DOCSLIB.ORG

Psa Report Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Contracts

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Psa Report Competitive Versus Non-Competitive Contracts S t a t e o f C o n n e c t i c u t OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Personal Service Agreements Benjamin Barnes Secr et ar y Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Submitted September 25 , 2018 This page is intentionally left blank 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction . 3 A. Purpose . 3 B. Background . 3 C. Scope and Methodology . 4 D. Inquiries . 5 Part I. PSA Data . A. Total Number of PSA 1. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive Payments All Contracts. 6 2. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive All Contracts. 7 3. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive Under 20K . 8 4. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive 20K and Over . 9 B. Summary Data . 10 C. Detail Data. 11 Part II. Consultant Agreements . A. Summary of Consultant Agreements. B. Detail Data . 2 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose This document summarizes information regarding Personal Service Agreements for State fiscal year 2018. B. Background A Personal Service Agreement (PSA) is a duly executed and legally binding contract that defines the services or end products to be delivered by a Personal Service Contractor to a State agency. It is one of the primary mechanisms used by the State for procurement purposes. Typically, a PSA is used to purchase infrequent and non-routine services or end products, such as consulting services, technical assistance, and training. By law, no State agency may hire a Contractor to deliver such services or end products without first executing a PSA. C.G.S. § 4–212 defines who is included and who is not included in the term “Personal Service Contractor.” Included is “any person, firm or corporation not employed by the State, who is hired by a State agency for a fee to provide services to the agency.” Not included in the term “Personal Service Contractor” are the following: (a) a person, firm or corporation providing contractual services to the State, as defined in C.G.S. § 4a–50; (b) certain consultants hired by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS), Division of Construction Services, as defined in C.G.S. § 4b–55; (c) certain consultants hired by the Department of Transportation, as defined in C.G.S. § 13b–20b; (d) agencies of the federal government, State government, or political subdivisions of the State; and (e) certain consultants hired by the DAS, Bureau of Enterprise Systems & Technology, as defined in C.G.S. § 4d–2(c)(5). A State agency wishing to enter into a PSA must adhere to the requirements set forth in the Connecticut General Statutes, Title 4, Chapter 55a, Part II, Sections 212 - 219, inclusive. Section 4-217 requires the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management (OPM) to establish standards for State agencies to follow when entering into a PSA. Pursuant to this statute, the standards must include, but are not limited to, (1) evaluating the need for a PSA, (2) developing a Request For Proposals, (3) advertising for Contractors, (4) evaluating submitted proposals, (5) selecting a Contractor, (6) monitoring and evaluating Contractor performance, (7) documenting the process for selecting and managing Contractors, and (8) carrying out any other aspect of such processes. Also pursuant to Section 4-217, each agency must establish written procedures for implementing the standards established by OPM’s Secretary. The written procedures must be submitted to the Secretary for approval. Upon receiving the Secretary’s approval, an agency may enter into a PSA based on the approved procedures. If the Secretary disapproves an agency’s procedures, OPM must return them to the agency with recommendations for revisions. No State agency may enter into a PSA unless the Secretary has approved the procedures established by an agency. 3 In addition, according to Sub-section (p) of Connecticut General Statutes (CGS) Section 4e-16, effective October 1, 2014, State agencies, prior to entering into or renewing any privatization contract, shall evaluate such contract to determine if entering into or renewing such contract is the most cost-effective method of delivering such service. A privatization contract is defined as an agreement with a person or entity to provide services that are substantially similar to and in lieu of services provided, in whole or part, by State employees, with the statutes exempting certain contracts with nonprofit agencies. State contracting agencies shall, according to Sub-section (p), perform such evaluation in accordance with a template prescribed by the Secretary of the Office of Policy and Management, which evaluation shall be subject to verification by the Secretary. The template and the related policies and procedures can be found on OPM’s website at http://www.ct.gov/opm/cwp. It is important to note that certain proposed privatization contracts will be subject to Sub-section (a) of C.G.S. Section 4e-16, which indicates that prior to entering into any contract for the privatization of a state service that is not currently privatized, the state contracting agency shall develop a cost-benefit analysis (CBA) in accordance with the provisions of subsection (b) of this section. Such cost-benefit analysis requirement shall not apply to a privatization contract for a service currently provided, in whole or in part, by a non-state entity. C. Scope and Methodology This report describes the contracting activities of executive branch agencies with respect to Personal Service Agreements. Contracting activities of the legislative and judicial branches of state government are excluded from this report. PSA data for this report is gathered using Core-CT, the statewide financial system. State agencies are required to enter their PSAs into Core-CT as a contract. Required fields to be entered include, but are not limited to, contract ID, contract type, begin and end dates, contract maximum amount, description of services, contractor name and funding information. The data presented in this report is only as accurate as the contract data entered by State agencies into Core-CT. OPM summarizes the information and submits an annual report to the General Assembly. The data in this report represents PSAs that were in effect during SFY2018. PSAs can range from a few months to several years in duration. Accordingly, the total dollar amount of a PSA may represent several years of activity. Also, many PSAs overlap during a fiscal year. For example, if a PSA ends December 31st and a new PSA starts with the same provider on January 1st, then two contracts (and two contract amounts) would be included in this report. The payment amounts presented in this report are payments made by State agencies to Personal Service Agreement contractors during SFY2018. The 2018 payment column in the attached sheets reflects the General Fund payments under the contract, in addition to the amounts included in the Federal and Other Payments columns. Please note that annual payment amounts are often substantially less than the total contract amounts. This is due to the fact that the total contract amounts may represent more than one year of contracting activity while the payment amounts represent activity for one year. For this reason, the annual payment amounts are a better gauge of annual contracting activity. 4 D. Inquiries For further information concerning this report, contact: Executive Finance Officer Office of Finance Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, CT 06106 C/O Valerie Clark 860-418-6313 [email protected] 5 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2018 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE VERSUS NON-COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive Payments FY 18 * Not Competitively Bid Competitively Bid $169,965,812 $131,880,850 44% 56% *Non-Competitive would shift to 41% by removing the Bus Service Contracts 6 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2018 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE VERSUS NON-COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive All Contracts FY 18 Competitively Bid 338 31% Not Competitively Bid 736 69% 7 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2018 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE VERSUS NON-COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive All Contracts Under $20K FY 18 Competitively Bid 38 17% Not Competitively Bid 180 83% 8 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2018 PSA REPORT COMPETITIVE VERSUS NON-COMPETITIVE CONTRACTS PSA Competitive/Non-Competitive All Contracts Over $20K FY 18 Competitively Bid 300 35% Not Competitively Bid 556 65% 9 STATE OF CONNECTICUT 2018 PSA REPORT SUMMARY BY AGENCY Agency Total # of Total Contract 2018 General 2018 Federal 2018 All Other Contracts Amount Fund Payments Fund Payments Fund Payments Board of Regents 12 $ 1,096,328 $ - $ - $ 110,713 Chief Medical Examiner 1 $ 24,900 $ 11,850 $ - $ - State Library 27 $ 985,325 $ - $ 235,209 $ 64,523 Department of Agriculture 11 $ 196,435 $ - $ 59,275 $ 92,458 Department of Administrative Services 34 $ 378,285 $ 16,700 $ - $ 241,905 Department of Children and Families 81 $ 45,394,592 $ 6,556,573 $ 2,679,741 $ 152,279 Department of Developmental Services 29 $ 3,436,980 $ 585,693 $ - $ 9,000 Department of Energy & Environmental Protection 39 $ 18,332,120 $ 88,616 $ 2,262,803 $ 1,270,287 Department of Higher Education 39 $ 315,075 $ 19,880 $ 32,547 $ 125,411 Department of Corrections 23 $ 4,418,940 $ 452,127 $ 337,557 $ 43,010 Department of Housing 11 $ 19,921,061 $ 255,262 $ 1,962,417 $ 2,441,085 Department of Labor 5 $ 661,770 $ - $ - $ 78,765 Department of Transportation 11 $ 113,200,480 $ - $ - $ 13,504,160 Department of Public Health 154 $ 76,075,835 $ 365,351 $ 14,305,313 $ 2,559,835 Department of Emergency Services & Public Protection 41 $ 1,186,666 $
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State Owned and Maintained Structurally Deficient Bridges
    State Owned and Maintained Structurally Deficient Bridges (4,016 bridges - includes NHS, Non-NHS, NBI, and Non-NBI) Most Travelled (sorted by ADT) Data is based on the condition data of our entire bridge inventory (both NBI and Non-NBI bridges) at the time of the 2018 NBI submittal to FHWA on 03/15/18, which included inspection condition data due in 2017 and the most recent inspection condition data at the time of the submittal NBI 29: Average NBI 112: NBIS Daily Traffic (ADT) NBI 27: Year NBI 7: Facility Carried by Structure NBI 6A: Feature Intersected: NBI 4: City or Town NBI 104: Highway System of the Bridge Length [General Built [General Bridge No. Bridge Name [Classification] Narrative [Classification] [Classification] Inventory Route [Classification] [Classification] Information] Information] YANKEE DOODLE 1 00059 BRIDGE INTERSTATE-95 NORWALK RV,HENDRICKS AVE 56060 - NORWALK 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 145000 1957 2 06798 INTERSTATE-95 STUBBY PLAIN BROOK 47535 - MILFORD 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS No 137500 1958 3 00162 INTERSTATE-95 METRO NORTH 82870 - WEST HAVEN 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 136400 1956 4 03093 INTERSTATE 91 N FRONT ST & QUINN RIVER 52070 - NEW HAVEN 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 133900 1964 5 03094 INTERSTATE-91 AMTRAK RAILROAD 52070 - NEW HAVEN 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 133900 1965 BYRAM RIVER 6 00001 BRIDGE INTERSTATE-95 BYRAM RIVER,S WATER ST 33620 - GREENWICH 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 131600 1958 7 00062 INTERSTATE-95 ROUTE 33 83500 - WESTPORT 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS
    [Show full text]
  • A Q U I F E R P R O T E C T I O N a R E a S N O R W a L K , C O N N E C T I C
    !n !n S c Skunk Pond Beaver Brook Davidge Brook e d d k h P O H R R O F p S o i d t n n l c t u i l R a T S d o i ll l t e e lv i d o t R r r d r l h t l l a H r n l t r M b a s b R d H e G L R o r re R B C o o u l e t p o n D o e f L i s Weston Intermediate School y l o s L d r t e Huckleberry Hills Brook e t d W d r e g Upper Stony Brook Pond N L D g i b R o s n Ridgefield Pond a t v d id e g e H r i l Country Club Pond b e a R d r r S n n d a g e L o n tin a d ! R d l H B n t x H e W Still Pond d t n Comstock Knoll u d a R S o C R k R e L H d i p d S n a l l F tt h Town Pond d l T te r D o e t l e s a t u e L e c P n n b a n l R g n i L t m fo D b k H r it to Lower Stony Brook Pond o r A d t P n d s H t F u d g L d d i Harrisons Brook R h e k t R r a e R m D l S S e e G E o n y r f ll H rt R r b i i o e n s l t ld d d o r l ib l a e r R d L r O e H w i Fanton Hill g r l Cider Mill School P y R n a ll F i e s w L R y 136 e a B i M e C H k A s t n d o i S d V l n 3 c k r l t g n n a d R i u g d o r a L 3 ! a l r u p d R d e c L S o s e Hurlbutt Elementary School R d n n d D A i K w T n d o O n D t f R l g d R l t ad L i r e R e e r n d L a S i m a o f g n n n D d n R o t h n Middlebrook School ! l n t w Lo t a 33 i n l n i r E id d D w l i o o W l r N e S a d l e P g n V n a h L C r L o N a r N a S e n e t l e b n l e C s h f ! d L nd g o a F i i M e l k rie r id F C a F r w n P t e r C ld l O e r a l y v f e u e o O n e o a P i O i s R w e t n a e l a n T t b s l d l N l k n t g i d u o e a o R W R Hasen Pond n r r n M W B y t Strong
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS FINAL REPORT SILVER LANE (SR 502) CORRIDOR STUDY EAST HARTFORD, CT February 19, 2020 Silver Lane Corridor Study Draft Final Report February 19, 2020 Prepared for: Capitol Region Council of Governments 241 Main Street Hartford, CT 06106 Prepared by: TranSystems Corporation 530 Preston Avenue Meriden, CT 06450 With the assistance of: Fitzgerald & Halliday Inc. 416 Asylum Street Hartford, CT, 06103 Silver Lane CorridorCorridor Study – Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 2 Future Conditions Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 4 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 6 Corridor-wide Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 6 Location-based Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 7 Interim Improvements ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Customer Opinion Survey Final Report
    Task 1.2: Customer Opinion Survey Final Report URBITRANR EPORT URBITRAN Prepared to Connecticut Department of Transportation S ubmitted by Urbitran Associates, Inc. May 2003 Task 1.2:Technical Memorandum Customer Opinion Survey TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ............................................................................................1 BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................................................................1 METHODOLOGY.........................................................................................................................................................1 FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................................................................1 EXHIBIT 1: SURVEY SAMPLE.....................................................................................................................................2 COMPARISON TO METRO-NORTH RAILROAD CUSTOMER OPINION SURVEY ...........................................................10 CHAPTER ONE: GENERAL PROFILE OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS.........................................................12 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 1, 2, AND 3 .................................................................................13 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY QUESTIONS 4, 5, 6, AND 7 .............................................................................15 SYSTEM-WIDE ANALYSIS OF SURVEY
    [Show full text]
  • Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Report & Action Plan
    Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Report & Action Plan Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan STAMFORD EAST MAIN STREET Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan Prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff for the South Western Connecticut Regional Planning Agency and the New York/Connecticut Sustainable Communities Consortium. November 8, 2013. Note: All photographs taken by members of the project team unless otherwise noted. Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan Stamford East Side’s East Main Street corridor. Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan Contents 1. Introduction 5 5. Implementation Strategies 61 Executive Statements 8 Mitigation Strategies 63 Project Partners 9 Interim Bus 64 Long Term Main Line Option 66 2. Community Context 11 Existing Conditions 12 6. Phasing 69 Gauging Community Desire for Change 14 1-CompletionoftheTransitway 70 Quality of Life Goals: Three Main Drivers 18 2-InterimBusShuttle 71 Public Engagement 20 3-DevelopmentNorthofEastMainStreet 72 Elements of a Transit-Supported Main Street 22 4-EastMainStreetBridgeReplacement 73 5-BranchLineStationwithSurfaceParking&Retail 74 3. Alternatives Evaluation 25 6.FullBuild-OutwithDevelopmentEastofTracks 75 Evaluation Process & Criteria 26 Feasibility Analysis by Location 35 7.Conclusion 77 Analysis of Feasible Alternatives 42 Preferred Alternative 48 4. Transit-Oriented Development Scenario 51 Market Analysis 52 Development Program 54 Circulation & Access 56 Traffic 57 Parking 58 Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan A busy bus station along East Main Street. 4 | Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan 1. Introduction 1. Introduction | 5 Stamford East Main Street Transit Node Feasibility Study & Action Plan A aerial view of the intersection of East Main Street and North State Street, the adjacent train tracks and East Main Street Rail Bridge, and the I-95 supoerstructure.
    [Show full text]
  • State Owned and Maintained Functionally Obsolete Bridges
    State Owned and Maintained Functionally Obsolete Bridges (4,016 bridges - includes NHS, Non-NHS, NBI, and Non-NBI) Most Travelled (sorted by ADT) Data is based on the condition data of our entire bridge inventory (both NBI and Non-NBI bridges) at the time of the 2018 NBI submittal to FHWA on 03/15/18, which included inspection condition data due in 2017 and the most recent inspection condition data at the time of the submittal NBI 112: NBIS Bridge Length NBI 29: Average Daily NBI 27: Year Built NBI 7: Facility Carried by NBI 6A: Feature Intersected: Narrative NBI 4: City or Town NBI 104: Highway System of the Inventory [Classification Traffic (ADT) [General [General Bridge No. Bridge Name Structure [Classification] [Classification] [Classification] Route [Classification] ] Information] Information] 1 00105A INTERSTATE-95 METRO NORTH & CITY ST'S 08070 - BRIDGEPORT 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 161300 1999 2 00164 INTERSTATE-95 ROUTE 10 52070 - NEW HAVEN 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 152800 1957 3 00038 INTERSTATE-95 HAMILTON AVENUE 73070 - STAMFORD 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 149600 1958 4 00014 INTERSTATE-95 METRO NORTH RR & STATION 33620 - GREENWICH 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 146000 1958 5 00045 INTERSTATE-95 ROUTE 136 18850 - DARIEN 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 144100 1952 6 00033 INTERSTATE-95 MAPLE AVENUE 73070 - STAMFORD 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 143900 1958 7 00011 INTERSTATE-95 DAVIS AVENUE 33620 - GREENWICH 1 - Structure/Route is on NHS Yes 143800 1958 8 00027 INTERSTATE-95 SSR 493(WASHINGTON
    [Show full text]
  • Town of Glastonbury Request for Proposal Restaurant Lease at Minnechaug Golf Course Rpgl-2020-14
    TOWN OF GLASTONBURY REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL RESTAURANT LEASE AT MINNECHAUG GOLF COURSE RPGL-2020-14 The Town of Glastonbury will be accepting proposals from qualified firms or individuals to operate the restaurant at the Town-owned nine-hole Minnechaug Golf Course. Interested individuals or firms may obtain proposal documents and project details from the Purchasing Agent, 2155 Main Street, Glastonbury, CT 06033 or via the Town’s website at www.glastonbury-ct.gov. An optional pre-proposal site inspection and meeting will be held on March 11, 2020 at 10:00 a.m. at the golf course at 16 Fairway Crossing in Glastonbury. Respondents are strongly encouraged to attend. Proposals must be submitted to the Office of the Purchasing Agent, Town Hall, 2155 Main Street, Glastonbury, Connecticut 06033, no later than 11:00 a.m. on March 17, 2020. LATE PROPOSALS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED. The Town reserves the right to waive informalities or reject any part of, or the entire proposal, when said action is deemed to be in the best interests of the Town. All sealed proposals must be submitted to the Office of the Purchasing Agent no later than the time and date indicated. An Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer. Minority/Women /Disadvantaged Business Enterprises are encouraged to submit a proposal. Mary F. Visone Purchasing Agent 1 Request for Proposal Restaurant Lease at Minnechaug Golf Course RPGL-2020-14 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I GENERAL INFORMATION BACKGROUND SECTION II CONSIDERATIONS & RESTRICTIONS & OTHER REQUIREMENTS SCOPE OF SERVICES SECTION III
    [Show full text]
  • Final Report
    CAPITOL REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS DRAFT FINAL REPORT SILVER LANE (SR 502) CORRIDOR STUDY EAST HARTFORD, CT January 14, 2020 Silver Lane Corridor Study Draft Final Report January 14, 2020 Prepared for: Capitol Region Council of Governments 241 Main Street Hartford, CT 06106 Prepared by: TranSystems Corporation 530 Preston Avenue Meriden, CT 06450 With the assistance of: Fitzgerald & Halliday Inc. 416 Asylum Street Hartford, CT, 06103 Silver Lane Corridor Study – Final Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................................................... 1 Existing Conditions Assessment ................................................................................................................................ 2 Future Conditions Assessment .................................................................................................................................. 4 Analysis of Alternatives and Recommendations .................................................................................................... 6 Corridor-wide Recommendations ....................................................................................................................... 6 Location-based Improvements .............................................................................................................................. 7 Interim Improvements ..............................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • South Western Region Long Range Transportation Plan 2007-2035 Update Schedule
    SouthSouth Western RegionRegion LongLong RangeRange TransportationTransportation PlanPlan 20072007--20352035 Endorsed by: South Western Region Metropolitan Planning Organization May 8, 2007 Prepared by: South Western Regional Planning Agency 888 Washington Blvd. 3rd Floor Stamford, CT 06901 203.316.5190 SOUTH WESTERN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN 2007-2035 CONTENTS Guide to the Plan – Frequently Asked Questions………….. FAQ1- FAQ9 Introduction ......................................................................................... 1 The South Western Region ................................................................... 17 Regional Characteristics ....................................................................... 23 Transportation Inventory and Travel Characteristics............................ 28 Long Range Transportation Plan 2007 – 2035 ..................................... 39 Transportation Plan Update Components……………………………... 48 Regional Transportation Plan References……………………………... 50 The Transportation Planning Process ................................................... 51 Goals and Objectives ............................................................................ 53 Highway Systems and Operations ........................................................ 56 Transportation Systems Management and Operations.......................... 62 Safety ................................................................................................... 64 Road Condition....................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Mta Property Listing for Nys Reporting
    3/31/2021 3:48 PM MTA PROPERTY LISTING FOR NYS REPORTING COUNTY SECTN BLOCKNO LOTNO Property_Code PROPERTYNAME PROPERTYADDDRESS AGENCY LINE PROPERTYTYPE limaster LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIRR Customer Abstract Property LIR Main Line Station Bronx bbl05200 Bronx Whitestone Bridge Hutchson River parkway BT Block/Lot Bridge Bronx 9 mha04650 ROW b 125th & Melrose XXX St MN Harlem ROW Bronx 9 mha06600 ROW b 125th & Melrose Milepost 5,Sta-Mon# 31.5 MN Harlem ROW Bronx 12 mha09500 FORDHAM STATION Fordham Rd (Fordham U) MN Harlem Station Bronx mhu00343 Perm E'ment at Yankee Stadium Sta-mon 30.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx mhu06251 Spuyten Duyvil Substation Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Payable Easement Bronx 19 mhu06301 Parking at Riverdale Milepost 12 , Sta-Mon# 68.5 MN Hudson Parking Bronx tbl03600 Unionport Shop Unionport Rd. NYCT White Plains Road Shop Bronx tbl65340 Con Edison Ducts East 174 St NYCT Block/Lot Ducts Bronx tbw32500 231ST 231 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32600 238 ST 238 St-Broadway NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tbw32700 242 ST 242 St-Van Cortlandt Pk NYCT Broadway/7th Avenue Station Bronx tco21000 161 ST Yankee Stadium 161 St/River Ave NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21100 167 ST 167 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21200 170 ST 170 St/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21300 174 175 STs 174-175 Sts/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21400 TREMONT AVE Tremont Ave/Grand Concourse NYCT Concourse Station Bronx tco21500 182 183 STs 183 St/Grand
    [Show full text]
  • Psa Report Competitive V/S Non Competitive Contracts
    S t a t e o f C o n n e c t i c u t OFFICE OF POLICY AND MANAGEMENT REPORT TO THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY Personal Service Agreements Benjamin Barnes Secr et ar y Office of Policy and Management 450 Capitol Avenue Hartford, Connecticut 06106 Sub mitt ed October 31, 2017 This page is intentionally left blank 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page Introduction . 3 A. Purpose . 4 B. Background . 4 C. Scope and Methodology . 5 D. Inquiries . 6 Part I. PSA Data . A. Total Number of PSA 1. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive Payments All Contracts. 7 2. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive All Contracts. 8 3. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive Under 20K . 9 4. Chart Competitive and Noncompetitive 20K and Over . 10 B. Summary Data . 11 C. Detail Data. 13 Part II. Consultant Agreements . A. Summary of Consultant Agreements. 51 B. Detail Data . 52 3 INTRODUCTION A. Purpose This document summarizes information regarding Personal Service Agreements for State fiscal year 2017. B. Background A Personal Service Agreement (PSA) is a duly executed and legally binding contract that defines the services or end products to be delivered by a Personal Service Contractor to a State agency. It is one of the primary mechanisms used by the State for procurement purposes. Typically, a PSA is used to purchase infrequent and non-routine services or end products, such as consulting services, technical assistance, and training. By law, no State agency may hire a Contractor to deliver such services or end products without first executing a PSA. C.G.S. § 4–212 defines who is included and who is not included in the term “Personal Service Contractor.” Included is “any person, firm or corporation not employed by the State, who is hired by a State agency for a fee to provide services to the agency.” Not included in the term “Personal Service Contractor” are the following: (a) a person, firm or corporation providing contractual services to the State, as defined in C.G.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Downtown North Historic District
    OMts Form 1C -900 RPCFr^.H ??RO uSl/NrS iNrihf Registration Form (Rev. 8-86) 1024-0018 PROPERTY >AME D~oWnt< >wn North Historic District, Hartford. CT Pagel United States ] teparti lent of the Interior National Register of Historic Places Registration Form WAT REGISTER OF HiSTCtfiC PUCES NATIONAL PARK SERVICE 1. Name of Property historic name NA other names/site number Downtown North Historic District 2. Location street & number 480-484, 490r 500r 506-512. 529-543 Ann Street; 35-37 Atlantic? Street: 24 Ely Street; 21 lr 220r 225-23 l r 249r 263-26Sr 269-273r 275-277 High Street: 1279-1283r 1293-1297, 1301-1307, 1304, 1306. 1313-1317, 1325-1329, 1331-1337, 135S-1357r 13S9-1363r 1391-1405 Main Street; 180 Pleasant Street________________u not for publication MA city or town Hartford vicinity NA state Connecticut code CT county Hartford codejQQl zip code 06112 3, State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, 1 hereby certify that this X nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property % meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant _ nationally _ statewide js;_ locally. ( _ See contjjttwrti^sEeet for additional comments.) Signature of certitymt5"official Date Acting Director/Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property __ meets does not meet the National Register criteria.
    [Show full text]