The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20201076.tiffBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PASS -AROUND REVIEW PASS -AROUND TITLE: Contract Approval for Physical Abilities Test DEPARTMENT: Sheriff's Office PERSON REQUESTING: Undersheriff Patch/Kelly Leffler DATE: 6/30/2020 Brief description of the problem/issue: Attached you will see the final contract between Weld County and Human Performance Development Group for the Physical Abilities Test Project. This project was approved for the 2020 Budget, and was put out for bid April 9th. A Work Session was held on May 18th to discuss awarding the bid to Human Performance Development Group and was approved at the Board Meeting on May 20th. Attached you will see the final contract that has been approved by Bob Choate, and signed by Robert Moffatt with Human Performance Development Group. Recommendation: It is recommended that this contract be approved to be put on the Agenda for the Board Meeting on July 8th Mike Freeman, Chair Scott K. James Barbara Kirkmeyer Steve Moreno, Pro-Tem Kevin D. Ross 7 a o I �.�1 Approve Recommendation 1Mc t ,41 Schedule Work Session Other/Comments: e: ,6C106'cet_l ffie-) ,a 0 1. 2o- 1 a 76 ;o 001-1 l AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BETWEEN WELD COUNTY & HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP PHYSICAL ABILITIES ASSESSMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 15th day of July, 2020, by and between the County of Weld, a body corporate and politic of the State of Colorado, by and through its Board of County Commissioners, whose address is 1150 "O" Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631, on behalf of the Weld County Sheriff's Office, hereinafter referred to as "County," and Human Performance Development Group, LLC, whose address is 3560 Velda Oaks Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32309, hereinafter referred to as "Contract Professional". WHEREAS, County desires to retain Contract Professional as an independent Contract Professional to perform services as more particularly set forth below; and WHEREAS, Contract Professional has the ability, qualifications, and time available to timely perform the services, and is willing to perform the services according to the terms of this Agreement. WHEREAS, Contract Professional is authorized to do business in the State of Colorado and has the time, skill, expertise, and experience necessary to provide the services as set forth below; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Introduction. The terms of this Agreement are contained in the terms recited in this document and in Exhibits A and B, each of which forms an integral part of this Agreement. Exhibits A and B are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. County and Contract Professional acknowledge and agree that this Agreement, including specifically Exhibits A and B, define the performance obligations of Contract Professional and Contract Professional's willingness and ability to meet those requirements. Exhibit A consists of County's Request for Proposal (RFP) as set forth in "Proposal Package No. B2000061". The RFP contains all of the specific requirements of County. Exhibit B consists of Contract Professional's Response to County's Request for Proposal. The Response confirms Contract Professional's obligations under this Agreement. 2. Service or Work. Contract Professional agrees to procure the materials, equipment and/or products necessary for the project and agrees to diligently provide all services, labor, personnel and materials necessary to perform and complete the project described in Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Contract Professional shall coordinate with Weld County to perform the services described on attached Exhibits A and B. Contract Professional shall faithfully perform the work in accordance with the standards of professional care, skill, training, diligence and judgment provided by highly competent Contract Professionals performing services of a similar nature to those described in this Agreement. Contract Professional shall further be responsible for the timely completion and acknowledges that a failure to comply with the standards and requirements of Exhibits A and B within the time limits prescribed by County may result in County's decision to withhold payment or to terminate this Agreement. 3. Term. The term of this Agreement begins upon the date of the execution of this Agreement by County, and shall continue through and until Contract Professional's completion of the responsibilities described in Exhibits A. Both of the parties to this Agreement understand and agree that the laws of the State of Colorado prohibit County from entering into Agreements which bind County for periods longer than one year. Therefore, within the thirty (30) days preceding the anniversary date of this Agreement, County shall notify Contract Professional if it wishes to renew this Contract. 4. Termination. County has the right to terminate this Agreement, with or without cause on thirty (30) days written notice. Furthermore, this Agreement may be terminated at any time without notice upon a material breach of the terms of the Agreement. However, nothing herein shall be construed as giving Contract Professional the right to provide services under this Agreement beyond the time when such services become unsatisfactory to the County. If this Agreement is terminated by County, Contract Professional shall be compensated for, and such compensation shall be limited to, (1) the sum of the amounts contained in invoices which it has submitted and which have been approved by the County; (2) the reasonable value to County of the services which Contract Professional provided prior to the date of the termination notice, but which had not yet been approved for payment; and (3) the cost of any work which the County approves in writing which it determines is needed to accomplish an orderly termination of the work. County shall be entitled to the use of all material generated pursuant to this Agreement upon termination. Upon termination, County shall take possession of all materials, equipment, tools and facilities owned by County which Contract Professional is using, by whatever method it deems expedient; and, Contract Professional shall deliver to County all drawings, drafts or other documents it has completed or partially completed under this Agreement, together with all other items, materials and documents which have been paid for by County, and these items, materials and documents shall be the property of County. Copies of work product incomplete at the time of termination shall be marked "DRAFT -INCOMPLETE." Upon termination of this Agreement by County, Contract Professional shall have no claim of any kind whatsoever against the County by reason of such termination or by reason of any act incidental thereto, except for compensation for work satisfactorily performed and/or materials described herein properly delivered. 5. Extension or Modification. Any amendments or modifications to this agreement shall be in writing signed by both parties. No additional services or work performed by Contract Professional shall be the basis for additional compensation unless and until Contract Professional has obtained written authorization and acknowledgement by County for such additional services. Accordingly, no claim that the County has been unjustly enriched by any additional services, whether or not there is in fact any such unjust enrichment, shall be the basis of any increase in the compensation payable hereunder. In the event that written authorization and acknowledgment by the County for such additional services is not timely executed and issued in strict accordance with this Agreement, Contract Professional's rights with respect to such additional services shall be deemed waived and such failure shall result in non-payment for such additional services or work performed. In the event the County shall require changes in the scope, character, or complexity of the work to be performed, and said changes cause an increase or decrease in the time required or the costs to the Contract Professional for performance, an equitable adjustment in fees and completion time shall be negotiated between the parties and this Agreement shall be modified accordingly by a supplemental Agreement. Any claims by the Contract Professional for adjustment hereunder must be made in writing prior to performance of any work covered in the anticipated supplemental Agreement. Any change in work made without such prior supplemental Agreement shall be deemed covered in the compensation and time provisions of this Agreement 6. Compensation/Contract Amount. Upon Contract Professional's successful completion of the services, and County's acceptance of the same, County agrees to pay an amount no greater than $100,000, which is the amount negotiated between the County and the Contract Professional for all services described in Exhibit B. Contract Professional shall submit periodic invoices to County containing sufficient detail to demonstrate what services have been provided in accordance with the proposed cost schedule contained in Exhibit B. County shall pay all undisputed invoices within thirty (30) days of receipt. Contract Professional acknowledges no payment in excess of that amount will be made by County unless a "change order" authorizing such additional payment has been specifically approved by the Director of Weld County Public Works, or by formal resolution of the Weld County Board of County Commissioners, as required pursuant to the Weld County Code. Any other provision of this Agreement notwithstanding, in no event shall County be liable for payment for services rendered and expenses incurred by Contract Professional under the terms of this Agreement for any amount in excess of the sum of the bid amount set forth in Exhibit B. Contactor acknowledges that any work it performs beyond that specifically authorized by County is performed at Contract Professional's risk and without authorization under this Agreement. County shall not be liable for the payment of taxes, late charges or penalties of any nature other than the compensation stated herein. If, at any time during the term or after termination or expiration of this Agreement, County reasonably determines that any payment made by County to Contract Professional was improper because the service for which payment was made did not perform as set forth in this Agreement, then upon written notice of such determination and request for reimbursement from County, Contract Professional shall forthwith return such payment(s) to County. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement, unexpended funds advanced by County, if any, shall forthwith be returned to County. County will not withhold any taxes from monies paid to the Contract Professional hereunder and Contract Professional agrees to be solely responsible for the accurate reporting and payment of any taxes related to payments made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Mileage may be reimbursed if the provisions of Exhibit A permit such payment at the rate set forth in Exhibit B. Contract Professional shall not be paid any other expenses unless set forth in this Agreement. Payment to Contract Professional will be made only upon presentation of a proper claim by Contract Professional, itemizing services performed and, (if permitted under this Agreement), mileage expense incurred. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Agreement, County shall have no obligations under this Agreement after, nor shall any payments be made to Contract Professional in respect of any period after December 31 of any year, without an appropriation therefore by County in accordance with a budget adopted by the Board of County Commissioners in compliance with Article 25, title 30 of the Colorado Revised Statutes, the Local Government Budget Law (C.R.S. 29-1-101 et. seq.) and the TABOR Amendment (Colorado Constitution, Article X, Sec. 20) 7. Independent Contract Professional. Contract Professional agrees that it is an independent Contract Professional and that Contract Professional's officers, agents or employees will not become employees of County, nor entitled to any employee benefits from County as a result of the execution of this Agreement. Contract Professional shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent Contract Professional. Contract Professional shall be solely responsible for its acts and those of its agents and employees for all acts performed pursuant to this Agreement. Contract Professional, its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers' compensation benefits through County and County shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for Contract Professional or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to Contract Professional and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by Contract Professional or a third party. Contract Professional shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head taxes (if applicable) incurred pursuant to this Agreement. Contract Professional shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind County to any agreement, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement. Contract Professional shall have the following responsibilities with regard to workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance matters: (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law (and as set forth in Exhibit A provide proof thereof when requested to do so by County. 8. Subcontractors. Contract Professional acknowledges that County has entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the particular reputation and expertise of Contract Professional. Contract Professional shall not enter into any subcontractor agreements for the completion of this project without County's prior written consent, which may be withheld in County's sole discretion. County shall have the right in its reasonable discretion to approve all personnel assigned to the subject project during the performance of this Agreement and no personnel to whom County has an objection, in its reasonable discretion, shall be assigned to the project. Contract Professional shall require each subcontractor, as approved by County and to the extent of the Services to be performed by the subcontractor, to be bound to Contract Professional by the terms of this Agreement, and to assume toward Contract Professional all the obligations and responsibilities which Contract Professional, by this Agreement, assumes toward County. County shall have the right (but not the obligation) to enforce the provisions of this Agreement against any subcontractor hired by Contract Professional and Contract Professional shall cooperate in such process. The Contract Professional shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents, employees and subcontractors. 9. Ownership. All work and information obtained by Contract Professional under this Agreement or individual work order shall become or remain (as applicable), the property of County. In addition, all reports, documents, data, plans, drawings, records and computer files generated by Contract Professional in relation to this Agreement and all reports, test results and all other tangible materials obtained and/or produced in connection with the performance of this Agreement, whether or not such materials are in completed form, shall at all times be considered the property of the County. Contract Professional shall not make use of such material for purposes other than in connection with this Agreement without prior written approval of County. 10. Confidentiality. Confidential financial information of the Contract Professional should be transmitted separately from the main bid submittal, clearly denoting in red on the financial information at the top the word, "CONFIDENTIAL." However, Contract Professional is advised that as a public entity, Weld County must comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 24-72-201, et seq., with regard to public records, and cannot guarantee the confidentiality of all documents. Contract Professional agrees to keep confidential all of County's confidential information. Contract Professional agrees not to sell, assign, distribute, or disclose any such confidential information to any other person or entity without seeking written permission from the County. Contract Professional agrees to advise its employees, agents, and consultants, of the confidential and proprietary nature of this confidential information and of the restrictions imposed by this agreement. 11. Warranty. Contract Professional warrants that the services performed under this Agreement will be performed in a manner consistent with the professional standards governing such services and the provisions of this Agreement. Contract Professional further represents and warrants that all services shall be performed by qualified personnel in a professional and workmanlike manner, consistent with industry standards, and that all services will conform to applicable specifications. In addition to the foregoing warranties, Contract Professional is aware that all work performed on this Project pursuant to this Agreement is subject to a one year warranty period during which Contract Professional must correct any failures or deficiencies. This warranty shall commence on the date of County's final inspection and acceptance of the Project. 12. Acceptance of Services Not a Waiver. Upon completion of the work, Contract Professional shall submit to County originals of all test results, reports, etc., generated during completion of this work. Acceptance by County of reports and incidental material(s) furnished under this Agreement shall not in any way relieve Contract Professional of responsibility for the quality and accuracy of the project. In no event shall any action by County hereunder constitute or be construed to be a waiver by County of any breach of this Agreement or default which may then exist on the part of Contract Professional, and County's action or inaction when any such breach or default shall exist shall not impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to County with respect to such breach or default. No assent, expressed or implied, to any breach of any one or more covenants, provisions or conditions of the Agreement shall be deemed or taken to be a waiver of any other breach. Acceptance by the County of, or payment for, the services completed under this Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any of the County's rights under this Agreement or under the law generally. 13. Insurance and Indemnification. Contract Professionals must secure, at or before the time of execution of any agreement or commencement of any work, the following insurance covering all operations, goods or services provided pursuant to this request. Contract Professionals shall keep the required insurance coverage in force at all times during the term of the Agreement, or any extension thereof, and during any warranty period. The required insurance shall be underwritten by an insurer licensed to do business in Colorado and rated by A.M. Best Company as "A"VIII or better. Each policy shall contain a valid provision or endorsement stating "Should any of the above -described policies by canceled or should any coverage be reduced before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company shall send written notice to the Weld County Director of General Services by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such written notice shall be sent thirty (30) days prior to such cancellation or reduction unless due to non-payment of premiums for which notice shall be sent ten (10) days prior. If any policy is in excess of a deductible or self -insured retention, County must be notified by the Contract Professional. Contract Professional shall be responsible for the payment of any deductible or self -insured retention. County reserves the right to require Contract Professional to provide a bond, at no cost to County, in the amount of the deductible or self -insured retention to guarantee payment of claims. The insurance coverage's specified in this Agreement are the minimum requirements, and these requirements do not decrease or limit the liability of Professional. The County in no way warrants that the minimum limits contained herein are sufficient to protect them from liabilities that might arise out of the performance of the work under this Contract by the Contract Professional, its agents, representatives, employees, or subcontractors. The Contract Professional shall assess its own risks and if it deems appropriate and/or prudent, maintain higher limits and/or broader coverages. The Contract Professional is not relieved of any liability or other obligations assumed or pursuant to the Contract by reason of its failure to obtain or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. The Contract Professional shall maintain, at its own expense, any additional kinds or amounts of insurance that it may deem necessary to cover its obligations and liabilities under this Agreement. Any modification to these requirements must be made in writing by Weld County. The Contract Professional stipulates that it has met the insurance requirements identified herein. The Contract Professional shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and quantity of all services provided, the timely delivery of said services, and the coordination of all services rendered by the Contract Professional and shall, without additional compensation, promptly remedy and correct any errors, omissions, or other deficiencies. INDEMNITY: The Contract Professional shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless County, its officers, agents, and employees, from and against injury, loss damage, liability, suits, actions, or willful acts or omissions of Contract Professional, or claims of any type or character arising out of the work done in fulfillment of the terms of this Contract or on account of any act, claim or amount arising or recovered under workers' compensation law or arising out of the failure of the Contract Professional to conform to any statutes, ordinances, regulation, law or court decree. The Contract Professional shall be fully responsible and liable for any and all injuries or damage received or sustained by any person, persons, or property on account of its performance under this Agreement or its failure to comply with the provisions of the Agreement, or on account of or in consequence of neglect of the Contract Professional in its methods or procedures; or in its provisions of the materials required herein, or from any claims or amounts arising or recovered under the Worker's Compensation Act, or other law, ordinance, order, or decree. This paragraph shall survive expiration or termination hereof. It is agreed that the Contract Professional will be responsible for primary loss investigation, defense and judgment costs where this contract of indemnity applies. In consideration of the award of this contract, the Contract Professional agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the County its associated and/or affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected officials, trustees, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses arising from the work performed by the Contract Professional for the County. A failure to comply with this provision shall result in County's right to immediately terminate this Agreement. Types of Insurance: The Contract Professional shall obtain, and maintain at all times during the term of any Agreement, insurance in the following kinds and amounts: Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by state statute, and Employer's Liability Insurance covering all of the Contract Professional's employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. Policy shall contain a waiver of subrogation against the County. This requirement shall not apply when a Contract Professional or subcontractor is exempt under Colorado Workers' Compensation Act., AND when such Contract Professional or subcontractor executes the appropriate sole proprietor waiver form. Commercial General Liability Insurance shall include bodily injury, property damage, and liability assumed under the contract. $1,000,000 each occurrence; $1,000,000 general aggregate; $1,000,000 Personal Advertising injury Automobile Liability: Contract Professional shall maintain limits of $1,000,000 for bodily injury per person, $1,000,000 for bodily injury for each accident, and $1,000,000 for property damage applicable to all vehicles operating both on County property and elsewhere, for vehicles owned, hired, and non - owned vehicles used in the performance of this Contract. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions Liability) The policy shall cover professional misconduct or lack of ordinary skill for those positions defined in the Scope of Services of this contract. Contract Professional shall maintain limits for all claims covering wrongful acts, errors and/or omissions, including design errors, if applicable, for damage sustained by reason of or in the course of operations under this Contract resulting from professional services. In the event that the professional liability insurance required by this Contract is written on a claims -made basis, Contract Professional warrants that any retroactive date under the policy shall precede the effective date of this Contract; and that either continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended discovery period will be exercised for a period of two (2) years beginning at the time work under this Contract is completed. Minimum Limits: Per Loss Aggregate $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Contract Professionals shall secure and deliver to the County at or before the time of execution of this Agreement, and shall keep in force at all times during the term of the Agreement as the same may be extended as herein provided, a commercial general liability insurance policy, including public liability and property damage, in form and company acceptable to and approved by said Administrator, covering all operations hereunder set forth in the related Bid or Request for Proposal. Proof of Insurance: County reserves the right to require the Contract Professional to provide a certificate of insurance, a policy, or other proof of insurance as required by the County's Risk Administrator in his sole discretion. Additional Insureds: For general liability, excess/umbrella liability, pollution legal liability, liquor liability, and inland marine, Contract Professional's insurer shall name County as an additional insured. Waiver of Subrogation: For all coverages, Contract Professional's insurer shall waive subrogation rights against County. Subcontractors: All subcontractors, independent Contract Professionals, sub -vendors, suppliers or other entities providing goods or services required by this Agreement shall be subject to all of the requirements herein and shall procure and maintain the same coverage's required of Contract Professional. Contract Professional shall include all such subcontractors, independent Contract Professionals, sub -vendors suppliers or other entities as insureds under its policies or shall ensure that all subcontractors maintain the required coverages. Contract Professional agrees to provide proof of insurance for all such subcontractors, independent Contract Professionals, sub -vendors suppliers or other entities upon request by the County. 14. Non -Assignment. Contract Professional may not assign or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein or claim thereunder, without the prior written approval of County. Any attempts by Contract Professional to assign or transfer its rights hereunder without such prior approval by County shall, at the option of County, automatically terminate this Agreement and all rights of Contract Professional hereunder. Such consent may be granted or denied at the sole and absolute discretion of County. 15. Examination of Records. To the extent required by law, the Contractor agrees that any duly authorized representative of County, including the County Auditor, shall have access to and the right to examine and audit any books, documents, papers and records of Contractor, involving all matters and/or transactions related to this Agreement. The Contractor agrees to maintain these documents for three years from the date of the last payment received. 16. Interruptions. Neither party to this Agreement shall be liable to the other for delays in delivery or failure to deliver or otherwise to perform any obligation under this Agreement, where such failure is due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to Acts of God, fires, strikes, war, flood, earthquakes or Governmental actions. 17. Notices. County may designate, prior to commencement of work, its project representative ("County Representative") who shall make, within the scope of his or her authority, all necessary and proper decisions with reference to the project. All requests for contract interpretations, change orders, and other clarification or instruction shall be directed to County Representative. The County Representative for purposes of this Agreement is hereby identified as, Sheriff, Weld County Sheriffs Office, or his designee. All notices or other communications (including annual maintenance made by one party to the other concerning the terms and conditions of this contract shall be deemed delivered under the following circumstances: (a) personal service by a reputable courier service requiring signature for receipt; or (b) five (5) days following delivery to the United States Postal Service, postage prepaid addressed to a party at the address set forth in this contract; or (c) electronic transmission via email at the address set forth below, where a receipt or acknowledgment is required by the sending party; or (d) transmission via facsimile, at the number set forth below, where a receipt or acknowledgment is required by the sending party. Either party may change its notice address(es) by written notice to the other. Notification Information: Contract Professional: Human Performance Development Group Attn.: Robert J Moffatt Address: 3560 Velda Oaks Circle Address: Tallahassee, Florida 32309 E-mail: rmoffatt@fsu.edu County: Name: Kevin Halloran Position: Lieutenant Address: 1950 O St. Address: Greeley, CO 80631 E-mail: khalloran@weldgov.com With Copy to: Name: Kelly Leffler Position: Employee Health and Productivity Specialist Address: 1150 O St. Address: Greeley, CO 80631 Email: kleffler@weldgov.com 18. Compliance with Law. Contract Professional shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and State laws, rules and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices. 19. Non -Exclusive Agreement. This Agreement is nonexclusive and County may engage or use other Contract Professionals or persons to perform services of the same or similar nature. 20. Entire Agreement/Modifications. This Agreement including the Exhibits attached hereto and incorporated herein, contains the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the subject matter contained in this Agreement. This instrument supersedes all prior negotiations, representations, and understandings or agreements with respect to the subject matter contained in this Agreement. This Agreement may be changed or supplemented only by a written instrument signed by both parties. 21. Fund Availability. Financial obligations of the County payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. Execution of this Agreement by County does not create an obligation on the part of County to expend funds not otherwise appropriated in each succeeding year. 22. Employee Financial Interest/Conflict of Interest — C.R.S. §§24-18-201 et seq. and §24-50-507. The signatories to this Agreement aver that to their knowledge, no employee of Weld County has any personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property which is the subject matter of this Agreement. County has no interest and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect, that would in any manner or degree interfere with the performance of Contract Professional's services and Contract Professional shall not employ any person having such known interests. During the term of this Agreement, Contract Professional shall not engage in any in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which actually conflicts with or in any way appear to conflict with the full performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Failure by Contract Professional to ensure compliance with this provision may result, in County's sole discretion, in immediate termination of this Agreement. No employee of Contract Professional nor any member of Contract Professional's family shall serve on a County Board, committee or hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates, recommends, supervises Contract Professional's operations, or authorizes funding to Contract Professional. 23. Severability. If any term or condition of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be construed and enforced without such provision, to the extent that this Agreement is then capable of execution within the original intent of the parties. 24. Governmental Immunity. No term or condition of this contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act §§24-10-101 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended. 25. No Third Party Beneficiary. It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the undersigned parties and nothing in this Agreement shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other person not included in this Agreement. It is the express intention of the undersigned parties that any entity other than the undersigned parties receiving services or benefits under this Agreement shall be an incidental beneficiary only. 26. Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Approval. This Agreement shall not be valid until it has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado or its designee. 27. Choice of Law/Jurisdiction. Colorado law, and rules and regulations established pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of this Agreement. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules and/or regulations shall be null and void. In the event of a legal dispute between the parties, Contract Professional agrees that the Weld County District Court shall have exclusive jurisdiction to resolve said dispute. 28. Public Contracts for Services C.R.S. §8-17.5-101. Contract Professional certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this contract. Contract Professional will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Agreement, through participation in the E -Verify program or the State of Colorado program established pursuant to C.R.S. §8-17.5-102(5)(c). Contract Professional shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify with Contract Professional that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement. Contract Professional shall not use E -Verify Program or State of Colorado program procedures to undertake pre- employment screening or job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If Contract Professional obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the public contract for services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien Contract Professional shall notify the subcontractor and County within three (3) days that Contract Professional has actual knowledge that a subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien and shall terminate the subcontract if a subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three (3) days of receiving notice. Contract Professional shall not terminate the contract if within three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. Contract Professional shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to C.R.S. §8- 17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Contract Professional participates in the State of Colorado program, Contract Professional shall, within twenty days after hiring an new employee to perform work under the contract, affirm that Contract Professional has examined the legal work status of such employee, retained file copies of the documents, and not altered or falsified the identification documents for such employees. Contract Professional shall deliver to County, a written notarized affirmation that it has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the State of Colorado program. If Contract Professional fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or of C.R.S. §8-17.5-101 et seq., County, may terminate this Agreement for breach, and if so terminated, Contract Professional shall be liable for actual and consequential damages. Except where exempted by federal law and except as provided in C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103(3), if Contract Professional receives federal or state funds under the contract, Contract Professional must confirm that any individual natural person eighteen (18) years of age or older is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103(4), if such individual applies for public benefits provided under the contract. If Contract Professional operates as a sole proprietor, it hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that it: (a) is a citizen of the United States or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by C.R.S. § 24-76.5-101, et seq., and (c) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of the contract. 29. Compliance with Davis -Bacon Wage Rates. Contract Professional understands and agrees that, if required by the provisions of Exhibit A, the work shall be in compliance with the Davis- Bacon Wage Rates. (If compliance with this statute is required by County under this Agreement, a copy of the information is contained in Exhibit A, County's Request for Proposal, and is a part this Agreement.) 30. Attorneys Fees/Legal Costs. In the event of a dispute between County and Contract Professional, concerning this Agreement, the parties agree that each party shall be responsible for the payment of attorney fees and/or legal costs incurred by or on its own behalf. 31. Binding Arbitration Prohibited: Weld County does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in this Agreement or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void. 32. Official Engineering Publications: Contract Professional acknowledges and agrees that the Colorado Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" and the Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plans "M & S Standards" establish the requirements for all work performed by Contract Professional under this Agreement, and that a failure to meet the standards set by these publications may result in withholding by County of some or all of the Compensation. 33. Compliance with Colorado Department of Transportation Regulations and Standards_ Contract Professional acknowledges and agrees that the Colorado Department of Transportation "Standard Specifications for Road and Bridge Construction" and the Colorado Department of Transportation Standard Plans "M & S Standards" establish the requirements for all work performed by Contract Professional under this Agreement, and Contract Professional agrees to meet or exceed all standards set by these publications. Contract Professional further acknowledger and agrees that a failure to meet the standards set by these publications may result in withholding by County of some or all of the Contract Amount. Acknowledgment. County and Contract Professional acknowledge that each has read this Agreement, understands it and agrees to be bound by its terms. Both parties further agree that this Agreement, with the attached Exhibits A and B, is the complete and exclusive statement of agreement between the parties and supersedes all proposals or prior agreements, oral or written, and any other communications between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have signed this Agreement this 26 day of June , 2020, CONTRACT PROFESSIONAL: Human Performance Development Group, LLC By: _ Name: _Robert J Moffatt _ Title: CEO Date 26 June 2020 WELD COWL/ �/ ATTEST: +e&) Weld Co BY: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS C erk to the Boa d WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ft Deputy Cler, o t e Boar./, Freeman, Chair JUL 15 2020 a.2(9020 7(- Christie Peters From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: I . , . , 7C ttion: This,email originated from outside,of Weld County Government. Do not'click )mks or open attachments unless you therecognizej sender and know the co'ntent.is safE•• Robert Moffatt <rmoffatt@fsu.edu> Thursday, April 9, 2020 9:46 AM bids Proposal: Physical Abilities Test PROPOSAL Weld County 4. 9. 2020 (1).docx Please accept the attached proposal for the development of a physical abilities test (RFP# B2000061) for the Weld County sheriff's Office. Please acknowledge receipt. Thank you. I waive my right to a sealed bid. Roberti Moffatt, PhD, MPH Georgia A. Stamford Professor of Exercise Physiology Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 850.644.1520 (o) 850.645.5000 (f) rmoffatt@fsu.edu 1 WELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE PHYSICAL ABILITIES ASSESSMENT A proposal submitted to: WELD COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT 1150 O Street, Room # 107 Greely, CO 80631 by Human Performance Development Group Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH Michael Leep, MA Lynn P Panton, PhD, FACSM Bryant A Stamford, PhD, FACSM 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Objective 2 A Note on Gender Norming 3 A Note on Testing Incumbents, Applicants, SWAT and K-9 5 Proposal Content 5 Coordination of Project 5 Project Overview .6 Project Work Plan 6 A Note on Validation ....7 Orientation Meeting 8 Job Task Analysis 8 Plan to Conduct an In -Depth JTA 9 Completing the JTA Requires Multiple Steps 9 JTA Report 10 Physical Abilities Test 10 Validation: Determination of Minimum Fit for Duty Standards 10 Validating Job -Relatedness 11 Validating Cut-off Standards 11 Affirmative Steps to Assure That Testing Does Not Discriminate 12 Comprehensive Validity Report 12 Instruction Manuals: Plans for Administration of and Preparation for the PAT ......13 Education and Training of test Administration Personnel 13 Project Deliverables and Timeline 14 Price Area: Proposed Cost Schedule 16 Organizational Background and Overview 17 Expertise and Qualifications 19 Experience as Expert Witness 20 Related Project Summary and References 22 Appendix A: Vitae and Credentials 25 2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Weld County Sheriff's Office (WCSO) seeks job -related, legally defensible physical abilities tests (PATs) that do not impose a disparate impact on protected groups, and females in particular. The PATs will be specifically crafted and validated for each of the following groups: 1) the approximately 100 Patrol Deputies; 2) Patrol Deputy applicants; 3) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — SWAT; 4) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — K-9; 5) the approximately 250 Detention Deputies; and 6) Detention Deputy applicants. It is important to emphasize that each of these groups will require its own specific job -related test. The reasons for this will become abundantly clear when considering EEOC guidelines (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Uniform Guidelines — US DOJ, EEOC, Government Printing Office, 1978) that dictate the importance of job relatedness when crafting and validating a PAT. There is clear justification for enhancing the physical working capacity of patrol deputies and special operations groups, plus detention deputies who must perform physically demanding tasks of a critical nature, often at a moment's notice. Such tasks can be exhausting, and the readiness of officers to perform can directly impact outcomes and the effectiveness of interventions. Physical readiness also can determine personal safety of the officer, the safety of colleagues, and the safety of those they are sworn to protect. At first glance, upgrading physical working capacity by imposing a PAT would seem to be a simple task. All that is needed is an assessment tool that imposes a standard, and the mandate that all officers must meet or surpass the standard. The problem is how the standard is established. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines must be followed precisely (EEOC Uniform Guidelines — US DOJ, EEOC, Government Printing Office, 1978), meaning the PAT must meet a strong burden of proof that it is job related and specifically applicable. The standard must predict ability to perform essential functions of the job — to distinguish between those who can and those who cannot do the job. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 support the need for job relatedness as described, and are pertinent with regard to using a test for several purposes, including - as a standard for hiring, as a post - training standard, and for incumbent retention and promotion. In addition, the PAT must address and reflect "minimal bona fide occupational qualifications." It must, in other words, define what is minimally required physically to perform essential job tasks that are critical in nature. Such tasks may not be performed frequently, but when they are performed, they may entail life and death implications, and often require a maximal physical effort. A note on gender norming. A thorny issue that always arises quickly when considering physical abilities standards is the natural discrepancy between genders. Males, in general, have a natural advantage when it comes to physical performance. As such, the question of same job for all and thus same standard for all is an important consideration. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 — Section 3 106 prohibits use of cutoff standards tied to employment related decisions based on race, color, gender, religion or natural origin. This seems clear and unequivocal. However, there have been efforts to circumvent this law by labeling a physical standard as a fitness standard, not a job standard — the fitness for fitness sake argument. Such attempts have been engineered to avoid adverse impact (a pass rate that is less than 80% of an unprotected class, i.e. males) on females (a protected class), because the failure rate among females is likely to be greater when one physical standard is imposed. However well intended, standards based on gender are unlawful, because they do not predict who can and who cannot do the job. But, doesn't this all but ensure an adverse impact when it comes to physical performance testing? Yes, but it has been upheld that standards can result in adverse impact if there is ample evidence to show the test is job related. Our work in the court case Lanning et. al. vs. the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA - U.S. District Court of Southeast Pennsylvania, 2000) affirmed this stance. With the above in mind, it begs the question, how can the so called and widely used Cooper test with its generic fitness for fitness sake core, its gender "norming" approach, and lack of job relatedness, be applied legally? The answer is, it cannot be applied legally, especially in light of methodologies available that can determine how much fitness is necessary to do the job, regardless of gender. Again, the SEPTA case clearly affirmed this. What if the Cooper test is applied, but with one compromised gender -neutral standard? This approach has been imposed by those wishing to avoid change and hoping to avoid legal challenge as they continue using the Cooper test. They have taken the requirements for males and females, averaged the two standards and established one cutoff. While this capricious, shoot from the hip approach would appear to address the issue of gender norming, it doesn't address the more critical issue of how much fitness is required to do the job. The Cooper norms are not job -related standards. Rather they are merely percentile fitness scores that have no relevance to police officers performing essential job tasks. The only connection is the obvious one — an officer who is fit will perform better on the Cooper test than an officer who is unfit. This, of course, leads to a meaningless high statistical correlation that has no relevance to EEOC guidelines. Thus, the question how fit must an officer be to perform job tasks effectively remains unanswered. Does this mean the Cooper approach is completely useless? Not necessarily. Cooper norms reflect percentile fitness rankings and can be used when there is no mandatory standard and no job implications for employees or applicants. It can be used as a yardstick for improved fitness in a voluntary program. Any number of established fitness tests also could be used in this way. In summary, WCSO has requested a fit for duty test with a mandatory standard for passing, each test designed specifically for several professional groups and also for applicants. Incumbents and applicants range in age, encompass males and females, and include members of different races, colors, religions and natural origins. Such a standard can be set and defended for each group if 4 legal requirements are met. The two principle legal requirements are job relatedness, and imposing minimal bona fide occupational qualifications, which, in turn, dictate the need for one standard for all within each group. The bottom line is that the fit for duty test must be able to predict who can and who cannot do each of the specific jobs in question. A note on testing incumbents, applicants, SWAT and K-9. It is important to emphasize that when a test is crafted for applicants it cannot include any knowledge, skills or abilities that will be either taught during academy training or learned on the job. In other words, for example, while incumbents may be required to take a PAT wearing full gear, this would not be appropriate for applicants. Similarly, applicants should not be required to demonstrate professional proficiencies, such as skills involving various weapons or defensive strategies and tactics regularly employed by incumbents. With this said, it is possible to craft and validate one test that can address the needs of both incumbents and applicants if circumstances allow. In addition, the JTA completed for Patrol Deputies will serve as the basis for both incumbents and applicants, and therefore there is need for only one JTA. The same is the case for Detention Deputy incumbents and applicants for that position. It is assumed that those serving in special operations must first serve as Patrol Deputies, which means passing a Patrol Deputy PAT. Next, additional qualifications may be necessary to qualify for SWAT or K-9, thus a specific PAT and JTA will need to be crafted to meet the needs of SWAT and the needs of K-9. Regarding this proposal, in order to avoid undue and tedious redundancy, this proposal will address the specific needs of Patrol Deputies, with the understanding that the procedures we employ when crafting and validating a PAT for Patrol Deputies must be replicated specifically for incumbents in each job category, and also specifically for applicants in each category. And of course, one separate PAT for SWAT and K-9. Overall, four distinct PATs will be developed using the same scientific process for each of the different commands; Patrol Deputies and applicants, Detention Deputies and applicants, SWAT and K-9). PROPOSAL CONTENT Coordination of project. Prior to the onset of a project of this nature, we prefer to meet with those designated administrative members of the agency in order to review the contract step by step and provide an overview of our approach as we endeavor to satisfy all requirements of the statement of work. At that meeting we will discuss administrative matters, formation of subject matter expert (SME) panels, scheduling, and arranging to obtain the necessary documents for review and project planning. Owing to the differing specific duties of each group (patrol deputies, special operations deputies, and detention deputies, plus applicants) each of the steps indicated must of necessity be repeated separately for each group. In addition, careful specific consideration 5 will be necessary when crafting and validating tests for applicants seeking employment as patrol deputies and detention deputies. Project overview. Development of a valid and legally defensible, job related PAT requires the following steps. The first step in developing a valid and defensible PAT is the preparation of an accurate and comprehensive work analysis that includes the essential physical tasks of the job identified through a structured JTA that serves as the basis for determining job -relatedness. It is critical that the JTA be comprehensive and accurately describe all aspects of the job, and especially those elements that are the most physically demanding. The reason is, logically, if the most demanding tasks are identified and form the basis for the validation process, it follows that if you can perform the most demanding work tasks (or predictive simulations that require similar physical effort), you can perform those tasks that are less physically demanding. In other words, you can satisfy the EEOC standard mandating that tests reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications. Second, using the JTA as the primary basis for validation, we will create a legally defensible job related PAT. In step three we will determine a valid and reliable cut-off standard that reflects minimal bona fide occupational qualifications as mandated by the EEOC. We also understand our role in assisting in the implementation of the physical standards with training personnel, assist in the revision of relevant policies and procedures (if necessary) and the training of personnel with respect to testing procedures, safety procedures, health issues, testing administration and data interpretation, instruction and record keeping. Accordingly, training and test preparation materials will be created. A manual will be prepared for test administrators to guide them through the process and to do so with the safety of all participants at the forefront. And a second manual will be prepared as a self-help tool for those scheduled to take the test which provides details surrounding what is expected, self -applied field tests, and also a training regimen to improve physical capacity, if necessary. We will submit a comprehensive report which documents all aspects of the project, including methods employed and all details pertinent to the JTA and outcomes, in addition to the development and validation of the PAT. Project work plan. Develop a valid and legally defensible PAT for use in assuring that all WCSO personnel in each of the following job categories are fit for duty: (a) the approximately 100 Patrol Deputies; (b) Patrol Deputy applicants; (c) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — SWAT; (d) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — K-9; (e) the approximately 250 Detention Deputies; and (f) Detention Deputy applicants. The scope of this project is twofold. First, after a review of WCSO related documents create a JTA specific to each job category. Logically, if the most demanding tasks are identified and form the basis for the validation process, it follows that if you can perform the most demanding work tasks (or predictive simulations that require similar physical effort), you can perform all tasks that 6 are less physically demanding. In other words, you can satisfy the EEOC standard that mandates that tests reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications. Second, using the JTA as the primary basis for validation, create a legally defensible PAT. A note on validation. The validation process is time consuming and involved. It begins of necessity with a job task analysis. What is the job? What are the critical tasks and how frequently are they employed? What are the implications of not being able to perform all job tasks? Once the JTA is completed, step two is possible. Experts can determine the most physically demanding job tasks and use these as the core for a pre -employment physical abilities test. The assumption is made that if applicants can successfully perform the most physically demanding tasks, they will be successful at less demanding tasks. Step three requires establishment of cut-off standards for each physically demanding task, or for the overall test if tasks are completed in sequence without rest between evolutions. The pre -employment PAT for the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) provides a good example. These police officers work in the Philadelphia subway system. Their work is demanding, and they work in isolation, each officer in charge of a specific area. When an officer is in need of assistance, the nearest officers are expected to get there as soon as possible. Any delay can be critical. Officers must climb several flights of stairs, hurdle turnstiles, then run above ground a considerable distance to the location in question, dodging people and traffic, run down the stairs, and upon arrival be able to render physical assistance to the officer in trouble. The same response is expected from males and females and regardless of age. As such, a gender -neutral fitness standard was established and validated. However, because the standard was quite high, most females were not able to pass the test. This resulted in a court challenge. At first glance, it would appear that SEPTA would lose the case (Lanning, et al. and United States of America v Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority), as the standard SEPTA imposed disqualified an extraordinary portion of the female population. Surely, as such, if the SEPTA test is biased in favor of males, it unfairly discriminates against females and must be struck down. On the contrary, the high SEPTA standard was upheld by the court as reflecting bona fide occupational qualifications. This was based on a JTA which revealed the above response requirements for all officers, male and female. Sophisticated laboratory testing was then imposed which established the underlying constructs (specific physical abilities) required for successful performance. All applicants must possess at minimum a maximal aerobic capacity of 42.5 ml/kg/min, which represents a very high percentile for females when compared with males. In summary, why wasn't the SEPTA test struck down as discriminatory against females, a protected class? It was upheld, because it followed EEOC guidelines. 1. Disparate impact: For a test to be valid and effective, it must have the power of discrimination. If not, the test is invalid (useless). 7 2. Federal employment law states that the test must: a) Reflect the essential job functions (determined from a job task analysis) b) Be related to business necessity 3. Hiring practices with disparate impact are legal, provided the hiring process conforms to employment law requirements. In general, a high proportion of females failed to meet the SEPTA standard, but this was not found to be in violation of federal hiring policies. Orientation meeting. We prefer to meet in advance of beginning this project to review the contract step by step and provide an overview of our approach as we endeavor to satisfy all requirements of the statement of work. At that meeting we will discuss administrative matters, scheduling, arrange to obtain the necessary documents for review, set timelines, and discuss mutual and individual obligations. We will also establish a clear project schedule and identify our data needs (e.g. list of eligible personnel and locations, contact persons, access to facilities, demographic data, previous work analysis, etc.). We request that the WCSO provide a point of contact for each job category in order that a continuous source of communication regarding the project exist. We routinely have provided a written report of activity and progress at the request of the agency. In addition, we ask that WCSO select personnel to serve as a project technical panel (PTP) consisting of subject matter experts. The purpose of this panel is to review our work at critical stages and assist in development of questionnaires, provide practical insights as we interpret task data, etc., throughout the project. Representatives should include supervisors and managers, as well as personnel who should represent a cross-section of WCSO sworn officers. JOB TASK ANALYSIS The JTA is the basic analytical process that underlies most elements of personnel management, including testing, selection, training, compensation, performance evaluation and assignment. Without complete JTA information, it is difficult to determine accurately (or even defend) what kind of training is needed, what kind of employee should be hired, and what might constitute acceptable performance. Daily routine job functions along with "extreme functions" (rare and/or maximum physical demands) will be analyzed, measured and quantified as the basis for documenting job -related physical demands. This will entail detailed analysis of the specific areas of expertise required of WCSO sworn officers. The first step in developing a valid and defensible PAT is the preparation of accurate and comprehensive job descriptions that include the essential physical tasks of the job identified through a structured work analysis methodology. Because validity of the PAT depends on the relationship between the essential tasks of the job and the work simulations that make up the PAT, 8 it is vital to have clear documentation of the range of physical efforts in the performance of those specific essential tasks. Therefore, it is necessary that the physical nature of these critical work tasks be identified. Logically, if the most demanding tasks are identified and form the basis for the validation process, it follows that if you can perform the most demanding work tasks (or predictive simulations that require similar physical effort), you can perform all tasks that are less physically demanding. In other words, you can satisfy the EEOC standard that mandates that tests reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications. Next, using the JTA as the primary basis for validation, a legally defensible PAT can be created and implemented. Plan to conduct an in-depth JTA. Each of the completed projects listed above have employed job analysis research and survey methods. Each job task analysis was conducted for a public safety agency with more than 100 employees using the following general formula: 1) Observations of work performance. This process involves observing incumbents as they perform their jobs and taking notes and asking questions relevant to their work when appropriate. During this phase of the process we determine equipment weights, forces generated when they are used, body positions when performing tasks, distances covered while moving to conduct a task or carrying equipment to the task site, etc. 2) Interviews with incumbents. Interviews are conducted independent of the observation phase and commonly include supervisors in addition to incumbent employees. These sessions are conducted with small groups as well as individual interviews and employ a pre- determined set of questions and/or open-ended discussions regarding work tasks. 3) Critical incident interviews. Interviews with subject matter experts to identify critical aspects of behavior or performance of a particular work task. 4) Questionnaire/surveys. We work with the subject matter expert panel to determine specific and relevant questions for the work survey which may either be conducted using a paper and pencil or electronic response. Questionnaires endeavor to examine equipment use (frequency and criticality), actual tasks performed as a requirement of the job and physical efforts of specific, frequent and critical work tasks. Statistical analysis of questionnaire results to determine the critical nature of tasks will be employed. Completing the JTA requires multiple steps. In order to conduct the JTA, we first will meet with the WCSO project "point of contact" to review our methodology, set timelines, and discuss mutual and individual obligations. We will also identify our data needs (e.g. related documents, list of eligible personnel and locations, contact persons, access to facilities, etc.). As part of the process, we will review current position descriptive documents, various agency job related reviews, including work tasks and policies that impact employment performance and training with regard to the areas of concern emphasized in the RFP. 9 1. Interviews and observations are an integral component when preparing the JTA. This requires coordinated efforts as we conduct interviews with WCSO sworn officers concerning tasks performed, materials read, equipment used, working conditions, knowledge, skills, abilities and other (KSAO) reporting responsibilities, etc. Because physical tasks tend to be performed in specific spaces, we will also collect measurements concerning distances to be covered, stairs climbed, weights of tools and objects to be lifted and carried, push and pull forces required applied to various performance applications, reach distances and body postures required to maintain sole control, etc. We will request to conduct onsite observations at recommended regions to secure a full understanding of actual work conditions where permissible. Performance of existing duty injury data will be examined. 2. We will develop a comprehensive job analysis questionnaire. The questionnaire will include equipment lists, specific degrees of physical exertion in performing certain physical tasks, general physical tasks and other work -related tasks. A key aspect of the questionnaire is asking which tasks they have personally performed, observed, or are aware of, with what frequency, and the importance of proper performance. We have employed a variety of approaches when using questionnaires, including: 1. Traditional paper and pencil questionnaires, 2. Internet based distribution to all incumbents, and 3. A combination of both methods. JTA report. Once questionnaires are completed, we will conduct the appropriate statistical analyses to examine relationships specific to the frequency and criticality of each task performed. We also will go through a process with the SMEs (PTP panel) to identify essential tasks that are the most physically demanding. Using rules that are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed into law in 1990 and amended in 2008, we will prepare a comprehensive job description that includes: All essential tasks will be categorized by major functions (e.g. emergency response, facility, procedures, suspect control, etc.), physical tasks, degrees of physical exertion, equipment used, and knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics. The JTA report will be critically reviewed and sanctioned by the PTP panel. PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST Validation: Determination of minimum fit for duty standards. The second step in the validation of the PAT will be determination of minimum fit for duty requirements based upon essential job functions. Our approach will ensure that legal and legislative requirements are fulfilled according to the ADA and the Federal EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection 10 Procedures. EEOC guidelines stipulate that the process utilized must be validated in accordance with at least one of the three acceptable methods of validation (Construct, Content, or Criterion validity), and selection of the validation model is a critical concern. We will employ a content validation model (must present data showing that the content of the selection test represents important aspects of performance on the job for which the test is being used). Regardless of the validation model imposed, EEOC guidelines stipulate that a valid and defensible PAT cannot exceed minimum bona fide occupational qualifications based upon essential job functions. This will serve as the primary basis for validation. Validating job -relatedness. The most physically demanding job tasks will be identified, and the assumption applied that if one can successfully perform the most physically demanding tasks, they also can perform tasks that are less demanding. Appropriate tasks are identified and agreed upon by the SME panel. Because such tasks are not likely to be performed in isolation (e.g. pursuing a perpetrator some distance while overcoming various challenges and obstacles, then catching and subduing the perpetrator, etc.) each component will become part of a larger scenario that is constructed and organized in a logical fashion to simulate the essential functions of the job. Again, and it is important to re-emphasize, the formulation of the PAT will be done in conjunction with SME panels who will determine criteria acceptable for adequate performance. Feedback will be solicited from the SME panel regarding: 1) job -relatedness of each test item and 2) the job - relatedness and logic of the sequencing (flow) of test items. Validating cut-off standards. When a job -related PAT has been created and validated, the next step is determining what constitutes an acceptable performance. This requires validation of the cut-off standard. A second additional group of WCSO sworn officers will be asked to complete (run) the PAT. All will be randomly selected incumbents who have a history of successful job performance. Job success will be rated using standard scales designed for this purpose. Selection of this group of participants will be stratified and weighted to represent the full spectrum of the WCSO sworn officers with respect to age, gender, race and rank. A power calculation will be employed to statistically determine the number of personnel necessary for representation. Participants will be informed that SMEs will observe and judge their performance as acceptable or unacceptable. Time to completion will be recorded. After completing the PAT, all participants will complete a survey regarding their perception of their own personal performance, their expert evaluation of the task simulated components that make up the PAT as they relate to actual work experiences, and to make recommendations of an acceptable passing score for testing. All available sources of information will be employed to determine a cut-off standard that reflects minimal bona fide occupational qualifications in accordance with the EEOC. In order to determine test -retest reliability it will be necessary to have a subset from the above group retake the test after a sufficient rest (days) and under identical circumstances. Re -testing allows for assessment of reliability, reproducibility, and consistency. In effect, when the test is repeated the same results are expected. These procedures will be applied to determine inter -rater 11 reliability (agreement among SME observers), and test -retest reliability (are test scores consistent from one occasion to the next) and allow a measure of predictability of success. Standards imposed (a cut-off/ passing score) will ensure that applicants are fit for duty and capable of performing all essential functions of the job. The standards will also be fair, reasonable and not unduly exclusive and not in any way discriminate on the basis of age, gender or race. Affirmative steps to assure that testing does not discriminate. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. The 1991 amendments served to strengthen Title VII with regard to compensation if discrimination has occurred, and the issue of disparate impact was addressed. The EEOC is charged with overseeing compliance with these laws. We always follow EEOC guidelines closely when creating either a pre -employment test or a test for incumbents, and we are especially careful to make certain our test is validated as job - related, and that the standards we employ comply with the EEOC mandate that standards cannot exceed minimal bona fide occupational qualifications thus ensuring that all applicants regardless of sex, race, color, national origin or religion have an equal opportunity to pass the test and qualify. COMPREHENSIVE VALIDITY REPORT We will produce a comprehensive report for each category as indicated previously that clearly explains all aspects of the project, the initial draft of which will be submitted to WCSO for critique. Considering constructive feedback, ultimately a final comprehensive written report will be submitted that successfully defends all elements and issues associated with review of the JTA and subsequent actions and approaches. The "standard" will be in compliance with all necessary guidelines. The final report will include the following: • JTA specifics (work characteristics, relevant job tasks, KSA's applicable for each job task, apportionment of on the job time, issues of criticality/importance of tasks, physical demands associated with tasks, consequences of failure to perform), including written descriptions of job -related physical ability requirements. • Validation procedures employed; • Scientific interpretative methods employed; • Recommended physical performance tests, standards and cutoff scores which reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications . • Test based on job -task simulations. • Recommendations for administering the physical abilities test 12 INSTRUCTION MANUALS Plans for administration of and preparation for the PAT. Our work will culminate with the development of two instructional manuals, one for test administrators and the other for those who will take the test. The first manual will describe minimum physical abilities requirements necessary to perform essential job tasks. We will construct forms which will guide test administrators in an easy step-by-step fashion through the test procedure from beginning to end, leaving nothing to question. In addition, the manual will contain information regarding safety issues related to environmental conditions, health concerns, etc. as well as the timing and organization of testing. There also will be an explanation of why each element is as it is and its relevance to the work. This will provide background to help administrators answer questions directed at them. The second manual will be designed for those taking the test. Some components of the manual described above will be included as background. A detailed description of the test will be provided explaining each component and how to approach it. Next, a week -by -week task specific training program will be created to help each incumbent officer prepare physically for the test. This manual will provide guidelines demonstrating methods not only for the preparation for the PAT but also for the maintenance of physical fitness throughout the year, as well as a program for rehabilitation for those who may not pass the PAT. EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF TEST ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL A six hour train -the -trainer program will be offered by the contractor to select WCSO personnel at a location determined by WCSO. The program will include tried and proven strategies which will help "sell" the program to participants. Considerable detailed background information on the "who, what, when, where and why" as related to general fitness and health issues, testing procedures, injury prevention, safety procedures, test administration and interpretation will be provided to ensure that trainers convey not only appropriate information, but that they do so in an effective manner. Detailed handouts and booklets will be an integral part of the workshop training and educational process. Special attention will be applied to issues pertinent to incumbents who fail the PAT and who require remedial efforts. All incumbents will be treated as individuals and programs will be crafted accordingly. A fitness program training manual will be developed for this specific purpose and be available to provide necessary basic information. WCSO training specialists will be provided the proper background on safety issues and how to develop exercise prescriptions for the improvement of those individuals who need to be physically rehabilitated in order to successfully pass the PAT. 13 In addition, there will be immediate access to appropriate expertise to discuss personal issues as they arise. PROJECT DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE Listed below are project deliverables and proposed completion time for each deliverable. Deliverable 1: Job Task Analysis and Report On or before 90 days after commencement of project • Establish an advisory/consultation group of incumbent WCSO sworn officers. • Conduct job task analysis; identify key components of the job. • Submit JTA report • Prepare and submit the JTA report which will highlight the physical demands of the work. The contents of this report will document procedures employed and be in a form that can be used to serve as the basis for the functional job task ability assessment. Deliverable 2: Develop and Provide a Validated Physical Abilities Test On or before 240 days after commencement of project • Develop a battery of simulated field tests based on essential functions of the job in conjunction with the WCSO advisory group. • Identify the physical attributes required to conduct both representative and physically - demanding daily assignments (based on essential job functions) and some of the most - demanding components (as a proxy for rare -but -demanding situations such as a shots -fired scenario or subduing a non -compliant suspect). • Establish a valid PAT and develop a cut -score using randomly selected WCSO sworn officers. . • Complete and submit a validation report documenting methodology and statistical interpretations. • Lay groundwork for implementation of programs. Deliverable 3: Standardized Testing Protocol and Conditioning Program Manuals On or before 240 days after commencement of project • Develop training manuals for test administrators to support consistency in testing. • Develop forms to be used with testing. • Develop conditioning programs for applicant test preparation. • Physical conditioning programs will provide a supportive approach as to how to successfully pass the PAT. 14 Deliverable 4: Train testing personnel in standardized test administration of the PAT and in coaching officers/applicants on the conditioning programs. On or before 240 days after commencement of project • Live training (six hours) will be delivered directly to selected personnel in a train -the - trainer format. • Training location to be determined by WCSO 15 PRICE AREA: PROPOSED COST SCHEDULE Schedule of Services and Expenses 1. Provide detailed work validation study for each WCSO command (patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT) Includes essential physical job task requirements needed to perform the duties of a WCSO deputy. A total of four distinct JTAs. 2. Create and provide a valid, legally defensible, physical abilities test to determine whether an applicant or incumbent can/cannot perform physical demands/duties of a WCSO deputy (patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT) 3. Provide a final comprehensive reports that fully documents the entire validation process, to include a test course, all results, recommendations and implementation plans (one each for patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT). 4. Provide Standardized Testing Protocol Manuals for Testing Personnel on the PAT to include the duties of the test administration, information on course set-up, proctoring and timing, rules, safety procedures (one each for patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT). 5. Conduct six hour trainer (test administrators) workshop on site at Weld County 6. Travel Expenses: On site visits for orientation meeting, JTA assessment, data acquisition, meetings with expert panel, validation process onsite testing and to conduct training workshop. Air travel: Anticipate three trips to Weld County for two individuals Hotel/meals @ Per Diem of $200/day (10 hotel nights ) Miscellaneous: Mileage, tolls, fuel, auto rental (12 days). $60,000 $35,000 $ 6,000 $ 2,400 $ 2,000 $ 3,600 $ 2,000 $ 600 TOTAL $111,600 16 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Historical overview. The Human Performance Development Group was incorporated in 2014. However, members have worked collaboratively for more than 40 years. This work began initially in 1975 with the City of Louisville Police Department (LPD) when we were asked to create a fair and equitable pre -employment physical abilities test for the LPD. At issue was the deplorably low number of minorities on the police force and evidence that the pre -employment screening employed was biased. In particular, the PAT in use at the time was not standardized, essentially leaving it up to whomever administered the test at the time to decide whether the applicant passed or failed. This ultimately led to what was called the Black Police Officers Case in Federal Court (Black Police Officers v. City of Louisville). After close scrutiny of all aspects of the LPD screening process, the Federal Judge ruled that there was indeed bias applied to the screening process and that the entire process had to be completely overhauled, with one exception. He praised our physical abilities test and approved it for use by the LPD. The test was later challenged in court by an applicant who complained that he failed because the test was too difficult. Once it was determined by the court that we imposed minimal bona fide occupational qualifications as the basis for our test, the court dismissed the complaint. Our team has experience on previous similar projects both in scope and size. We have developed job related PATs for large State law enforcement or detention agencies such as Kentucky State Police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, State of Maine Department of Corrections, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Special Agents), Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (Law enforcement), Miami -Dade Police Department and Orange County Sheriffs Office (Florida). Likewise, we have experience with a number of smaller in size law enforcement agencies, such and Citrus County and Lake County (Florida) and the City of Mesquite Police Department (Texas). We also have experience with private (business) in the conduct of work assessment and fit for duty testing (e.g. CSX Transportation anti -Terrorist unit, General Motors Corporation, Boeing, etc.) We offer the requisite expertise and considerable successful work experience in the exact areas of concern for the Weld County Sheriffs Office. This is well documented in the credentials section of the proposal. For example, our group is comprised of a team of professionals who have expertise and considerable experience in job task analysis and development and validation of and physical abilities test standards. Team members include doctoral level occupational physiologists, exercise physiologists, fitness technologists, and certified job analysts. We have worked closely with the EEOC and have served in the role of expert witness in more than thirty court cases. We also have served in the role of 17 expert witness in several other court cases relevant to this proposal. In addition, our work product has been challenged in court and defended successfully each time. This underscores the care we take in our work and the quality of our validation process and procedures. Most recently a case against the Citrus County Sheriffs Office (CCSO). CCSO has utilized our PAT successfully for the past 12 years. Four female plaintiffs claimed the test was unfair, biased and imposed a disparate impact on females. We served as expert witnesses in the case, and in March 2020, the judge awarded CCSO a summary judgment dismissing the case. Philosophical overview. Our team is dedicated to the development of valid, legally defensible, physical abilities test. We offer the requisite expertise and considerable successful work experience in the exact areas of concern for the WCSO. This is well documented in the credentials section of this proposal. For example, our group is comprised of a team of professionals who have expertise and considerable experience in conducting job task analyses and developing and validating physical abilities tests. Team members include doctoral level work physiologists, exercise physiologists, fitness technologists, and certified job analysts who share the goal to provide a superior work product that serves the needs of the agency now and into the future, particularly with regard to making certain that law enforcement officers, corrections officers, etc. are capable of adequately performing all physical aspects required of them on the job. Our work product must stand up to strong scrutiny and be defensible, if necessary, in court. Thus, we will employ the highest quality scientific approach to validating our work as job related and in compliance with all EEOC requirements. We are meticulous in our approach, attending to every pertinent detail associated with research and problem solving, and we adhere to the highest professional standards, taking pride in accomplishment. We are goal oriented and we always see a task through to its successful completion, on time and to the client's satisfaction. Below is a brief documentation of our expertise, personnel qualifications and organization structure for this proposal. 18 EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATIONS. This section contains a summary of key personnel of the project team members and operations information. Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH Dr. Moffatt is currently a retired professor of work physiology in the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Science at the Florida State University. He has more than 40 years of experience in the area of human physical performance and in particular the development and validation of physical abilities standards for law enforcement, corrections and fire fighters. Dr. Moffatt will work closely with all members of the team, performing many duties, including coordinating efforts of a series of subject matter expert panels to provide feedback on findings. This includes degree of job - relatedness of each component of the PAT, and very importantly, expert opinions regarding what is an acceptable performance on the PAT, necessary for determination of a valid cut-off standard. He will also serve as overall project director. Lynn B Panton, PhD Dr. Panton is currently professor of work physiology and functional fitness in the Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences at the Florida State University. She has more than 20 years of experience in the assessment of functional fitness emphasizing the relationship between functionality and performance outcomes. In addition, she has significant expertise in aspects of data management and statistical application. Dr. Panton will work closely with the project coordinator and assist in establishing a valid relationship between functionality and performance outcomes (test results) for selected test components. In addition, she will oversee all aspects of data management and statistical application. Bryant A Stamford, PhD Dr. Stamford is currently professor and chair of the Department of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology at Hanover College, Hanover, IN. He has more than 40 years of experience in the development and implementation of pre-employment/fitness for duty. He has served as an expert witness for the EEOC on more than thirty court cases dealing with pre -employment testing and issues related to discrimination based on gender and age. Dr. Stamford will work closely with the project coordinator and all team members using his expertise in validation and EEOC guidelines to make certain every aspect of the project is in compliance. He will assume major responsibility for validation and cross -validation of the PAT. He will prepare and coordinate all educational programs and all instructional materials and conduct the training program for PAT administration personnel. He also will be responsible for preparing the final written report to be submitted at the completion of the project. 19 Michael Leep, MA, MBA Michael Leep has more than 30 years of experience conducting work analysis. He is a certified ergonomic assessment specialist and has a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between a job's required skills, training and knowledge and the job's specific tasks and associated physical demands. Michael possesses skill at interviewing. and competency in multiple job task analysis techniques and is well versed in the intricacies of performing a JTA to ensure objective information is collected. He will perform "hands on" duties which include interviews, many different types of physical measurements, surveys, etc. He will guide the SME panel and coordinate their efforts to verify the accuracy of the JTA and the selection of critical tasks Below is our organization structure for this proposal. Organization Chart. R. J. Moffatt (Work physiologist and project leader) B.A. Stamford (Work physiologist) L.B. Panton (Functional abilities assessment and statistical applications) M. Leep (Work analyst) EXPERIENCE AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN STATE AND/OR FEDERAL COURTS ON TEST VALIDATION AND RELATED ISSUES. We (Dr. Moffatt and Dr. Stamford) have worked closely with the EEOC and have served in the role of expert witness for the EEOC in more than thirty court cases. We also have served in the role of expert witness in several other court cases relevant to this proposal. The organization design or validation of a physical abilities testing process has been challenged legally, and we have in each case been successful in defending the challenge. We also have provided definitive support to others experiencing similar challenges. Below are several examples. 20 MOST RECENTLY: U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, 2020. Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County Sheriff's Office has utilized our PAT successfully for the past 12 years. Four female plaintiffs claimed the test was unfair, biased and imposed a disparate impact on females. We served as expert witnesses in the case, and in March 2020, the judge awarded Citrus County a summary judgment dismissing the case. Federal Court 1976. Black Police Officers v City of Louisville. Our work in the area of crafting and validation physical abilities tests began initially in 1975 with the City of Louisville Police Department (LPD) when we were asked to create a fair and equitable pre -employment physical abilities test for the LPD. At issue was the deplorably low number of minorities on the police force and evidence that the pre -employment screening methods employed were biased. In particular, the PAT in use at the time was not standardized, essentially leaving it up to whomever administered the test at the time to decide whether the applicant passed or failed. This ultimately led to what was called the Black Police Officers Case in Federal Court (Black Police Officers v. City of Louisville). After close scrutiny of all aspects of the LPD screening process, the Federal Judge ruled that there was indeed bias applied to the screening process and that the entire process had to be completely overhauled and replaced, with one exception. He praised our physical abilities test as valid and acceptable and approved it for continued use by the LPD. State District Court. 1978. Heck v City of Louisville. An applicant who failed the entry level physical abilities test for police officers created by Dr. Stamford, challenged the test. The claim was the test was unfair, required much more "fitness" than necessary, and therefore discriminated against this individual. The judge ruled in favor of the test, ruling that it was a valid instrument and the claims against it were unfounded. U.S. District Court. Southern District of Florida. 1992. Stapleton, et al. v Harry K Singleton, Department of Corrections, State of Florida. Inmates who were voluntarily remanded to protective management maintained that said confinement resulted in muscle deterioration because they were only permitted two hours of outside cell activity each week. The court ruled that in addition to the two hours per week of out of cell activity time and daily work tasks around the cell block was sufficient to maintain muscle fitness. The work and testimony of Dr. Moffatt provided evidence to support the sufficiency to the State's defense. U.S. District Court. Southern District of Florida. 1995. Alvarez, et al. v Metropolitan Dade County. The plaintiff, a Special Response Team (SRT), Dade County Sheriff's deputy maintained that while SRT deputies were expected to maintain a high fitness level, they must be compensated for physical conditioning when off duty. The judge ruled in favor of Dade County in that they were not required to compensate SRT members whose physical conditioning was performed off duty. Dr. Moffatt served as Dade County's expert in this case. U.S. District Court. Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 1998. Lanning, et al. and United States of America v Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA). Plaintiffs alleged that SEPTA discriminated against female transit police officer candidates by using a test that disproportionately excluded women and was neither predictive of successful job performance nor consistent with SEPTA's legitimate business necessity. Drs. Moffatt and Stamford were the 21 scientists on the South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority case. Our role in this litigation was to validate the fit for duty standards employed by SEPTA and to provide testimony in support of that research. Our work and testimony demonstrated the job -relatedness and business necessity of SEPTA's standard. The courts ruled in favor of SEPTA in this case and in the later appeal. RELATED PROJECT, SUMMARIES OF STATEMENT OF WORK AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR REFERENCES. Below is a summary of selected recent projects (2012 to present) where we have provided similar services as requested by this RFP. All projects include both a JTA and the development and validation of the PAT. For a more complete information on past projects please see the credentials section in Appendix A. May 2019 to September 2019 Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife conservation Commission. State of Florida. Scope: Re -validation of the previous PAT developed in 2016. FWC wanted to make modifications in the current test and conduct the PAT in an indoor setting. Outcome: Contact: Completed with satisfaction. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Training, Havana Florida 32333 Cpt Patrick Walsh 850.558.4083 August 2018 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: to May 2019 Mesquite Police Department. City of Mesquite, TX. Develop a job related, pre -employment physical abilities test. Completed with satisfaction. Mesquite Police Department Mesquite, Texas 75149 Sgt. James Ferguson (972) 216-6656 October 2018 to September 2019 Organization: Walton County Sheriffs Office. Walton County, FL Scope: Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention deputies of Walton County. Outcome: Contact: Completed with satisfaction. Walton County Sheriff's Office DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Maj. Tom Ring (850) 892.8186 22 February 2018 to current Organization: Miami -Dade Police Department. Miami, FL. Scope: Outcome: Contact: Develop job related and valid physical abilities test for use in screening applicant admission to their training academy, as well as develop work related standards as fit -for -duty physical abilities tests for SRT and K-9 units. Applicant and K-9 tests have been completed, while modifications to the SRT test are being implemented and await test revalidation which is scheduled to be completed mid -April of 2020. Miami -Dade Police Department Dr. Kelly Kennedy Training Institute, Dora!, Florida, 33178 305.389.5399 July 2018 to Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: current Orange County Sheriffs Office. Orange County, FL. Development of work -related physical abilities requirements for Orange County Sheriffs Office deputies. The JTA and PAT have been established, but the cross -validation phase of the PAT is on hold while Orange County locates and constructs a test course on recently secured location in an adjoining County. Orange County Sheriff's Office Cpt Chris Barrett Orlando, Florida 407.717.8101 January 2015 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: to December 2017 Broward Sheriff's Office. Broward County, Florida. Development of a valid physical work capacity test for incumbent deputies and detention officers. Project completed with satisfaction. Broward Sheriffs Office Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Lt Chris Mulligan 954.321.4716 April 2015 to Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: June 2016 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. State of Florida. Develop a valid, job related physical abilities assessment for FWC law enforcement applicants. Project completed with satisfaction. Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission Major Dennis Post Training Center, Havana Florida 32333 850.558.4080 23 January 2014 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: to December 2014 Lake County Sheriff's Office. Lake county, FL. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent Law enforcement and corrections deputies. Completed with satisfaction. Lake County Sheriffs Office Sgt Russell Edwards Tavares, Florida 32778 352.343.3791 July 2012 to July 2013 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S.A. Conduct a nationwide physical demands job analysis (JTA) for the development of standardized physical abilities testing to establish fit -for -duty with EPA GS -1811 criminal investigators. Provide training for test administrators. Completed with satisfaction. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Deborah Nelson Denver Office, Denver, Colorado 303.462.9037 24 APPENDIX A: VITAE AND CREDENTIALS ROBERT J. MOFFATT, PHD. MPH. Work physiologist EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Doctor of Philosophy; Exercise Physiology. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1985. Master of Public Health; Nutrition. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. Master of Science; Exercise Physiology. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1977. Bachelor of Science; Education. California State University, California, Pennsylvania, 1971. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Georgia A. Stamford Professor of Exercise Physiology, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, 2001-2018. Professor and Chair, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, 1996-2003 and 2015-2017. Associate Professor, Department of nutrition, Food and Movement Sciences, Florida State University, 1989-1996. Research Fellow, Naval Health Research Center, United States Navy, San Diego, California, Summer, 1990 and 1992. Assistant Professor, Department of Movement Science and Physical Education, Florida State University, 1985-1989. Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, 1981-1985. Lecturer, Department of Foods and Nutrition, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, 1980-1981. Research Assistant, Department of Human Nutrition, School of Public Health, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979-1980. Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978-1981. Instructor, Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1976-1977. 25 Graduate Research Assistant, Institutes for Advanced Studies: Exercise physiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1974-1977. Clinical Hospital Laboratory Director, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1971-1974. Medical Technologist, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1969-1971. Medical Technologist, U.S. ARMY, 1965-1968. PUBLICATIONS (Selected publications from a list of more than 80) Moffatt, R.J., A. Stamford, A. Weltman, & R. Cuddihee. 1977. Effects if high intensity aerobic training on maximal oxygen uptake capacity and field test performance. Journal of Sports Medicine, 17:351-359. Moffatt, R.J., & B.A. Stamford. 1978. Effects of pedaling rate changes on maximal oxygen uptake and perceived effort during bicycle ergometer work. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 10: 27-31. Stamford, B.A., A. Weltman, R.J. Moffatt, & C. Fulco. 1978. Status of police officers with regard to selected cardio respiratory and body compositional fitness variables. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 10: 294-297. Owens, S., A. Al -Ahmed, & R.J. Moffatt. 1989. Physiological effects of walking and running with hand held weights. Journal of Sports Medicine, 29: 384-387. Wallace, M.B., & R. J. Moffatt. 1990. The delayed effects of high and low volume resistance exercise on plasma volume. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 4: 154-159. Wilber, R. L., & R. J. Moffatt. 1994. Physiological and biochemical consequences of detraining in aerobically -trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8:110-124. McDonough, P.D., & R.J. Moffatt. 1999. Smoking induced elevations in blood carboxyhemoglogin: The effect upon maximal oxygen uptake. Sports Medicine, 27: 275-283. Bearden, S. E. & R. J. Moffatt. 2000. VO, kinetics and the O, deficit in heavy exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology. 88: 1407-1412. Bearden, S.E. & R. J. Moffatt. 2001. VO, and heart rate kinetics in cycling. Journal of Applied Physiology. 90: 2001. Bearden, S. E. & R. J. Moffatt. 2001. Leg electromyography and the VO, - power relationship during bicycle ergometry. Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise. 33: 1241-1243. 26 Moffatt, R. J. & S. Chelland. Fitness. 2002. In: Guide to World Nutrition and Health. MacMillan Reference USA, New York. Cheuvront, S. N., R. Carger, K. C. DeRuisseau and R. J. Moffatt. 2005. Running performance differences between men and women. Sports Medicine. 35: 1-8. McDonough, P. D., K. D. Biggerstaff, B. A. Stamford, & R. J. Moffatt. 2008. Maximal work following a submaximal work task: The effect of fitness level. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (abstr). Moffatt, R.J. & M. Umden. 2009. Age -related decline in physical performance capacity is offset by aerobic fitness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (abstr) CONSULTANT AND EXPERT WITNESS ACTIVITY Project Director. Contract to develop physical fitness for the youthful offender. Department of Corrections, State of Florida. 1987. Project Director. Contract to develop programs of physical fitness to assess job performance. Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida. 1989. Project Director. Development of fitness assessment techniques. Tallahassee Community Hospital. This award supports a graduate student assigned to the project. 1989-2001. Consultant: Department of Corrections, State of Florida. Effect of protective management on muscle atrophy. 1991-92. (includes court testimony as Defendant's expert). Project director: Tallahassee Fire Department. Development and evaluation of physical fitness training programs. 1992 Project director. The effect of physical fitness training program on physiological and health attributes critical to fire fighter performance. City of Tallahassee. 1992. Project director. Physical abilities and medical requirements for entry level law enforcement officers. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 1993. Presentation to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, Standards and Training Commission. Topic: Physical Abilities Testing for entry level employment in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act. June, 1993. Project director: Florida Department of Law Enforcement, State of Florida. Physical Abilities Testing and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1993-1996. Project director. Development of the physical abilities test administrators training program. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 1994. Consultant: Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Evaluation of law enforcement employee fitness standards. February, 1994. 27 Presentation to the State of Florida Criminal Justice Training commission. Topic: Advocacy for a pre -employment physical abilities test standard. February, 1994 Expert witness: Fraternal Order of Police and Ohio Labor Council. Law enforcement physical fitness assessment. 1994. Expert witness: F. Consolo, Attorney for the Plaintiff. Evaluation of job -relatedness of law enforcement physical fitness tests. September, 1994 to July, 1995. Expert witness: Metropolitan Dade County. Law enforcement physical fitness testing. 1994- 1997. (includes court testimony as Defendant's expert) • State Congressional witness for House Bill on smoking in the workplace. Rep. Lois Frankel. 1995. Expert witness: Greene, Donnelly, Schermier, Tipton and Moseley. Defendant's expert. Determination of physical fitness status for police work. February — July, 1995. Project director and expert witness: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. Validation of the energy cost of police work task simulations. 1996-1998. (includes court testimony as Defendant's expert) Consultant: The effect of prior work on the energy cost and performance during work task simulations. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. January, 2000. Workshop: Physical abilities test development. Seminole County Sheriff's Office. June, 2000. Project director: CSX Transportation. Development of physical capacity standards for the CSX Special Response Team (anti -Terrorist Unit). 2006-2007. Consultant: Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Re-evaluation of physical abilities test course administration. 2008. Consultant: District of Columbia Department of Human Resources: Department of Corrections and Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services. Deterioration of functionality with aging as it relates to the performance of physical tasks in corrections work. 2008. Consultant: State of Maine, Workman's Compensation Board. Physical task analysis and the validation of a physical abilities test for the State Department of Transportation. 2008 - 2009. Consultant: Kentucky Law Enforcement Council and Department of Criminal Justice. Development of pre -employment physical agility standards. 2009 Project director: Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical standards for law enforcement officers. 2009 - 2010. Project director: Maine Workman's Compensation Board. Maine Lifestyle Inventory for Employees (Maine -LIFE). Develop statewide employee health/fitness assessment program. 2009 - 2010. 28 Project director: Maine Department of Corrections. Development of Standards for the implementation of physical abilities testing. 2010-2011. Project director: Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. Verification of physical abilities requirements for Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. 2011-2012. Project director: Citrus County Fire and Rescue. Job task analysis and development of physical abilities (fitness) standards for incumbent firefighters of Citrus County. Florida. 2012. Project director: Environmental Protection Agency. Physical demands job analysis for the development of standardized physical abilities testing. United States of America. 2012-2013. Project director: Lake County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers. Florida. 2014. Project director: Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. Law enforcement physical abilities assessment. State of Florida, 2015-16 Project director: Broward Sheriff's Office. Development of a valid physical work capacity test for incumbent deputies and detention officers. Florida. 2016-2017 Project director: Miami -Dade County Police Department. Physical abilities test validation study. Florida. 2018-2019. Project director: Orange County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities requirements for Orange County Sheriff's Office deputies. Florida. 2018-2019. Project director: Walton County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention officers of Walton County. Florida, 2018- 2019. Project director: Mesquite Police Department pre -employment physical abilities test study and validation. Texas. 2018-2019. Expert witness: Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Defendants experts. . Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, March 20, 2020. Project director: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Physical abilities test for prescribed burners, Florida. 2019-2020. Project director: Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers and pre -employment hiring for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, Florida. 2020 29 LEEP, M.B.A. Certified Ergonomics Assessment Specialist III Education Master of Business Administration Marshall University, Huntington, WV Bachelor of Arts, Counseling and Rehabilitation Marshall University, Huntington, WV Certified Ergonomics Assessment Specialist III Highlights Extensive knowledge of counseling and vocational rehabilitation as a vocational case manager and vocational expert. Developed RTW and risk management programs Comprehensive background in conduct of JTA's and and health and safety assessments. More than 30 years of management experience in human services, ergonomics, safety and managed care operations Relevant Consultant Summary (selected) Current Professional Experience State of Maine Department of Corrections United Airlines CSX Transportation Railroad Police CSX anti -Terrorist Unit Boeing STERIS Nestle USA First Energy Corporation Penske Logistics General Motors Corporation McLane Corporation Newport News Shipyard Anacostia Rail Holdings U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Broward County Sherifrs Office Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Provides job task analysis, validation assessments, risk hazard assessments and job safety analysis. Consults with employers on ergonomic issues pertaining to overexertion, cumulative trauma and repetitive use related injuries. 30 LYNN B PANTON, Ph.D. Work and Functional Physiology Statistical Analysis EDUCATION Ph.D. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. August 1993. M.S. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. August 1988. B.S. Emory University, Atlanta, GA. May 1986. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2007 to present. Associate Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2012 to 2015. Assistant Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2001 to 2007. Assistant Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Sciences, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN. 1997 to 2001. Assistant Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 1994 to 1997. Instructor in Exercise Science, Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 1993 to 1994. PUBLICATIONS (selected) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Leggett, S.H., Carpenter, D.M., Braith, R.W., & Bishop, L.E. (1988). Effect of reduced training frequency on muscular strength. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 59(9), 316-319. DeGabriele, J.H., Panton, L.B., & King, D.S. (1995). Comparison of anaerobic power in elderly men and women. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 3(4), 407-408. Panton, L.B., Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Garzarella, L., Carroll, J.F., Leggett, S.H., Guillen, G., & Lowenthal, D.T. (1996). Relative heart rate, heart rate reserve, and oxygen uptake during exercise in the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 51A (4), M165 -M171. Mason, M.L., Panton, L.B., & King, D.S. (1996). Influence of age and gender on fatigability and plasma lactate accumulation during intense muscular contractions Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(5), S139. 31 Panton, L.B., Franke, W.D., Bleil, D.A., Baier, S.M., & King, D.S. (2001). Effects of resistance training on cardiovascular responses to lower body negative pressure in elderly men and women. Clinical Physiology, 21(5), 605-611. Henderson, W.L., Haymes, E.M., Toole, T., Panton, L.B., Grubbs, L.M., & Pecha, J.M. (2004). The effects of age and BMI on daily physical activity in middle-aged adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(5), S317. Toole, T., Thorn, J.E., Panton, L.B., Kingsley, D., & Haymes, E. (2007). Effects of a 12 -month pedometer walking program on gait, body mass index, and lower extremity function in obese women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104:212-220. Panton, L.B., Kushnick, M.R, Kingsley, D., Moffatt, R., Haymes, E.M., & Toole, T. (2007). Pedometer measurement of physical activity and cardiovascular risk factors of obese African American lower socioeconomic women Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 4:447-458. SELECTED GRANTS FUNDED Agency for Health Care Administration. Exercise management for overweight middle-aged Women. Total award and cost sharing with Florida State University: $304,304 Agency for Health Care Administration. Physical activity campaign for Medicaid recipients in the state of Florida. Total award and cost sharing with Florida State University: $190,454 Health Resources and Services Administration. Live Oak Geriatric Education Center Consortium. Total award: $2,000,000 CONSULTING/EXPERT WITNESS Consultant: CSX Transportation. Development of physical capacity standards for the CSX Rapid Response Anti -Terrorist Unit. 2006-2007. Consultant: CSX Transportation. Heath screening for CSX Employees. 2007. Expert Witness: Plaintiffs expert on drastic sudden weight loss in the case of Florida Department of Education vs James A Griffin. 2008. Consultant: District of Columbia Department of Human Resources - Department of Corrections and Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services. Deterioration of functionality over time as it relates to the performance of physical tasks. 2008. Consultant: State of Maine Department of Transportation. Job task analyses interviews. 2009 32 Consultant: State of Maine. Maine Life Project. Health assessments of state workers. 2009. Consultant: Created a training video for the Health for Hearts United Project entitled "Exercise the Medicine of Choice for Reducing Cardiovascular Disease". 2010. Consultant: Lake County Sheriffs Office. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers. Florida. 2014. Consultant: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Law enforcement physical abilities assessment. State of Florida, 2016 Consultant: Broward Sheriff's Office. Measurement and assessment of physical abilities and standards. 2017. Consultant: Walton County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention officers of Walton County. Florida, 2018- 2019. Consultant: Mesquite Police Department pre -employment physical abilities test study and validation. Texas. 2018-2019. Consultant: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Physical abilities test for prescribed burners, Florida. 2019-2020. Consultant: Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers and pre -employment hiring for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, Florida. 2020 33 BRYANT A. STAMFORD, PHD Exercise physiologist EDUCATION 1968 Slippery Rock State College, B.S. 1973 University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2005 -Present 1995-2005 1982-1992 1980-1982 1976-1980 1973-1973 Professor of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology, Hanover College Professor of Exercise Physiology (HSS of CEHD) University of Louisville Professor of Allied Health, School of Medicine, University of Louisville Professor of Applied Physiology (Graduate School) University of Louisville Associate Professor (Tenured 1976) of Applied Physiology (Graduate School) University of Louisville Assistant Professor of Health & Physical Education (HPES) ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS 2005 -Present 2004-2005 1992-2005 1987-1992 1984-1987 1982-1987 1976-1981 Chair, Department of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology, Hanover College Chair, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Louisville Director of the Health Promotion Center (HSS of CEHD), University of Louisville Director of the Health Promotion Center, Division of Allied Health, School of Medicine, University of Louisville Assistant Dean of the Graduate School, University of Louisville Director of the Exercise Physiology Program, Division of Allied Health, School of Medicine, University of Louisville Director of the Exercise Physiology Laboratory of the Institutes for Advanced Studies of the Graduate School, University of Louisville BOOKS/BOOK CHAPTERS Stamford, B.A. "Exercise and the Elderly." In K.B. Pandolf (ed.) Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1988, 16:341-379. Stamford, B.A. and P. Shimer. Fitness without Exercise. New York: Warner Books, 1990. (Published in six languages). Stamford, B. A. and B. Coffin. The Jack Sprat Low -Fat Diet: A 25 -day Heart —Healthy Plan You Can Follow the Rest of Your Life. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995. Stamford, B.A. Exercise without Agony. Louisville, KY: Minerva Books, 2002. Moffatt, R. J. and B. A. Stamford (editors) Lipid Metabolism and Health. New York, NY: CRC Press (2005). Stamford, B.A. and R. J. Moffatt. Lipids and Health: Past, Present and Future. (in) Moffatt_and Stamford, Lipids Metabolism and Health, CRC Press (2005). 34 PUBLICATIONS (selected) Stamford, B. A. and R. J. Moffatt. "Anabolic Steroid: effectiveness as an ergogenic aid to experienced weight trainers." Journal of Sports Medicine, 14: 191-197, 1974. Stamford, B. A. and B. J. Noble. "Metabolic cost and perception of effort during bicycle ergometer work performance." Medicine and Science in Sports, 6: 226-231, 1974. Stamford, B. A. "Maximal oxygen uptake during treadmill walking and running at various speeds." Journal of Applied Physiology, 39: 386-389, 1975. Stamford, B. A. "Step increment versus constant load tests for determination of maximal oxygen uptake." European Journal of Applied Physiology, 35: 89-93, 1976 Barth, J., D. Holding and B. A. Stamford. "Risk versus effort in the assessment of motor fatigue." J. Motor Behavior, 8: 189-194, 1976. Moffatt, R. J., B. A. Stamford and R. D. Neill. "Placement of tri-weekly training sessions: importance regarding enhancement of aerobic capacity." Research Quarterly, 48, 583-591, 1977. Moffatt, R. J., B. A. Stamford, A. Weltman and R. Cuddihee. "Effects of high intensity aerobic training on maximal oxygen uptake capacity and field test performance." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 17(4): 351-359, 1977 Stamford, B. A., R. W. Cuddihee, R. J. Moffatt and R. Rowland. "Task specific changes in maximal oxygen uptake resulting from arm versus leg training." Ergonomics, 21: 1-9, 1978. Moffatt, R. J., B. A. Stamford. "Effects of pedaling rate changes on maximal oxygen uptake and perceived effort during bicycle ergometer work." Medicine and Science in Sports, 10: 27-31, 1978. Stamford, B. A., R. Rowland and R. J. Moffatt. "Effects of severe prior exercise on assessment of maximal oxygen uptake." Journal of Applied Physiology, 44: 559-563, 1978. Weltman, A., R. J. Moffatt, and B. A. Stamford. "Supra -maximal training in females: effects on anaerobic power output, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic power." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 18: 237-244, 1978. Stamford, B. A., A. Weltman, R. J. Moffatt, and C. Fulco. "Status of police officers with regard to selected cardio-respiratory and body compositional fitness variables." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 19: 85-90, 1979. Stamford, B. A., A. Weltman, R. Moffatt, and S. Sady. "Exercise recovery above and below anaerobic threshold following maximal work." Journal of Applied Physiology, 51: 804-844, 1981. Genovely, H. and B. A. Stamford. "Effects of prolonged warm-up exercise above and below anaerobic threshold on maximal performance." European Journal of Applied Physiology, 48: 323- 330, 1982. 35 Miller, J. F., and B. A. Stamford. "Intensity and caloric cost of weighted walking versus jogging for men and women." Journal of Applied Physiology, 62: 1497-1501, 1987. Swank, A. M., K. J. Adams, K. L. Barnard, J. M. Berning, B. A. Stamford. "Age -related aerobic power in volunteer firefighters, a comparative analysis." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 14(2): 170-174, 2000. Berning, JM, KJ Adams, BA Stamford, "Anabolic steroid usage in athletics: Facts, fiction and public relations". Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18 (4), 908-917, 2004. Jett, MJ, KJ Adams, BA Stamford, "Effects of cold exposure on metabolism." Journal of Sports Medicine, 36 (8):643-656, 2006 Berning JM, KJ Adams, BA Stamford, "Physiologic impact of junkyard training," Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(3):853-856,2007. Berning, JM, KJ Adams, M DeBeliso, PG Sevene-Adams, C Harris, BA Stamford. "Effect of functional isometric squat on vertical jump I trained and untrained men. J Strength & Conditioning Research 24 (9) 2285-2289, 2010. CONSULTANT AND EXPERT WITNESS ACTIVITY • Worked as an expert witness on approximately 30 court cases over twenty-year span (most cases hired by EEOC, cases involved mostly age or gender discrimination in hiring or retirement: EEOC District offices — Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles). Most cases involved municipalities (police and/or fire departments) • Created pre -employment physical capacity test for the Louisville Police Department and created testing format for retirement age police officers. • Created pre -employment physical capacity test for Louisville Firefighters. • Expert witness — on two occasions (mid 1970's), successfully defended in court the pre- employment physical capacity test for the Louisville Police Department. This was at a time when courts were routinely striking down pre -employment physical capacity tests as invalid and discriminatory. • Established a highly successful health promotion/physical capacity enhancement program for the Kentucky State Police. • Worked as expert on establishment of tests and standards for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. • Worked as an expert on the SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority) case. • Worked as an expert for the Washington DC Department of Human Resources to establish an appropriate (suggested) retirement age for corrections officers. 36 • State of Maine, Worker's Compensation Board. Physical task analysis of the State Department of Transportation. 2008 - 2010. • Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent law enforcement officers. 2009-2010. • State of Maine Worker's Compensation Board. Maine Lifestyle Inventory for Employees (Maine LIFE). Develop statewide employee health/fitness assessment program. 2009- 2010. • Maine Worker's Compensation Board. Determination of minimal fitness standards for the State of Maine Department of Corrections. 2010-2011 • Okaloosa County Sheriffs Office. Verification of physical abilities requirements for Okaloosa County Sheriffs Office. 2011-2012. • Environmental Protection Agency. Physical demands job analysis for the development of standardized physical abilities testing. United States of America. 2012. • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Law enforcement physical abilities assessment. State of Florida, 2016 • Broward Sheriffs Office. Development of a valid physical work capacity test for incumbent deputies and detention officers. Florida. 2017. • Miami -Dade County Police Department. Physical abilities test validation study. Florida. 2018. • Orange County Sheriffs Office. Development of physical abilities requirements for Orange County Sheriffs deputies. Florida. 2018. • Walton County Sheriffs Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention officers of Walton County. Florida, 2018-2019. • Mesquite Police Department pre -employment physical abilities test study and validation. Texas. 2018-2019. • Expert witness: Citrus County Sheriffs Office. Defendants experts. . Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, March 20, 2020. 37 • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Physical abilities test for prescribed burners, Florida. 2019-2020. • Pasco County. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers and pre -employment hiring for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, Florida. 2020 38 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP 6o V IDA`OAKS CHIC TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32 April 9, 2020 Weld County Purchasing Department 1150 O Street Room #107 Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposal Number: B200061 Project Name: Physical Abilities Test To whom if may concern: Attached is our proposal submitted in response to the RFP enumerated above. We have carefully reviewed all aspects of the RFP and believe we are highly qualified to provide all the services requested. Our Project Team has expertise in work analysis, exercise physiology and physical abilities testing development and validation. We are highly qualified to perform the work as described. This is based upon the following: (1) We have been actively crafting and validating physical abilities tests for police officers (incumbents and applicants), corrections officers, firefighters and others for the past 40 years. (2) We adhere closely to all EEOC guidelines and have served as expert witnesses for the EEOC and in opposition to the EEOC. (3) Our work has withstood several court challenges, and most recently a case against the Citrus County Sheriff's Office (Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, March 2020). Our group members are meticulous in their approach to research and problem solving; they are goal oriented and they will see a task through to its successful completion. Members have worked together on multiple projects of a similar nature and are familiar with one another's high professional and personal standards. Not only will outcomes be completed in a timely manner, they will be provided with great care, integrity and attention to detail. Team members have considerable experience in job task analysis, development, validation and administration of physical abilities related to public service employees. Specific detail may be seen in Appendix A (vitae and credentials) of our proposal. We are confident that a choice by the Weld County Sheriff's Office to utilize our services will result in a professional, legally defensible approach which will be delivered on time and to the satisfaction of Weld County Sheriffs Office. Finally, and nonetheless important, we accept responsibility for all work performance, including supervision of all those associated with this project. Confidentiality is a critical factor in all our work and is guaranteed for all elements. In addition, we will provide future consultation to the Weld County Sheriff's Office, as well as be available as experts in defense of this work should the need arise. In submitting this offer we certify that the information and data submitted herein are true and complete and my signature attests to that declaration. Further, we certify that we have not participated in, nor have been a party to any collusion, price fixing or any other illegal or unethical agreements with any company, firm or person concerning this submission. Furthermore, we report no conflict of interest with any local government agency. The Human Performance Development Group is a limited liability corporation registered in the State of Florida and has its home base at 3560 Velda Oaks Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32309. Authorized representative: Robert J Moffatt, PhD (rmoffatt@fsu.edu; 850.567.1524) Sincerely, Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH CEO, Human Performance Development Group The undersigned, by his or her signature, hereby acknowledges and represents that: 1. The proposal proposed herein meets all of the conditions, specifications and special provisions set forth in the request for proposal for Request No. #B2000061. 2. The quotations set forth herein are exclusive of any federal excise taxes and all other state and local taxes. 3. He or she is authorized to bind the below -named bidder for the amount shown on the accompanying proposal sheets. 4. The signed proposal submitted, all of the documents of the Request for Proposal contained herein (including, but not limited to, product specifications and scope of services), and the formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County, together constitutes a contract, with the contract date being the date of formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County. 5. Weld County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposals, and to accept the proposal that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld County. The proposal(s) may be awarded to more than one bidder. FIRM 'itr1MAN P ear-cctWtixivca bi.►2i &T- ≥ 2.bi BY tAc* Qx _N. l ita Atcz (Please print) BUSINESS G:4�iA. �►, -� ADDRESS -1 vm 4s c-.ara I t �L 32 t DATE OFFICE, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO $ao- 5%1. i..6Z1i FAX TAX ID # 41' tict0- -7 t SIGNATURE ¶ .S - E-MAIL (tivicie;e rc a F5i EDO **ALL BIDDERS SHALL PROVIDE A W-9 WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PROPOSAL*' WELD COUNTY IS EXEMPT FROM COLORADO SALES TAXES. THE CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION NUMBER IS #98-03551-0000. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEND BACK PAGES 1 — 8. Welt C--�ty -r t' t BY. .:r — , �tieeks ri Deputy Clerk to the Ort II t BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS e Board WELD COUNTY, COLORADO `if e Freeman, Chair JUL 15 2020 BID REQUEST #62000061 Page 16 v2'0 .20 — /O 7t N 'COUNTY STEVE REAMS To: Weld County Board of Commissioners From: Sheriff Steve Reams and Kelly Leffler, Employee Health and Productivity Specialist Date: 05/15/2020 Subject: SO Physical Abilities Test The Weld County Sheriff's Office recently requested proposals for a Physical Abilities Test that would be implemented January 1, 2021 as part of the hiring process as well as an incumbent fitness standard for the deputies. There were five vendors who submitted an RFP. • Injury to Action • Peak Form Medical Clinic • Paul O. Davis, Ph.D., LLC • Human Performance Development Group • Fit Force A comprehensive review was completed of all five vendors that submitted proposals to the RFP. The review committee consisted of five members who graded the proposals based on the requirements listed in the RFP. Scores from each member were then used to rank the vendors in order of best suitable for the project based upon the scoring criteria. The two vendors that scored the highest were then offered phone interviews with the review committee. Based upon the comprehensive review, the Sheriff's Office is recommending the Physical Abilities Test bid be awarded to Human Performance Development Group for a total of $100,000.00. Human Performance Development Group was the bidder that addressed all expertise and qualifications in the proposal. Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-4215 Fax (720) 652-4217 Headquarters 1950 0 Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com Southeast Substation 2950 9'h Street Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465 Fax (303) 637-2422 °5/ 00 Page I 1 6OOW1 O'1Ca 0 WELD COUNTY PURCHASING 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631 E-mail: cmpeters(weldgov.com E-mail: rturf a. weldgov.com E-mail: reverett@weldgov.com Phone: (970) 400-4223, 4216 or 4222 DATE OF BID: APRIL 9, 2020 REQUEST FOR: PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST DEPARTMENT: SHERIFF'S OFFICE BID NO: #B2000061 PRESENT DATE: APRIL 13, 2020 APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 27, 2020 (MAY 13, 2020) (CONTINUED TO MAY 20, 2020) VENDOR INJURY TO ACTION 7171 W ALDER AVE. LITTLETON, CO 80128 PEAK FORM MEDICAL CLINIC 1093 E BRIDGE ST. BRIGHTON, CO 80601 PAUL O. DAVIS, PH.D., LLC 15312 SPENCERVI LLE CT. BURTONSVILLE, MD 20866 TOTAL $11,610.00 $49,454.40 $98,240.60 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP $100,000.00 3560 VELDA OAKS, CIR. R. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32309 FIT FORCE 121 LORING AVE., STE 220 SALEM, MA 01970 $299,205.07 THE SAFETY AND WELLNESS DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE ARE REVIEWING THE BIDS. o s /13 2020- 76,76 5oo 41/ WELD COUNTY PURCHASING 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631 E-mail: cmpetersaweldgov.com E-mail: rturf(a�weldgov.com E-mail: reverett(a�weldgov.com Phone: (970) 400-4223, 4216 or 4222 DATE OF BID: APRIL 9, 2020 REQUEST FOR: PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST DEPARTMENT: SHERIFF'S OFFICE BID NO: #62000061 PRESENT DATE: APRIL 13, 2020 APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 27, 2020 VENDOR TOTAL INJURY TO ACTION $11,610.00 7171 W ALDER AVE. LITTLETON, CO 80128 PEAK FORM MEDICAL CLINIC $49,454.40 1093 E BRIDGE ST. BRIGHTON, CO 80601 PAUL O. DAVIS, PH.D., LLC $98,240.60 15312 SPENCERVILLE CT. BURTONSVILLE, MD 20866 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP $111,640.00 3560 VELDA OAKS, CIR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32309 FIT FORCE $299,205.07 121 LORING AVE., STE 220 SALEM, MA 01970 THE SAFETY AND WELLNESS DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE ARE REVIEWING THE BIDS. 2020-1076 SOO©Li1 REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL WELD COUNTY, COLORADO 1150 O STREET GREELEY, CO 80631 DATE: MARCH 9, 2020 PROPOSAL NUMBER: B2000061 DI _ ;SCRIPTION: PHYSIC . AILITIES TEST DEPARTMENT: SHE 'IFF'S OFFICE PROPOSAL OPENING DATE: APRIL 9, 2020 1. NOTI E 0O RU DDE S ! y tn. . r v d j The Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, by and through its Controller/Purchasing Director (collectively referred to herein as, "Weld County"), wishes to purchase the following: PHYSICAJ _ ABILITIES TEST Proposals will be received at the Office of the Weld County Purchasing Department in the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631 until:,. riI 9, 2020 •at 10:00 A (MST) (Weld Cunty Purchasing Time Clock). Questions are due to the County by March 27, 2020 at 6:0© P(MST) (Weld County Purchasing Time Clock). Email questions to bids@weldgov.com. Answers to questions will be posted online by April 3, 2020 at 5:00 PM (MST). PAGES 1 - 8 OF THIS REQUEST FO PROPOSAL _ S CONTAIN GENERA° INFO.. R.v1ATION FOR THE R QUEST NUMBER REFERRED TO BOVE NOT AI L OF THE INFORMATION CONTAINED I PAGES 1=8 MAY ;E APPLICABLE FOR EVE'1Y PURCHASE PROPOSAL SPECIFICS FOI _ N .O `AGE 2. INVITTION TI' PROPOSAL: Weld County requests proposals for the above -listed merchandise, equipment, and/or services. Said merchandise and/or equipment shall be delivered to the location(s) specified herein Proposals shall include any and all charges for freight, delivery, containers, packaging, less all taxes and discounts, and shall, in every way, be the total net price which the bidder will expect Weld County to pay if awarded the Proposal. You can find information concerning this request on the BidNet Direct website at www.bidnetdirect.com. Weld County Government is a member of BidNet Direct which is an online notification system being utilized by multiple non-profit and governmental entities. Participating entities post their bids, quotes, proposals, addendums, and awards on this one centralized system. Prop •sal Delivery to Weld County — 2 methds: 1. Email. Emailed proposals are preferred. Proposals may be emailed to: bids@weldgov.com Emailed proposals must include the following statement on the email: "I hereby waive my right to a sealed bid". An email confirmation will be sent when we receive your bid/proposal. If more than one copy of the proposal is requested, you must submit/mail hard copies of the proposal. 2. Mail or Hand Delivery. Mailed (or hand delivered) proposals should be sent in 4 sealed envelope with the proposal title and proposal number on it. Please address to: Weld County Purchasing Department, t 150 O Street, Room #107 Greeley, CO 80631. PI ase call Purchasing at _ 970-400-4 222 or 4223 of ou have any c uestions. 3. INSTRUCTIONS TO BIDDERS: I ` T DUC ORYINFORMATI®N: Proposals shall be typewritten or written in ink on forms prepared by the Weld County Purchasing Department. Each proposal must give the full business address of bidder and be signed by him/her with his/her usual signature. Proposals by partnerships must furnish the full names of all partners and must be signed with the partnership name by one of the members of the partnership or by an authorized representative, followed by the signature and title of the person signing. Proposals by corporations must be signed with the legal name of the corporation, followed by the name of the state of the incorporation and by the signature and title of the president, secretary, or other person authorized to bind it in the matter. The n ame of each person signing shall also be typed or printed below the signature. A Proposal by a person who affixes to his signature the word "president," "secretary," "agent," or other title without disclosing his principal, may be held to be the o of the individual signing. When requested by the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director, satisfactory evidence of the authority of the officer signing in behalf of a corporation shall be furnished. A power of attorney must accompany the signature of anyone not otherwise authorized to bind the Bidder. All corrections or erasures shall be initialed by the person signing the Proposal. All bidders shall agree to comply with all of the conditions, requirements, specifications, and/or instructions of this Proposal as stated or implied herein. All designations and prices shall be fully and clearly set forth. All blank spaces in the Proposal forms shall be suitably filled in. Bidders are required to use the Proposal Forms which are included in this package and on the basis indicated in the Bid Forms. The Bid Proposal must be filled out completely, in detail, and signed by the Bidder. Late or unsigned Proposals shall not be accepted or considered. It is the responsibility of the bidder to ensure that the Proposal arrives in the Weld County Purchasing Department on or prior to the time indicated in Section 1, entitled, "Notice to Bidders." Proposals received prior to the time of opening will be kept u nopened in a secure place. No responsibility will attach to the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director for the premature opening of a Proposal not properly addressed and identified. Proposals may be withdrawn u pon written request to and approval of the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director; said request being received from the withdrawing bidder prior to the time fixed for award. Negligence on the part of a bidder in preparing the Proposal confers no right for the withdrawal of the Proposal after it has been awarded. Bidders are expected to examine the conditions, specifications, and all instructions contained herein, failure to do so will be at the bidders' risk. In accordance with Section 14-9(3) of the Weld County Home Rule Charter, Weld County will give preference to resident Weld County bidders in all cases where said bids are competitive in price and quality. It is also u nderstood that Weld County will give preference to suppliers from the State of Colorado, in accordance with C.R.S. § 30-11-110 (when it is accepting bids for the purchase of any books, stationery, records, printing, lithographing or other supplies for any officer of Weld County). Weld County reserves the right to reject any and II bids, to waive any informality in the bids, to award the proposal to multiple vendors, nd to accept the proposal that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld County. The proposal(s) may be awarded to more than one vendor. In submitting the proposal, the bidder agrees that the signed proposal submitted, all of the documents of the Request for Proposal contained herein (including, but not limited to, product specifications and scope of services), the successful bidder's response, and the formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County, together constitutes a contract, with the contract date being the date of formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County. The County may require a separate contract, which if required, has been made a part of this RFP. 4e SUCCI _ :SSFUL BIDDER HIRING P° AMACES — ILLEGAL A I ENS: Successful bidder certifies, warrants, and agrees that it does not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien who will perform work under this contract. Successful bidder will confirm the employment eligibility of all employees who are newly hired for employment in the United States to perform work under this Agreement, through participation in the E -Verify program or the State of Colorado program established pursuant to C.R.S. §8-17.5-102(5)(c). Successful bidder shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal alien to perform work under this Agreement or enter into a contract with a subcontractor that fails to certify with Successful bidder that the subcontractor shall not knowingly employ or contract with an illegal BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 2 alien to perform work under this Agreement. Successful bidder shall not use E -Verify Program or State of Colorado program procedures to undertake pre -employment screening or job applicants while this Agreement is being performed. If Successful bidder obtains actual knowledge that a subcontractor performing work under the public contract for services knowingly employs or contracts with an illegal alien Successful bidder shall notify the subcontractor and County within three (3) days that Successful bidder has actual knowledge that a subcontractor is employing or contracting with an illegal alien and shall terminate the subcontract if a subcontractor does not stop employing or contracting with the illegal alien within three (3) days of receiving notice. Successful bidder shall not terminate the contract if within three days the subcontractor provides information to establish that the subcontractor has not knowingly employed or contracted with an illegal alien. Successful bidder shall comply with reasonable requests made in the course of an investigation, undertaken pursuant to C.R.S. §8-17.5-102(5), by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment. If Successful bidder participates in the State of Colorado program, Successful bidder shall, within twenty days after hiring a new employee to perform work under the contract, affirm that Successful bidder has examined the legal work status of such employee, retained file copies of the documents, and not altered or falsified the identification documents for such employees. Successful bidder shall deliver to County, a written notarized affirmation that it has examined the legal work status of such employee, and shall comply with all of the other requirements of the State of Colorado program. If Successful bidder fails to comply with any requirement of this provision or of C.R.S. §8-17.5-101 et seq., County, may terminate this Agreement for breach, and if so terminated, Successful bidder shall be liable for actual and consequential damages. Except where exempted by federal law and except as provided in C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103(3), if Successful bidder receives federal or state funds under the contract, Successful bidder must confirm that any individual n atural person eighteen (18) years of age or older is lawfully present in the United States pursuant to C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103(4), if such individual applies for public benefits provided under the contract. If Successful bidder operates as a sole proprietor, it hereby swears or affirms under penalty of perjury that it: (a) is a citizen of the United States or is otherwise lawfully present in the United States pursuant to federal law, (b) shall produce one of the forms of identification required by C.R.S. § 24-76.5-101, et seq., and (c) shall produce o ne of the forms of identification required by C.R.S. § 24-76.5-103 prior to the effective date of the contract. 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS: A. Fund Availability: Financial obligations of Weld County payable after the current fiscal year are contingent upon funds for that purpose being appropriated, budgeted and otherwise made available. By acceptance of the proposal, Weld County does not warrant that funds will be available to fund the contract beyond the current fiscal year. B. Track Secrets and other Confidential Int,•; rmation: Weld County discourages bidders from submitting confidential information, including trade secrets, that cannot be disclosed to the public. If n ecessary, confidential information of the bidder shall be transmitted separately from the main proposal submittal, clearly denoting in red on the information at the top the word, "CONFIDENTIAL." However, the successful bidder is advised that as a public entity, Weld County must comply with the provisions of C.R.S. 24-72-201, et seq., the Colorado Open Records Act (CORA), with regard to public records, and cannot guarantee the confidentiality of all documents. The bidder is responsible for ensuring that all information contained within the confidential portion of the submittal is exempt from disclosure pursuant to C.R.S. 24-72- 204(3)(a)(IV) (Trade secrets, privileged information, and confidential commercial, financial, geological, or geophysical data). If Weld County receives a CORA request for proposal information marked "CONFIDENTIAL", staff will review the confidential materials to determine whether any of them may be withheld from disclosure pursuant to CORA, and disclose those portions staff determines are not protected from disclosure. Weld County staff will not be responsible for redacting or identifying Confidential information which is included within the body of the proposal and not separately identified. Any document which is incorporated as an exhibit into any contract executed by the County shall be a public document regardless of whether it is marked as confidential. C. Governmental Immunity: No term or condition of the contract shall be construed or interpreted as a waiver, express or implied, of any of the immunities, rights, benefits, protections or other provisions, of the Colorado Governmental Immunity Act §§24-10-101 et seq., as applicable now or hereafter amended. BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 3 D. inependent C.•;ntractor: The successful bidder shall perform its duties hereunder as an independent contractor and not as an employee. He or she shall be solely responsible for its acts and those of its agents and employees for all acts performed pursuant to the contract. Neither the successful bidder nor any agent or employee thereof shall be deemed to be an agent or employee of Weld County. The successful bidder and its employees and agents are not entitled to unemployment insurance or workers' compensation benefits through Weld County and Weld County shall not pay for or otherwise provide such coverage for the successful bidder or any of its agents or employees. Unemployment insurance benefits will be available to the successful bidder and its employees and agents only if such coverage is made available by the successful bidder or a third party. The successful bidder shall pay when due all applicable employment taxes and income taxes and local head txes (if applicable) incurred pursuant to the contract. The successful bidder shall not have authorization, express or implied, to bind Weld County to any agreement, liability or understanding, except as expressly set forth in the contract. The successful bidder shall have the following responsibilities with regard to workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance matters: (a) provide and keep in force workers' compensation and unemployment compensation insurance in the amounts required by law, and (b) provide proof thereof when requested to do so by Weld County. E. Compliance with Law: The successful bidder shall strictly comply with all applicable federal and state laws, rules and regulations in effect or hereafter established, including without limitation, laws applicable to discrimination and unfair employment practices. F. Choice f aw: Colorado law, and rules and regulations established pursuant thereto, shall be applied in the interpretation, execution, and enforcement of the contract. Any provision included or incorporated herein by reference which conflicts with said laws, rules and/or regulations shall be null and void G. No Third -Party Beneficiary Enforcement: It is expressly understood and agreed that the enforcement of the terms and conditions of the contract, and all rights of action relating to such enforcement, shall be strictly reserved to the undersigned parties and nothing in the contract shall give or allow any claim or right of action whatsoever by any other person not included in the contract. It is the express intention of the undersigned parties that any entity other than the undersigned parties receiving services or benefits under the contract shall be an incidental beneficiary only. H. Attorney's Fees/Legal Costs: In the event of a dispute between Weld County and the successful bidder, concerning the contract, the parties agree that Weld County shall not be liable to or responsible for the payment of attorney fees and/or legal costs incurred by or on behalf of the successful bidder. I. Dosa*v ntaged Business Enterprises: Weld County assures that disadvantaged business enterprises will be afforded full opportunity to submit proposals in response to all invitations and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability in consideration for an award. J. Procurement �::nd Performance: The successful bidder agrees to procure the materials, equipment and/or products necessary for the project and agrees to diligently provide all services, labor, personnel and materials necessary to perform and complete the project. The successful bidder shall further be responsible for the timely completion, and acknowledges that a failure to comply with the standards and requirements outlined in the Proposal within the time limits prescribed by County may result in County's decision to withhold payment or to terminate this Agreement. K. Term: The term of this Agreement begins upon the date of the execution of this Agreement by County, and shall continue through and until successful bidder's completion of the responsibilities described in the Proposal. L. Termination: County has the right to terminate this Agreement, with or without cause on thirty (30) days written notice. Furthermore, this Agreement may be terminated at any time without notice upon a material breach of the terms of the Agreement. M. Hxten&ion or Modification: Any amendments or modifications to this agreement shall be in writing signed by both parties. No additional services or work performed by the successful bidder shall be the basis e. .. FA . . S . •.l4t..• �; 44] 4. .5 5.p.,.c{ 0$1_: mi$..,C� •.. 5. t . . . . "'M. ..+'s:. 5 . ec+).]or.tn.41; 4a..o . "...n•a• . ! _ _ie.:• ': - •! (e •. . .Sr.,::!>.. .. ...n......ia� BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 4 for additional compensation unless and until the successful bidder has obtained written authorization and acknowledgement by County for such additional services. 'Accordingly, no claim that the County has been unjustly enriched by any additional services, whether or not there is in fact any such unjust enrichment, shall be the basis of any increase in the compensation payable hereunder. N. Subcontractors: The successful bidder acknowledges that County has entered into this Agreement in reliance upon the particular reputation and expertise of the successful bidder. The successful bidder shall not enter into any subcontractor agreements for the completion of this Project without County's prior written consent, which may be withheld in County's sole discretion. County shall have the right in its reasonable discretion to approve all personnel assigned to the subject Project during the performance of this Agreement and no personnel to whom County has an objection, in its reasonable discretion, shall be assigned to the Project. The successful bidder shall require each subcontractor, as approved by County and to the extent of the Services to be performed by the subcontractor, to be bound to the successful bidder by the terms of this Agreement, and to assume toward the successful bidder all the obligations and responsibilities which the successful bidder, by this Agreement, assumes toward County. County shall have the right (but not the obligation) to enforce the provisions of this Agreement against any subcontractor hired by the successful bidder and the successful bidder shall cooperate in such orocess. The successful bidder shall be responsible for the acts and omissions of its agents, employees and subcontractors. O. Warranty: The successful bidder warrants that services performed under this Agreement will be performed in a manner consistent with the standards governing such services and the provisions of this Agreement. The successful bidder further represents and, warrants that all services shall be performed by qualified personnel in a professional and workmanlike manner, consistent with industry standards, and that all services will conform to applicable specifications. The bidder warrants that the goods to be supplied shall be merchantable, of good quality, and free from defects, whether patent or latent. The goods shall be sufficient for the purpose intended and conform to the minimum specifications herein. The successful bidder shall warrant that he has title to the goods supplied and that the goods are free and clear of all liens, encumbrances, and security interests. Service Calls in the First One Year Period: The successful bidder shall bear all costs for mileage, travel time, and service trucks used in the servicing (including repairs) of any of the goods to be purchased by Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to this proposal for as many service calls as are necessary for the first one (1) year period after said goods are first supplied to Weld County. Bidder shall submit with their proposal the following information pertaining to the equipment upon which the proposals are submitted: 1. Detailed equipment specifications to include the warranty. 2. Descriptive literature. P. Non -Assignment: The successful bidder may not assign or transfer this Agreement or any interest therein or claim thereunder, without the prior written approval of County. Any attempts by the successful bidder to assign or transfer its rights hereunder without such prior approval by County shall, at the option of County, automatically terminate this Agreement and all rights of the successful bidder hereunder. Such consent may be granted or denied at the sole and absolute discretion of County. Q. Interruptions: Neither party to this Agreement shall be liable to the other for delays in delivery or failure to deliver or otherwise to perform any obligation under this Agreement, where such failure is due to any cause beyond its reasonable control, including but not limited to Acts of God, fires, strikes, war, flood, earthquakes or Governmental actions. R. Non -Exclusive Agreement: This Agreement is nonexclusive and County may engage or use other contractors or persons to perform services of the same or similar nature. S. Emplyee Financial Interest/Conflict of Interest — CURS. Hj24-182O1 et seq. and §24-50-507. The signatories to this Agreement agree that to their knowledge, no employee of Weld County has any BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 5 personal or beneficial interest whatsoever in the service or property which is the subject matter of this Agreement. County has no interest and shall not acquire any interest direct or indirect, that would in any manner or degree interfere with the performance of the successful bidder's services and the successful bidder shall not employ any person having such known interests. During the term of this Agreement, the successful bidder shall not engage in any in any business or personal activities or practices or maintain any relationships which actually conflicts with or in any way appear to conflict with the full performance of its obligations under this Agreement. Failure by the successful bidder to ensure compliance with this provision may result, in County's sole discretion, in immediate termination of this Agreement. No employee of the successful bidder nor any member of the successful bidder's family shall serve on a County Board, committee o r hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates, recommends, supervises the successful bidder's operations, or authorizes funding to the successful bidder. T. Severaboloty: If any term or condition of this Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or u nenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, this Agreement shall be construed and enforced without such provision, to the extent that this Agreement is then capable of execution within the original intent of the parties. U. Binding ArbitratIon Prohibit AA: Weld County does not agree to binding arbitration by any extra- judicial body or person. Any provision to the contrary in the contract or incorporated herein by reference shall be null and void. V. Board of County CommSS&goners of Weld County Approval: This Agreement shall not be valid u ntil it has been approved by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado or its designee. W. Compensatin Amount: Upon the successful bidder's successful completion of the service, and County's acceptance of the same, County agrees to pay an amount no greater than the amount of the accepted bid. The successful bidder acknowledges no payment in excess of that amount will be made by County unless a "change order" authorizing such additional payment has been specifically approved by the County's delegated employee, or by formal resolution of the Weld X. Taxes: County Board of County Commissioners, as required pursuant to the Weld County Code. County will not withhold any taxes from monies paid to the successful bidder hereunder and the successful bidder agrees to be solely responsible for the accurate reporting and payment of any taxes related to payments made pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. Contractor shall not be entitled to bill at overtime and/or double time rates for work done outside of normal business hours unless specifically authorized in writing by County. 6. INSURANCE REQUO REMFNTS: Insurance and lndernnoficatI n. Contract Professionals must secure, at or before the time of execution of any agreement or commencement of any work, the following insurance covering all operations, goods or services provided pursuant to this request. Contract Professionals shall keep the required insurance coverage in force at all times during the term of the Agreement, or any extension thereof, and during any warranty period. The required insurance shall be underwritten by an insurer licensed to do business in Colorado and rated by A.M. Best Company as "A" VIII or better. Each policy shall contain a valid provision or endorsement stating "Should any of the above -described policies by canceled or should any coverage be reduced before the expir.tion date thereof, the issuing company shall send written notice to the Weld County Controller/Purchasing Director by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such written notice shall be sent thirty (30) days prior to such cancellation or reduction unless due to non-payment of premiums for which notice shall be sent ten (10) days prior. If any policy is in excess of a deductible or self -insured retention, County must be notified by the Contract Professional. Contract Professional shall be responsible for the payment of any deductible or self -insured retention. County reserves the right to require Contract Professional to provide a bond, at no cost to County, in the amount of the deductible or self -insured retention to guarantee payment of claims. The insurance coverages specified in this Agreement are the minimum requirements, and these requirements do not decrease or limit the liability of Professional. The County in no way warrants that the minimum limits BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 6 contained herein are sufficient to protect them from liabilities that might arise out of the performance of the work under this Contract by the Contract Professional, its agents, representatives, employees, r subcontractors. The Contract Professional shall assess its own risks and if it deems appropriate and/r prudent, maintain higher limits and/or broader coverages. The Contract Professional is not relieved of any liability or other obligations assumed or pursuant to the Contract by reason of its failure to obtain or maintain insurance in sufficient amounts, duration, or types. The Contract Professional shall maintain, at its own expense, any additional kinds or amounts of insurance that it may deem necessary to clver its obligations and liabilities under this Agreement. Any modification to these requirements must be made in writing by Weld County. The Contract Professional stipulates that it has met the insurance requirements identified herein. The Contract Professional shall be responsible for the professional quality, technical accuracy, and quantity of all services provided, the timely delivery of said services, and the coordination of all services rendered by the Contract Professional and shall, without additional compensation, promptly remedy and correct any errors, o missions, or other deficiencies. INIDE inn The Contract Professional shall defend, irsdemcnify and hold harmless County, ins officers, agents, and employees, from and against injury, loss damage, liability, suits, actions, or willful acts or o missions of Contract Professional, or claims of any type or character arising out of the work done in fulfilimerc of the terms of this Contract or on accoun: of any act, claim or amount arising or recovered under workers' compensation law or arising out of the failure of the Contract Professional to conform to any statutes ordinances, regulation, law or court decree. The Contract Professional shall be fully responsible and liable for any and all injuries or damage received or sustained by any person, persons, or prop&ty on account of its performance under this Agreement or its failure to comply with the provisions of the Agreement, o r on account of or in consequence of neglect of the Contract Professional in its methods or procedures; or in its provisions of the materials required herein, or from any claims or amounts arising or recovered under the Worker's Compensation Act, or other law, ordinance, order, or decree. This paragraph shall survive expiration or termination hereof. It is agreed that the Contract Professional will be responsible for primary loss investigation, defense and judgment costs where this contract of indemnity applies. In consideration of the award of this contract, the Contract Professional agrees to waive all rights of subrogation against the County its associated and/or affiliated entities, successors, or assigns, its elected officials, trus:ees, employees, agents, and volunteers for losses arising from the work performed by the Contract Professional for the County. A failure to comply with this provision shall result in County's right to immediately terminate this Agreement. Types of Insurance: The Contract Professional shall obtain, and maintain at all times during the term of any Agreement, insurance in the following kinds and amounts: Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by state statute, and Employer's Liability Insurance covering all of the Contract Professional's employees acting within the course and scope of their employment. Policy shall contain a waiver of subrgation against the County. This requirement shall not apply when a Contract Professional or subcontractor is exempt under Colorado Workers' Compensation Act., AND when such Contract Professional or subcontractor executes the appropriate sole proprietor waiver form. Commercial G!neral Liability Insurance shall include bodily injury, property damage, and liability assumed under the contract. $1,000,000 each occurrence; $1,000,000 general aggregate; $1,000,000 Personal Advertising injury Automobile Liability: Contract Professional shall maintain limits of S1,000,000 for bodily injury per person, $1,000,000 for bodily injury for each accident, and $1,000,000 for property damage applicable to all vehicles op rating both *in Courty property and elsewhere, for vehicles owned, hired, and non -owned vehicles used in the performance of this Contract. BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 7 P rofessional Liability (Errors and Omissions Liability) The policy shall cover professional misconduct or lack of ordinary skill for those positions defined in the S cope of Services of this contract. Contract Professional shall maintain limits for all claims covering wrongful acts, errors and/or omissions, including design errors, if applicable, for damage sustained by reason of or in the course of operations under this Contract resulting from professional services. In the event that the professional liability insurance required by this Contract is written on a claims -made basis, Contract P rofessional warrants that any retroactive date under the policy shall precede the effective date of this Contract; and that either continuous coverage will be maintained or an extended discovery period will be exercised for a period of two (2) years beginning at the time work under this Contract is completed. Minimum Limits: Per Loss Aggregate $ 1,000,000 $ 2,000,000 Contract Professionals shall secure and deliver to the County at or before the time of execution of this Agreement, and shall keep in force at all times during the term of the Agreement as the same may be extended as herein provided, a commercial general liability insurance policy, including public liability and property damage, in form and company acceptable to and approved by said Administrator, covering all operations hereunder set forth in the related Bid or Request for Proposal. Proof of Insurance: County reserves the right to require the Contract Professional to provide a certificate of insurance, a policy, or other proof of insurance as required by the County's Risk Administrator in his sole discretion. Additional Insureds: For general liability, excess/umbrella liability, pollution legal liability, liquor liability, and inland marine, Contract Professional's insurer shall name County as an additional insured. Waiver of Subrogation: For all coverages, Contract Professional's insurer shall waive subrogation rights against County. S ubcontractors: All subcontractors, independent Contract Professionals, sub -vendors, suppliers or other entities providing goods or services required by this Agreement shall be subject to all of the requirements herein and shall procure and maintain the same coverages required of Contract Professional. Contract P rofessional shall include all such subcontractors, independent Contract Professionals, sub -vendors suppliers or other entities as insureds under its policies or shall ensure that all subcontractors maintain the required coverages. Contract Professional agrees to provide proof of insurance for all such subcontractors, independent Contract Professionals, sub -vendors suppliers or other entities upon request by the County. The terms of this Agreement are contained in the terms recited in this Request for Proposal and in the Response to the Proposal each of which forms an integral part of this Agreement. Those documents are specifically incorporated herein by this reference. The rest of this page intentionally left blank. BID REQUEST # B2000061 Page 8 RFP FOR PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST — B2000061 SUMMARY OF INTENT/SC • PE OF WO K The Weld County Sheriff's Office is soliciting proposals from qualified bidders to develop and implement job related and validated physical abilities examinations that are a reliable predictor of successful on-the-job performance to screen for pre -employment Detentions and Patrol Deputy recruit applicants and to serve as an annual incumbent physical readiness test for the Patrol Division, Detentions Division and special operation groups such as the SWAT Team, K9 Team, etc. INTRODUCTION & B=ACKGROUND The Weld County Sheriff's Office's jurisdiction covers approximately 4,000 square miles, sprawling over many rural communities. The Sheriff's Office has divided the county into four sections referred to as districts so that we can better service the citizens of Weld County. These districts were created using the Sheriffs Office philosophy of Community Policing and in accordance with those guiding principles, deputies are assigned to patrol districts on a continuing, routine basis. The Sheriff's Office employs approximately 100 Patrol Deputies. The Weld County Sheriffs Office also runs a jail capable of holding 850 inmates. Inmates stay at the Weld County Jail while they progress through the court system. While they are at the jail, deputies work to ensure that they are provided a safe, humane and wholesome environment and that they are treated with dignity and respect. The Weld County Sheriff's Office also serves the courts of the 19th Judicial District, transporting inmates from the Weld County Jail to the Weld County Courthouse as well as providing security assistance at the Courthouse. The Sheriff's Office employs approximately 250 Detention Deputies. The Office currently conducts Detention Deputy Academies on a quarterly basis, receiving approximately 200 applications for each academy and hiring an average of 15 per Academy. The Office conducts two Patrol Academies each year, receiving 50 applications per Academy and hiring approximately 5 per Academy. PHYSICAL ABILITIES TESTING The Weld County Sheriff's Office currently has a job task simulation test that all applicants must successfully pass as part of the hiring process. The job task simulation test is an obstacle course that includes a 25 yard run from a seated position, 3 foot "gap" jump, 25 yard run to scale a 5 foot wall, 10 yard run to a 10 foot long low crawl obstacle, 25 yard run to an 8 foot stair climb, 15 yard run to a window they must climb through, 10 yard run to a suspect identification, 15 yard run to a 5 yard drag of a 150 pound dummy, and a 20 yard run to a fine motor skills assessment. The obstacle course must be completed in 1 minute and 36 seconds or less. Once applicants have passed this job task simulation test, then they move to the next phase, which is the written test. The Weld County Sheriffs Office currently has a physical abilities test in conjunction with the job task simulation test previously discussed that is used as an incumbent physical readiness test standard. The physical abilities test includes push-ups, sit-ups, sit and reach test, pull ups and a mile and a half run. A scoring rubric is used, and the goal is that deputies score 200 points between the combination of tests. Those that do not score 200 points repeat the physical readiness test in 6 months. RESOURCES The Weld County Sheriffs Office will provide job descriptions; Office rules, policies and procedures; and access to Office staff as needed for test design and collection of evidence to support test validity. The Office will provide staff to be trained to administer the physical readiness tests for both pre -employment and annual incumbent physical readiness test. ^" ..ta >— • r•—.721- t . +Y� at ri .. �„cc •••I .' r •1. m:.- t ,: ikk• iJ t k^t�c.•CA'^4. +. rro•— Lvu.:::_:1'v:::.i�ie aa'�a•P.�. �e ,..¢-.w::: bS,.;.c.:_._ •, : 1.> �.�� `.-?—s�• • ..r ,:..- - -�.,�• x�Le: '• �.+,5:a_,�:;a—_.;.4.._��,zi:.GhG�;kr,L.,rc�:�,rJ s.:.'..G.kev�:$Yaz.!}n�t ��., �,„u; t >tm� BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 9 SECTI • N °I — PROPOS, '=.L INFO MATION O N . 0 PR JEC OBJEC1 IVES The Weld County Sheriffs Office seeks a specific job task simulation test and/or a physical ability test that reflects the best practices of law enforcement. Processes that result in least adverse impact will be considered most favorable. The Office seeks to identify the most qualified candidates from an applicant pool and assess their job -related functional fitness to assure it is appropriate to performing the essential physical duties of a Weld County Sheriffs Office Patrol Deputy or Detentions Deputy. The Office seeks to develop an incumbent physical abilities test standard and/or job task simulation test to be performed annually by all sworn deputies that is scientifically and legally defensible based on the results of a job -specific task analysis. The Office seeks to develop an incumbent physical abilities test standard and/or job task simulation test to be performed annually by members of special units within the Office such as the Weld County Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team, K-9 Team, and the Special Operations Group that is legally defensible and based on the results of a job -specific task analysis of these specific units, whether the standard be the same as or different from the Office's standard for all deputies. The Office seeks development of a physical readiness test which applies an unambiguous, valid, and unbiased methodology for rating and scoring performance. The Office seeks a physical readiness test which is developed and validated in accordance with professional and legal standards. The Office seeks a physical abilities test that is logistically practical and fiscally responsible considering the availability of equipment, testing locations, safety, and time constraints. The Office seeks guidance for implementation of the recommended standards and for creating policy and procedure based on recommended standards. The physical ability test and job simulation test must be reflected in a manual describing testing procedures and protocols, and training must be provided to Office proctors/trainers in both test administration and scoring procedures. 1.1 P HYSICAL ABILITY AND JOB ASK SIM1U A BON TESTING SCOPE Gather job analysis data, including onsite visits to gather information about the position of a Weld County Patrol Deputy, Weld County Detentions Deputy, and special units within the Office. Review existing tests, standards, and programs with previous data collected. ® Develop and validate a physical assessment for Weld County Sheriff's Office Deputy recruit applicants and for an incumbent physical abilities test and job simulation test for sworn Deputies and special unites based on job analysis data that are reliable, safe and practical. ® Develop manuals for testing administration. Develop transition plan from current standards to recommended standards. ® Train Office personnel on test administration and scoring. ® Ensure that all assessment instruments that are proposed shall demonstrate compliance with all relevant professional and legal standards, including all State and federal laws relative to discrimination or disparate impact on any protected classes of individuals. ® Develop reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities under the ADA. AS BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 10 O Provide a final report that documents the Project to include procedures used and recommendations. • Work collaboratively with the Office to develop a comprehensive work plan describing timeline, all tasks and subtasks for the Project, designating personnel (Sheriff's Office and/or Project Organization) for each task. • Provide updates to the Office, ensuring timelines and responsiveness. 1.2 RFP SCHEDULE OF EVENTS The upcoming schedule of events is as follows: Event Date RFP Posted to Websites March 9, 2020 Question Submittal Deadline March 27, 2020 @ 5:00 PM (MST) Questions & Answers Posted to Websites----April 3, 2020 @ 5:00 PM (MST) Proposals Due April 9, 2020 @ 10:00 AM (MST) Questions about this RFP must be submitted in writing via email to bidsweldqov.com. Emailed proposals are preferred. Email proposals to bids©weldgov.com Emailed proposals must include the following statement on the email: "I hereby waive my right to a sealed bid". An email confirmation will be sent when we receive your bid/proposal. Mail or Hand Delivery. Mailed (or hand delivered) proposals should be sent in a sealed envelope with the proposal title and proposal number on it. Please address to the Weld County Purchasing Department, 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631. Please call Purchasing at 970-400-4222 or 4223 with any questions. Proposals will be received at the Office of the Weld County Purchasing Department in the Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631 until: April 9. 2020 at 10:00 AM (MST) (Weld Cunty Purchasing Time Clock). SECTION II - PROPOSAL CONTENT 2.0 PROPOSAL FORMAT Bidder's written proposal should include concise, but complete information emphasizing why the Bidder is best or best qualified to provide the required services. The Bidder's written proposal should include the information in the format outlined below and must be limited to no more than forty (40) pages. A page shall be defined as 8-1/2" x 11", with one -inch margins, and a minimum font of Tomes New Roman 10. The only exception to the 8-1/2" x 11" paper size is the proposed project schedule. It may be submitted on 11" x 17" paper. Each 11" x 17" page for the schedule shall be counted in the overall page limitations above. Each section of the proposal should be labeled to clearly follow the requirements sections identified in this this section of the RFP. 2.1 COVER LETTER The cover letter shall be no more than three pages. The cover letter shall contain at least the following information. A. RFP Number and Project Name. B. Statement that the Bidder is qualified to perform the work. BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 11 C. Certification Statement that the information and data submitted are true and complete to the best knowledge of the individual signing the letter. D. Name, telephone number, email address, and physical address of the individual to contact regarding the proposal. E. The signature of an authorized principal, partner, or officer of the Bidder. 2.2 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW The Bidder must provide a brief history and overview of its company and its organizational structure, with special emphasis on how this Project will fit within that structure. Include principal place of business location(s), office locations and size of firm. Also include the number of years in business, any other names your company has operated under, and if you or your firm has ever failed to complete any work awarded to you. Also, are you presently involved in any litigation with any government agency, if so, explain type and current status. Please submit a resume for the Project Manager and each key personnel assigned to this project. 2.3 EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATIONS The minimum qualifications that must be met for this Project are: Verifiable experience of at least five (5) years in performing job analysis which included examination of physical demands, developing physical ability tests, conducting validity study and cut score analysis for public safety agencies in areas with over 300,000 population. Verifiable experience developing physical ability tests, conducting validity study and cut score analysis for entry-level or pre -employment detention deputy classification in a law enforcement agency with over 300,000 population. Verifiable experience in defending the validity of examinations before commissions, boards, and courts; and/or litigation experience involving same. Training, experience, education, and other qualifications of staff assigned to the Project with emphasis on documented experience in successfully completing work on contracts of similar size and scope to the services required by this RFP. The Bidder must have demonstrated and successful experience in managing physical abilities testing and validation projects for law enforcement. All assessment instruments that are proposed shall demonstrate compliance with all relevant professional and legal standards, including all State and federal laws relative to discrimination or disparate impact on any protected classes of individuals. The preferred qualifications for this Project are: The Bidder's Project team assigned has expertise in exercise physiology and physical abilities testing development. The Bidder's Project manager has ten (10) or more years of experience in managing large and complex testing and validation projects for public safety for states, counties and/or large cities. The Bidder's Project manager has experience as an expert witness in state and/or federal courts on test validation and related issues. BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 12 If the organization's design or validation of a physical abilities testing process has been challenged legally, the Bidder was successful in defending against the challenge. The Bidder shall provide a list of at least five similar projects, summaries of SOW and contact information for references (name, phone number and e-mail). 2.4 PRICE AREA The initial contract period shall commence on May 1, 2020 with an end date of January 31, 2021. In the Price Area, the Bidder should provide a lump sum price, as well as a detailed breakdown of the price for period of performance. Offers must include sufficient detail to allow insight into the fairness and reasonableness of the price. Proposed pricing for this test development shall include all associated services, development, number of work hours, documentation, meeting times, training, mileage, lodging, and any other cost associated with this Project. In addition, although price may not be the most important factor, it is still very important to the Weld County Sheriffs Office. The Bidder's pricing must be competitive as compared to the budget amount, market pricing in the industry, and the pricing of other Bidders. It is highly recommended that the Bidder provide sufficient content and detail to answer completely the following questions. 1. How does the price compare to the industry competition? 2. If low, is it unrealistically low? 3. If high, is there demonstrated added value for the additional cost? 4. Is the price itemized, so that it is clear how the cost was built? If so, do the costs look appropriate for the task? 5. Does the Bidder leave applicable costs out of the calculations? For instance, some will say travel is not included and will be an extra cost. This should be considered when comparing to other Bidders. 6. Are there additional costs not addressed that the Office would incur if the Bidder were awarded the contract? If so, include those costs when comparing to the budget amount and the competition. 2.5 RFP SIGNATURE PAGE Include page 16 of this RFP with the appropriate signatures. 2.6 W-9 Bidders must include a copy of their W-9 in their proposal. 2.7 PROPOSAL PRESENTATION Presentation is an important factor. Bidders should provide a highly professional product, which is complete, accurate, easily understood, and effectively presented. BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 13 SECTION III - EVALUATION FACTORS 3.0 EVALUATION C "YITERIA Proposals will be individually evaluated by each selection committee member. The criteria below will be the basis for review of the written proposals. CRITERIA MAX SCORE EXPERTISE See Section AND II — QUALIFICATIONS Item 2.3 60 PROPOSED See Section PRICE II — Item 2.4 30 PROPOSAL See Section PRESENTATION II Item 2.7 10 — TOTAL 100 31 RANKING The order of ranking or importance in the evaluation shall be as follows: First: Expertise and Qualifications Second: Proposed Price Third: Proposal Presentation 3.2 SELECTION COMMITTEE A selection committee will review all proposals. Through this process, the Office will determine which proposals are acceptable or unacceptable. The Office will notify the Bidders whose proposals are deemed to be unacceptable. Those Bidders offering proposals deemed to be acceptable by the Office will be evaluated and scored by the selection committee. This scoring will determine which Bidders are considered to be in the competitive range and may be the basis for an award decision without further steps. If the selection committee elects not to award based upon evaluation scoring, it may engage in a forced elimination process. To inform this process, it may require oral presentations or interviews with the Bidders considered to be in the competitive range. If oral presentations or interviews are conducted, they may also be scored, or they may simply be considered as information supporting the forced elimination process. The selection committee may request revisions to the proposal from each of the Bidders at the conclusion of the interviews. The intent of the forced elimination process is to reach consensus. The decision will be based on on all relevant factors, and based upon perception of best value. The final decision may or may not exactly reflect scoring ranking. The Office also reserves the right to request best and final offers from all Bidders at any point in the proposal evaluation process. 3.3 AWARD AND AGREEMENT Phone interviews may be held, and references may be contacted, to assist in the decision for award. A formal agreement will be awarded to the vendor with the most responsible, responsive, reasonable proposal, deemed the best fit and most advantageous to the Weld County Sheriff's Office. fy�:.�n'�.� a,_.k.�n ^�{z�J •. .R ,.#l�Ss'IGS "+.,+•.a (l >^ a�r••"'�'-�. Y.5c"93LYrcc BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 14 It is anticipated that there will be negotiations or discussions with Bidders. However, the Office reserves the right to award without negotiations or discussions. The Office also reserves the right to award a contract not necessarily or merely to the Bidder with the most advantageous price. The Office intends to award to the Bidder that demonstrates the best value to the Office and the most substantiated ability to fulfill the requirements contained in this Request for Proposal. A contract prepared by the Office will be finalized and/or negotiated with the successful Bidder. In the event a contract cannot be negotiated with the top ranked Bidder, the Office may enter into negotiations with the second highest ranked Bidder, or the Office may decide to call for new proposals. Immediately after the notice of award, the successful Bidder will begin planning in conjunction with the Weld County Sheriff's Office staff (to be designated by the Office) to ensure fulfillment of all its obligations. The successful Bidder may be expected to attend regular meetings as required by the Office to assist in the 'preparation for startup. The rest of this page intentionally left blank. BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 15 The undersigned, by his or her signature, hereby acknowledges and represents that: 1. The proposal proposed herein meets all of the conditions, specifications and special provisions set forth in the request for proposal for Request No. #B2000061. 2. The quotations set forth herein are exclusive of any federal excise taxes and all other state and local taxes. 3. He or she is authorized to bind the below -named bidder for the amount shown on the accompanying proposal sheets. 4. The signed proposal submitted, all of the documents of the Request for Proposal contained herein (including, but not limited to, product specifications and scope of services), and the formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County, together constitutes a contract, with the contract date being the date of formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County. 5. Weld County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposals, and to accept the proposal that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld County. The proposal(s) may be awarded to more than one bidder. FIRM BY (Please print) BUSINESS ADDRESS OFFICE, STATE, DATE ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO FAX TAX ID # SIGNATURE E-MAIL **ALL BIDDERS SHALL PROVIDE A W-9 WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PROPOSAL** WELD COUNTY IS EXEMPT FROM COLORADO SALES TAXES. THE CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION NUMBER IS #98-03551-0000. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEND BACK PAGES 1 - 8. ATTEST: Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Deputy Clerk to the Board Mike Freeman, Chair APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE: Elected Official or Department Head Controller/Purchasing Director BID REQUEST #B2000061 Page 16 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT re: Weld County B2000061/Physical Abilities Test To whom it may concern: On May 12, 2020, it was agreed by Human Performance Development Group and Weld County Government that the total bid for B2000061/Physical Abilities Test was renegotiated from $111,640.00 to $100,000.00 with no changes to vendor's submitted bid and with all parties in agreement. Sincerely, Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH CEO Human Performance Development Group iYls...-.6y1+ra.Etu§=aSttelarr_•zWIA:1e•.+.r16awPOrxxa y:n.ly.+:Aet-:_n.�.c.-�.-. • :can 4.• Y.•;.te•--ua�C�l.� • 1 b C. r r - . I 41n .. a • I • • `,� PRICE AREA: PROPOSED C ST SCSCHEDULE Schedule of Services and Expenses Provide detailed work validation study for each WCSO command (patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT) Includes essential physical job task requirements needed to pet form the duties of a WCSO deputy. A total of four distinct JTAs. 2. Create and provide a valid, legally defensible, physical abilities test to determine whether an applicant or incumbent can/cannot perform physical demands/duties of a WCSO deputy (patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT) 3. Provide a final comprehensive reports that fully documents the entire validation process, to include a test course, all results, recommendations and implementation plans (one each for patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT). 4 Provide Standardized Testing Protocol Manuals for Testing Personnel on the PAT to include the duties of the test administration, information on course set-up, proctoring and timing, rules, safety procedures (one each for patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT). 5. Conduct six hour trainer (test administrators) workshop on site at Weld County 6. Travel Expenses: On site visits for orientation meeting, JTA assessment, data acquisition, meetings with expert panel, validation process onsite testing and to conduct training workshop. Air travel: Anticipate three trips to Weld County for two individuals Hotel/meals @ Per Diem of $200/day (10 hotel nights ) Miscellaneous: Mileage, tolls, fuel, auto rental (12 days). TOTAL $60,000 th3c)i.&0(1) 4-itoca d*?;)11 $ ' 40.6 $ 2,000 taOsto $476ftfr $ 2,000 $ 600 Ass 1OO, c 0 i\-/ S2it. 16 Christie Peters From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Robert Moffatt <rmoffatt@fsu.edu> Thursday, April 9, 2020 9:46 AM bids Proposal: Physical Abilities Test PROPOSAL Weld County 4. 9. 2020 (1).docx Caution: This email originated from outside of Weld County Government. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Please accept the attached proposal for the development of a physical abilities test (RFP# B2000061) for the Weld County sheriff's Office. Please acknowledge receipt. Thank you. I waive my right to a sealed bid. Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH Georgia A. Stamford Professor of Exercise Physiology Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences Florida State University Tallahassee, FL 32306 850.644.1520 (o) 850.645.5000 (f) rmoffatt@fsu.edu 1 WELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE PHYSICAL ABILITIES ASSESSMENT A proposal submitted to: WELD COUNTY PURCHASING DEPARTMENT 1150 O Street, Room # 107 Greely, CO 80631 by Human Performance Development Group Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH Michael Leep, MA Lynn P Panton, hD, FACSM Bryant A Stamford, PhD, FACSM 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS Project Objective 2 A Note on Gender Norming 3 A Note on Testing Incumbents, Applicants, SWAT and K-9 5 Proposal Content 5 Coordination of Project 5 Project Overview .6 Project Work Plan 6 A Note on Validation ....7 Orientation Meeting 8 Job Task Analysis 8 Plan to Conduct an In -Depth JTA ..9 Completing the JTA Requires Multiple Steps 9 JTA Report 10 Physical Abilities Test 10 Validation: Determination of Minimum Fit for Duty Standards 10 Validating Job -Relatedness 11 Validating Cut-off Standards 11 Affirmative Steps to Assure That Testing Does Not Discriminate 12 Comprehensive Validity Report 12 Instruction Manuals: Plans for Administration of and Preparation for the PAT ......13 Education and Training of test Administration Personnel 13 Project Deliverables and Timeline 14 Price Area: Proposed Cost Schedule 16 Organizational Background and Overview 17 Expertise and Qualifications 19 Experience as Expert Witness 20 Related Project Summary and References 22 Appendix A: Vitae and Credentials 25 2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES The Weld County Sheriffs Office (WCSO) seeks job -related, legally defensible physical abilities tests (PATs) that do not impose a disparate impact on protected groups, and females in particular. The PATs will be specifically crafted and validated for each of the following groups: 1) the approximately 100 Patrol Deputies; 2) Patrol Deputy applicants; 3) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — SWAT; 4) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — K-9; 5) the approximately 250 Detention Deputies; and 6) Detention Deputy applicants. It is important to emphasize that each of these groups will require its own specific job -related test. The reasons for this will become abundantly clear when considering EEOC guidelines (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Uniform Guidelines — US DOJ, EEOC, Government Printing Office, 1978) that dictate the importance of job relatedness when crafting and validating a PAT. There is clear justification for enhancing the physical working capacity of patrol deputies and special operations groups, plus detention deputies who must perform physically demanding tasks of a critical nature, often at a moment's notice. Such tasks can be exhausting, and the readiness of officers to perform can directly impact outcomes and the effectiveness of interventions. Physical readiness also can determine personal safety of the officer, the safety of colleagues, and the safety of those they are sworn to protect. At first glance, upgrading physical working capacity by imposing a PAT would seem to be a simple task. All that is needed is an assessment tool that imposes a standard, and the mandate that all officers must meet or surpass the standard. The problem is how the standard is established. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines must be followed precisely (EEOC Uniform Guidelines — US DOJ, EEOC, Government Printing Office, 1978), meaning the PAT must meet a strong burden of proof that it is job related and specifically applicable. The standard must predict ability to perform essential functions of the job — to distinguish between those who can and those who cannot do the job. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) of 1991 support the need for job relatedness as described, and are pertinent with regard to using a test for several purposes, including - as a standard for hiring, as a post - training standard, and for incumbent retention and promotion. In addition, the PAT must address and reflect "minimal bona fide occupational qualifications." It must, in other words, define what is minimally required physically to perform essential job tasks that are critical in nature. Such tasks may not be performed frequently, but when they are performed, they may entail life and death implications, and often require a maximal physical effort. A note on gender norming. A thorny issue that always arises quickly when considering physical abilities standards is the natural discrepancy between genders. Males, in general, have a natural advantage when it comes to physical performance. As such, the question of same job for all and thus same standard for all is an important consideration. The Civil Rights Act of 1991 — Section 3 106 prohibits use of cutoff standards tied to employment related decisions based on race, color, gender, religion or natural origin. This seems clear and unequivocal. However, there have been efforts to circumvent this law by labeling a physical standard as a fitness standard, not a job standard — the fitness for fitness sake argument. Such attempts have been engineered to avoid adverse impact (a pass rate that is less than 80% of an unprotected class, i.e. males) on females (a protected class), because the failure rate among females is likely to be greater when one physical standard is imposed. However well intended, standards based on gender are unlawful, because they do not predict who can and who cannot do the job. But, doesn't this all but ensure an adverse impact when it comes to physical performance testing? Yes, but it has been upheld that standards can result in adverse impact if there is ample evidence to show the test is job related. Our work in the court case Lanning et. al. vs. the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA - U.S. District Court of Southeast Pennsylvania, 2000) affirmed this stance. With the above in mind, it begs the question, how can the so called and widely used Cooper test with its generic fitness for fitness sake core, its gender "norming" approach, and lack of job relatedness, be applied legally? The answer is, it cannot be applied legally, especially in light of methodologies available that can determine how much fitness is necessary to do the job, regardless of gender. Again, the SEPTA case clearly affirmed this. What if the Cooper test is applied, but with one compromised gender -neutral standard? This approach has been imposed by those wishing to avoid change and hoping to avoid legal challenge as they continue using the Cooper test. They have taken the requirements for males and females, averaged the two standards and established one cutoff. While this capricious, shoot from the hip approach would appear to address the issue of gender norming, it doesn't address the more critical issue of how much fitness is required to do the job. The Cooper norms are not job -related standards. Rather they are merely percentile fitness scores that have no relevance to police officers performing essential job tasks. The only connection is the obvious one — an officer who is fit will perform better on the Cooper test than an officer who is unfit. This, of course, leads to a meaningless high statistical correlation that has no relevance to EEOC guidelines. Thus, the question how fit must an officer be to perform job tasks effectively remains unanswered. Does this mean the Cooper approach is completely useless? Not necessarily. Cooper norms reflect percentile fitness rankings and can be used when there is no mandatory standard and no job implications for employees or applicants. It can be used as a yardstick for improved fitness in a voluntary program. Any number of established fitness tests also could be used in this way. In summary, WCSO has requested a fit for duty test with a mandatory standard for passing, each test designed specifically for several professional groups and also for applicants. Incumbents and applicants range in age, encompass males and females, and include members of different races, colors, religions and natural origins. Such a standard can be set and defended for each group if 4 legal requirements are met. The two principle legal requirements are job relatedness, and imposing minimal bona fide occupational qualifications, which, in turn, dictate the need for one standard for all within each group. The bottom line is that the fit for duty test must be able to predict who can and who cannot do each of the specific jobs in question. A note on testing incumbents, applicants, SWAT and K-9. It is important to emphasize that when a test is crafted for applicants it cannot include any knowledge, skills or abilities that will be either taught during academy training or learned on the job. In other words, for example, while incumbents may be required to take a PAT wearing full gear, this would not be appropriate for applicants. Similarly, applicants should not be required to demonstrate professional proficiencies, such as skills involving various weapons or defensive strategies and tactics regularly employed by incumbents. With this said, it is possible to craft and validate one test that can address the needs of both incumbents and applicants if circumstances allow. In addition, the JTA completed for Patrol Deputies will serve as the basis for both incumbents and applicants, and therefore there is need for only one JTA. The same is the case for Detention Deputy incumbents and applicants for that position. It is assumed that those serving in special operations must first serve as Patrol Deputies, which means passing a Patrol Deputy PAT. Next, additional qualifications may be necessary to qualify for SWAT or K-9, thus a specific PAT and JTA will need to be crafted to meet the needs of SWAT and the needs of K-9. Regarding this proposal, in order to avoid undue and tedious redundancy, this proposal will address the specific needs of Patrol Deputies, with the understanding that the procedures we employ when crafting and validating a PAT for Patrol Deputies must be replicated specifically for incumbents in each job category, and also specifically for applicants in each category. And of course, one separate PAT for SWAT and K-9. Overall, four distinct PATs will be developed using the same scientific process for each of the different commands; Patrol Deputies and applicants, Detention Deputies and applicants, SWAT and K-9). PROPOSAL CONTENT Coordination of project. Prior to the onset of a project of this nature, we prefer to meet with those designated administrative members of the agency in order to review the contract step by step and provide an overview of our approach as we endeavor to satisfy all requirements of the statement of work. At that meeting we will discuss administrative matters, formation of subject matter expert (SME) panels, scheduling, and arranging to obtain the necessary documents for review and project planning. Owing to the differing specific duties of each group (patrol deputies, special operations deputies, and detention deputies, plus applicants) each of the steps indicated must of necessity be repeated separately for each group. In addition, careful specific consideration 5 will be necessary when crafting and validating tests for applicants seeking employment as patrol deputies and detention deputies. Project overview. Development of a valid and legally defensible, job related PAT requires the following steps. The first step in developing a valid and defensible PAT is the preparation of an accurate and comprehensive work analysis that includes the essential physical tasks of the job identified through a structured JTA that serves as the basis for determining job -relatedness. It is critical that the JTA be comprehensive and accurately describe all aspects of the job, and especially those elements that are the most physically demanding. The reason is, logically, if the most demanding tasks are identified and form the basis for the validation process, it follows that if you can perform the most demanding work tasks (or predictive simulations that require similar physical effort), you can perform those tasks that are less physically demanding. In other words, you can satisfy the EEOC standard mandating that tests reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications. Second, using the JTA as the primary basis for validation, we will create a legally defensible job related PAT. In step three we will determine a valid and reliable cut-off standard that reflects minimal bona fide occupational qualifications as mandated by the EEOC. We also understand our role in assisting in the implementation of the physical standards with training personnel, assist in the revision of relevant policies and procedures (if necessary) and the training of personnel with respect to testing procedures, safety procedures, health issues, testing administration and data interpretation, instruction and record keeping. Accordingly, training and test preparation materials will be created. A manual will be prepared for test administrators to guide them through the process and to do so with the safety of all participants at the forefront. And a second manual will be prepared as a self-help tool for those scheduled to take the test which provides details surrounding what is expected, self -applied field tests, and also a training regimen to improve physical capacity, if necessary. We will submit a comprehensive report which documents all aspects of the project, including methods employed and all details pertinent to the JTA and outcomes, in addition to the development and validation of the PAT. Project work plan. Develop a valid and legally defensible PAT for use in assuring that all WCSO personnel in each of the following job categories are fit for duty: (a) the approximately 100 Patrol Deputies; (b) Patrol Deputy applicants; (c) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — SWAT; (d) Patrol Deputies serving in special operations — K-9; (e) the approximately 250 Detention Deputies; and (f) Detention Deputy applicants. The scope of this project is twofold. First, after a review of WCSO related documents create a JTA specific to each job category. Logically, if the most demanding tasks are identified and form the basis for the validation process, it follows that if you can perform the most demanding work tasks (or predictive simulations that require similar physical effort), you can perform all tasks that 6 are less physically demanding. In other words, you can satisfy the EEOC standard that mandates that tests reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications. Second, using the JTA as the primary basis for validation, create a legally defensible PAT. A note on validation. The validation process is time consuming and involved. It begins of necessity with a job task analysis. What is the job? What are the critical tasks and how frequently are they employed? What are the implications of not being able to perform all job tasks? Once the JTA is completed, step two is possible. Experts can determine the most physically demanding job tasks and use these as the core for a pre -employment physical abilities test. The assumption is made that if applicants can successfully perform the most physically demanding tasks, they will be successful at less demanding tasks. Step three requires establishment of cut-off standards for each physically demanding task, or for the overall test if tasks are completed in sequence without rest between evolutions. The pre -employment PAT for the Southeast Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA) provides a good example. These police officers work in the Philadelphia subway system. Their work is demanding, and they work in isolation, each officer in charge of a specific area. When an officer is in need of assistance, the nearest officers are expected to get there as soon as possible. Any delay can be critical. Officers must climb several flights of stairs, hurdle turnstiles, then run above ground a considerable distance to the location in question, dodging people and traffic, run down the stairs, and upon arrival be able to render physical assistance to the officer in trouble. The same response is expected from males and females and regardless of age. As such, a gender -neutral fitness standard was established and validated. However, because the standard was quite high, most females were not able to pass the test. This resulted in a court challenge. At first glance, it would appear that SEPTA would lose the case (Lanning, et al. and United States of America v Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority), as the standard SEPTA imposed disqualified an extraordinary portion of the female population. Surely, as such, if the SEPTA test is biased in favor of males, it unfairly discriminates against females and must be struck down. On the contrary, the high SEPTA standard was upheld by the court as reflecting bona fide occupational qualifications. This was based on a JTA which revealed the above response requirements for all officers, male and female. Sophisticated laboratory testing was then imposed which established the underlying constructs (specific physical abilities) required for successful performance. All applicants must possess at minimum a maximal aerobic capacity of 42.5 ml/kg/min, which represents a very high percentile for females when compared with males. In summary, why wasn't the SEPTA test struck down as discriminatory against females, a protected class? It was upheld, because it followed EEOC guidelines. 1. Disparate impact: For a test to be valid and effective, it must have the power of discrimination. If not, the test is invalid (useless). 7 2. Federal employment law states that the test must: a) Reflect the essential job functions (determined from a job task analysis) b) Be related to business necessity 3. Hiring practices with disparate impact are legal, provided the hiring process conforms to employment law requirements. In general, a high proportion of females failed to meet the SEPTA standard, but this was not found to be in violation of federal hiring policies. Orientation meeting. We prefer to meet in advance of beginning this project to review the contract step by step and provide an overview of our approach as we endeavor to satisfy all requirements of the statement of work. At that meeting we will discuss administrative matters, scheduling, arrange to obtain the necessary documents for review, set timelines, and discuss mutual and individual obligations. We will also establish a clear project schedule and identify our data needs (e.g. list of eligible personnel and locations, contact persons, access to facilities, demographic data, previous work analysis, etc.). We request that the WCSO provide a point of contact for each job category in order that a continuous source of communication regarding the project exist. We routinely have provided a written report of activity and progress at the request of the agency. In addition, we ask that WCSO select personnel to serve as a project technical panel (PTP) consisting of subject matter experts. The purpose of this panel is to review our work at critical stages and assist in development of questionnaires, provide practical insights as we interpret task data, etc., throughout the project. Representatives should include supervisors and managers, as well as personnel who should represent a cross-section of WCSO sworn officers. JOB TASK ANALYSIS The JTA is the basic analytical process that underlies most elements of personnel management, including testing, selection, training, compensation, performance evaluation and assignment. Without complete JTA information, it is difficult to determine accurately (or even defend) what kind of training is needed, what kind of employee should be hired, and what might constitute acceptable performance. Daily routine job functions along with "extreme functions" (rare and/or maximum physical demands) will be analyzed, measured and quantified as the basis for documenting job -related physical demands. This will entail detailed analysis of the specific areas of expertise required of WCSO sworn officers. The first step in developing a valid and defensible PAT is the preparation of accurate and comprehensive job descriptions that include the essential physical tasks of the job identified through a structured work analysis methodology. Because validity of the PAT depends on the relationship between the essential tasks of the job and the work simulations that make up the PAT, 8 it is vital to have clear documentation of the range of physical efforts in the performance of those specific essential tasks. Therefore, it is necessary that the physical nature of these critical work tasks be identified. Logically, if the most demanding tasks are identified and form the basis for the validation process, it follows that if you can perform the most demanding work tasks (or predictive simulations that require similar physical effort), you can perform all tasks that are less physically demanding. In other words, you can satisfy the EEOC standard that mandates that tests reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications. Next, using the JTA as the primary basis for validation, a legally defensible PAT can be created and implemented. Plan to conduct an in-depth JTA. Each of the completed projects listed above have employed job analysis research and survey methods. Each job task analysis was conducted for a public safety agency with more than 100 employees using the following general formula: 1) Observations of work performance. This process involves observing incumbents as they perform their jobs and taking notes and asking questions relevant to their work when appropriate. During this phase of the process we determine equipment weights, forces generated when they are used, body positions when performing tasks, distances covered while moving to conduct a task or carrying equipment to the task site, etc. 2) Interviews with incumbents. Interviews are conducted independent of the observation phase and commonly include supervisors in addition to incumbent employees. These sessions are conducted with small groups as well as individual interviews and employ a pre- determined set of questions and/or open-ended discussions regarding work tasks. 3) Critical incident interviews. Interviews with subject matter experts to identify critical aspects of behavior or performance of a particular work task. 4) Questionnaire/surveys. We work with the subject matter expert panel to determine specific and relevant questions for the work survey which may either be conducted using a paper and pencil or electronic response. Questionnaires endeavor to examine equipment use (frequency and criticality), actual tasks performed as a requirement of the job and physical efforts of specific, frequent and critical work tasks. Statistical analysis of questionnaire results to determine the critical nature of tasks will be employed. Completing the JTA requires multiple steps. In order to conduct the JTA, we first will meet with the WCSO project "point of contact" to review our methodology, set timelines, and discuss mutual and individual obligations. We will also identify our data needs (e.g. related documents, list of eligible personnel and locations, contact persons, access to facilities, etc.). As part of the process, we will review current position descriptive documents, various agency job related reviews, including work tasks and policies that impact employment performance and training with regard to the areas of concern emphasized in the RFP. 9 1. Interviews and observations are an integral component when preparing the JTA. This requires coordinated efforts as we conduct interviews with WCSO sworn officers concerning tasks performed, materials read, equipment used, working conditions, knowledge, skills, abilities and other (KSAO) reporting responsibilities, etc. Because physical tasks tend to be performed in specific spaces, we will also collect measurements concerning distances to be covered, stairs climbed, weights of tools and objects to be lifted and carried, push and pull forces required applied to various performance applications, reach distances and body postures required to maintain sole control, etc. We will request to conduct onsite observations at recommended regions to secure a full understanding of actual work conditions where permissible. Performance of existing duty injury data will be examined. 2. We will develop a comprehensive job analysis questionnaire. The questionnaire will include equipment lists, specific degrees of physical exertion in performing certain physical tasks, general physical tasks and other work -related tasks. A key aspect of the questionnaire is asking which tasks they have personally performed, observed, or are aware of, with what frequency, and the importance of proper performance. We have employed a variety of approaches when using questionnaires, including: 1. Traditional paper and pencil questionnaires, 2. Internet based distribution to all incumbents, and 3. A combination of both methods. JTA report. Once questionnaires are completed, we will conduct the appropriate statistical analyses to examine relationships specific to the frequency and criticality of each task performed. We also will go through a process with the SMEs (PTP panel) to identify essential tasks that are the most physically demanding. Using rules that are consistent with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) signed into law in 1990 and amended in 2008, we will prepare a comprehensive job description that includes: All essential tasks will be categorized by major functions (e.g. emergency response, facility, procedures, suspect control, etc.), physical tasks, degrees of physical exertion, equipment used, and knowledge, skills, abilities and other characteristics. The JTA report will be critically reviewed and sanctioned by the PTP panel. PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST Validation: Determination of minimum fit for duty standards. The second step in the validation of the PAT will be determination of minimum fit for duty requirements based upon essential job functions. Our approach will ensure that legal and legislative requirements are fulfilled according to the ADA and the Federal EEOC Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection 10 Procedures. EEOC guidelines stipulate that the process utilized must be validated in accordance with at least one of the three acceptable methods of validation (Construct, Content, or Criterion validity), and selection of the validation model is a critical concern. We will employ a content validation model (must present data showing that the content of the selection test represents important aspects of performance on the job for which the test is being used). Regardless of the validation model imposed, EEOC guidelines stipulate that a valid and defensible PAT cannot exceed minimum bona fide occupational qualifications based upon essential job functions. This will serve as the primary basis for validation. Validating job -relatedness. The most physically demanding job tasks will be identified, and the assumption applied that if one can successfully perform the most physically demanding tasks, they also can perform tasks that are less demanding. Appropriate tasks are identified and agreed upon by the SME panel. Because such tasks are not likely to be performed in isolation (e.g. pursuing a perpetrator some distance while overcoming various challenges and obstacles, then catching and subduing the perpetrator, etc.) each component will become part of a larger scenario that is constructed and organized in a logical fashion to simulate the essential functions of the job. Again, and it is important to re-emphasize, the formulation of the PAT will be done in conjunction with SME panels who will determine criteria acceptable for adequate performance. Feedback will be solicited from the SME panel regarding: 1) job -relatedness of each test item and 2) the job - relatedness and logic of the sequencing (flow) of test items. Validating cut-off standards. When a job -related PAT has been created and validated, the next step is determining what constitutes an acceptable performance. This requires validation of the cut-off standard. A second additional group of WCSO sworn officers will be asked to complete (run) the PAT. All will be randomly selected incumbents who have a history of successful job performance. Job success will be rated using standard scales designed for this purpose. Selection of this group of participants will be stratified and weighted to represent the full spectrum of the WCSO sworn officers with respect to age, gender, race and rank. A power calculation will be employed to statistically determine the number of personnel necessary for representation. Participants will be informed that SMEs will observe and judge their performance as acceptable or unacceptable. Time to completion will be recorded. After completing the PAT, all participants will complete a survey regarding their perception of their own personal performance, their expert evaluation of the task simulated components that make up the PAT as they relate to actual work experiences, and to make recommendations of an acceptable passing score for testing. All available sources of information will be employed to determine a cut-off standard that reflects minimal bona fide occupational qualifications in accordance with the EEOC. In order to determine test -retest reliability it will be necessary to have a subset from the above group retake the test after a sufficient rest (days) and under identical circumstances. Re -testing allows for assessment of reliability, reproducibility, and consistency. In effect, when the test is repeated the same results are expected. These procedures will be applied to determine inter -rater 11 reliability (agreement among SME observers), and test -retest reliability (are test scores consistent from one occasion to the next) and allow a measure of predictability of success. Standards imposed (a cut-off/ passing score) will ensure that applicants are fit for duty and capable of performing all essential functions of the job. The standards will also be fair, reasonable and not unduly exclusive and not in any way discriminate on the basis of age, gender or race. Affirmative steps to assure that testing does not discriminate. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that prohibits employers from discriminating against employees on the basis of sex, race, color, national origin, and religion. It generally applies to employers with 15 or more employees, including federal, state, and local governments. The 1991 amendments served to strengthen Title VII with regard to compensation if discrimination has occurred, and the issue of disparate impact was addressed. The EEOC is charged with overseeing compliance with these laws. We always follow EEOC guidelines closely when creating either a pre -employment test or a test for incumbents, and we are especially careful to make certain our test is validated as job - related, and that the standards we employ comply with the EEOC mandate that standards cannot exceed minimal bona fide occupational qualifications thus ensuring that all applicants regardless of sex, race, color, national origin or religion have an equal opportunity to pass the test and qualify. COMPREHENSIVE VALIDITY REPORT We will produce a comprehensive report for each category as indicated previously that clearly explains all aspects of the project, the initial draft of which will be submitted to WCSO for critique. Considering constructive feedback, ultimately a final comprehensive written report will be submitted that successfully defends all elements and issues associated with review of the JTA and subsequent actions and approaches. The "standard" will be in compliance with all necessary guidelines. The final report will include the following: • JTA specifics (work characteristics, relevant job tasks, KSA's applicable for each job task, apportionment of on the job time, issues of criticality/importance of tasks, physical demands associated with tasks, consequences of failure to perform), including written descriptions of job -related physical ability requirements. • Validation procedures employed; • Scientific interpretative methods employed; • Recommended physical performance tests, standards and cutoff scores which reflect minimal bona fide occupational qualifications . • Test based on job -task simulations. • Recommendations for administering the physical abilities test 12 INSTRUCTION MANUALS Plans for administration of and preparation for the PAT. Our work will culminate with the development of two instructional manuals, one for test administrators and the other for those who will take the test. The first manual will describe minimum physical abilities requirements necessary to perform essential job tasks. We will construct forms which will guide test administrators in an easy step-by-step fashion through the test procedure from beginning to end, leaving nothing to question. In addition, the manual will contain information regarding safety issues related to environmental conditions, health concerns, etc. as well as the timing and organization of testing. There also will be an explanation of why each element is as it is and its relevance to the work. This will provide background to help administrators answer questions directed at them. The second manual will be designed for those taking the test. Some components of the manual described above will be included as background. A detailed description of the test will be provided explaining each component and how to approach it. Next, a week -by -week task specific training program will be created to help each incumbent officer prepare physically for the test. This manual will provide guidelines demonstrating methods not only for the preparation for the PAT but also for the maintenance of physical fitness throughout the year, as well as a program for rehabilitation for those who may not pass the PAT. EDUCATION AND TRAINING OF TEST ADMINISTRATION PERSONNEL A six hour train -the -trainer program will be offered by the contractor to select WCSO personnel at a location determined by WCSO. The program will include tried and proven strategies which will help "sell" the program to participants. Considerable detailed background information on the "who, what, when, where and why" as related to general fitness and health issues, testing procedures, injury prevention, safety procedures, test administration and interpretation will be provided to ensure that trainers convey not only appropriate information, but that they do so in an effective manner. Detailed handouts and booklets will be an integral part of the workshop training and educational process. Special attention will be applied to issues pertinent to incumbents who fail the PAT and who require remedial efforts. All incumbents will be treated as individuals and programs will be crafted accordingly. A fitness program training manual will be developed for this specific purpose and be available to provide necessary basic information. WCSO training specialists will be provided the proper background on safety issues and how to develop exercise prescriptions for the improvement of those individuals who need to be physically rehabilitated in order to successfully pass the PAT. 13 In addition, there will be immediate access to appropriate expertise to discuss personal issues as they arise. PROJECT DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE Listed below are project deliverables and proposed completion time for each deliverable. Deliverable 1: Job Task Analysis and Report On or before 90 days after commencement of project • Establish an advisory/consultation group of incumbent WCSO sworn officers. • Conduct job task analysis; identify key components of the job. • Submit JTA report • Prepare and submit the JTA report which will highlight the physical demands of the work. The contents of this report will document procedures employed and be in a form that can be used to serve as the basis for the functional job task ability assessment. Deliverable 2: Develop and Provide a Validated Physical Abilities Test On or before 240 days after commencement of project • Develop a battery of simulated field tests based on essential functions of the job in conjunction with the WCSO advisory group. • Identify the physical attributes required to conduct both representative and physically - demanding daily assignments (based on essential job functions) and some of the most - demanding components (as a proxy for rare -but -demanding situations such as a shots -fired scenario or subduing a non -compliant suspect). • Establish a valid PAT and develop a cut -score using randomly selected WCSO sworn officers. . • Complete and submit a validation report documenting methodology and statistical interpretations. • Lay groundwork for implementation of programs. Deliverable 3: Standardized Testing Protocol and Conditioning Program Manuals On or before 240 days after commencement of project • Develop training manuals for test administrators to support consistency in testing. • Develop forms to be used with testing. • Develop conditioning programs for applicant test preparation. • Physical conditioning programs will provide a supportive approach as to how to successfully pass the PAT. 14 Deliverable 4: Train testing personnel in standardized test administration of the PAT and in coaching officers/applicants on the conditioning programs. On or before 240 days after commencement of project • Live training (six hours) will be delivered directly to selected personnel in a train -the - trainer format. • Training location to be determined by WCSO 15 PRICE AREA: PROPOSED COST SCHEDULE Schedule of Services and Expenses 1. Provide detailed work validation study for each WCSO command (patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT) Includes essential physical job task requirements needed to perform the duties of a WCSO deputy. A total of four distinct JTAs. 2. Create and provide a valid, legally defensible, physical abilities test to determine whether an applicant or incumbent can/cannot perform physical demands/duties of a WCSO deputy (patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT) 3. Provide a final comprehensive reports that fully documents the entire validation process, to include a test course, all results, recommendations and implementation plans (one each for patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT). 4. Provide Standardized Testing Protocol Manuals for Testing Personnel on the PAT to include the duties of the test administration, information on course set-up, proctoring and timing, rules, safety procedures (one each for patrol, detention, K-9 and SWAT). 5. Conduct six hour trainer (test administrators) workshop on site at Weld County 6. Travel Expenses: On site visits for orientation meeting, JTA assessment, data acquisition, meetings with expert panel, validation process onsite testing and to conduct training workshop. Air travel: Anticipate three trips to Weld County for two individuals Hotel/meals @ Per Diem of $200/day (10 hotel nights ) Miscellaneous: Mileage, tolls, fuel, auto rental (12 days). $60,000 $35,000 $ 6,000 $ 2,400 $ 2,000 $ 3,600 $ 2,000 $ 600 TOTAL $111,600 16 ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW Historical overview. The Human Performance Development Group was incorporated in 2014. However, members have worked collaboratively for more than 40 years. This work began initially in 1975 with the City of Louisville Police Department (LPD) when we were asked to create a fair and equitable pre -employment physical abilities test for the LPD. At issue was the deplorably low number of minorities on the police force and evidence that the pre -employment screening employed was biased. In particular, the PAT in use at the time was not standardized, essentially leaving it up to whomever administered the test at the time to decide whether the applicant passed or failed. This ultimately led to what was called the Black Police Officers Case in Federal Court (Black Police Officers v. City of Louisville). After close scrutiny of all aspects of the LPD screening process, the Federal Judge ruled that there was indeed bias applied to the screening process and that the entire process had to be completely overhauled, with one exception. He praised our physical abilities test and approved it for use by the LPD. The test was later challenged in court by an applicant who complained that he failed because the test was too difficult. Once it was determined by the court that we imposed minimal bona fide occupational qualifications as the basis for our test, the court dismissed the complaint. Our team has experience on previous similar projects both in scope and size. We have developed job related PATs for large State law enforcement or detention agencies such as Kentucky State Police, Florida Department of Law Enforcement, State of Maine Department of Corrections, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Special Agents), Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (Law enforcement), Miami -Dade Police Department and Orange County Sheriffs Office (Florida). Likewise, we have experience with a number of smaller in size law enforcement agencies, such and Citrus County and Lake County (Florida) and the City of Mesquite Police Department (Texas). We also have experience with private (business) in the conduct of work assessment and fit for duty testing (e.g. CSX Transportation anti -Terrorist unit, General Motors Corporation, Boeing, etc.) We offer the requisite expertise and considerable successful work experience in the exact areas of concern for the Weld County Sheriffs Office. This is well documented in the credentials section of the proposal. For example, our group is comprised of a team of professionals who have expertise and considerable experience in job task analysis and development and validation of and physical abilities test standards. Team members include doctoral level occupational physiologists, exercise physiologists, fitness technologists, and certified job analysts. We have worked closely with the EEOC and have served in the role of expert witness in more than thirty court cases. We also have served in the role of 17 expert witness in several other court cases relevant to this proposal. In addition, our work product has been challenged in court and defended successfully each time. This underscores the care we take in our work and the quality of our validation process and procedures. Most recently a case against the Citrus County Sheriff's Office (CCSO). CCSO has utilized our PAT successfully for the past 12 years. Four female plaintiffs claimed the test was unfair, biased and imposed a disparate impact on females. We served as expert witnesses in the case, and in March 2020, the judge awarded CCSO a summary judgment dismissing the case. Philosophical overview. Our team is dedicated to the development of valid, legally defensible, physical abilities test. We offer the requisite expertise and considerable successful work experience in the exact areas of concern for the WCSO. This is well documented in the credentials section of this proposal. For example, our group is comprised of a team of professionals who have expertise and considerable experience in conducting job task analyses and developing and validating physical abilities tests. Team members include doctoral level work physiologists, exercise physiologists, fitness technologists, and certified job analysts who share the goal to provide a superior work product that serves the needs of the agency now and into the future, particularly with regard to making certain that law enforcement officers, corrections officers, etc. are capable of adequately performing all physical aspects required of them on the job. Our work product must stand up to strong scrutiny and be defensible, if necessary, in court. Thus, we will employ the highest quality scientific approach to validating our work as job related and in compliance with all EEOC requirements. We are meticulous in our approach, attending to every pertinent detail associated with research and problem solving, and we adhere to the highest professional standards, taking pride in accomplishment. We are goal oriented and we always see a task through to its successful completion, on time and to the client's satisfaction. Below is a brief documentation of our expertise, personnel qualifications and organization structure for this proposal. 18 EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATIONS. This section contains a summary of key personnel of the project team members and operations information. Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH Dr. Moffatt is currently a retired professor of work physiology in the Department of Nutrition and Exercise Science at the Florida State University. He has more than 40 years of experience in the area of human physical performance and in particular the development and validation of physical abilities standards for law enforcement, corrections and fire fighters. Dr. Moffatt will work closely with all members of the team, performing many duties, including coordinating efforts of a series of subject matter expert panels to provide feedback on findings. This includes degree of job - relatedness of each component of the PAT, and very importantly, expert opinions regarding what is an acceptable performance on the PAT, necessary for determination of a valid cut-off standard. He will also serve as overall project director. Lynn B Panton, PhD Dr. Panton is currently professor of work physiology and functional fitness in the Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences at the Florida State University. She has more than 20 years of experience in the assessment of functional fitness emphasizing the relationship between functionality and performance outcomes. In addition, she has significant expertise in aspects of data management and statistical application. Dr. Panton will work closely with the project coordinator and assist in establishing a valid relationship between functionality and performance outcomes (test results) for selected test components. In addition, she will oversee all aspects of data management and statistical application. Bryant A Stamford, PhD Dr. Stamford is currently professor and chair of the Department of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology at Hanover College, Hanover, IN. He has more than 40 years of experience in the development and implementation of pre-employment/fitness for duty. He has served as an expert witness for the EEOC on more than thirty court cases dealing with pre -employment testing and issues related to discrimination based on gender and age. Dr. Stamford will work closely with the project coordinator and all team members using his expertise in validation and EEOC guidelines to make certain every aspect of the project is in compliance. He will assume major responsibility for validation and cross -validation of the PAT. He will prepare and coordinate all educational programs and all instructional materials and conduct the training program for PAT administration personnel. He also will be responsible for preparing the final written report to be submitted at the completion of the project. 19 Michael Leep, MA, MBA Michael Leep has more than 30 years of experience conducting work analysis. He is a certified ergonomic assessment specialist and has a comprehensive understanding of the relationship between a job's required skills, training and knowledge and the job's specific tasks and associated physical demands. Michael possesses skill at interviewing and competency in multiple job task analysis techniques and is well versed in the intricacies of performing a JTA to ensure objective information is collected. He will perform "hands on" duties which include interviews, many different types of physical measurements, surveys, etc. He will guide the SME panel and coordinate their efforts to verify the accuracy of the JTA and the selection of critical tasks Below is our organization structure for this proposal. Organization Chart. R. J. Moffatt (Work physiologist and project leader) i B.A. Stamford (Work physiologist) L.B. Panton (Functional abilities assessment and statistical applications) M. Leep (Work analyst) EXPERIENCE AS AN EXPERT WITNESS IN STATE AND/OR FEDERAL COURTS ON TEST VALIDATION AND RELATED ISSUES. We (Dr. Moffatt and Dr. Stamford) have worked closely with the EEOC and have served in the role of expert witness for the EEOC in more than thirty court cases. We also have served in the role of expert witness in several other court cases relevant to this proposal. The organization design or validation of a physical abilities testing process has been challenged legally, and we have in each case been successful in defending the challenge. We also have provided definitive support to others experiencing similar challenges. Below are several examples. 20 MOST RECENTLY: U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, 2020. Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. Citrus County Sheriff's Office has utilized our PAT successfully for the past 12 years. Four female plaintiffs claimed the test was unfair, biased and imposed a disparate impact on females. We served as expert witnesses in the case, and in March 2020, the judge awarded Citrus County a summary judgment dismissing the case. Federal Court 1976. Black Police Officers v City of Louisville. Our work in the area of crafting and validation physical abilities tests began initially in 1975 with the City of Louisville Police Department (LPD) when we were asked to create a fair and equitable pre -employment physical abilities test for the LPD. At issue was the deplorably low number of minorities on the police force and evidence that the pre -employment screening methods employed were biased. In particular, the PAT in use at the time was not standardized, essentially leaving it up to whomever administered the test at the time to decide whether the applicant passed or failed. This ultimately led to what was called the Black Police Officers Case in Federal Court (Black Police Officers v. City of Louisville). After close scrutiny of all aspects of the LPD screening process, the Federal Judge ruled that there was indeed bias applied to the screening process and that the entire process had to be completely overhauled and replaced, with one exception. He praised our physical abilities test as valid and acceptable and approved it for continued use by the LPD. State District Court. 1978. Heck v City of Louisville. An applicant who failed the entry level physical abilities test for police officers created by Dr. Stamford, challenged the test. The claim was the test was unfair, required much more "fitness" than necessary, and therefore discriminated against this individual. The judge ruled in favor of the test, ruling that it was a valid instrument and the claims against it were unfounded. U.S. District Court. Southern District of Florida. 1992. Stapleton, et al. v Harry K Singleton, Department of Corrections, State of Florida. Inmates who were voluntarily remanded to protective management maintained that said confinement resulted in muscle deterioration because they were only permitted two hours of outside cell activity each week. The court ruled that in addition to the two hours per week of out of cell activity time and daily work tasks around the cell block was sufficient to maintain muscle fitness. The work and testimony of Dr. Moffatt provided evidence to support the sufficiency to the State's defense. U.S. District Court. Southern District of Florida. 1995. Alvarez, et al. v Metropolitan Dade County. The plaintiff, a Special Response Team (SRT), Dade County Sheriff's deputy maintained that while SRT deputies were expected to maintain a high fitness level, they must be compensated for physical conditioning when off duty. The judge ruled in favor of Dade County in that they were not required to compensate SRT members whose physical conditioning was performed off duty. Dr. Moffatt served as Dade County's expert in this case. U.S. District Court. Eastern District of Pennsylvania. 1998. Lanning, et al. and United States of America v Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority (SEPTA). Plaintiffs alleged that SEPTA discriminated against female transit police officer candidates by using a test that disproportionately excluded women and was neither predictive of successful job performance nor consistent with SEPTA's legitimate business necessity. Drs. Moffatt and Stamford were the 21 scientists on the South East Pennsylvania Transit Authority case. Our role in this litigation was to validate the fit for duty standards employed by SEPTA and to provide testimony in support of that research. Our work and testimony demonstrated the job -relatedness and business necessity of SEPTA's standard. The courts ruled in favor of SEPTA in this case and in the later appeal. RELATED PROJECT, SUMMARIES OF STATEMENT OF WORK AND CONTACT INFORMATION FOR REFERENCES. Below is a summary of selected recent projects (2012 to present) where we have provided similar services as requested by this RFP. All projects include both a JTA and the development and validation of the PAT. For a more complete information on past projects please see the credentials section in Appendix A. May 2019 to September 2019 Organization: Florida Fish and Wildlife conservation Commission. State of Florida. Scope: Re -validation of the previous PAT developed in 2016. FWC wanted to make modifications in the current test and conduct the PAT in an indoor setting. Outcome: Contact: Completed with satisfaction. Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Training, Havana Florida 32333 Cpt Patrick Walsh 850.558.4083 August 2018 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: to May 2019 Mesquite Police Department. City of Mesquite, TX. Develop a job related, pre -employment physical abilities test. Completed with satisfaction. Mesquite Police Department Mesquite, Texas 75149 Sgt. James Ferguson (972) 216-6656 October 2018 to September 2019 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: Walton County Sheriff's Office. Walton County, FL Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention deputies of Walton County. Completed with satisfaction. Walton County Sheriff's Office DeFuniak Springs, Florida 32433 Maj. Tom Ring (850) 892.8186 22 February 2018 to current Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: Miami -Dade Police Department. Miami, FL. Develop job related and valid physical abilities test for use in screening applicant admission to their training academy, as well as develop work related standards as fit -for -duty physical abilities tests for SRT and K-9 units. Applicant and K-9 tests have been completed, while modifications to the SRT test are being implemented and await test revalidation which is scheduled to be completed mid -April of 2020. Miami -Dade Police Department Dr. Kelly Kennedy Training Institute, Doral, Florida, 33178 305.389.5399 July 2018 to current Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: Orange County Sheriff's Office. Orange County, FL. Development of work -related physical abilities requirements for Orange County Sheriff's Office deputies. The JTA and PAT have been established, but the cross -validation phase of the PAT is on hold while Orange County locates and constructs a test course on recently secured location in an adjoining County. Orange County Sheriff's Office Cpt Chris Barrett Orlando, Florida 407.717.8101 January 2015 Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: to December 2017 Broward Sheriff's Office. Broward County, Florida. Development of a valid physical work capacity test for incumbent deputies and detention officers. Project completed with satisfaction. Broward Sheriffs Office Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33312 Lt Chris Mulligan 954.321.4716 April 2015 to Organization: Scope: Outcome: Contact: June 2016 Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. State of Florida. Develop a valid, job related physical abilities assessment for FWC law enforcement applicants. Project completed with satisfaction. Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission Major Dennis Post Training Center, Havana Florida 32333 850.558.4080 23 January 2014 to December 2014 Organization: Lake County Sheriff's Office. Lake county, FL. Scope: Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent Law enforcement and corrections deputies. Outcome: Completed with satisfaction. Contact: Lake County Sheriff's Office Sgt Russell Edwards Tavares, Florida 32778 352.343.3791 July 2012 to July 2013 Organization: U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. U.S.A. Scope: Conduct a nationwide physical demands job analysis (JTA) for the development of standardized physical abilities testing to establish fit -for -duty with EPA GS -1811 criminal investigators. Provide training for test administrators. Outcome: Completed with satisfaction. Contact: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Dr. Deborah Nelson Denver Office, Denver, Colorado 303.462.9037 24 APPENDIX A: VITAE AND CREDENTIALS ROBERT J. MOFFATT, PHD. MPH. Work physiologist EDUCATIONAL HISTORY Doctor of Philosophy; Exercise Physiology. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1985. Master of Public Health; Nutrition. The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1980. Master of Science; Exercise Physiology. University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1977. Bachelor of Science; Education. California State University, California, Pennsylvania, 1971. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Georgia A. Stamford Professor of Exercise Physiology, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, 2001-2018. Professor and Chair, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, 1996-2003 and 2015-2017. Associate Professor, Department of nutrition, Food and Movement Sciences, Florida State University, 1989-1996. Research Fellow, Naval Health Research Center, United States Navy, San Diego, California, Summer, 1990 and 1992. Assistant Professor, Department of Movement Science and Physical Education, Florida State University, 1985-1989. Assistant Professor, Department of Physical Education, Western Washington University, Bellingham, Washington, 1981-1985. Lecturer, Department of Foods and Nutrition, Eastern Michigan University, Ypsilanti, Michigan, 1980-1981. Research Assistant, Department of Human Nutrition, School of Public Health, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1979-1980. Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of Kinesiology, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 1978-1981. Instructor, Department of Health, Physical Education and Recreation, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1976-1977. 25 Graduate Research Assistant, Institutes for Advanced Studies: Exercise physiology, University of Louisville, Louisville, Kentucky, 1974-1977. Clinical Hospital Laboratory Director, State Correctional Institution at Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1971-1974. Medical Technologist, Allegheny General Hospital, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 1969-1971. Medical Technologist, U.S. ARMY, 1965-1968. PUBLICATIONS (Selected publications from a list of more than 80) Moffatt, R.J., A. Stamford, A. Weltman, & R. Cuddihee. 1977. Effects if high intensity aerobic training on maximal oxygen uptake capacity and field test performance. Journal of Sports Medicine, 17:351-359. Moffatt, R.J., & B.A. Stamford. 1978. Effects of pedaling rate changes on maximal oxygen uptake and perceived effort during bicycle ergometer work. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 10: 27-31. Stamford, B.A., A. Weltman, R.J. Moffatt, & C. Fulco. 1978. Status of police officers with regard to selected cardio respiratory and body compositional fitness variables. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 10: 294-297. Owens, S., A. Al -Ahmed, & R.J. Moffatt. 1989. Physiological effects of walking and running with hand held weights. Journal of Sports Medicine, 29: 384-387. Wallace, M.B., & R. J. Moffatt. 1990. The delayed effects of high and low volume resistance exercise on plasma volume. Journal of Applied Sport Science Research, 4: 154-159. Wilber, R. L., & R. J. Moffatt. 1994. Physiological and biochemical consequences of detraining in aerobically -trained individuals. Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research, 8:110-124. McDonough, P.D., & R.J. Moffatt. 1999. Smoking induced elevations in blood carboxyhemoglogin: The effect upon maximal oxygen uptake. Sports Medicine, 27: 275-283. Bearden, S. E. & R. J. Moffatt. 2000. VO, kinetics and the O, deficit in heavy exercise. Journal of Applied Physiology. 88: 1407-1412. Bearden, S.E. & R. J. Moffatt. 2001. VO, and heart rate kinetics in cycling. Journal of Applied Physiology. 90: 2001. Bearden, S. E. & R. J. Moffatt. 2001. Leg electromyography and the VO, - power relationship during bicycle ergometry. Medicine and Science in Sports Exercise. 33: 1241-1243. 26 Moffatt, R. J. & S. Chelland. Fitness. 2002. In: Guide to World Nutrition and Health. MacMillan Reference USA, New York. Cheuvront, S. N., R. Carger, K. C. DeRuisseau and R. J. Moffatt. 2005. Running performance differences between men and women. Sports Medicine. 35: 1-8. McDonough, P. D., K. D. Biggerstaff, B. A. Stamford, & R. J. Moffatt. 2008. Maximal work following a submaximal work task: The effect of fitness level. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (abstr). Moffatt, R.J. & M. Umden. 2009. Age -related decline in physical performance capacity is offset by aerobic fitness. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise. (abstr) CONSULTANT AND EXPERT WITNESS ACTIVITY Project Director. Contract to develop physical fitness for the youthful offender. Department of Corrections, State of Florida. 1987. Project Director. Contract to develop programs of physical fitness to assess job performance. Health and Rehabilitative Services, State of Florida. 1989. Project Director. Development of fitness assessment techniques. Tallahassee Community Hospital. This award supports a graduate student assigned to the project. 1989-2001. Consultant: Department of Corrections, State of Florida. Effect of protective management on muscle atrophy. 1991-92. (includes court testimony as Defendant's expert). Project director: Tallahassee Fire Department. Development and evaluation of physical fitness training programs. 1992 Project director. The effect of physical fitness training program on physiological and health attributes critical to fire fighter performance. City of Tallahassee. 1992. Project director. Physical abilities and medical requirements for entry level law enforcement officers. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 1993. Presentation to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, Criminal Justice, Standards and Training Commission. Topic: Physical Abilities Testing for entry level employment in light of the Americans with Disabilities Act. June, 1993. Project director: Florida Department of Law Enforcement, State of Florida. Physical Abilities Testing and the Americans with Disabilities Act. 1993-1996. Project director. Development of the physical abilities test administrators training program. Florida Department of Law Enforcement. 1994. Consultant: Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Evaluation of law enforcement employee fitness standards. February, 1994. 27 Presentation to the State of Florida Criminal Justice Training commission. Topic: Advocacy for a pre -employment physical abilities test standard. February, 1994 Expert witness: Fraternal Order of Police and Ohio Labor Council. Law enforcement physical fitness assessment. 1994. Expert witness: F. Consolo, Attorney for the Plaintiff. Evaluation of job -relatedness of law enforcement physical fitness tests. September, 1994 to July, 1995. Expert witness: Metropolitan Dade County. Law enforcement physical fitness testing. 1994- 1997. (includes court testimony as Defendant's expert) State Congressional witness for House Bill on smoking in the workplace. Rep. Lois Frankel. 1995. Expert witness: Greene, Donnelly, Schermier, Tipton and Moseley. Defendant's expert. Determination of physical fitness status for police work. February — July, 1995. Project director and expert witness: Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. Validation of the energy cost of police work task simulations. 1996-1998. (includes court testimony as Defendant's expert) Consultant: The effect of prior work on the energy cost and performance during work task simulations. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority. January, 2000. Workshop: Physical abilities test development. Seminole County Sheriff's Office. June, 2000. Project director: CSX Transportation. Development of physical capacity standards for the CSX Special Response Team (anti -Terrorist Unit). 2006-2007. Consultant: Citrus County Sheriffs Office. Re-evaluation of physical abilities test course administration. 2008. Consultant: District of Columbia Department of Human Resources: Department of Corrections and Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services. Deterioration of functionality with aging as it relates to the performance of physical tasks in corrections work. 2008. Consultant: State of Maine, Workman's Compensation Board. Physical task analysis and the validation of a physical abilities test for the State Department of Transportation. 2008 - 2009. Consultant: Kentucky Law Enforcement Council and Department of Criminal Justice. Development of pre -employment physical agility standards. 2009 Project director: Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office. Development of physical standards for law enforcement officers. 2009 - 2010. Project director: Maine Workman's Compensation Board. Maine Lifestyle Inventory for Employees (Maine -LIFE). Develop statewide employee health/fitness assessment program. 2009 - 2010. 28 Project director: Maine Department of Corrections. Development of Standards for the implementation of physical abilities testing. 2010-2011. Project director: Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. Verification of physical abilities requirements for Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. 2011-2012. Project director: Citrus County Fire and Rescue. Job task analysis and development of physical abilities (fitness) standards for incumbent firefighters of Citrus County. Florida. 2012. Project director: Environmental Protection Agency. Physical demands job analysis for the development of standardized physical abilities testing. United States of America. 2012-2013. Project director: Lake County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers. Florida. 2014. Project director: Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission. Law enforcement physical abilities assessment. State of Florida, 2015-16 Project director: Broward Sheriff's Office. Development of a valid physical work capacity test for incumbent deputies and detention officers. Florida. 2016-2017 Project director: Miami -Dade County Police Department. Physical abilities test validation study. Florida. 2018-2019. Project director: Orange County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities requirements for Orange County Sheriff's Office deputies. Florida. 2018-2019. Project director: Walton County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention officers of Walton County. Florida, 2018- 2019. Project director: Mesquite Police Department pre -employment physical abilities test study and validation. Texas. 2018-2019. Expert witness: Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Defendants experts. . Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, March 20, 2020. Project director: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Physical abilities test for prescribed burners, Florida. 2019-2020. Project director: Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers and pre -employment hiring for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, Florida. 2020 29 LEEP, M.B.A. Certified Ergonomics Assessment Specialist III Education Master of Business Administration Marshall University, Huntington, WV Bachelor of Arts, Counseling and Rehabilitation Marshall University, Huntington, WV Certified Ergonomics Assessment Specialist III Highlights Extensive knowledge of counseling and vocational rehabilitation as a vocational case manager and vocational expert. Developed RTW and risk management programs Comprehensive background in conduct of JTA's and and health and safety assessments. More than 30 years of management experience in human services, ergonomics, safety and managed care operations Relevant Consultant Summary (selected) Current Professional Experience State of Maine Department of Corrections United Airlines CSX Transportation Railroad Police CSX anti -Terrorist Unit Boeing STERIS Nestle USA First Energy Corporation Penske Logistics General Motors Corporation McLane Corporation Newport News Shipyard Anacostia Rail Holdings U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Broward County Sheriff's Office Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Provides job task analysis, validation assessments, risk hazard assessments and job safety analysis. Consults with employers on ergonomic issues pertaining to overexertion, cumulative trauma and repetitive use related injuries. 30 LYNN B PANTON, Ph.D. Work and Functional Physiology Statistical Analysis EDUCATION Ph.D. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. August 1993. M.S. University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. August 1988. B.S. Emory University, Atlanta, GA. May 1986. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2007 to present. Associate Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2012 to 2015. Assistant Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Nutrition, Food and Exercise Sciences, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL. 2001 to 2007. Assistant Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Physical Education, Exercise and Sport Sciences, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN. 1997 to 2001. Assistant Professor in Exercise Science, Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 1994 to 1997. Instructor in Exercise Science, Department of Health and Human Performance, Iowa State University, Ames, IA. 1993 to 1994. PUBLICATIONS (selected) Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Leggett, S.H., Carpenter, D.M., Braith, R.W., & Bishop, L.E. (1988). Effect of reduced training frequency on muscular strength. International Journal of Sports Medicine, 59(9), 316-319. DeGabriele, J.H., Panton, L.B., & King, D.S. (1995). Comparison of anaerobic power in elderly men and women. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 3(4), 407-408. Panton, L.B., Graves, J.E., Pollock, M.L., Garzarella, L., Carroll, J.F., Leggett, S.H., Guillen, G., & Lowenthal, D.T. (1996). Relative heart rate, heart rate reserve, and oxygen uptake during exercise in the elderly. Journal of Gerontology, 51A (4), M165 -M171. Mason, M.L., Panton, L.B., & King, D.S. (1996). Influence of age and gender on fatigability and plasma lactate accumulation during intense muscular contractions Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 28(5), S139. 31 Panton, L.B., Franke, W.D., Bleil, D.A., Baier, S.M., & King, D.S. (2001). Effects of resistance training on cardiovascular responses to lower body negative pressure in elderly men and women. Clinical Physiology, 21(5), 605-611. Henderson, W.L., Haymes, E.M., Toole, T., Panton, L.B., Grubbs, L.M., & Pecha, J.M. (2004). The effects of age and BMI on daily physical activity in middle-aged adults. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise, 36(5), S317. Toole, T., Thorn, J.E., Panton, L.B., Kingsley, D., & Haymes, E. (2007). Effects of a 12 -month pedometer walking program on gait, body mass index, and lower extremity function in obese women. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 104:212-220. Panton, L.B., Kushnick, M.R, Kingsley, D., Moffatt, R., Haymes, E.M., & Toole, T. (2007). Pedometer measurement of physical activity and cardiovascular risk factors of obese African American lower socioeconomic women Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 4:447-458. SELECTED GRANTS FUNDED Agency for Health Care Administration. Exercise management for overweight middle-aged Women. Total award and cost sharing with Florida State University: $304,304 Agency for Health Care Administration. Physical activity campaign for Medicaid recipients in the state of Florida. Total award and cost sharing with Florida State University: $190,454 Health Resources and Services Administration. Live Oak Geriatric Education Center Consortium. Total award: $2,000,000 CONSULTING/EXPERT WITNESS Consultant: CSX Transportation. Development of physical capacity standards for the CSX Rapid Response Anti -Terrorist Unit. 2006-2007. Consultant: CSX Transportation. Heath screening for CSX Employees. 2007. Expert Witness: Plaintiffs expert on drastic sudden weight loss in the case of Florida Department of Education vs James A Griffin. 2008. Consultant: District of Columbia Department of Human Resources - Department of Corrections and Department of Youth and Rehabilitation Services. Deterioration of functionality over time as it relates to the performance of physical tasks. 2008. Consultant: State of Maine Department of Transportation. Job task analyses interviews. 2009 32 Consultant: State of Maine. Maine Life Project. Health assessments of state workers. 2009. Consultant: Created a training video for the Health for Hearts United Project entitled "Exercise the Medicine of Choice for Reducing Cardiovascular Disease". 2010. Consultant: Lake County Sheriffs Office. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers. Florida. 2014. Consultant: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Law enforcement physical abilities assessment. State of Florida, 2016 Consultant: Broward Sheriff's Office. Measurement and assessment of physical abilities and standards. 2017. Consultant: Walton County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention officers of Walton County. Florida, 2018- 2019. Consultant: Mesquite Police Department pre -employment physical abilities test study and validation. Texas. 2018-2019. Consultant: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Physical abilities test for prescribed burners, Florida. 2019-2020. Consultant: Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers and pre -employment hiring for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, Florida. 2020 33 BRYANT A. STAMFORD, PHD Exercise physiologist EDUCATION 1968 Slippery Rock State College, B.S. 1973 University of Pittsburgh, Ph.D. PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE 2005 -Present 1995-2005 1982-1992 1980-1982 1976-1980 1973-1973 Professor of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology, Hanover College Professor of Exercise Physiology (HSS of CEHD) University of Louisville Professor of Allied Health, School of Medicine, University of Louisville Professor of Applied Physiology (Graduate School) University of Louisville Associate Professor (Tenured 1976) of Applied Physiology (Graduate School) University of Louisville Assistant Professor of Health & Physical Education (HPES) ADMINISTRATIVE APPOINTMENTS 2005 -Present 2004-2005 1992-2005 1987-1992 1984-1987 1982-1987 1976-1981 Chair, Department of Kinesiology and Integrative Physiology, Hanover College Chair, Department of Health and Sport Sciences, University of Louisville Director of the Health Promotion Center (HSS of CEHD), University of Louisville Director of the Health Promotion Center, Division of Allied Health, School of Medicine, University of Louisville Assistant Dean of the Graduate School, University of Louisville Director of the Exercise Physiology Program, Division of Allied Health, School of Medicine, University of Louisville Director of the Exercise Physiology Laboratory of the Institutes for Advanced Studies of the Graduate School, University of Louisville BOOKS/BOOK CHAPTERS Stamford, B.A. "Exercise and the Elderly." In K.B. Pandolf (ed.) Exercise and Sports Sciences Reviews. New York: MacMillan Publishing Co., 1988, 16:341-379. Stamford, B.A. and P. Shimer. Fitness without Exercise. New York: Warner Books, 1990. (Published in six languages). Stamford, B. A. and B. Coffin. The Jack Sprat Low -Fat Diet: A 25 -day Heart —Healthy Plan You Can Follow the Rest of Your Life. Lexington, KY: The University Press of Kentucky, 1995. Stamford, B.A. Exercise without Agony. Louisville, KY: Minerva Books, 2002. Moffatt, R. J. and B. A. Stamford (editors) Lipid Metabolism and Health. New York, NY: CRC Press (2005). Stamford, B.A. and R. J. Moffatt. Lipids and Health: Past, Present and Future. (in) Moffat -Land Stamford, Lipids Metabolism and Health, CRC Press (2005). 34 PUBLICATIONS (selected) Stamford, B. A. and R. J. Moffatt. "Anabolic Steroid: effectiveness as an ergogenic aid to experienced weight trainers." Journal of Sports Medicine, 14: 191-197, 1974. Stamford, B. A. and B. J. Noble. "Metabolic cost and perception of effort during bicycle ergometer work performance." Medicine and Science in Sports, 6: 226-231, 1974. Stamford, B. A. "Maximal oxygen uptake during treadmill walking and running at various speeds." Journal of Applied Physiology, 39: 386-389, 1975. Stamford, B. A. "Step increment versus constant load tests for determination of maximal oxygen uptake." European Journal of Applied Physiology, 35: 89-93, 1976 Barth, J., D. Holding and B. A. Stamford. "Risk versus effort in the assessment of motor fatigue." J. Motor Behavior, 8: 189-194, 1976. Moffatt, R. J., B. A. Stamford and R. D. Neill. "Placement of tri-weekly training sessions: importance regarding enhancement of aerobic capacity." Research Quarterly, 48, 583-591, 1977. Moffatt, R. J., B. A. Stamford, A. Weltman and R. Cuddihee. "Effects of high intensity aerobic training on maximal oxygen uptake capacity and field test performance." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 17(4): 351-359, 1977 Stamford, B. A., R. W. Cuddihee, R. J. Moffatt and R. Rowland. "Task specific changes in maximal oxygen uptake resulting from arm versus leg training." Ergonomics, 21: 1-9, 1978. Moffatt, R. J., B. A. Stamford. "Effects of pedaling rate changes on maximal oxygen uptake and perceived effort during bicycle ergometer work." Medicine and Science in Sports, 10: 27-31, 1978. Stamford, B. A., R. Rowland and R. J. Moffatt. "Effects of severe prior exercise on assessment of maximal oxygen uptake." Journal of Applied Physiology, 44: 559-563, 1978. Weltman, A., R. J. Moffatt, and B. A. Stamford. "Supra -maximal training in females: effects on anaerobic power output, anaerobic capacity, and aerobic power." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 18: 237-244, 1978. Stamford, B. A., A. Weltman, R. J. Moffatt, and C. Fulco. "Status of police officers with regard to selected cardio-respiratory and body compositional fitness variables." Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness, 19: 85-90, 1979. Stamford, B. A., A. Weltman, R. Moffatt, and S. Sady. "Exercise recovery above and below anaerobic threshold following maximal work." Journal of Applied Physiology, 51: 804-844, 1981. Genovely, H. and B. A. Stamford. "Effects of prolonged warm-up exercise above and below anaerobic threshold on maximal performance." European Journal of Applied Physiology, 48: 323- 330, 1982. 35 Miller, J. F., and B. A. Stamford. "Intensity and caloric cost of weighted walking versus jogging for men and women." Journal of Applied Physiology, 62: 1497-1501, 1987. Swank, A. M., K. J. Adams, K. L. Barnard, J. M. Berning, B. A. Stamford. "Age -related aerobic power in volunteer firefighters, a comparative analysis." Journal of Strength and Conditioning Research. 14(2): 170-174, 2000. Berning, JM, KJ Adams, BA Stamford, "Anabolic steroid usage in athletics: Facts, fiction and public relations". Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 18 (4), 908-917, 2004. Jett, MJ, KJ Adams, BA Stamford, "Effects of cold exposure on metabolism." Journal of Sports Medicine, 36 (8):643-656, 2006 Berning JM, KJ Adams, BA Stamford, "Physiologic impact of junkyard training," Journal of Strength & Conditioning Research, 21(3):853-856,2007. Berning, JM, KJ Adams, M DeBeliso, PG Sevene-Adams, C Harris, BA Stamford. "Effect of functional isometric squat on vertical jump I trained and untrained men. J Strength & Conditioning Research 24 (9) 2285-2289, 2010. CONSULTANT AND EXPERT WITNESS ACTIVITY • Worked as an expert witness on approximately 30 court cases over twenty-year span (most cases hired by EEOC, cases involved mostly age or gender discrimination in hiring or retirement: EEOC District offices — Philadelphia, Atlanta, Chicago, Seattle, Los Angeles). Most cases involved municipalities (police and/or fire departments) • Created pre -employment physical capacity test for the Louisville Police Department and created testing format for retirement age police officers. • Created pre -employment physical capacity test for Louisville Firefighters. • Expert witness — on two occasions (mid 1970's), successfully defended in court the pre- employment physical capacity test for the Louisville Police Department. This was at a time when courts were routinely striking down pre -employment physical capacity tests as invalid and discriminatory. • Established a highly successful health promotion/physical capacity enhancement program for the Kentucky State Police. • Worked as expert on establishment of tests and standards for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement. • Worked as an expert on the SEPTA (Southeastern Pennsylvania Transit Authority) case. • Worked as an expert for the Washington DC Department of Human Resources to establish an appropriate (suggested) retirement age for corrections officers. 36 • State of Maine, Worker's Compensation Board. Physical task analysis of the State Department of Transportation. 2008 - 2010. • Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent law enforcement officers. 2009-2010. • State of Maine Worker's Compensation Board. Maine Lifestyle Inventory for Employees (Maine LIFE). Develop statewide employee health/fitness assessment program. 2009- 2010. • Maine Worker's Compensation Board. Determination of minimal fitness standards for the State of Maine Department of Corrections. 2010-2011 • Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. Verification of physical abilities requirements for Okaloosa County Sheriff's Office. 2011-2012. • Environmental Protection Agency. Physical demands job analysis for the development of standardized physical abilities testing. United States of America. 2012. • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Law enforcement physical abilities assessment. State of Florida, 2016 • Broward Sheriff's Office. Development of a valid physical work capacity test for incumbent deputies and detention officers. Florida. 2017. • Miami -Dade County Police Department. Physical abilities test validation study. Florida. 2018. • Orange County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities requirements for Orange County Sheriff's deputies. Florida. 2018. • Walton County Sheriff's Office. Development of physical abilities standards for incumbent fire -rescue, law enforcement and detention officers of Walton County. Florida, 2018-2019. • Mesquite Police Department pre -employment physical abilities test study and validation. Texas. 2018-2019. • Expert witness: Citrus County Sheriff's Office. Defendants experts. . Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, March 20, 2020. 37 • Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission. Physical abilities test for prescribed burners, Florida. 2019-2020. • Pasco County. Development of physical abilities (fitness) requirements for incumbent officers and pre -employment hiring for the Pasco County Sheriff's Office, Florida. 2020 38 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP 3560 VELDA OAKS CIRCLE, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32309 April 9, 2020 Weld County Purchasing Department 1150 O Street Room #107 Greeley, CO 80631 Re: Proposal Number: B200061 Project Name: Physical Abilities Test To whom if may concern: Attached is our proposal submitted in response to the RFP enumerated above. We have carefully reviewed all aspects of the RFP and believe we are highly qualified to provide all the services requested. Our Project Team has expertise in work analysis, exercise physiology and physical abilities testing development and validation. We are highly qualified to perform the work as described. This is based upon the following: (1) We have been actively crafting and validating physical abilities tests for police officers (incumbents and applicants), corrections officers, firefighters and others for the past 40 years. (2) We adhere closely to all EEOC guidelines and have served as expert witnesses for the EEOC and in opposition to the EEOC. (3) Our work has withstood several court challenges, and most recently a case against the Citrus County Sheriff's Office (Dawn Alexander, Lisa Ventimiglia, Michele Tewell, and Kellie Reese v Mike Prendergast as Sheriff of Citrus County, Florida. U.S. District Court Middle District of Florida, Ocala Division, March 2020). Our group members are meticulous in their approach to research and problem solving; they are goal oriented and they will see a task through to its successful completion. Members have worked together on multiple projects of a similar nature and are familiar with one another's high professional and personal standards. Not only will outcomes be completed in a timely manner, they will be provided with great care, integrity and attention to detail. Team members have considerable experience in job task analysis, development, validation and administration of physical abilities related to public service employees. Specific detail may be seen in Appendix A (vitae and credentials) of our proposal. We are confident that a choice by the Weld County Sheriff's Office to utilize our services will result in a professional, legally defensible approach which will be delivered on time and to the satisfaction of Weld County Sheriff's Office. Finally, and nonetheless important, we accept responsibility for all work performance, including supervision of all those associated with this project. Confidentiality is a critical factor in all our work and is guaranteed for all elements. In addition, we will provide future consultation to the Weld County Sheriff's Office, as well as be available as experts in defense of this work should the need arise. In submitting this offer we certify that the information and data submitted herein are true and complete and my signature attests to that declaration. Further, we certify that we have not participated in, nor have been a party to any collusion, price fixing or any other illegal or unethical agreements with any company, firm or person concerning this submission. Furthermore, we report no conflict of interest with any local government agency. The Human Performance Development Group is a limited liability corporation registered in the State of Florida and has its home base at 3560 Velda Oaks Circle, Tallahassee, FL 32309. Authorized representative: Robert J Moffatt, PhD (rmoffatt@fsu.edu; 850.567.1524) Sincerely, J Robert J Moffatt, PhD, MPH CEO, Human Performance Development Group The undersigned, by his or her signature, hereby acknowledges and represents that: 1. The proposal proposed herein meets all of the conditions, specifications and special provisions set forth in the request for proposal for Request No. #B2000061. 2. The quotations set forth herein are exclusive of any federal excise taxes and all other state and local taxes. 3. He or she is authorized to bind the below -named bidder for the amount shown on the accompanying proposal sheets. 4. The signed proposal submitted, all of the documents of the Request for Proposal contained herein (including, but not limited to, product specifications and scope of services), and the formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County, together constitutes a contract, with the contract date being the date of formal acceptance of the proposal by Weld County. 5. Weld County reserves the right to reject any and all proposals, to waive any informality in the proposals, and to accept the proposal that, in the opinion of the Board of County Commissioners, is to the best interests of Weld County. The proposal(s) may be awarded to more than one bidder. FIRM i4UMAa,Y 4r a2 t ua PNu9..&r Cc2bi ) BY gotezazr _N. 1.-A&C AITT (Please print) BUSINESS AFL g ADDRESS _35120vt z ‹ c.xa i 1;1�S irL 12N94 DATE 1 OFFICE, STATE, ZIP CODE TELEPHONE NO iaW- stn. FAX TAX ID # 141' tngD-7-7 t SIGNATURE VCIArail .S1'Io t- E-MAIL (tivho VE TT @ r5�3. EW **ALL BIDDERS SHALL PROVIDE A W-9 WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THEIR PROPOSAL** WELD COUNTY IS EXEMPT FROM COLORADO SALES TAXES. THE CERTIFICATE OF EXEMPTION NUMBER IS #98-03551-0000. YOU DO NOT NEED TO SEND BACK PAGES 1 - 8. ATTEST: Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO Deputy Clerk to the Board Mike Freeman, Chair APPROVED AS TO SUBSTANCE: Elected Official or Department Head Controller/Purchasing Director BID REQUEST #62000061 Page 16 ADDENDUM#1 BID REQUEST B2000061 PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST Due to the recent events surrounding the Coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the Weld County Government lobbies are now closed to the public. Many of us are now teleworking or may be required to in the very near future. With that said, the following changes havebeen made to our current bid process until future notice: 1. No hard copies of bids will be accepted. 2. If multiple copies of the bid were requested per the original bid specifications, please disregard. Only one electronic copy is needed. 3. Email bids to bids(a7weldclov.com. If your bid exceeds 25MB please upload your bid to https://www.bidnetdirect.com/. The maximum file size to upload to Bidnet is 500MB. PDF format is required. 4. Bid Openings will now be held via a Skype Conference Call. Call information is provided below: BID OPENING: APRIL 9, 2020 @ 10:00AM — VIA A SKYPE CONFERENCE CALL: Join us by phone. Phone Number: +1 (720) 439-5261 Conference ID: 505752931 ***We need signed copy on file with your bid submittal. Thank vou!*** Addendum received by: 1-1(*W ' cZ0Q \t ,tJFi r7QN1a Sr G -X DUP FIRM vaN oi\Ke.Q9- ADDRESS -T'R LNAN E,. FLOC -11 . CITY AND STATE BY avva-c'p1i r`JvrL� EMAIL MARCH 27, 2020 Farm W-9 (Rev.October 2018) nuService ury 3 internal Re of Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification ► Go to www.irs.gov/FormW9 for instructions and the latest information. Give Form to the requester. Do not Send to the IRS. Print or type. See Specific Instructions on page 3. 1 Name (as shown on your income tax return). Name is required on this line; do not leave this line blank. Robert J Moffatt 2 Business name/disregarded entity name, if different from above Human Performance Development Group, LLC 3 Check following 0 appropriate box for federal tax seven boxes. Individual/sole proprietor or single -member LLC classification of the II C Corporation person whose name is I S Corporation entered on line 1. Check only one of the ■ Partnership I Trust/estate 4 Exemptions (codes apply only to certain entities, not individuals; see instructions on page 3): Exempt payee code (if any) ill Limited liability company. Enter the tax classification (C=C corporation, S=S corporation, P=Partnership) ID - Note: Check the appropriate box in the line above for the tax classification of the single -member owner. Do not check LLC if the LLC is classified as a single -member LLC that is disregarded from the owner unless the owner of the LLC is another LLC that is not disregarded from the owner for U.S. federal tax purposes. Otherwise, a single -member LLC that Exemption from FATCA reporting code (rf any) is disregarded from the owner should check the appropriate box for the tax classification of its owner. O Other (see instructions) ► (Appres to accounts memmned outside are US) 5 Address (number, street, and apt. or suite no.) See instructions. 3560 Velda Oaks Circle Requester's name and address (optional) 6 City, state, and ZIP code Tallahassee, FL 32309 7 List account number(s) here (optional) Part I Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) Enter your TIN in the appropriate box. The TIN provided must match the name given on line 1 to avoid Social security number backup withholding. For individuals, this is generally your social security number (SSN). However, for a resident alien, sole proprietor, or disregarded entity, see the instructions for Part I, later. For other entities, it is your employer identification number (EIN). If you do not have a number, see How to get a - - TIN, later. Note: If the account is in more than one name, see the instructions for line 1. Also see What Name and Number To Give the Requester for guidelines on whose number to enter. or Employer identification number 4 7 1 7 9 0 7 7 1 Part II Certification Under penalties of perjury, I certify that: 1. The number shown on this form is my correct taxpayer identification number (or I am waiting for a number to be issued to me); and 2. I am not subject to backup withholding because: (a) I am exempt from backup withholding, or (b) I have not been notified by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) that I am subject to backup withholding as a result of a failure to report al interest or dividends, or (c) the IRS has notified me that I am no longer subject to backup withholding; and 3. I am a U.S. citizen or other U.S. person (defined below); and 4. The FATCA code(s) entered on this form (rf any) indicating that I am exempt from FATCA reporting is correct. Certification instructions. You must cross out item 2 above if you have been notified by the IRS that you are currently subject to backup withholding because you have failed to report all interest and dividends on your tax return. For real estate transactions, item 2 does not apply. For mortgage interest paid, acquisition or abandonment of secured property, cancellation of debt, contributions to an individual retirement arrangement (IRA), and generally, payments other than interest and dividends, you are not required to sign the certification, but you must provide your correct TIN. See the instructions for Part II, later. Sign Here Signature of U.S. person ► Date ► General Instructions Section references are to the Internal Revenue Code unless otherwise noted. Future developments. For the latest information about developments related to Form W-9 and its instructions, such as legislation enacted after they were published, go to www.irs.gov/FormW9. Purpose of Form An individual or entity (Form W-9 requester) who is required to file an information return with the IRS must obtain your correct taxpayer identification number (TIN) which may be your social security number (SSN), individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN), adoption taxpayer identification number (ATIN), or employer identification number (EIN), to report on an information return the amount paid to you, or other amount reportable on an information return. Examples of information returns include, but are not limited to, the following. • Form 1099-INT (interest earned or paid) • Form 1099-DIV (dividends, including those from stocks or mutual funds) • Form 1099-MISC (various types of income, prizes, awards, or gross proceeds) • Form 1099-B (stock or mutual fund sales and certain other transactions by brokers) • Form 1099-S (proceeds from real estate transactions) • Form 1099-K (merchant card and third party network transactions) • Form 1098 (home mortgage interest), 1098-E (student loan interest), 1098-T (tuition) • Form 1099-C (canceled debt) • Form 1099-A (acquisition or abandonment of secured property) Use Form W-9 only if you are a U.S. person (including a resident alien), to provide your correct TIN. If you do not return Form W-9 to the requester with a TIN, you might be subject to backup withholding. See What is backup withholding, later. Cat. No. 10231X Form W-9 (Rev. 10-2018) New Contract Request Entity Information Entity Name* HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP LLC Entity ID @00042311 Contract Name * DEVELOPMENT OF PHYSICAL ABILITIES TESTING Contract Status CTB REVIEW Contract Description* DEVELOP OF PHYSICAL ABILITY TEST FOR THE WCSO Contract Description 2 Contract Type* CONTRACT Amount if $100 000 00 Renewable' NO Automatic Renewal Grant IGA Department SHERIFF Department Email CM-Sheriff@weldgov corn Department Head Email CM-Sheriff- De;ptHead@.veldgov.com County Attorney GENERAL COUNTY ATTORNEY EMAIL County Attorney Email CM- COUNTYA I ORNEY @WELD GOV.COM New Entity? Contract ID 3349 Contract Lead * SKANETA Contract Lead Email skaneta@co.weld.co.us: skohlaraf@aveldgov.com Requested BOCC Agenda Date* 07/1512020 Parent Contract ID Requires Board Approval YES Department Project # Due Date 07/11/2020 Will a work session with BOCC be required?* NO Does Contract require Purchasing Dept. to be included? NO if this is a renewal enter previous Contract ID if this is part of a MSA enter MSA Contract ID Note the Previous Contract Number and Master Services Ag:eernent Number should be left blank if those contracts are not in OnBase Contract Dates Effective Date Review Date * Renewal Date 12131/2020 Termination Notice Period Committed Delivery Date Expiration Date* 03./31/2021 Contact Information Contact Info Contact Name Purchasing Purchasing Approver Approval Process Department Head DONNIE PATCH OH Approved Date 07/08/2020 Final Approval BOCC Approved BOCC Signed Date BOCC Agenda Date 071512020 Originator SKOHLGRAF LG RAF Contact Type Contact Email Finance Approver CHRIS D'OVIDI0 Contact Phone 1 Contact Phone 2 Purchasing Approved Date Finance Approved Date 0710912020 Tyler Ref # AG 071520 Legal Counsel GABE KAL.OUSEK Legal Counsel Approved Date 07,10/2020 STEVE REAMS To: Weld County Board of Commissioners From: Sheriff Steve Reams and Kelly Leffler, Employee Health and Productivity Specialist Date: 05/15/2020 Subject: SO Physical Abilities Test The Weld County Sheriff's Office recently requested proposals for a Physical Abilities Test that would be implemented January 1, 2021 as part of the hiring process as well as an incumbent fitness standard for the deputies. There were five vendors who submitted an RFP. • Injury to Action • Peak Form Medical Clinic • Paul O. Davis, Ph.D., LLC • Human Performance Development Group • Fit Force A comprehensive review was completed of all five vendors that submitted proposals to the RFP. The review committee consisted of five members who graded the proposals based on the requirements listed in the RFP. Scores from each member were then used to rank the vendors in order of best suitable for the project based upon the scoring criteria. The two vendors that scored the highest were then offered phone interviews with the review committee. Based upon the comprehensive review, the Sheriff's Office is recommending the Physical Abilities Test bid be awarded to Human Performance Development Group for a total of $100,000.00. Human Performance Development Group was the bidder that addressed all expertise and qualifications in the proposal. Southwest Substation 4209 WCR 24 1/2 Longmont, Colorado 80504 (720) 652-4215 Fax (720) 652-4217 Headquarters 1950 0 Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 (970)356-4015 Fax (970)304-6467 Toll Free (800)436-9276 www.weldsheriff.com Southeast Substation 2950 9th Street Fort Lupton, Colorado 80621 (303) 857-2465 Fax (303) 637-2422 Page I 1 1 I1O'1 to -Ica 3000 WELD COUNTY PURCHASING 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631 E-mail: cmpeters(a�weldgov.com E-mail: rturf(cr�weldgov.com E-mail: reverett(c�weldgov.com Phone: (970) 400-4223, 4216 or 4222 DATE OF BID: APRIL 9, 2020 REQUEST FOR: PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST DEPARTMENT: SHERIFF'S OFFICE BID NO: #B2000061 PRESENT DATE: APRIL 13, 2020 APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 27, 2020 (MAY 13, 2020} (CONTINUED TO MAY 20, 2020) VENDOR INJURY TO ACTION 7171 W ALDER AVE. LITTLETON, CO 80128 PEAK FORM MEDICAL CLINIC 1093 E BRIDGE ST. BRIGHTON, CO 80601 PAUL O. DAVIS, PH.D., LLC 15312 SPENCERVILLE CT. BURTONSVILLE, MD 20866 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP 3560 VELDA OAKS, CIR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32309 FIT FORCE 121 LORING AVE., STE 220 SALEM, MA 01970 TOTAL $11,610.00 $49,454.40 $98,240.60 $100,000.00 $299,205.07 THE SAFETY AND WELLNESS DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE ARE REVIEWING THE BIDS. osAg 2020- to 76 Spou '-1-1 DATE OF BID: APRIL 9, 2020 REQUEST FOR: PHYSICAL ABILITIES TEST DEPARTMENT: SHERIFF'S OFFICE BID NO: #62000061 PRESENT DATE: APRIL 13, 2020 APPROVAL DATE: APRIL 27, 2020 VENDOR WELD COUNTY PURCHASING 1150 O Street, Room #107, Greeley, CO 80631 E-mail: cmpeters(c�weldgov.com E-mail: rturf cni weldgov.com E-mail: reverett(a)weldgov.com Phone: (970) 400-4223, 4216 or 4222 TOTAL INJURY TO ACTION $11,610.00 7171 W ALDER AVE. LITTLETON, CO 80128 PEAK FORM MEDICAL CLINIC $49,454.40 1093 E BRIDGE ST. BRIGHTON, CO 80601 PAUL O. DAVIS, PH.D., LLC $98,240.60 15312 SPENCERVILLE CT. BURTONSVILLE, MD 20866 HUMAN PERFORMANCE DEVELOPMENT GROUP $111,640.00 3560 VELDA OAKS, CIR. TALLAHASSEE, FL 32309 FIT FORCE $299,205.07 121 LORING AVE., STE 220 SALEM, MA 01970 THE SAFETY AND WELLNESS DEPARTMENT AND SHERIFF'S OFFICE ARE REVIEWING THE BIDS. 2020-1076 Hello