DOCSLIB.ORG

City of Phoenix

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
City of Phoenix CITY OF PHOENIX REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) DISPOSITION AND DEVELOPMENT OF VACANT LOTS NEAR MATTHEW HENSON HOPE VI COMMUNITY HOUSING DEPARTMENT RFP ISSUANCE DATE: Tuesday, August 8, 2017 NUMBER: RFP FY18-086-2 Proposal Due Date and Time: Friday, September 22, 2017 by 2:00 P.M. (Phoenix Local Time) Proposal Submittal Location: City of Phoenix Housing Department th 251 W. Washington Street, 4 Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Pre-Proposal Conference: Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 8:30 A.M. (Phoenix local time) 251 W. Washington Street, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Contract Representative: David Wisniewski, Contract Specialist II Email: [email protected] Phone: (602) 261-8619 TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 3 II. SOLICITATION TRANSPARENCY POLICY......................................................... 6 III. SCOPE OF WORK .................................................................................................. 7 IV. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS………………………………………...………….10 V. PROPOSAL AND EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS ............................. ………… 21 VI. SPECIAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS .................................................................. 26 VII STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS .............................................................. 46 VIII. SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSAL ................................................................................ 59 PROPOSER CERTIFICATION AND AFFIDAVIT .................................................. 60 ATTACHMENT A – OFFER FORM…………………………………………………….64 ATTACHMENT B – CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND SOLICITATION TRANSPARENCY DISCLOSURE FORM…..………………………....……………...66 EXHIBIT A – APPLICABLE VACANT LOTS…………………….………………...…69 EXHIBIT B – MAP OF THE AREA………………………...…………………………...70 EXHIBIT C – AFFIRMATIVE MARKETING MONITORING REPORT……………..71 Disposition and Development of Vacant Lots Near the Mathew Henson Hope VI Community Page 2 of 71 RF FY18-086-2 I – INTRODUCTION I. INTRODUCTION The City of Phoenix Housing Department (the “City”) invites sealed proposals from qualified organization(s) for the disposition and development of 34 residential City-owned vacant lots located near the Matthew Henson HOPE VI Community in the general vicinity of 7th Avenue and Buckeye Road for affordable homeownership. Homebuyers cannot exceed 80% of Area Median Income (AMI) as determined by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). A. Summary The 34 City-owned vacant lots were purchased over a period of years from 1995-2008 using non-General Fund funding sources that restrict the use of the lots, primarily to affordable housing. The lots were previously designated as part of the homeownership component of the City's Matthew Henson HUD HOPE VI Grant Revitalization Plan (the "Plan"). Due to the downturn in the housing market and the high number of foreclosures in Phoenix from 2008 through 2010, construction of the proposed homeownership units was deemed infeasible. As a result, the homeownership component of the Plan was amended and has since been met through a down payment assistance program. However, the City still owns the vacant lots that had been originally designated as part of the Plan. The parcels, zoned R-3, are located between 7th and 15th Avenues, including lots on the west side of 15th Avenue, from Pima to Hadley Streets. The selected Proposer will be required to take ownership of all the vacant lots and develop the project according to conditions and timelines specified in the RFP. Proposals will be sought from organizations who will provide private leverage for development costs and general enhancements to the community. Property addresses and parcel numbers are listed in Exhibit A and a map of the area with lots highlighted in Exhibit B. This RFP requires performance benchmarks to ensure timely development of the project. If development benchmarks are not met, ownership of the lots will revert to the City. The Scope of Work is set forth in detail in Section III of this RFP. The anticipated evaluation criteria for this RFP are detailed in Section V – Proposal and Evaluation Requirements. B. Housing Department Overview The City of Phoenix Housing Department provides quality affordable housing and a pathway to self-sufficiency for low- to moderate-income families, seniors, and persons with disabilities. The Housing Department’s plans and policies are described in its Annual Agency Plan at https://www.phoenix.gov/housing/brochures-reports. With over 170 full-time employees, the Housing Department administers a variety of programs to continue its mission, and fulfill its goals and the City’s responsibilities as the Disposition and Development of Vacant Lots Near the Mathew Henson Hope VI Community Page 3 of 71 RFP FY17-086-4 I – INTRODUCTION City of Phoenix Public Housing Authority (PHA). As a (PHA), the City owns approximately 6,300 units of public housing and other affordable housing communities and manages over 6,800 Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers. These programs provide homes to more than 35,000 Phoenix residents. The City also provides financing to private for-profit and non-profit organizations to create additional affordable housing in the Phoenix community using the HOME Investment Partnerships Program, and other funding sources. In addition, the Housing Department provides supportive services to assist residents in reaching their employment and education goals and attaining self-sufficiency. C. Requirements Specific to RFP A response to this RFP is an offer to contract with the City based upon the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in this RFP. Such a proposal does not become a contract until it is executed by the Department Director. D. Schedule of Events RFP Issue Date Tuesday, August 8, 2017 Pre-Proposal Conference Tuesday, August 15, 2017 at 8:30 A.M. (Phoenix local time) 251 W. Washington St, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Proposer’s Written Inquiries Due Tuesday, August 29, 2017 by 5:00 P.M. (Phoenix local time) Responses to Written Inquiries Friday, September 8, 2017 by 5:00 P.M. (Phoenix local time) Proposal Due Date Friday, September 22, 2017 by 2:00 P.M. (Phoenix local time) Finalist Interviews (if necessary) October 9-13, 2017 Call for Best and Final Offer Friday, October 13, 2017 Best and Final Offers Due Tuesday, October 17, 2017 Panel Award Recommendation (Estimated) Monday, October 23, 2017 City Council Approval Wednesday, November 29, 2017 (Estimated) Disposition and Development of Vacant Lots Near the Mathew Henson Hope VI Community Page 4 of 71 RFP FY17-086-4 I – INTRODUCTION Proposal Submittal Location: City of Phoenix Housing Department 251 W. Washington Street, 4th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Attention: David Wisniewski Pre-Proposal Conference Location: City of Phoenix 251 W. Washington Street, 10th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 Finalist Interviews (if necessary): 251 W. Washington Street, 4th Floor Phoenix, AZ 85003 The City reserves the right to change dates and/or locations as necessary. Disposition and Development of Vacant Lots Near the Mathew Henson Hope VI Community Page 5 of 71 RFP FY17-086-4 II SOLICITATION TRANSPARENCY POLICY II. SOLICITATION TRANSPARENCY POLICY Commencing on the date and time a solicitation is published, potential or actual offerors or respondents(including their representatives) shall only discuss matters associated with the solicitation with the Mayor, any members of City Council, the City Manager, any Deputy City Manager, or any department director directly associated with the solicitation (including in each case their assigned staff, except for the designated procurement officer) at a public meeting, posted under Arizona Statutes, until the resulting contract(s) are awarded to all offers or responses are rejected and the solicitation is cancelled without any announcement by the Procurement Officer of the City’s intent to reissue the same or similar solicitation. As long as the solicitation is not discussed, Offerors may continue to conduct business with the City and discuss business that is unrelated to the solicitation with the City staff who is not involved in the selection process. Offerors may discuss their proposal or the solicitation with the Mayor or one or more members of the Phoenix City Council, provided such meetings are scheduled through the Procurement Officer, and are posted as open meetings with the City Clerk at least 24 hours prior to the scheduled meetings. The City Clerk will be responsible for posting the meetings. The posted notice shall identify the participants and the subject matter, as well as invite the public to participate. With respect to the selection of the successful Offerors, the City Manager and/or City Manager's Office will continue the past practice of exerting no undue influence on the process. In all solicitations of bids and proposals, any direction on the selection from the City Manager and/or City Manager's Office and Department Head (or representative) to the proposal review panel or selecting authority must be provided in writing to all prospective Offerors. This policy is intended to create a level playing field for all Offerors, assure that contracts are awarded in public, and protect the integrity of the selection process. PROPOSERS THAT VIOLATE THIS POLICY SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED. After official Notice is received by the City for disqualification, the Proposer may follow the Protest process, unless the Solicitation is cancelled without notice of intent to re-issue.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Exploring the Limits of Executive Civil Rights Policymaking
    Oklahoma Law Review Volume 61 Number 1 2008 Exploring the Limits of Executive Civil Rights Policymaking Stephen Plass St. Thomas University, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the Civil Rights and Discrimination Commons, Law and Race Commons, and the President/ Executive Department Commons Recommended Citation Stephen Plass, Exploring the Limits of Executive Civil Rights Policymaking, 61 OKLA. L. REV. 155 (2008), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol61/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF EXECUTIVE CIVIL RIGHTS POLICYMAKING STEPHEN PLASS* Racial equality for blacks remains a minefield issue for American presidents. Any position a president takes is bound to alienate someone. As a result, even a well-meaning president such as Bill Clinton has had to tread very carefully when addressing this topic.1 Popular attitudes shaped by the powerful continue to dictate the extent to which presidents are able to confront continuing racial discrimination and its legacy of inequality in American life.2 Although many laws ordaining racial equality have been written, discrimination remains a normal part of life in America. This reality makes the President’s role in this area almost as difficult
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Proposals for Engineering Design, Bidding and Construction Management and Inspection Services
    Tioga County Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD) Request for Proposals for Engineering Design, Bidding and Construction Management and Inspection Services For REGIONAL SUSQUEHANNA RIVER INITIATIVE FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT AND STREAM RESTORATION FULLER HOLLOW CREEK: DOWNSTREAM STAIR PARK STREAM STABILIZATION PROJECT September 17, 2020 A project funded by and conceived through the NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program of the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery Responses must be received by: 12:00p.m. (Eastern), October 14, 2020 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 Introduction and Overview .................................................................................................................. 4 2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................... 5 3 Deadlines and Completion Date ........................................................................................................... 6 4 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................................................... 6 5 Submittal Content ................................................................................................................................ 8 6 Selection Process .................................................................................................................................. 9 7 Specific Legal Obligations ..................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter Three Setting the Stage for Affirmative Action in the United States of America
    CHAPTER THREE SETTING THE STAGE FOR AFFIRMATIVE ACTION IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 3.1 The USA — An Overview To understand the current debate over affirmative action in the USA, all of America’s racial history, from colonial times, through slavery, Reconstruction, the Jim Crow era, the civil rights era to the present day must be analysed. The reason for this is that it has been suggested that sometimes a misunderstanding of the history of affirmative action is the principle reason that most white people have difficulty in seeing their historical and current privilege.1 The current scope of affirmative action programmes is best understood as an effort to remedy oppression of racial and ethnic minorities and of women.2 However, broader discrimination against persons because of their race, ethnic background, religion and gender has also been widespread. Some affirmative action programmes began before the promulgation of various civil rights statutes in the 1950's and 1960's, but affirmative action measures did not truly take hold until it became clear that anti-discrimination statutes alone were not enough to break long standing patterns of discrimination. This chapter is a study of equal employment opportunity, with specific emphasis on the development of affirmative action in the USA. It examines the development of public policies designed to eradicate and overcome the effects of economic discrimination. Economic discrimination has been an inherent feature of race relations in the US since the first blacks arrived in the Northern American colonies in 1619.3 It was widespread in 1 Rubio Philip A History of Affirmative Action — 1619-200 (2001) (Phillip).
    [Show full text]
  • Thesis Com 2013 Charles S (1).Pdf
    The copyright of this thesis vests in the author. No quotation from it or information derived from it is to be published without full acknowledgement of the source. The thesis is to be used for private study or non- commercial research purposes only. Published by the University of Cape Town (UCT) in terms of the non-exclusive license granted to UCT by the author. University of Cape Town 1 A CRITIQUE OF THE CONCEPT OF DISADVANTAGE IN RELATION TO THE IDENTIFICATION OF AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BENEFICIARIES: RACE AS PROXY FOR DISADVANTAGE By Stephen Charles Supervisor: Prof Alan Rycroft University of Cape Town Dissertation presented for the approval of Senate in part fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Philosophy in the Department of Commercial Law FEBRUARY 2013 2 PLAGIARISM DECLARATION I hereby declare that I have read and understood the regulations governing the submission of Masters of Philosophy dissertation, including those relating to length and plagiarism, as contained in the rules of this University, and that this dissertation conforms to those regulations. University of Cape Town Signature: Student No: CHRSTE004 Date: 08/02/2013 3 DEDICATIONS This work is dedicated to my wife, Michelle and children (Erin and Stephen) for their support and patience throughout my years of study. This degree is for the family. University of Cape Town 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My indebtedness and gratitude goes to many individuals, in particular my supervisor Prof Alan Rycroft for his valuable input and patience in my journey to produce this research and secondly to Prof Ockert Dupper for shaping and guiding my thoughts during the embryo phase of this research and lastly to my manager, Ernst van Vondel, at Power Construction for his support and understanding.
    [Show full text]
  • Brief of Neither Party for Fisher V. University of Texas at Austin, 11-345
    No. 11-345 IN THE Supreme Court of the United States ———— ABIGAIL NOEL FISHER, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT AUSTIN, et al., Respondents. ———— On Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ———— BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE OF THE EQUAL EMPLOYMENT ADVISORY COUNCIL IN SUPPORT OF NEITHER PARTY ———— JEFFREY A. NORRIS RAE T. VANN Counsel of Record ANN ELIZABETH REESMAN NORRIS, TYSSE, LAMPLEY & LAKIS, LLP 1501 M Street, N.W. Suite 400 Washington, DC 20005 [email protected] (202) 629-5600 Attorneys for Amicus Curiae Equal Employment Advisory Council May 2012 WILSON-EPES PRINTING CO., INC. – (202) 789-0096 – WASHINGTON, D. C. 20002 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ................................ iii INTEREST OF THE AMICUS CURIAE ............ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ............................ 3 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ............................. 5 ARGUMENT ........................................................ 6 REGARDLESS OF THE OUTCOME OF THIS CASE, THIS COURT SHOULD BE COGNIZANT OF THE POTENTIAL EFFECT OF ITS DECISION ON PRIVATE SECTOR EMPLOYERS ................................. 6 A. This Court’s Decision Should Not Make It More Difficult For Federal Con- tractors To Comply With Federally- Mandated Affirmative Action Require- ments ......................................................... 6 1. Companies That Contract with the Federal Government Must Meet Rig- orous Affirmative Action Compliance Standards ............................................. 6 a. The Static Measure of Affirmative Action
    [Show full text]
  • MIAMI UNIVERSITY the Graduate School Certificate for Approving The
    MIAMI UNIVERSITY The Graduate School Certificate for Approving the Dissertation We hereby approve the Dissertation of Jewerl Maxwell Candidate for the Degree: Doctor of Philosophy __________________________________________ Director Dr. Ryan Barilleaux __________________________________________ Reader Dr. Augustus Jones __________________________________________ Reader Dr. John Rothgeb __________________________________________ Graduate School Representative Dr. Allan Winkler Abstract In his 2001 text With a Stroke of a Pen, Kenneth Mayer contended, “Affirmative action – or the practice of granting preferences in employment, contracting, or education on the basis of race and gender – is largely a creature of executive action” (202). In spite of the substantial role played by America’s chief executives in enactment of such policies, with the exception of Mayer’s brief analysis in his chapter on civil rights, explanations regarding how and why presidents have enacted such policies have eluded presidency scholars. Thus, the primary objective of this study is to identify and explain the answer to the following questions: 1) To what extent have modern presidents used executive orders to establish federal affirmative action policy in the realm of equal employment opportunity for underrepresented groups in American society, prior to actions taken by other governmental institutions? 2) What factors explain presidential decision-making regarding executive orders pertaining to equal employment opportunity for underrepresented groups? To accomplish
    [Show full text]
  • 87130 Federal Register / Vol
    87130 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WIA, and these WIOA provisions took (ADA),6 as amended by the Americans effect on July 1, 2015. To ensure no with Disabilities Act Amendments Act Office of the Secretary regulatory gap while this rule was (ADAAA),7 and Section 501 of the prepared, the Department’s Civil Rights Rehabilitation Act,8 which are enforced 29 CFR Part 38 Center (CRC) issued a final rule in July by the Equal Employment Opportunity RIN 1291–AA36 2015 (‘‘2015 rule’’), codified at 29 CFR Commission (EEOC); Executive Order part 38, which applies until this rule 11246 9 and Section 503 of the Implementation of the takes effect. The 2015 rule retained the Rehabilitation Act,10 which are enforced Nondiscrimination and Equal provisions in 29 CFR part 37 (‘‘1999 by the Department’s Office of Federal Opportunity Provisions of the rule’’) but simply substituted all Contract Compliance Programs Workforce Innovation and Opportunity references to WIA with WIOA to reflect (OFCCP); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act the proper statutory authority. This final Act, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, rule revises the 2015 rule and generally and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor. carries over the policies and procedures Act, which are enforced by each federal ACTION: Final rule. found in the 1999 and 2015 rules, which funding agency; and Title IX, which is implemented the equal opportunity and enforced by each federal funding agency SUMMARY: This final rule revises the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 29 CFR Part 38
    87130 Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 232 / Friday, December 2, 2016 / Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF LABOR WIA, and these WIOA provisions took (ADA),6 as amended by the Americans effect on July 1, 2015. To ensure no with Disabilities Act Amendments Act Office of the Secretary regulatory gap while this rule was (ADAAA),7 and Section 501 of the prepared, the Department’s Civil Rights Rehabilitation Act,8 which are enforced 29 CFR Part 38 Center (CRC) issued a final rule in July by the Equal Employment Opportunity RIN 1291–AA36 2015 (‘‘2015 rule’’), codified at 29 CFR Commission (EEOC); Executive Order part 38, which applies until this rule 11246 9 and Section 503 of the Implementation of the takes effect. The 2015 rule retained the Rehabilitation Act,10 which are enforced Nondiscrimination and Equal provisions in 29 CFR part 37 (‘‘1999 by the Department’s Office of Federal Opportunity Provisions of the rule’’) but simply substituted all Contract Compliance Programs Workforce Innovation and Opportunity references to WIA with WIOA to reflect (OFCCP); Title VI of the Civil Rights Act the proper statutory authority. This final Act, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, rule revises the 2015 rule and generally and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Labor. carries over the policies and procedures Act, which are enforced by each federal ACTION: Final rule. found in the 1999 and 2015 rules, which funding agency; and Title IX, which is implemented the equal opportunity and enforced by each federal funding agency SUMMARY: This final rule revises the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Request for Sealed Bids Demolition of a Residential Structure Including Asbestos Abatement
    Request for Sealed Bids Demolition of a Residential Structure Including Asbestos Abatement ADVERTISEMENT PROPOSAL NON-DISCRIMINATION CERTIFICATE INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS SPECIFICATIONS CITY OF NILES GENERAL CONDITIONS DAVIS BACON- PREVALINING WAGE EQUAL OPPORTUNITY SECTION 3 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT GENERAL REQUIREMENTS CONTRACT Bids are due at the address shown below no later than Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 2:00pm EST City of Niles Designated Contact: Gary Soper, Department of Public Works, Superintendent Questions must be submitted electronically only, no telephone calls accepted Email: [email protected] City of Niles, Michigan 333 N 2nd Street, Suite 301 Niles, MI 49120 269-683-4700 Ext 3050 City of Niles, Michigan Request for Proposals, Residential Structures August 18, 2020 1 | Page ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS CITY OF NILES, MICHIGAN DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES INCLUDING ASBESTOS REMOVAL The City of Niles, Michigan, will receive sealed bids at City Hall, Department of Public Works, located on the third floor at 333 N. Second Street, until Wednesday, September 2, 2020 at 2:00pm EST. Electronic Proposals will not be accepted. The City will make every effort to provide a conference call available to any contractor that submits a proposal so that they can listen to the bid opening as it happens, provided the contractor submits a working phone number at least 24 hours prior to the bid opening. At that date, time, and location the proposals will be, due to the constraints of Executive Order 2020-21, privately opened in the City Hall Conference Room and read aloud for the following construction project in the City of Niles: at which time and place the proposals will be publicly opened and read aloud for the DEMOLITION OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES INCLUDING ASBESTOS REMOVAL IN THE CITY OF NILES.
    [Show full text]
  • Colelloanthony.Pdf (364Kb)
    AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BANS AND MINORITY EMPLOYMENT: WASHINGTON STATE’S INITIATIVE 200 A Thesis submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences of Georgetown University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Public Policy in Public Policy By Anthony Colello, B.S. Washington, DC 15, April, 2011 Copyright 2011 by Anthony Colello All Rights Reserved ii AFFIRMATIVE ACTION BANS AND MINORITY EMPLOYMENT: WASHINGTON STATE’S INITIATIVE 200 Anthony J. Colello, B.S. Thesis Advisor: Adam Thomas, PhD. ABSTRACT Affirmative action has been one of the most divisive issues in recent American political discourse. While the issue has been debated for years, recent legislative events have created opportunities to utilize natural experiments to explore the effects of affirmative action policies. Washington State passed Initiative 200 in 1998. I-200 effectively eliminated affirmative action for all state employers and contractors. I-200 now presents a unique natural experiment for study. Updating Caitlin Myers’ (2007) study of California’s Proposition 209, I utilize CPS data from years surrounding the passage of I-200 to ascertain what impact the removal of affirmative action requirements may have had on the labor market outcomes of minorities residing in Washington State. The results presented herein suggest that there was an increased likelihood of unemployment for black workers in Washington State. Other results indicate an increase in the likelihood of employment and a decrease in non-participation in the labor force for Hispanic workers in Washington State. Taken together, these results hint at the possibility of labor force crowd-out for non-black minority workers as a result of affirmative action policies.
    [Show full text]
  • Alaska Department of T Ransportation & Public Facilities
    Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities & Public Transportation Alaska Department of Optimizing Implementation of Civil Rights Requirements for Vessel Construction Prepared By: Authors: Edward W. Morris, Jr. Tanya Taylor-Morris October 2011 Prepared For: Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities Research, Development, and Technology Transfer 2301 Peger Road Fairbanks, AK 99709-5399 FHWA-AK-RD-11-05 DISCLAIMER Notice This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of the information contained in this document. The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the objective of the document. Quality Assurance Statement The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high-quality information to serve Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement. Author’s Disclaimer Opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the author. They are not necessarily those of the Alaska DOT&PF or funding agencies. Form approved OMB No. REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Public reporting for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information.
    [Show full text]
  • OFCCP V. Florida Hospital of Orlando, ARB No. 11-011, ALJ No. 2009
    U.S. Department of Labor Administrative Review Board 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20210 OFFICE OF FEDERAL CONTRACT ARB CASE NO. 11-011 COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ALJ CASE NO. 2009-OFC-002 COMPLAINANT, DATE: July 22, 2013 v. FLORIDA HOSPITAL OF ORLANDO, RESPONDENT. BEFORE: THE ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW BOARD Appearances: For the Plaintiff: M. Patricia Smith, Esq.; Katherine E. Bissell, Esq.; Christopher Wilkinson, Esq.; Beverly I. Dankowitz, Esq.; Consuela A. Pinto, Esq.; and Theresa Schneider Fromm, Esq.; United States Department of Labor, Washington, District of Columbia For the Defendant: Leslie Selig Byrd, Esq. and Judy K. Jetelina, Esq.; Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, San Antonio, Texas For the American Hospital Association, as Amicus Curiae: Melinda Reid Hatton, Esq. and Lawrence Hughes, Esq.; American Hospital Association, Washington, District of Columbia; F. Curt Kirschner, Esq. and Christopher T. Scanlon, Esq.; Jones Day, San Francisco, California; and Alison B. Marshall, Esq.; Jones Day, Washington, District of Columbia USDOL/OALJ REPORTER PAGE 1 For the Humana Military Health Services, Inc., and Health Net Federal Services, LLC, as Amicus Curiae: Arthur N. Lerner, Esq.; Christopher Flynn, Esq.; and J. Catherine Kunz, Esq.; Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, District of Columbia For the TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corporation, as Amicus Curiae: Janet E. Kornblatt, Esq.; Phoenix, Arizona For the National Association of Chain Drug Stores, as Amicus Curiae: Mary Ellen Kleiman, Esq. and Don L. Bell, II, Esq.; National Association of Chain Drug Stores, Alexandria, Virginia For the National Women’s Law Center, as Amicus Curiae: Fatima Goss Graves, Esq. and Devi Rao, Esq.; National Women’s Law Center, Washington, District of Columbia, and Jennifer Mathis, Esq.; Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law, Washington, District of Columbia For the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, as Amicus Curiae: Lisa M.
    [Show full text]