CI COMMUNITY LEGAL SERVICES APPROVED.PDF

1ARIZONA!
Office of Procurement Services
GOODS AND SERVICES
COMPETITION IMPRACTICABLE FORM
This form is to be used when a department believes an acquisition is considered Competition Impracticable and the acquisition
dollar amount is above $10,000. The Chief Procurement Officer can approve purchases up to $100,000. Board of Supervisors
approval is required if the acquisition is over $100,000. This form must be submitted for approval to: Office of Procurement
Services | 160 S 4th Ave | Phoenix, AZ 85003. Fax number: 602.506.6766. The signed form must be retained in the purchasing
file. Unless approved by the Board of Supervisors in a formal agenda item or the Chief Procurement Officer in a formal Contract
a Cl form is valid from July1thru June 30th of each Fiscal Year.
DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENT RX#
NAMEHuman Services
PROPOSED CONTRACT VENDOR Community Legal Services NEED IDENTIFIED Date:QY/01/2021
Company: Community Legal Services REQUESTED DELIVERY
Address: 305 South 2nd Avenue Date: 07/01/2021
City,State: Phoenix, AZ QUOTED PRICE: 2,600,000
Zip/Postal Code: 85003
Phone: 602-258-3434 AccountingString:
Fax:
Contact Name: Lillian O. Johnson
DESCRIPTIONOFGOODSOR SERVICESREQUIRED:
The estimated cost of this Procurement is: < $100k ~/]> $100k
Is this a Technology Procurement? Yes / No
The County wishes to procure legal assistance and representation services which shall be,
provided to persons (primarily low-income) facing eviction due to nonpayment of rent.
COMPETITION IMPRACTICABLE CATEGORY (Check applicable box, attach documentation or provide explanation below.)
MaricopaCountyProcurementCodeMC1-351states: "CompetitionImpracticable"meansanacquisitionwhere,competitionis
impracticalbecauseofstandardization,warranty,orotherfactorsasapprovedbytheBoardofSupervisors.
NOTE: The following are unlikely to be sufficient Competition Impracticable justifications:
•Personal or department preference for a product or vendor
•Department perception that the vendor is the best qualified (this should be determined through a competitive process)
•Lack of department planningresultinginlimitedtimetoconduct a competitiveprocurement
•Specialincentive or dealoffered (canbe assessedin open andcompetitivesolicitation)
Department convenience
I [Software license renewals, additions, or upgrades available
| [Grant specified (supporting documents attached) — from only one source
I [Brand compatibility available from only one source (no other
| [Mailing lists, subscriptions or media advertising —
distributors)
| [Warranty voided if service provided by other contract vendor | [other proprietary situation
[/jother (Provide written explanation below)

THISISACOMPETITIONIMPRACTICABLEPROCUREMENTBECAUSE(attachadditionalpageifneeded):
Although there are other law firms or organizations that can provide legal services none of them have a
documented history of serving low-income residents facing eviction. Further, although there are some
specific attorneys/legal counsel who may conduct similar services they would not have the ability to handle
the potentially high number of clients that the County would be requiring the contractor to assist.
Additionally, the services provided under this type of contract would require that the vendor be located
within Maricopa County to provide legal representation at various County Justice Courts. It would not be in
the best interest of the County to competitively procure these services because no other law firm
individually has the required skills and history of providing services to the vulnerable populations the County
is targeting. Finally, attempting to establish, administer, and coordinate legal services contracts with
multiple individual vendors (attorneys) would create undue administrative burden and costs on existing
County staff which can be avoided by contracting with a single provider.
SEARCH
A search was conducted consistingof:(checkall that apply) RESULTS
\j\ Market research I IPublic notice given, list [/jno alternatives were identified
| [ Other vendors contacted | |Other rrino alternatives were deemed acceptable
— because (explain below):
Describe the search from above in detail:
Staff conducted Internet research on other law firms, organizations, and attorneys in Maricopa
County that provide eviction prevention services but found a significant majority of
organizations and individuals provide legal representation for landlords in evictions and not
tenants. Of those providers claiming to provide legal representation for tenants, Staff found
these were solo practice attorneys or partnerships (of attorneys) and therefore have limited
capacity to regularly provide eviction prevention assistance/representation to multiple clients.
Overall staff were unable to identify another organization that could provide the proposed
services across the County. Further, Staff estimated that there would be significant additional
administrative costs if the County attempted to achieve similar levels of service by contracting
with individual attorneys through a competitive process.
PRICE
MC1-352-B states: The Using Agency requesting a Competition Impracticable Procurement shall provide written evidence
to support a Competition Impracticable determination containing an explanation of why the proposed procurement
process is advantageous to the County; and the scope, duration, and estimated total dollar value of the procurement.
Pricehasbeen fairlyandreasonablyestablishedby: | |Comparisontopublic sector contract pricing
lyiComparison to previous comparable purchases I IDiscount off published catalogpricing
1—'from a different vendor I IMarket survey
f/l Independent estimate [/] Other, explain:
Describe methodology and results (attach any written supporting data, e.g., survey or market analysis):
Staff compared cost estimates and breakdowns from the contractor ($2,600,000) to a similar
contract established with the City of Phoenix and found that the prices were reasonable
considering the expanded scope and duration of services compared to the City of Phoenix.
Additionally, staff found that there were potential cost savings by contracting with a single
vendor. Specifically, staff estimated the potential costs of contracting with individual for profit
law firms and attorneys and found that the potential costs may be significantly higher than
contracting with only Community Legal Services.

CERTIFICATIONS
I certify:
1) I recognize that the Maricopa County Procurement Code requires the use of competitive solicitations unless
exempted by law. I have reviewed the information and materials relevant to this procurement of goods and services,
and am requesting approval of an exception to the competitive process for the reasons described;
2) the price to be paid to the proposed vendor is fair,reasonable, and provides the best value to Maricopa County;and
3) this request for an exception to the competitive solicitation process is not the result of inadequate advance planning
or for purposes of securing the services of a preferred vendor.
Department Head or Department Head Delegate Signature (Required)
Jacqueline Edwards 07/29/2021
0^ 35^=
Printed Name Signature Date
Office of Procurement Services
The CPO can approve procurements up to $100,000. This request is over $100,000 and must be submitted as an agenda
item to the Board of Supervisors for consideration.
GJRecommended to BOS for approval.
-x j rW-«g 7A1/2/
Printed Name 7- Sigpeture Date '
Office of Enterprise Technology (This procurement is classified as a technology procurement and must be
forwarded to OET for coordination and/or approval.If this procurement request is not approved,by OET,the form will be
returned to the requestor.)
Approved. Recommended purchase is in line with Maricopa County's strategic technology plan or currently installed
I lequipment or service, and is considered to be a competition impracticable procurement.
QlMot Approved. Reasoning:
Printed Name Signature Date
Email Save