My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Agenda - Council - 10/08/1996
Ramsey
>
Public
>
Agendas
>
Council
>
1996
>
Agenda - Council - 10/08/1996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2025 3:36:35 PM
Creation date
9/24/2003 2:31:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Document Type
Agenda
Meeting Type
Council
Document Date
10/08/1996
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
272
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
ADDENDUM TO CASE #21 <br /> <br />AWARD CONTRACT FOR PROFESSIONAL AUDIT SERVICES <br /> By: Jessie Hart, Finance Officer <br /> <br />Background: <br /> <br />On July 23, 1996, the City Council authorized the preparation and distribution of Requests for <br />Proposals for Professional Audit Services [RFP]. The Finance Committee was presented with a <br />summary of the p~_0posals received at their September 24, 1996 regular meeting. At that time, a <br />sub-committee, cogsisting of Finance Committee Chair Ken Peterson, City Administrator Ryan <br />Schroeder and mo, was directed to obtain sample copies of Management Reports from the <br />various proposing firms and review them. <br /> <br />Each proposing finn was contacted and requested to provide at least one copy of a Management <br />Report that would be. consistent with one issued for a city of comparable size to Ramsey. All of <br />the proposing firm~ submitted at least one copy of a sample report. Copies of the proposals from <br />each firm and san~ple copies of Management Reports were distributed and reviewed by each <br />member of the sub¢committee. <br /> <br />Ail of the proposing firms were highly qualified to perform the professional auditing services <br />that the City has r ~.;exluested. Each firm offers expertise in their service areas and has strengths in <br /> l · · <br />differing areas frown technical services to the production of the final reports. The Management <br />Reports were highl.~ impressive, with the exception of one. <br /> <br />Because the differences in services was minimal, it was necessary to rely on pricing and <br />continuity in our d~ecision making process. MMKR, who has performed our audit for a number <br />of years, was in the middle of the range, making them the first choice due to their previous <br />experience with the City. <br /> <br />The sub-committee had expressed some concerns about the level of service we could expect <br />since their fees wer~e actually reduced from what was paid for the 1995 audit. In discussions with <br />Partner Ken Malloy, he assured me that this would in no way affect the level of service we have <br />or would receive tn the future. This decrease would be accomplished through staffing re- <br />assignments. <br /> <br />Staff Recommendation: <br /> <br />Staff recommends entering into a three-year contract for Professional Audit Services with the <br />firm of Malloy, Montague, Karnowski, Radosevich & Co. for the not-to-exceed prices as <br />provided in the proposal. <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.