protection Society (APS), Orange County <br />• Humane Society of Orange County (HSOC), Orange County <br />The Board has received copies of tie proposals from all three groups. Based on the staff <br />examination of the proposals, both APS and HSOC have responded to the components as <br />requested. <br />A summary of the cost proposals is on page 9. Note that per instructions in the RFP, the <br />respondents were to retain no revenue associated with animal adoptions, animal reclaim fees, <br />nor recovery of funds associated with the upkeep of evidence animals (estimated at $16,000 <br />per month). Further, the respondents were asked to exclude the cost of veterinary services, <br />which were anticipated to be handlE;d through a separate contract with the County. All <br />respondents provided cost on that k>asis as reflected on the attached Cost Proposal Summary. <br />Both APS and the HSOC indicated that they were willing and able to contract for veterinary <br />services if that was desired by the (;ounty. APS estimates the additional cost for vet services to <br />