Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the City Attorney Rfq topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Windcrest council outlines criteria, timeline for city attorney solicitation
Summary
Councilors reviewed a draft request for qualifications for city attorney and prosecutor services, set weighted selection criteria and a tentative schedule for release, questions and interviews, and asked staff to return with a final document at the March 17 meeting.
Windcrest City Council on March 3 reviewed a draft solicitation for city attorney and prosecution legal services and set evaluation criteria and dates for release and review.
Councilors said the city will solicit qualifications (an RFQ) rather than a prescriptive RFP and agreed a rubric should guide selection so reviewers can justify recommendations to the full council. Council members set weighted criteria: overall experience in municipal law and government operations (25%), past municipal experience (25%), staff-to-client ratio (20%), strength of key personnel (20%), and references (10%), with the competitive fee schedule to be considered separately in the final decision process.
The council discussed whether to require litigation experience. A city legal adviser cautioned that strict proof of jury verdicts or judgments could shrink the applicant pool and recommended asking applicants to describe significant litigation experience rather than insisting on verdict counts. The adviser said removing overly specific trial-verdict language would broaden the pool while still letting the city evaluate litigation capacity.
Council members debated whether the RFQ should publish the scoring rubric. The city attorney advised it is conservative to publish evaluation criteria before release so applicants know how proposals will be weighted; some councilors warned that adding a rubric will slow the schedule. Council ultimately asked staff to include a rubric in the packet to reduce subjectivity, and to return a cleaned draft for final approval on March 17.
On schedule, staff proposed publishing the RFQ after the March 17 council meeting with a newspaper notice the weekend after; questions from applicants would be due in early April and responses posted the following week. The RFQ closing (proposal due) was set for April 18, with a review committee meeting between April 28 and May 9, interviews May 16 and council selection May 19. The council asked that transition expectations be included in proposals and discussed whether to require a transition plan from any recommended firm.
Councillors also discussed the composition of a review committee to evaluate submissions. They asked staff to come back on March 17 with a proposed review committee made up of city staff (finance or procurement), a resident with legal expertise, and one or two municipal officials from other jurisdictions where appropriate. Staff said it would post an application for the review committee and return names to council for appointment.
The council directed staff to revise the draft RFQ to reflect these decisions and to post the updated document for final consideration at the March 17 meeting.
