HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-03-0227J-03-171
2/19/03
RESOLUTION NO. 0 227
A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION
APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER'S
DECISION TO REJECT THE PROTEST OF GREENBERG
TRAURIG, P.A., ON BEHALF OF AON RISK
SERVICES, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH REQUEST
FOR LETTERS OF INTEREST NO. 02-03-032 FOR THE
PROVISION OF INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES FOR
THE DIVISION OF RISK MANAGEMENT, AS SUCH
PROTEST HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHOUT
MERIT.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami issued a Request for Letters of
Interest ("RFLI") No. 02-03-032 for qualified and experienced
firms for the provision of insurance broker services for the
Division of Risk Management; and
WHEREAS, on December 30, 2002, the City of Miami received
four responses to the RFLI; and
WHEREAS, an evaluation committee evaluated the proposals
received and ranked the firms in the following order: (1) Brown &
Brown, Inc., (2) Summit Global Partners, Inc., (3) Arthur J.
Gallagher & Co., and (4) Aon Risk Services, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, Greenberg Traurig, P.A., ("Greenberg Traurig") on
behalf of Aon Risk Services, Inc., filed a timely formal protest;
and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
R®salution No.
03- 227
ri _
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 18-104 of the Code of the City
of Miami, Florida, as amended, the Chief Procurement Officer, in
the role of arbitrator, investigated the matter and determined
that the protest lacked merit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and City Attorney concur with the
findings of the Chief Procurement Officer and recommend rejection
of the protest filed by Greenberg Traurig on behalf of Aon Risk
Services, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the
Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and
incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section.
Section 2. The Chief Procurement Officer's decision to
reject the protest of Greenberg Traurig, P.A. on behalf of Aon
Risk Services, Inc., relating to Request for Letters of Interest
("RFLI") No. 02-03-032 for qualified and experienced firms for
the provision of insurance brokerage services for the Division of
Risk Management, is approved, as such protest has been determined
to be without merit.
Page 2 of 3
03- 227
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.11
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 27th day of February , 2003.
MANUEL A. DIAZ, MAYOR
In accordance with Miami Cede Sec. 2-'8, since the Mayor did not indicate approval of
t 1 -pr Alied,said I�
this legislation by c¢� s ; ai iatiCn now
becomes effective �„ N "s ---)\'4' .) GV3 from lnC. date of commi-s dC?'sOn
regarding same, without the i`»iGycr exercising a vote.
ATTEST: Priscilla A. T mpson, City rk
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
APPROVED AS,?<' RM ANI,<ORRECTNESS :j�,1
VILARELLO
RNEY
62:tr:AS:BSS
1� If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become
effective at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was
passed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it
shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by
the City Commission.
Page 3 of 3 7
03- 22
TO
FROM
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 12
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable or and Members
f the C' Commission
0�u
Joe Arriola
City Manager/Chief Administrator
RECOMMENDATION
DATE : February 13, 2003 FILE:
SUBJECT: Rejection of Protest received from
Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
RFLI No. 02-03-032
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution
approving the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject the protest of Greenberg
Traurig, P.A., on behalf of Aon Risk Services, Inc., in connection with RFLI No. 02-03-032,
Insurance Broker Services.
BACKGROUND
On December 6, 2002, the City of Miami issued Request for Letters of Interest No. 02-03-
032 to provide Insurance Broker Services for the Department of Risk Management.
The Committee was convened to evaluate the responses to the Request for Letters of Interest
issue by the Purchasing Department. The Committee ranked the responses in the following
order:
1. Brown & Brown
2. Summit Global Partners, Inc.
3. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.
4. Aon Risk Services, Inc.
Upon learning of its ranking, Aon Risk Services, Inc., retained Greenberg Traurig, P.A. to
proceed with filing a notice of intent to protest. The notice of protest was filed timely,
consistent with Section 18-104 of the City Code. Subsequently, Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
timely filed a formal written protest. Greenberg Traurig's allegations contained in their
formal written protest were investigated and determined to be without merit.
03- 227
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO : DATE : FILE
Joe Arriola, City Manager/Chief Administrator February 11, 2003
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney SUWECT :
Rejection of Protest received from
t ` - Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
FROM:
t JIM REFERENCIVLI No. 02-03-032
Michael A_ Rath
Acting Purchasing Director ENCLOSURES:
I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by Greenberg Traurig, P.A., on
behalf of Aon Risk Services, Inc., related to the above referenced RFLI for Insurance Broker
Services.
The basis of my decision, as set forth in the attached letter, is the fact that Greenberg Traurig,
P.A., protest is without merit.
03- 227
Y Or 3
t
F
� uatii ii ttC
y �O
CO., Fv0
February 12, 2003 VIA FACSIMILE AND REGULAR MAIL
Lucia A. Dougherty
Greenberg Traurig, P.A.
1221 Brickell Avenue
Miami, FL 33131
Re: Bid Protest, RFLI No. 02-03-032 Insurance Broker Service
Dear Ms. Dougherty:
As Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, I have received your formal protest dated February
10, 2003, accompanied by the required $5,000 filing fee on behalf of Aon Risk Services, Inc. ("AON"),
relative to the above referenced Request for Letters of Interest ("RFLI"). Pursuant to my duties under
Section 18-104 of City of Miami Ordinance No 12271, Resolution of Protested Solicitations and Awards,
I have investigated your allegations and determined that your protest is without merit.
I am in complete agreement with your statement that "public agencies have broad discretion in soliciting
and awarding contracts", and that "this discretion is not unbridled". I have determined, based upon a
complete review of the RFLI document, the responses submitted, the request for additional information,
responses received, and the evaluation and recommendation process that the City has not acted
arbitrarily, capriciously or illegally in any way. The City's actions have been reviewed based upon well-
settled legal principles of open and competitive public procurement.
In response to the points of your protest, I offer the following:
1. You assert Brown & Brown, Summit Global Partners, Inc., and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., should
be deemed non-responsive due to their failure at a "minimum to satisfy the expressed
Submission Requirements".
The RFLI document in no way requires the City to deem the respondents non-responsive for
failure to submit information. The RFLI, in fact, states "failure to provide each of the above may
(Emphasis added) be cause to deem your response non-responsive".
2. You assert that Brown & Brown's failure to submit Addendum No. 1 with the submission of their
response should deem them non-responsive.
Neither the RFLI or Addendum document state that failure to provide the Addendum with the
submission would deem the respondent non-responsive.
3. You allege the Evaluation Committee's scoring of the responses was clearly arbitrary,
capricious and contrary to procurement law. In addition, the evaluation was not based upon the
responses submitted but rather on personal preference and biases.
DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 6th Floor/Miami, Florida 33130/(305) 416-1900/Fax: (305)416-1925 n
E-mail Address: purchase@ci.miami.fLus/ Website Address: http://ci.miami.fl.us/ �, _�/
Mailing Address: P.O. Box 330708 Miami, FL 33233-0708
February 12, 2003
Page 2
The scoring of firms was determined based upon independent subjective scoring by the
individual Evaluation Committee members, I am unable to determine how each of the
Committee members perceived and evaluated what they read and heard. The mental
impressions of our Committee members in making their evaluations are not a matter of public
record for me to second-guess. Based upon the final individual rank order (below), it is evident
the Evaluation Committee did not conspire to select their "preferred" proposer, as alleged.
Further, you state that Mr. Petillos's statements regarding AON's past performance are
inappropriate and not part of the evaluation process. I contend that these statements were taken
in the context of a reference of AON's past experience with the City of Miami which is a part of
the evaluation criteria. These statements were made based upon his own professional
experiences, not personal preference or bias.
4. You contend the scoring system utilized by the Evaluation Committee was not the system
provided by the Department of Procurement for this RFLI.
The RFLI did not prescribe the scoring system or format for the evaluation of responses. The
Purchasing Department prepared evaluation forms with a total point value of 100 points for use
by the Committee if desired. As no clear direction was provided to the Committee for the use of
the 100 -point total scoring system, the Committee individually scored the firms based upon their
own interpretation of the form. Had the Committee not interpreted the form in a consistent
method, more direction would have been provided by the Purchasing Department.
5. You challenge the scoring of firms based upon the results received in response to the
references verified by the Purchasing Department.
The scoring of references was inclusive of the criteria for Proposer's Overall Professional
Qualifications and Experience, including Key Staff & Account Representative. In this category
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., was first ranked.
Elliot Fixler John Petillo Stuart Myers
Brown & Brown 2 1 2
Summit Global Partners, Inc. 3 2 3
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co 1 1 1
Aon Risk Services, Inc. 4 3 4
Again, it is evident the Evaluation Committee did not conspire to select their "preferred"
proposer, as alleged.
)27
Elliot Fixler
John Petillo
Stuart Myers
Brown & Brown
2
1
1
Summit Global Partners, Inc
1
2
2
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co
2
2
2
Aon Risk Services, Inc.
3
3
3
Further, you state that Mr. Petillos's statements regarding AON's past performance are
inappropriate and not part of the evaluation process. I contend that these statements were taken
in the context of a reference of AON's past experience with the City of Miami which is a part of
the evaluation criteria. These statements were made based upon his own professional
experiences, not personal preference or bias.
4. You contend the scoring system utilized by the Evaluation Committee was not the system
provided by the Department of Procurement for this RFLI.
The RFLI did not prescribe the scoring system or format for the evaluation of responses. The
Purchasing Department prepared evaluation forms with a total point value of 100 points for use
by the Committee if desired. As no clear direction was provided to the Committee for the use of
the 100 -point total scoring system, the Committee individually scored the firms based upon their
own interpretation of the form. Had the Committee not interpreted the form in a consistent
method, more direction would have been provided by the Purchasing Department.
5. You challenge the scoring of firms based upon the results received in response to the
references verified by the Purchasing Department.
The scoring of references was inclusive of the criteria for Proposer's Overall Professional
Qualifications and Experience, including Key Staff & Account Representative. In this category
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co., was first ranked.
Elliot Fixler John Petillo Stuart Myers
Brown & Brown 2 1 2
Summit Global Partners, Inc. 3 2 3
Arthur J. Gallagher & Co 1 1 1
Aon Risk Services, Inc. 4 3 4
Again, it is evident the Evaluation Committee did not conspire to select their "preferred"
proposer, as alleged.
)27
February 12, 2003
Page 3
Having considered the various issues raised in your formal written protest, I am left with the conclusion
that the protest filed on behalf of Aon Risk Services, Inc., is without merit. Your request that the
responses submitted by Brown & Brown, Summit Global Partners, Inc., and Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.,
be deemed non-responsive is hereby denied.
As you are aware, this matter will be considered by the City Commission at its meeting of Thursday,
February 13, 2003, to be held at Manuel Artime Center, 900 S.W. 1 Street, Miami, The meeting will
begin at 9:00 a.m.
Sincerely,
Michael A. Rath, CPPD, CPPB
Acting Purchasing Director
Chief Procurement Officer
c: Joe Arriola, City Manager/Chief Administrator
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Linda Haskins, Chief Financial Officer
Rafael Diaz, Assistant City Attorney
03- 227
W[WH
A T T O R N E Y S A T
Lucia A. Dougherty, Esq.
305-579-0603
doughertyl@gtlaw.com
L A W
CITY OF Mi MI
2003 FEB -3 FM 4: 35
February 3, 2003
VIA HAND -DELIVERY
Michael A. Rath
o
Acting Director, Chief Procurement Officer
--
City of Miami Purchasing DeparimenL
444 S.W. 2nd Avenue 6`'' Floor
'
Miami, Florida 33130
w
�o
�
r
y'
Re: Notice of Intent to File Protest
r -
Request For Letters of Interest No. 02-03-032
z
Insurance Brokerage Services
Dear Mr. Rath:
Please be advised that our firm represents AON Risk Services, Inc. ("AON") in
connection with the above -referenced Request for Letters of Interest ("RFLI"). We are in
receipt of your letter dated January 30, 2003, wherein you advised AON that it had not
been selected by the Evaluation Selection Committee as a top-ranked Proposer. As such,
pursuant to Section 18-104, Resolution of protested solicitations and awards, of the City
of Miami Code of Ordinances ("Code"), Section XV, Resolution of Protests, of the RFLI
and all other applicable law, we hereby file this timely Notice of Intent to File Protest on
behalf of AON, a responsive and responsible Proposer. Our written protest will be filed
with your office in accordance with the Code.
For purposes of this matter, I will be the contact person and would appreciate
being copied on all correspondence from the City. Thank you.
Sincerely,
PA
Lucia A. Dougherty
Cc: John Beltran, AON Risk Services, Inc.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
1221 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131
305-579-0500 FAX 305-579-0717 www.gtlaw.com
MIAMI NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLANTA PHILADELPHIA TYSONS CORNER CHICAGO BOSTON PHOENIX WILMINGTON LOS ANGELES DENVER
SAO PAULO FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE 03— 227
W[WH
A T T O R N E Y S A T L A W
February 10, 2003
VIA HAND -DELIVERY
Michael A. Rath
Acting Director, Chief Procurement Officer
City of Miami Purchasing Department
444 SW Second Avenue, 6t' Floor
Miami, Florida 33130
Re: Bid Protest
Request For Letters of Interest No. 02-03-032
Insurance Brokerage Services
Dear Mr. Rath:
Our law firm represents Aon Risk Services, Inc. ("Aon") in connection with the above -
referenced Request for Letters of Interest ("RFLI"). Please refer to our Lobbyist Registration
Forms on file with the City Clerk's Office.
Aon provides global insurance and risk management services through its 550 offices,
which are staffed by 53,000 employees in 130 countries: Its $7.4 billion in annual revenues
makes Aon the second-largest broker in the world. In addition, its ownership of four insurance
and reinsurance companies places Aon in a unique position to better serve the need of its clients.
Since 1991, Aon has represented the City of Miami ("City') as its exclusive propertyand
casualty broker. During those 12 years, Aon has developed state-of-the-art property and casualty
manuscript policy forms unique to the City, with coverages not available to other municipalities.
Aon has worked with the City in successfully collecting millions of dollars in insurance claims,
particularly following Hurricane Andrew. It has delivered to the City property rate reductions in
six of the last eight years. Finally, in one of the most expensive and restrictive markets in recent
history, Aon has obtained a commitment from the City's underwriter not to increase rates in the
casualty program for the three years ending September 30, 2004 as long as Aon remains the
City's broker. At a minimum, this equates to a savings for the tax -payers of the City of $200,000
per year from the excess casualty program alone. (Exhibit 1)
Aon has received your letter dated January 30, 2003, wherein you stated that the RFLI
Evaluation Committee had selected Brown and Brown, Inc. ("Brown & Brown") as its top-
ranked firm. Additionally, your letter indicated that the City Manager concurred with that
recommendation and will make his recommendation to the City Commission. (Exhibit 2) As
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. ra c) 2
1221 BRICKELL AVENUE MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 0 J
305-579-0500 FAX 305-579-0717 www.gtlaw.com
AMI NEW YORK WASHINGTON, D.C. ATLANTA PHILADELPHIA TYSONS CORNER CHICAGO BOSTON PHOENIX WILMINGTON LOS ANGELES DENVER
FORT LAUDERDALE BOCA RATON WEST PALM BEACH ORLANDO TALLAHASSEE
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 2
such, on February 3, 2003, Aon a responsive and responsible Proposer, timely filed its Notice of
Intent to File Protest with your office. (Exhibit 3)
Aon, by undersigned counsel, files this formal written protest and request for an
administrative hearing and a hearing before the City Commission. (Section 18-104, City of
Miami Code of Ordinances and RFLI Section XV). But for the arbitrary and capricious scoring
and improper responsiveness review of the proposals, Aon would be the top-ranked and only
responsive Proposer and thus has standing to bring this protest. Intercontinental Properties, Inc.
v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs. 606 So.2d 380 (Fla. P DCA 1992); Mid -
American Waste Systems of Florida, Inc. v. City of Jacksonville 596 So.2d 1187 (Fla. 0 DCA
1992). If this protest is sustained, Aon is entitled to the contract award. Capelletti Bros., Inc. v.
Fla. Dept. of Gen. Servs., 432 So.2d 1359 (Fla. 0 DCA 1983). Aon challenges the current
recommendation because it resulted from an arbitrary and capricious scoring of the proposals, a
flawed evaluation of the proposals, and other improprieties that violated the terms of the RFLI.
Therefore, the City should be advised that the recommendation to award to Brown & Brown is
not in accordance with applicable law.
This protest is timely filed within five days of the filing of Aon's Notice of Intent to File
Protest. t (Section 18-104, City of Miami Code of Ordinances). Additionally, based on Aon's
price proposal of $300,000 per year for the potential five years of the contract, enclosed please
find a check in the amount of $5,000 payable to the City of Miami. (Section 18-104(F)).
I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. The City Issues the Insurance Broker Services RFLI;
The RFLI Proposal Submission Requirements
1. On December 6, 2002, the City issued RFLI No. 02-03-032 for the
procurement of Insurance Brokerage Services to the City's departments, offices, and agencies,
and to assist in the management of the City's various insurance and self-funded programs.
` Section 18-104 states that, "In computing any period of time prescribed or allowed by
this section, the day of the act, event or default from which the designated period of time begins
to run shall not be included. The last day of the period so computed shall be included unless it is
a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday in which event the period shall run until the end of the next
day which is neither a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday. Intermediate Saturday, Sunday or
legal holidays shall be excluded in the computation of the time for filing." Since Aon's fifth and
last day to file the protest was Saturday, February 8, 2003, the referenced provision extends the
time period to the end of the day on Monday, February 10''. This was confirmed in your email
dated February 6h wherein you stated the Aon protest is due by 5 p.m. on Monday, February
10th.
03- 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 3
December 16, 2002 was set as the deadline for any request for additional information or
clarification, and December 30, 2002 was set as the deadline for receipt of proposals.2
2. The City sought a qualified and experienced firm to provide insurance
brokerage services to the City's departments, offices, and agencies, and to assist in the
management of the City's various insurance and self-funded programs. Services would include,
but not be limited to, the review, analysis, recommendation, and placement of all insured and
self-funded programs in the areas of property, casualty and liability, ..group health and life
coverage, as well as processing policy change endorsements, policy review and audits, and
monitoring claims. Services would also be required to manage insurances currently held by the
City, and for insurances being sought by the City during the term of the contract.
3. The RFLI, Section XVII, "Submission Requirements," set forth the
subject areas that Proposers were required to answer in their written responses in order to be
deemed responsive. It required detailing their experience and understanding of the work to be
performed, stating as follows:
Brokers are to submit written Responses which details the Broker's
qualifications and understanding of the work to be performed. The
Response should be prepared simply and concisely, and should
include all the information which it considers pertinent to its
qualifications and experience to the project, and which respond to
the Scope of Services cited herein. Response shall address the
following:
A. Provide its qualifications and -experience in the provision of
insurance brokerage services, particular for a governmental
entity(s) similar in size and scope of the City. Provide a list of a
minimum of five references, for similar projects, who could attest
to the firm's knowledge, quality of work, timeliness, diligence,
flexibility and ability to meet budget constraints. Response must
include the name of the entity(s), dates services performed, and
provide the contact name and telephone number. The City reserves
the right to contact any or all references as part of the evaluation
process.
B. Provide resumes, licenses, and certifications of key staff
members and the Account Representative to be assigned to the
City's account, and identify which employee(s) would perform
which assigned task. The City reserves the right to contact any or
all references as part of the evaluation process.
2 A copy of the RFLI, with Addendum 1, is attached as Exhibit 4.
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 4
C. Outline your strategy in approaching the markets available
to you, and how you intend to best represent the City and make
more efficient use of its resources.
D. Describe the insurance the Broker currently maintains to
protect itself and its clients for errors and omissions general
liability, professional liability, and performance under contract,
including name of insurers, limit of coverage, claims basis, and
deductible. List any claims outstanding against Broker and
Broker's insurance within the past five (5) years, including current
status of each claim.
E. Describe the Broker's access to the insurance market,
including excess, surplus, and stop -loss Lines for coverage listed in
Appendix A.
F. Describe the Broker's insurance marketing expertise with
respect to the coverage listed in Appendix A.
G. Describe the Broker's plan to provide and maintain the
City's insurance program in a computer management information
system. Provide examples of management information reports to
clients with similar programs, including cumulative project year
premium and loss record, claims status, loss frequency, severity
forecasts, loss development, trend analysis, observations on
relevant changes in the insurance market, views on loss exposures
facing the program, and summaries of insurance coverage in place,
including types and expirations, etc.
H. Describe exposure identification and evaluation assistance
for each exposure, and loss prevention, loss control, and other
technical services for each exposure listed in Appendix A.
I. Provide its flat fee proposal for the provision of all
services. Additionally provide its hourly rate(s) for professionals to
perform services not stipulated in this RFLI.
Failure to provide each of the above may be cause to deem your
Response non-responsive.
4. Addendum No. 1, dated December 18, 2002, attached questions from
prospective Proposers and the City's answers to those questions received before the stipulated
due date.
03— 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 5
5. On or before December 30, 2002, proposals in response to the RFLI were
submitted to the City Clerk by Brown & Brown; Summit Global Partners, Inc. ("Summit
Global'), Arthur J. Gallagher & Co. ("Gallagher") and Aon.
B. The Evaluation Process
6. RFLI Section XVI., Evaluation, set forth the "Evaluation Process." While
it states generally the criteria by which Proposers shall be evaluated, it does not state any specific
breakdown of point allocation. This section provided the following information regarding the
evaluation of proposals:
Brokers shall be evaluated on the basis of qualifications of Broker,
qualifications of assigned personnel, related experience, and
information as requested in Section XVII.
Responses will be reviewed and evaluated by an Evaluation
Committee ("Committee"). The Evaluation Committee may short
list firms. Each short listed firm may be asked to make a
presentation(s) before the Committee. The Committee will be
responsible for recommending to the City the most qualified firm
with whom to negotiate a Contract. The Committee will make its
recommendation to the City Manager, and the City Commission
must approve the recommendation for award. The City
Commission further reserves the right to accept or reject any
recommendation. The City will negotiate with Broker in a Contract
the scope and fees.
As part of the evaluation process, the City may conduct a
background investigation of Broker. Submission of a Response
constitutes acknowledgment of the process and consent to such
investigation.
7. Neither the scoring sheet used by the Evaluation Committee in scoring the
proposals, nor the breakdown of evaluation criteria to maximum assigned points was given to the
Proposers in the RFLI, Addendum 1, or any subsequent correspondence.3
3 Section 18-104, states "The written protest may not challenge the relative weight of the
evaluation criteria or the formula for assigning points in making an award determination."
Please note, this protest does not challenge the relative weight of the evaluation criteria (i.e. 20
points for Proposer's Qualifications, 30 points Financial Proposal, 30 points Marketing expertise,
etc.) nor does it challenge the formula for assigning points, since this procurement does not use a
formula method of assigning points (i.e. If price is 30 points, lowest price receives 30, second
lowest receives 25, etc). The protest challenges, inter alfa, the arbitrary and capricious scoring
of the proposals by the Evaluation Committee.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 03- 2 2
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 6
C. Evaluation Committee Meeting, January 7, 2003
8. The Evaluation Committee ("Committee") convened publicly for the first
time on January 7, 2003. Present at the meeting were Pamela Burns, CPPB, Sr. Procurement
Contracts Officer (acting as a facilitator for the process), Committee members: Elliott Fixler,
John Petillo and Stuart Meyers (Chair), as well as observer Luis Sastre from Aon. Prior to any
discussion by the Committee, Ms. Burns stated the following, "Before we go forward, I want to
make sure that as Evaluation Committee members that each of you can independently evaluate
each of the four Proposers and have no conflict of interest, or potential conflicts of interest and
that you could evaluate fairly and impartially. Do any you have any problems evaluate[ing] any
of the four Proposers?" Each of the Committee members said, "No." Ms. Bums continued, "So
your evaluation and discussion today will be based solely uon the RFLI and the Proposals
received. Is that correct?" All of the Proposers said "Yes.' (Emphasis added)
9. Committee Chair Stuart Myers, self -described risk -management advisor to
the Mayor raised a question regarding the fee side of the proposals. He indicated that, "Two of
the proposals the Aon proposal and the Gallagher proposal were clear to me in their fee
structures. The verbiage in the Brown & Brown proposal is unclear to me..." He request
clarification of their pricing.
10. Committee member John Petillo, a risk management consultant to the
City, addressed concern with the answers provided in the Brown & Brown, Gallagher, and
Summit Global proposals in response to the RFLI scope of services regarding actuarial
consulting services that the broker is required to complete. Furthermore, he complimented the
manner in which Aon provided clarity in their proposal on this issue. He stated as follows:
"Aon's proposal in Tab G, was very clear as to the actuarial
consulting services and the actuarial evaluations that were to be
performed. The other three proposals, Brown & Brown, Gallagher,
and Summit Global although they answered the questions in the
RFP [RFLI] were not clear that they understood that was actually
actuarial evaluations that had to be performed. So I think that we
need to address these questions again. Taking that one step further,
the RFP [RFLI] mentions workers comp[ensation] and general
liability and I am not 100 percent sure that, other then Aon,
Gallagher, Brown & Brown and Summit Global understand that
when we talk general liability we are also including in general
liability, automobile liability, police liability and public official
liability." (Emphasis added.)
He requested clarification of their this issue, as well as pricing.
4 This information was obtained from a copy of the tape of the Evaluation Committee meeting
that was furnished to counsel for Aon, by the City pursuant to a Public Records Request.
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 7
11. Committee member Elliott Fixler, Risk Management Administrator,
expressed concerned with having time to follow-up on references listed by Proposers in their
proposals. Ms. Burns stated that verifying Proposer references would be her responsibility and
that she would check each Proposer's references. The Committee decided that she should check
two of the five references that each Proposer was required to list.
12. A Committee member also requested clarification regarding outstanding
claims, against brokers, specifically from Aon and Brown & Brown. ..Concerning Brown &
Browns response to outstanding claims in their proposal, he indicated that, "I think Brown &
Brown made a reference to one of their employees, Gerald Fiacco, with regards to him. We of
course would expect responses (or at least I would) with regard to claims against the company
itself..."
13. Committee Chair Mr. Myers announced that the Committee would not
discuss the proposals that day, holding that in abeyance until the Committee had the answers to
the questions posed. The next meeting was tentatively scheduled for January 24, 2003 at 11 a.m.
However, no apparent written confirmation was given to the Proposers.
14. Ms. Bums directed the Committee to do the following regarding the
evaluation and scoring of the proposals: "What I would ask is if you get the information in
advance of the next meeting go ahead and read everything, evaluate everything, kind of take a
look at the evaluation and do some preliminary scoring. Go walk through the proposals, think
about where you would score it and do it in pencil. That way the next time you come in you will
discuss it, somebody may give it a 10 points and somebody may give it a 0 and if that brings out
discussion you kind of reach some agreement or whatever."
15. At the conclusion of the meeting, Ms. Burns again instructed the
Committee that prior to scoring the proposals at the next meeting, the Committee needed to
establish certain evaluation standards. She explained: "You have to reach a decision before we
go into the discussion on the scoring how you are going to treat the scores and then we will
discuss the scores; we have got to do that first to set the parameters."5
D. Letter to Proposers Requesting Clarification; Faxed Request and Revised
Request for Clarification; Proposer's Responses; Reference Check
16. On January 9, 2003, letters were sent to all four Proposers requesting
clarification of the three issues that were identified at the January 7t' Evaluation Committee
Meeting.(Exhibit 5) On January 13`h, Ms. Burns send via facsimile to all Proposers both a
Request for Clarification and a Revised Request concerning pricing for question two, actuarial
services. (Exhibit 6)
5 On January 2, 2003, you sent a memorandum to the City Manager requesting that the
three Evaluation Committee members be selected for this process. The City Manager approved
your request on January Oh. However, as evident from an e-mail dated December 17, 2002, Mr.
Petillo had been actively assisting Ms. Bums throughout the RFLI process.
03- 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 9
(6)
(7) Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance
brokerage services, and would you use this firm again if
needed in the future? Why, or why not?
(8) Is there anything else you would like to tell us about
or the contract that you think we should know
about or would assist us during this evaluation process?
19. Ms. Burns called the following governmental entities to conduct the
reference checks:
Aon: City of Orlando and Miami -Dade County
Gallagher: City of Miami Beach and Miami -Dade County
Brown & Brown: Volusia County and Leon County
Summit Global: New York City Housing Authority and
Metropolitan Government of Nashville, &
Davidson County
20. Based on Ms. Burns' "Reference Checks," Aon and Gallagher received
stellar evaluations, while Brown & Brown and Summit Global did not fair as well.
Aon — City of Orlando:
Did the vendor provide services timely, and it respond promptly to
your requests for service?: Yes, great.
How would you rate the results of you utilization of the vendor on
the following scale? (1-5, 1 is Excellent, 5 is poor) Excellent (1)
Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance services,
and would you use this firm again if needed in the future? Yes,
very. much.
Aon - Miami -Dade County:
Did the vendor provide services timely, and it respond promptly to
your requests for service? Aircraft, Nick Siriani and
Accidental Death, Sonia Blumenthal Yes to both.
Please note the "Reference Check" form does not contain a question number 6, it skips from
question 5 to 7.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
3— 227
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 10
How would you rate the results of you utilization of the vendor on
the following scale? (1-5, 1 is Excellent, 5 is poor) Accidental
Death, Excellent (1) and Aircraft, Above Satisfactory (2).
Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance services,
and would you use this firm again if needed in the future? Yes.
Arthur J. Gallagher - Miami -Dade County:
Did the vendor provide services timely, and it respond promptly to
your requests for service? Definitely — Tony Abella, Jr.
How would you rate the results of you utilization of the vendor on
the following scale? (1-5, 1 is Excellent, 5 is poor) Excellent (1)
Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance services,
and would you use this firm again if needed in the future? Yes.
Arthur J. Gallagher - City of Miami Beach:
Did the vendor provide services timely, and it respond promptly to
your requests for service? Everyday all the time. For medical
his contact is Richard Schell. For Property, J. Vandervoort.
How would you rate the results of you utilization of the vendor on
the following scale? (1-5, 1 is Excellent, 5 is poor) Excellent (1)
Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance services,
and would you use this firm again if needed in the future? Sure
Gallagher is the only other broker that can get insurance for
all markets in Florida, others such as Brown and Brown have
advised they could not secure them an insurance, but
Gallagher was able to do even if they had to pay more.
(Emphasis added.) .
Brown & Brown — Volusia County
Did the vendor provide services timely, and did it respond
promptly to your requests for service? Usually — Jerry
Fiacco.
How would you rate the results of your utilization of the vendor on
the following scale? (1-5, 1 is Excellent, 5 is poor) Satisfactory
(3)
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 03- 227
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 11
Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance services,
and would you use this firm again if needed in the future? "If I
had to, yes." He receives more information, however, from
Gallagher yet they receive less work from him than Brown &
Brown. Gallagher sends him information all the time on new
things, such as terrorism, while he only receives information
from Brown & Brown after he has already obtained the
information himself.
Brown & Brown Leon Coun
Did the vendor provide services timely, and did it respond
promptly to your requests for service? Yes: Jerry Fiacco is
the Broker timely and responsive 24 hours a day. Great
partnership, he looks for exposures and losses, and they meet
quarterly. Very hands on.
How would you rate the results of your utilization of the vendor on
the following scale? (1-5, 1 is Excellent, 5 is poor) Excellent (1)
Would you recommend this vendor to provide insurance services,
and would you use this firm again if needed in the future?
Without a doubt.
Summit Global — New York Citv Housine Authorit
They have never used Summit Global Partners. Their
insurance broker is Tillinghast Towers Perrin. The names
listed in Summit's response, John Lochner and Eugene Silvers,
work for Towers Perrins, not Summit.
Summit Global — Metropolitan Government of Nashville &
Davidson County:
No. Spoke to both Finance and Risk. Have never, used
Summit. Stated they currently use Security Insurance, Inc.
They have never used Summit, and has never heard of John
Lochner, Eugene Silver, James Parry.
21. Prior to the January 24, 2003 Evaluation Committee meeting, Ms. Burns
provided Committee members with copies of each Proposer's response to the Request for
Clarifications, her reference verifications as well as all other documents she had received, in
order to allow Committee members to accurately evaluate each proposal.
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 12
E. Evaluation Committee Meeting II, January 24, 2003
22. The Evaluation Committee convened publicly, for the second time on
January 24, 2003. Present at the meeting were Pamela Burns, CPPB, Sr. Procurement Contracts
Officer (acting as a facilitator for the process); Committee members: Elliott Fixler, John Petillo
and Stuart Meyers (Chair), as well as observer Jerry Fiacco from Brown & Brown.
23. Ms. Burns reminded the Committee that at the last meeting they were each
given the proposals and the evaluation forms and asked to score each proposal. Further, she
stated that she had provided each Committee member with the Proposers' response(s) to the
Requests for Clarification as well as her reference verification. She noted on the record that even
though they were left in advance of the meeting, Committee member Elliott Fixler did not
receive his materials until the beginning of this meeting.
24. She asked each Committee member prior to oral evaluations, "I want to
also make sure that number one, have each of you had an opportunity to review each proposal,
between now [really meaning the last meeting] and today, and done some preliminary scoring ?
Each Committee member answered "Yes."
25. With regard to the reference verification that Ms. Burns had performed,
Committee member Fixler asked if she had any follow-up phone calls with the Proposers after
she received some of their recommendations. Ms. Burns acknowledged that Committee member
Fixler was referring to Summit Global as the calls to the two references listed in its proposal both
indicated that Summit Global had not represented them. She instructed the Committee, that
because of this, "You can not evaluate this reference[s] ... Summit Global did not provide those
services to those two references, it was individuals representing Tillinghouse who provided those
services and not Summit Global." Furthermore, she explained that an individual from Summit
Global told her that he thought Ms. Burns would call him in advance of the reference check so
that he could inform the references that they were about to be called. Ms. Burns told the
Committee, "Mat's not how I operate. I operate if you submit a response it is very clear that if at
any time we had the opportunity to check references that's what we did."
26. At the January 7, 2003 Committee meeting Mr. Burns instructed the
Committee that prior to actual scoring of the proposals at the meeting, the Committee needed to
set parameters for scoring. She stated, "You have to reach a decision before we go into the
discussion on the scoring, how you are going to treat the scores, and then we will discuss the
scores, we have got to do that first to set the parameters." This directive was not followed by the
Committee, as members simply began reading their scoring aloud prior to setting the needed
parameters. The Committee did not set those parameters until the scoring was complete and
members knew that Brown & Brown had the most points.
27. Committee member Petillo presented his evaluation first. He stated that he
had reviewed all four proposals and evaluated them based on his review of the proposals and his
overall knowledge of the marketplace.
03-- 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 13
28. Committee member Petillo stated Aon had received 2 of a possible 20
points for the following reason: "Aon's poor assignment of points in this category is based
directly on my experience in dealing with them since I have been doing consulting work with the
City of Miami. I am not happy with how they have responded to me for information and various
other things."
29. Committee member Petillo further explained that "Aon's very low score is
based upon what they have done with the property last year and other area of the program for the
City where they left the City naked and have not done routine renewals".6
30. Following Committee member Petillo's oral review of the proposals,
Committee member Fixler was supposed to present his oral review. He stated, however, that he
was scoring "now" because he had lost his evaluation sheet. He said, "I am doing it, I do not
know what I did with it." At which point, the Committee meeting went "off the record" (for an
unknown period of time) as the tape recorder was shut off. Ms. Burns stated that Committee
member Fixler would receive five minutes to finish his evaluation.
31. When the meeting came back "on the record," both Committee member
Fixler and Committee Chair Myers read their scores aloud. Neither offered any explanation,
rational or commented on any proposal/Proposer. They stated, "I will just read off my numbers"
and neither Ms. Burns nor Committee member Petillo asked them to explain'their scoring. The
only comment that was made was when Committee Chair Myers was reading off his numbers,
Committee member Petillo stated, "Were you copying my numbers!"7 Actually, their numbers
were quite similar.
32. Following the scoring process, Ms. Burns asked the Committee, "Did we
decide whether to add them up or average to determine our ranking?" Chair Myers admitted that
the Committee had not determined a method when he stated, "We did not talk about that but we
might as well add those up and see what it comes out to." As such, the Committee selected the
method to select a top-ranked Proposer until after the scoring was complete and they know
which method better suited their preferred Proposer.
33. Ms. Burns was troubled by the fact that all four Proposers essentially
failed in that the highest average score was 31.33. She asked the Committee members if they
were going to be recommending a Proposer at all since all of the firms seemed to do so poorly.
She stated, "My issue would be you have a total of 100 points, from a purchasing standpoint
6 Committee member Petillo's statements are untrue unsupported by facts, prejudicial, totally
inappropriate and not part of the evaluation criteria. Counsel for Aon objects to Committee
member Petrillo's statements.
7 Counsel for Aon has sent a Public Records Request which, inter alia, requested the notes of the
three Committee members as well as the "lost" scoring sheet of Committee member Fixler. Ms.
Burns has indicated that no such documents are in her files. Furthermore, she indicted that we
are not permitted to obtain documents from the Evaluation Committee members. Thus, despite
our requests, the City has not produced those documents.
03-- 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 14
your average score is 31 points. Are you even going to recommend a number one ranked firm at
31 out of 100?" Actually, what Ms. Burns did not realize was that the Committee members did
not evaluate the Proposers out of 100 points as they were supposed to and as was indicated on
the scoring sheet. Rather, they formulated a unique method of interpreting the "maximum
points" for each "Evaluation Criteria," apportioning points among the four Proposers, instead of
giving each Proposer up to the "Maximum Points." At neither of the Committee meetings was
there a discussion of how to score the proposals. Moreover, the procurement liaison, Mr. Bums,
did not even understand how the Committee Members decided to score the proposals. Counsel
for Aon finds it quite intriguing that all of the Committee members uniformly used this unique
method of scoring, while the record contains absolutely, no discussion of selection of this
extremely unusual and unprecedented scoring method.
34. Toward the end of the meeting, Committee member Fixler voiced concern
about the difference in prices of four similar Proposers. He stated that he was "befuddled at the
enormous difference in pricing." He questioned whether the Proposers with the lower prices
have, "...the ability and will to do the job." Nonetheless, the Committee went forward with
Brown & Brown, the lowest -priced Proposer.
35. Lastly, the Committee asked Ms. Bums to attempt to place approval of
this item on the February 13, 2003 City Commission agenda.
36. The records shows that on January 24, 2003, the Evaluation Committee
completed its scoring and ranking of the Proposers.8 The results were as follows:
8 A copy of the Committee members' individual scoring sheets is attached at Exhibit 9.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 03- 227
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
MAX
POINTS
RATER
BROWN &
BROWN
SUMMIT
GLOBAL
ARTHUR 3.
GALLAGHER
Aon RISK
SERVICES
Proposers overall professional
qualifications & experience,
including key staff & account
representative
20
Elliot Fixler
6
5
7
2
John Petillo 7 4 7
2
Stuart Myers 6 5 7
2
Overall strategy to represent'..
the Gty; risk identification; &
use of computerized system(s)
15
Elliot Axler
4
4
5
2
John Petillo 4 4 4
3
Stuart Myers 4 4 4
3
Proposers marketing expertise
30
Elliot Fixler
7
10
8
5
John Petillo 9 9 9
3
Stuart Myr 8 8 10
4
Outstanding claims against
Broker
5
Eliot Fixler
1
2
2
0
John Petillo 1 1 2
1
Stuart Myers 1 1 2
1
Financial Proposal
30
Eliot Hxler
10
9
6
5
John Petillo 12 9 5
4
Stuart Myers 14 9 4
3
TOTAL POINTS
100
OF 400
94
84
82
40
AVERAGE
100
31.33
28.00
27.33
13.33
RANK
1
2
3
4
F. Committee Recommendation; Acceptance of the City Manager and
Evaluation Committee Recommendation; Letter of Notification to Aon; City
Manager Recommendation Letter
37. The City Manager's Recommendation memorandum, which is undated,
contains the City resolution awarding the contract to Brown & Brown. The contract is for an
amount not to exceed $110,000 per year. However, Brown & Brown provided a lower price to
the City. (Exhibit 10)
38. The acceptance of the City Manager and Evaluation Committee's
recommendation to award the contract to Brown & Brown is dated January 28, 2003. (Exhibit
11)
39. On January 31St, Aon received your letter dated January 30th, wherein you
stated that the Evaluation Committee had selected Brown & Brown, and that the City Manager
had concurred.
H. STANDARD OF REVIEW
Although public agencies have broad discretion in soliciting and awarding contracts, this
discretion is not unbridled. Therefore, as discussed below, the City's actions in this matter must
be reviewed based upon well-settled legal principles of open and competitive public
procurement. The City is not permitted to act arbitrarily, capriciously or illegally, including by
oppression or misconduct. The ultimate purpose of public procurement statutes is to protect the
03- 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 16
public. This purpose is served by preventing collusion or undue favoritism toward a bidder by a
contracting authority. Collusion and favoritism are prevented, in turn, by securing fair
competition on equal terms to all bidders. By placing all bidders on equal terms, the taxpayers'
interest is protected. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla.
1982).9
III. BASES OF PROTEST
The recommendation to award to Brown & Brown must be reversed for the following
reasons, among others. First, Aon proposedthe top-rated proposal pursuant to ,the terms of the
RFLI that was on its face responsive. The other three proposals did not at a minimum satisfy the
expressed Submission Requirements mandated by Section XVII of the RFLI. 10
Second, the Evaluation Committee's scoring of the proposals was clearly arbitrary,
capricious and contrary to procurement law. In addition, Evaluation Committee members did
not evaluate the four companies based on the proposals submitted but rather on personal
preference and biases evidenced by the meeting recordings. In doing 'so, the City failed to
comply with the evaluation procedures of its own RFLI and misevaluated all four proposals.
Third, the scoring system utilized by the Evaluation Committee was not the system
provided by the Department of Procurement for this RFLI.
IV. AON IS THE ONLY RESPONSIVE PROPOSER
Aon submitted the top-rated proposal pursuant to the terms of the RFLI, that was on its
face and otherwise responsive. Even a cursory review of the other three proposals by the City
would have revealed multiple instances of noncompliance with the RFLI's requirements that
render Brown & Brown, Summit Global and Gallagher ineligible for award. Intercontinental
Properties, Inc. v. State Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 606 So.2d at 383.
Aside from Aon, the other three proposals did not at a minimum satisfy the expressed
Submission Requirements mandated by Section XVII of the RFLI and are thus non-responsive.
Section XVII, expressly states, "Failure to provide each of the above may be cause to deem your
9 See also City of Sweetwater v. Solo Constr. Corp., 823 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3`d DCA 2002);
Miami -Dade County v. Church & Tower, Inc., 715 So.2d 1084, 1088-89 (Fla. 3'd DCA 1998);
Cily of Cape Coral v. Water Servs. of America, Inc., 567 So.2d 510 (Fla. 2"d DCA 1990); Dept.
of Transportation v. Groves -Watkins Constructors, 530 So.2d 912, 914 (Fla. 1988); Solar Eneray
Control, Inc. v. State of Florida Dept. of Health and Rehabilitative Servs., 377 So.2d 746 (Fla. I"
DCA 1979); Awrico Chem. Co. v. Dept. of Envir. Reg_ 365 So. 2d 759,763 (Fla. 1s` DCA 1978).
See also Eagle Tire & Serv. Center v. Escambia County Utilities Auth., No. 00-0661 BID (Fla.
Div. Admin. Hr'gs July 19, 2000).
io Proposals submitted by all four Proposers have been attached as Exhibits 2, 3, 4 and 5.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 03- 227
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 17
Response non-responsive." Furthermore, the (1) disregard for mandatory submitted
requirements, and (2) lack of specificity contained in the proposals did not provide the City with
sufficient information to accurately and properly evaluate the proposals and thus leaves the City
with no alternative but to deem the other three proposals as non-responsive.
To begin, of the three non-responsive Proposers, Brown & Brown submitted the most
deficient proposal. It failed to submit the required Addendum No. 1. The Addendum expressly
states, "This Addendum is to be signed and dated by Proposers and submitted as proof of receipt
with the submissions of responses." This itself renders the Brown & Brown proposal non-
responsive. Further, both the RFLI and the Request for Clarification required Proposers to list
any outstanding claims against the Proposer's company. Brown & Brown, in both its proposal
and its letter in response to the Request for Clarification failed to answer this question and
therefore did not provide the requested information regarding outstanding claims. During the
January 7`' Evaluation Committee meeting, the Committee specifically asked Brown & Brown to
respond concerning claims against the "company itself'. Its response, however, only consisted
of a letter from its Assistant General Counsel stating, once again, that Mr. Fiacco does not have
any pending or threatened claims against him. It did not answer the question concerning claims
against the company citing the "attorney-client privilege". Conversely, the other three Proposers
clearly answered this question, including Aon which was specifically asked about Aon Risk
Services of Florida, Inc. In his response, Mr. Sastre stated, "We have checked with our claims
department and to our knowledge there are no outstanding claims against Aon Risk Services of
Florida, Inc."
Concerning the Submission Requirements mandated by the RFLI, Brown & Brown,
again failed to conform to the requirements set forth within the RFLI. Its "canned" proposal
contained only general answers, such as those contained in a firm's marketing materials. The
information it provided was woefully insufficient to allow the Evaluation Committee to provide
an accurate scoring of its proposal. In subsections G, H, E, F and C (Section XVII) Brown &
Brown failed to provide responsive answers.
Subsection G required Proposers to provide examples of management information reports
to clients with similar programs, including cumulative project year premium and loss record,
claims status, loss frequency, severity forecast, loss development, trend analysis, observations on
relevant changes in the insurance market, views on loss exposures facing the program, and
summaries of insurance coverage in place, including type and expirations, etc. Brown & Brown
did not provide an example of management information reports or actuarial services reports.
Aon, however, provided risk management systems and included an actual actuarial report, 52
pages in length, for the City of Miami addressing loss trend, loss experience, loss development,
types of injuries and the different methodology to calculate ultimate losses. Furthermore, during
the January 7h Evaluation Committee meeting, .committee member Patillo addressed concern
that it was not clear that Brown & Brown (Summit Global and Gallagher) understood that
actuarial evaluations and actuarial consulting services had to be performed.
Subsection H required exposure identification and evaluation assistance for each
exposure, loss prevention, loss control and other technical services for each exposure. Brown &
�w�'i
03-
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 18
Brown did not provide a complete response to this requirement. It only addressed two parts, and
did not, in a detailed fashion, state how it would identify and evaluate exposure. Aon provided
its response to this subsection with a step by step procedure, which conformed to RFLI
requirements.
Subsection E and F required a description of the broker's access to the insurance market,
including excess, surplus, and stop -loss Lines for coverage and a description of broker's
insurance marketing expertise with respect to coverage. Brown & Brown did not specifically
identify its access to many markets. Moreover, market experts were not identified for each
coverage that the City purchases as Aon did and as was required by this subsection. Brown &
Brown did not identify overseas markets other than Lloyds, either in London, Continental
Europe or Bermuda, which are major centers of re -insurance.
Subsection C required Proposers to present a strategy in approaching markets and how
they would best represent the City and make more efficient use of its resources. Brown &
simply Brown stated that it has a strategy in approaching markets, vet, it did not provide that
strategy it would implement. On the other hand, Aon stated in its proposal that its marketing
strategy was to approach the re -insurance market first, on a global basis, and obtain support
using its manuscript property form as a model. Furthermore, Aon suggested combining the
Orange Bowl and James L. Knight Center with its master program and preparing catastrophic
models for the various perils insured.
Summit Global is also non-responsive, as it did not, at a minimum, satisfy the
Submission Requirements mandated by Section XVII. Its deficient response did not contain
responsive answers to Subsections E, F, G and H. In addition, it did not provide verified
references as required by the RFLI. Summit Global's answer in response to Subsection E did not
identify any specific markets, while Aon identified 75 markets. In response to Section F, it did
not identify any specific experts in each coverage that the City would purchase, while Aon
identified an expert in each area by name and closed that individual's resume. In Subsection G,
Summit Global. was asked to provide examples of management information reports to clients
with similar programs, including cumulative project year premium and loss record, claims status,
loss frequency, severity forecast, loss development, trend analysis, observations on relevant
changes in the insurance market, views on loss exposures facing the program, and summaries of
insurance coverage in place, including type and expirations, etc. It did not provide a responsive
answer. Finally, its answer to Subsection H, it did not include a description of exposure
identification which was required of all Proposers.
Summit Global provided a list of references as it was required to, making its answer to
that question facially responsive. However, on January 21" when Ms. Bums made a number of
telephone calls to verify all four Proposers' references, it became apparent that Global Summit
did not provide an accurate response to that question. When Ms. Burns . contacted two of the
references listed in Summit Global's proposal, both parties stated that neither Summit Global nor
the account representatives listed in its proposal had represented their entity. Furthermore, when
contacted by Ms. Burns, Summit Global's representative stated that, (1) its account
representatives previously represented these entities while at other companies, and (2) he thought
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 19
Ms. Burns would call him in advance of the reference check so that he could inform the
references that they were about to be called. At the January 24`h Evaluation Committee meeting,
when discussing this issue she stated, "That's not how I operate. I operate if you submit a
response it is very clear that if at any time we had the opportunity to check references that's what
we did." Finally, she instructed the committee that they may not use those references in
evaluating and scoring Summit Global's proposal as they were never represented by Summit
Global.
Gallagher also submitted a non-responsive proposal, as it did not, at a minimum, satisfy
the Submission Requirements mandated by Section XVII. Its deficient response did not contain
responsive answers to subsections C, F, G and H. In addition, Gallagher failed to submitted the
required Addendum No. 1 which was required by the RFLI and which should have been noticed
by the City during its review for responsiveness. Gallagher's answer in response to subsection C
was insufficient, as it did not provide the required marketing strategy. In response to Section F,
it did not identify market expertise with respect to the coverage listed in Appendix A. In
subsection G, Gallagher failed to provide specific tools and procedures to identify and evaluate
the City's exposure. Furthermore, in the loss control and loss prevention area, it did not address
all exposures that the City has, such as EPLI which Aon thoroughly discussed through the Aon
Track System. Finally, Gallagher did not submit the required Addendum. The Addendum
expressly states, "This Addendum is to be signed and dated by Proposers and submitted as proof
of receipt with the submissions of responses." This itself renders the Gallagher proposal non-
responsive.
Aon, a responsible and responsive Proposer answered every Submission Requirement
specifically and accurately rather than providing generic responses which in many instances were
non-responsive. It outlined a specific marketing strategy, program structures, listed the program
structures and listed the markets to be accessed which no other Proposer did. Aon provided
examples of its state of the art Risk Management System and enclosed an actuarial report of 52
pages in length, for the City of Miami, addressing lost trend, loss experience, loss development,
types of injuries, and the difficult methodology to calculate ultimate losses. It also enclosed a
copy of its latest insurance market report which advises clients of the conditions and changes in
the insurance marketplace as reflected in the RFLI. Aon provided the only responsive proposal
and is therefore the top-ranked Proposer.
Aon protests these facial defects and material irregularities in the City's review of the
three proposals. These are, individually and together, non-waivable defects. Harry Pepper and
Assocs. Inc. v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So.2d 1190 (3rd DCA 1977). The courts will not permit
local authorities to arbitrarily apply, or not apply, solicitation requirements, as recently
confirmed in City of Sweetwater v. Solo Constr. Corp., 823 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3rd DCA 2002)
(injunction issued against proceeding with illegal contract award). Aon expects the City to
likewise enforce compliance with the RFLI and, itself, comply with the RFLI and procurement
law requirements.
o3-- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 20
V. EVALUATION COMMITTEE'S SCORING OF THE PROPOSALS WAS
CLEARLY ARBITRARY, CAPRICIOUS AND CONTRARY TO
PROCUREMENT LAW; EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS DID NOT
EVALUATE THE FOUR PROPOSALS BASED ON THE PROPOSALS
SUBMITTED BUT RATHER ON PERSONAL PREFERENCE AND BIASES
It is a well settled principle in Florida law that the City is not permitted to act arbitrarily,
capriciously or illegally, including by oppression or misconduct. The ultimate purpose of public
procurement statutes is to protect the public. This purpose is served by preventing collusion or
undue favoritism toward a bidder by a contracting authority. Collusion and favoritism are
prevented, in turn, by securing fair competition on equal terms to all bidders. By placing all
bidders on equal terms, the taxpayers' interest is protected. Liberty County v. Baxter's Asphalt &
Concrete, Inc., 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1982). As defined by Black's Law Dictionary, "arbitrary"
means with adequate determining principle, non -rational, not done or acting according to reason
or judgment, as fixed or done capriciously or at pleasure. The record is clear that the Evaluation
Committee's scoring of the proposals was not done according to reason or judgment.
The Evaluation Committee was asked to review the RFLI, all four Proposers' responses
and supplemental documents provided by Ms. Bums. Following review of the referenced
materials, they were advised to evaluate and score the proposals. Aon, the second-largest broker
in the world, who has represented the City of Miami for the past 12 years and obtained rate
reductions six of the last eight years, received an average score of 13.3 points, ranking last
among all Proposers in this process. Based upon Aon's overall qualifications and experience as
well as its detailed and informative proposal, it is unfathomable that Aon received the score
which it did.
Merely a cursory review of all four proposals reveals that Aon's proposal specifically
answers each Submission Requirement thoroughly and properly. Actually, during the January
7d' Evaluation Committee meeting, Committee Member Petillo made a point of recognizing that
Aon's proposal was very clear as to the actuarial consulting services and actuarial evaluations
that were to be performed. He also stated that where the RFLI mentions worker's compensation
and general liability, he was not sure that other than Aon the other three Proposers understood
what general liability encompassed. However, his scoring of Aon's proposal did not reflect
those comments. The other two Committee members simply read off their scores and did not
provide any explanation or rationale.
In the "Evaluation Criteria" category entitled, Proposer's Overall Professional
Qualifications and Experience, including key staff and account representative, each Committee
member awarded Aon two out of a possible twenty points. However, a review of all four
Proposers' qualifications and experience, as provided in the four proposals reveals that this
scoring is unjustifiable. Each Proposer was required to include a copy of their key staffs Florida
Insurance License. If, as a method for scoring this criteria, the Committee members would have
simply added the years of experience of each Proposer's employee with a Florida Insurance
License, they would have come up with the following:
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 21
Brown & Brown = 95 years
Summit Global = 81 years
Gallagher = 76 years
Aon = 185 years
Furthermore, if the Committee members would have simply added the years of experience of
each Proposer's account representative, they would have come up with the following:
Brown & Brown = 24 years
Summit Global = 14 years
Gallagher = 13 years
Aon = 30 years
As such, the Committee's scoring of the proposals was arbitrary, capricious and not based on the
proposal submitted. The Committee selected the Proposer that it preferred, rather than the best
qualified and most experienced Proposer. Even in the absence of specific statutory requirements,
public agencies have the obligation to engage in contracting procedures in a manner that is not
arbitrary and capricious. Volume Servs. Dev. of Interstate United Corp. v. Canteen Corp., 369
So.2d 391, 394 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1979).
Part and parcel to the Evaluation Committee's arbitrary and capricious completion was
the fact that the members did not evaluate the four companies based on the proposal submitted
but rather on personal preferences and biases. Since the RFLI had expressed procedures for
evaluating these proposals, the Evaluation Committee members may not act arbitrarily to ignore
those rules to select any one other than the most qualified responsive Proposer. Cily of
Pensacola v. Kirby, 47 So. 2d 533, 535 (Fla. 1950). Likewise, "[a] public body may not
arbitrarily discriminate between bidders, or make the award on the basis of personal preference."
Hotel China & Glass Co. v. Board of Public Instruction, 130 So. 2d 78,81 (Fla. 0 DCA 1961).
The Evaluation Committee members did not have the authority or right to pick and choose
Brown & Brown due to personal preference.
At the first Evaluation Committee meeting on January 7h, Ms. Burns established the
ground rules for the evaluation and scoring of the four proposals. She stated the following,
`Before we go forward, I want to make sure that as Evaluation Committee members that each of
you can independently evaluate each of the four Proposers and have no conflict of interest, or
potential conflicts of interest and that you could evaluate fairly and impartially. Do any you have
any problems evaluate[ing] any of the four Proposers?" Each of the Committee members said,
"No." Ms. Burns continued, "So your evaluation and discussion today will be based solely
upon the RFLI and the Proposals received. Is that correct?" All of the Proposers said
"Yes." (Emphasis added) As such, all of the Proposers were directed to evaluate and score each
proposal solely based on its content and not on any outside factors, including personal biases.
While each Proposer agreed that this is how they would evaluate and score each proposal,
none of the three Evaluation Selection Committee members adhered to this requirement.
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 22
Furthermore, Committee members did not even evaluate the proposals independently."
Procurement law does not permit the City to ignore the established ground rules for evaluation
and scoring as stated by Ms. Bums on January 7th. In Moore v. State. Dept. of Health &
Rehabilitative Servs., 596 So.2d 759 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992), the court found that the agency's
failure to comply with its own bid evaluation criteria undermined the integrity of the bidding
process. The court reversed the award made by the agency, holding that even under a deferential
standard, the evaluation process was so tainted as to make the award arbitrary and capricious.
See also Catalfumo Constr. and Development. Inc. et al. v. Martin County School Board, No. 02-
1494BID (Fla. Div. Admin. Hr'gs June 28, 2002) (protest sustained against arbitrary re -ranking
of competitors).
As stated above, the Evaluation Committee members were required to evaluate and score
the Proposers based solely on the RFLI and the proposals received. On multiple occasions,
however, Selection Committee members did not follow this process despite numerous
opportunities to do so. The following are examples of such noncompliance:
(1) Committee member Petillo awarded Aon two out of a possible 20 points
for Proposer's Qualifications and Experience. His rationale for such a low
scoring was that, "Aon's poor assignment of points in this category is
based directly on my experience in dealing with them since I have been
doing consulting work with the City of Miami. I am not happy with how
they have responded to me for information and various other things." He
freely admitted that this score was not based on Aon's proposal, but rather
his personal feelings towards Aon. Additionally, the low scores he
awarded Aon in the remaining four categories were based on the same
rationale. He stated, "Aon's very low score is based upon what they have
done with the property last year and other area of the program for the City
where they left the City naked and have not done routine renewals."12 The
11 During the January 24th Evaluation Committee meeting, Committee member Fixler
explained that he was scoring his proposal "now" (right after Committee member Petillo finished
scoring his) because he lost his scoring sheet. Furthermore, Committee Chair Myers' scoring
was so similar to that of Committee member Petillo, that Committee member Petillo stated,
"What! were you copying my numbers?" Aon protests that the proposals were not evaluated and
scored independently.
12 Throughout 2002, there have been a number of changes in the staffing of the Risk
Management Department. Committee members Fixler and Petillo are both relatively new to the
Department; actually, Committee member Petillo is a consultant to the City. Since both
gentlemen began working for the City in their present capacity, Aon's account representative
Luis Sastre has made numerous attempts to meet with both gentlemen. However, for one reason
or another, both gentlemen have been continuously unable to meet with Mr. Sastre.
Notwithstanding that both Committee members have not been actively working with Aon, the
Risk Management staff has met and worked with Aon on a regular basis. Consequently,
throughout the various staffing changes made to Risk Management in 2002, Aon and specifically
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. o3- 227
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 23
appearance of favoritism or biases is another flaw in the procurement.
R.N. Expertise, Inc. v. Miami -Dade County School Board No. 01-
2663BID, Fla. Div. Of Admin. Hr'gs, Feb. 4, 2002. Clearly, this arbitrary,
capricious and illegal scoring by Committee member Petillo undermined
the integrity of this public procurement process.
(2) During the January 7th Evaluation Committee meeting, Committee
members specifically asked Brown & Brown and Aon to provide
clarification concerning outstanding claims against brokers. As referenced
throughout this document, Brown & Brown did not comply with this
request and has still not provided to the City a list of its outstanding
claims. Conversely, Aon provided the City with a timely clarification
stating that it had no outstanding claims. Notwithstanding the above, all
three Evaluation Committee members awarded either the same or more
points to Brown & Brown than to Aon in this category. This proves that
the Committee members did not consider in their evaluation and scoring
process that Brown & Brown did not comply with the submission
requirements of the RFLI.
(3) Another instance of the Evaluation Committee's arbitrary and capricious
actions in scoring the proposals is their scoring of Summit Global. Ms.
Burns' reference verification proved that Summit Global actually did not
represent the governmental entities it claimed in its proposal to have
represented. Because of this, she instructed the Committee, "You can not
evaluate this reference[s]. Summit Global did not provide those services
to those two references; it was individuals representing Tillinghouse who
provided those services and not Summit Global." Notwithstanding Ms.
Bums' clear and concise instruction, all three Evaluation Committee
members rated Summit Global as either the number one or number two
ranked firm. Furthermore, this arbitrary and capricious scoring is
compounded by the fact that Summit Global does not represent any
governmental entities within the State of Florida in the same capacity as
the RFLI proposes.
(4) Other additional instances of arbitrary and capricious scoring and
irregularities throughout this process are as follows: (a) Committee
members Fixler and Myers simply read their scores aloud and provided no
explanation or rationale; (b) Committee member Fixler did not receive the
Proposers' letters in response to the Request for Clarification and the
Reference Checks until right before the January 24, 2003 Evaluation
Mr. Sastre has received over 500 e-mails and telephone calls. Aon went above and beyond the
scope of services of their agreement with the City of Miami in order to assist the new Risk
Management staff as they began their employment.
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A. 03-
227
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 24
Committee meeting began; (c) the tape was shut off during the Evaluation
Committee meeting so Committee member Fixler could evaluate the
Proposers; (d) Committee member Fixler expressed concern with Brown
& Brown's ability and/or desire to perform for the price specified in its
proposal.
The long -accepted definition of an arbitrary decision is one which is not supported by
facts or logic. AQrico Chemical Co. v. Dept. of Envir. Reg_, 365 So.2d 759, 763 (Fla. 1st DCA
1978). Clearly, the various above -referenced actions by the Evaluation Committee members
were both illogical and not supported by the facts.
VI. THE SCORING SYSTEM UTILIZED BY THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE
WAS NOT THE SYSTEM PROVIDED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF
PROCUREMENT FOR THE RFLI
The RFLI and procurement liaison, Ms. Burns, established specific procedures and
"evaluation criteria" for evaluating and screening the four proposals Ms. Burns provided each
Evaluation Committee member with a scoring sheet containing five categories of specific
"Evaluation Criteria" totaling 100 points. Additionally, Ms. Bums informed the Committee that
the process required the Committee to establish certain evaluation standards prior to scoring the
proposal at the January 24`h Committee meeting. She stated, "You have to reach a decision
before we go into the discussion on the scoring how you are going to treat the scores and then we
will discuss the scores; we have got to do that first to set the parameters." The Committee did
not "set parameters" until they had scored the proposals. This allowed them to essentially set the
parameters based on the outcome they desired beforehand.
Additionally, the Committee did not have a uniform scoring process. This was not
uncovered until the end of the January 240, Committee meeting when, troubled by the fact that all
four Proposers essentially failed in that the highest average score is 31.33, Mr. Burns asked the
Committee if they were going to recommending a Proposer at all since all of the firms did so
poorly. She stated, "My issue would be you have a total of 100 points, from a purchasing stand
point your average score is 31 points. Are you even going to recommend a number one ranked
firm at 31 out of 100." Actually, what Ms. Bums did not realize is that the Committee members
did not evaluate the Proposers out of 100 points as they were supposed to and as was indicated
on the scoring sheet. Rather, they formulated a unique method of interpreting the "maximum
points" for each "Evaluation Criteria" as to be divided among the four Proposers, instead of
giving each Proposer up to the "Maximum Points." At neither of the Committee meetings was
there a discussion of how to score the proposals. Moreover, the procurement liaison did not even
know how the Committee Members decided to score the proposals. Counsel for Aon, finds it
quite intriguing that all of the Committee members uniformly used this unique method of
scoring, while the record contains absolutely discussion of scoring. This "ad hoc" evaluation
process was clearly contrary to procurement law.
03- 22'7
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
Mr. Michael Rath
February 10, 2003
Page 25
VII. CONCLUSION AND RELIEF REQUESTED
. In view of the foregoing, the selection of Brown & Brown for award was contrary to
applicable law. This contract award should have gone to Aon as the Proposer with the only
responsive proposal and the most experienced and qualified Proposer. Therefore, the City
Manger should be advised to terminate discussions with Brown & Brown and/or any other
Proposer and issue a recommendation for award under the RFLI to Aon. Furthermore, Brown &
Brown, Summit Global and Gallagher should be disqualified from this procurement as non-
responsive Proposers. Alternatively, the City Manger should be advised to reject all bids and
reissue a new procurement through an open and competitive process. In addition, Aon should be
awarded its proposal preparation costs, the costs of bringing this protest, including reasonable
attorney's fees and such other relief as may be appropriate.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. 13
Sincerely,
A I
Lucia A. Dougherty
Alexander P. Heckler
Counsel for Protester
Aon Risk Services, Inc.
Exhibits
cc: Alejandro Vilarello, Esq., City Attorney
Joe Arriola, City Manager/Chief Administrator
13 Copies of all cases cited herein are submitted herewith. Additionally, Aon reserves
the right to supplement this bid protest with and based on other documents in possession of the
City not currently available for submission, or as is allowed during the course of the protest
proceedings. Qptiplan, Inc. v. Sch. Bd. of Broward County, 710 So. 2d 569, 571-72 (Fla. 4'
DCA 1998).
o3- 227
GREENBERG TRAURIG, P.A.
W
_
C)
Z
0
w
M
W o'
are you going to treat the scores. And then we'll discuss the scores.
O
We've got to do that first to set the parameters. The other thing I
LL
want to bring to your attention. We are under a code of silence. The
code is lifted today because we're in this meeting. However, as
C
soon as you walk out the door you can't discuss this process
W
amongst yourself nor with any other potential proposer or anyone
0 z:
outside this room. That's why these scores are going to be yours
U ®
and only yours only. So, when you come back in, I will eventually
LU
create a tabulation that will have to go on the Commission agenda.
That will be part of the package. So, whatever scores or scoring
methodology you use, you're going to say to them that these are our
J
scores and I will stand by them. So, they're independent and they're
going to be your stores and we'll discuss it at the next meeting.
MLU
We'll haves some time, that's why I said to do some preliminary
draft scoring, it's a lot easier next time around, when you come into
the meeting. Any other questions? If you want me to do anything
else on your rehab before I send out these letters, or you think of
another thing about the references, just e-mail real quick. But I'll
et that out this week.
Stuart Myers
Beautiful. Thanks very much for your help.
EVALUATION COMMITTEE MEETING II, 1/24/03
Pamela Bums
Good Morning.
Stuart Myers
Good Morning, Pam.
Pamela Burns
We are here for the second meeting of the evaluation for Insurance
Brokerage Services pursuant to RFLI 0203032. Today's date of
January 24, 2003 and it is approximately 11:00 a.m.
For purpose of the record each of the Committee members identify
themselves please.
John Petillo
Good Morning, I'm John Petillo. I'm a risk management consultant
for the City of Miami
Elliott Fixler
I'm Elliott Fixler.
Stuart Myers
Stuart Myers, advisor to the Mayor.
Pamela Burns
And you know myself, Pamela Burns, from Purchasing and the
liaison. Also present in the room today we have another individual
who is observing. If you would also identify yourself, Sir?
Jerry Fiacco
Jerry Fiacco
Pamela Burns
And Mr. Fiacco is here only to observe. He's been advised that at
no time during this process can he participate actively in any of the
discussions. Pursuant to our previous meeting your were given
copies of each of the proposals, your were given copies of the
evaluations for and asked to evaluate each proposal. You'd also
asked that I do some other things for you. One of the things that you
asked me to do for you was to seek clarification from each of the
03- 227 l.%
LL
F_
C
F-
Ai
03- 227 0-2-
proposers on some issues. What I just distributed to you were letters
that were actually sent to them and I received responses that
hopefully all three of your received their responses that I had
scanned and e-mailed and each of you had a chance to review it and
I understand all of you didn't get it but I did provide that to you in
advance of this meeting. So that was one of your requests. The
other request that you had between last meeting and this meeting
was to verify some references. You also have been provided with
reference verifications . I did two per provider and I have also
provided that to you in advance of this meeting. I want to also make
sure that number one, have each of you had a chance to review each
proposal between now and today and do preliminary scoring.
Response
Yes.
PM
And also be reminded that you were under the code of silence. So,
has any of the proposers or potential proposers or anyone one on
their behalf contacted you in any way since that last time to
influence your decision today.
Response
No.
Pamela Burns
Before we proceed and turn it over to our Chairperson do you have
any uestions of me.
Response
No.
Pamela Burns
Okay, were there any questions you may have had regarding the
references.
Elliott Fixler
Yes. Did you have any follow-up phone calls with the Proposers
after you received some of their recommendations
Pamela Burns
Yes I did. In front of you, you have references from Arthur
Gallagher, Aon, Brown & Brown and Summit Global. I think
probably is there's any question, it's going to on the Summit Global.
The individuals, both individuals for references, they had no
knowledge of the firm and that's what I've indicated. However, and
you have to evaluate based solely on the firm who proposed. Ok.
So, I received a subsequent phone call and I said "put in writing", so
_ r
regarding Summit Global, I will read what they said. "Per our
04
conversation yesterday regarding your references, I was the initial
Executive responsible and Jean Supers (sp) was the Account
O Z
Manager." This is for Global. "for the New York Housing
V
Authority while we were at Segwick (sp). When I left Segwick (sp),
W
Jean remained the Account Manager. Since that time, Jean through
Tillinghouse and myself, with Summit Global Partners have service
marketed many other public entities and Fortune 1000 corporate
V
accounts together. In addition, I spoke with Carter Salomon,
j
Chairman of the Wade (sp) County Commissioners who would
m
welcome a call to speak to you" and so on. Umm. However,
LU
they've, they mentioned Tillinghouse and that was what the
Q_
references came out, these individuals who're employed by
Tillingho,use. I inaudible went back to the proposal. I sat there,
03- 227 0-2-
03- 227 30
went page by page. I did not locate anywhere in the proposal the
mention of Tillinghouse and where these individuals were actually
employed. I mean I tried to find it to see maybe there was a joint -
partnership, he mentioned it but they were bring together these
people. If you find it, fine. I could not find it. As a result, there is
a..., you can not evaluate this reference on Tillinghouse or these
individuals because it was Summit Global who submitted the
response. So that's who you are evaluating, Summit Global.
Summit Global did not provide their services to those two
references. It was individuals representing Tillinghouse, who
provided those services but not Summit Global. So the references
remain what they are; what you have been provided regardless of the
clarification. You have any questions on that?
Response
Uh. No.
Pamela Burns
So the only issue is that, he had wanted; he thought that I would call
him in advance before I did the reference check, so that he could
inform the references that they were about to be called and that's not
how I operate. I operate, if you submit a response, it's very clear
that, if we, at anytime, have the opportunity to check references then
that's what I do. OK. So we're here today. You have been
provided with the evaluation forms, last time, you've read, you've
done some preliminary scoring.. At this point in time, I'm here to
facilitate and I going to turn it over to the Chair for discussion.
Stuart Meyers
Hello, John, would you like to start out?
John Petillo
Sure I would.
Stuart Meyer
OK.
John Petillo
Absolutely. Thank you very much. Good morning. Yes, I have
reviewed all four proposals. Brown & Brown, Summit Global
Partners, Authur Gallagher, and AON for services. In evaluating
O 4
their proposals and my knowledge their overall performance in the
LL—
market place, I have done some preliminary scoring. On the first
0
issue, `Proposal's Overall Professional Qualifications and
Experience including Key Staff and Account Representatives'. Of
those twenty points I have allocated seven to Brown & Brown, four
Z
to Summit Global Partners, seven to Arthur J. Gallagher and two to
V Q
AON. AON's poor assignment of points in this category is based
W
directly on my experience on in dealing with them since I have been
doing consulting work for the City of Miami. So I am not happy
V
with how they have responded to me for information and various
J
other things. Number two, again from a professional qualifications,
m
I've taken into consideration the references, I, I think that Brown &
LU
Brown and Arthur J. Gallagher have done very well and therefore
my scoring in that category is at it is. `Overall Strategy to Represent
the City; Risk Identification and Use of Computerized Systems'.
Very evenly matched. I scored four points for Brown & Brown,
four poin s for Summit Global, three, four points for Arthur J.
03- 227 30
W
C)
_Z
LU
m
o3- 227 9)
Gallagher, three points for AON. `Proposer Marketing Expertise'.
Again equally, Brown & Brown, Summit Global Partners, and
Arthur J. Gallagher from the stand point of view of them being able
to go out into the marketplace to procure proposals for the City of
Miami. What's coming up first and is extremely important is the
first renewal. The property renewal and they are first renewals and
it's a very very difficult marketplace. I'm very happy that we're
making a broker assignment and then giving the broker all of the
insurance companies to work with in the marketplace cause the
marketplace is, is shrinking as we speak. So the strategy from that
stand point of view, I think is excellent for the City. As opposed to,
bringing in various brokers to compete on pieces of the insurance. I
think that would be tremendous mistake and with the lack of
capacity, if we did that, you may not eve be able to put a program
together as you split up the marketplace. So, giving the entire
marketplace to one broker to go out on behalf of the City to put a
property program together [inaudible] is, is, is a, is a an excellent
strategy and in obviously May 1St is coming pretty rapidly. So, the
sooner we make this decision, the better. And again, Brown &
Brown, Summit Global, Arthur J. Gallagher are pretty much equal in
their ability to go out and put a program together. I've rated AON
again, very low based upon what I've seen what they've done with
the property last year and other areas of the program for the City
where they have actually left the City naked and haven't even done
routine renewals. Next item "Outstanding [interrupted]
Pamela Burns
Did you ... we need scores for those.
John Petillo
I'm sorry, nine for Brown & Brown, nine for Summit Global
Partners, nine for Arthur J. Gallagher, three for AON.
ela BLEPS
OK.
°p PetiA
Next category "Outstanding Claims Against the Broker". I just
LL
scored, giving one point to Brown & Brown, one point to Summit
t"
Global Partners, two points to Arthur J. Gallagher, and one point to
AON. No real comments on that category. `Financial Proposal'.
0
Brown & Brown has quoted $100,000 plus another $6,250.00 in
Vorder
to get their [in audible - actuarial review to semi-annual to
W
annual, given the supply year ends] that, that is why I am giving
them twelve points on the `Financial Proposal'. Summit Global
Partners is $135,000 including actuarial three year guaranty. I've
given them nine points on the financial side. Gallagher, $247,500 in
actuarial five year guaranty. I've given them five points. And
AON, $255,000
W
on the brokerage side, $45,000 on the actuarial five
years on the guaranty. I've given them four points. So as this gets
totaled out. I have 33 for Brown & Brown, 27 for Summit Global
Partners, 27 for Arthur J. Gallagher and 13 for AON.
Pamela Burns I
OK. Thank you.
John Petillo I
And I'm negotiable.
o3- 227 9)
LLI 0!
0
LI --_
0 M1.
�-Of
M U
LLI LLI
_ V
� J
m m.
C/:) C
Pamela Burns
[Laughter]
Stuart Myers
Elliot, would you like to go through ours?
Elliott Fixler
No. Cause I'm, I'm doing it. I don't know what I did with my
inaudible copy.
Stuart Myers
So, you're re-, you're re...
Elliott Fixler
I'm trying to re.., I'm trying to re..
Pamela Burns
Remember what you have scored, and you've already done the
scoring already so,
Stuart Myers
Yeah.
Pamela Burns
Trying to recapture your original scores.
Elliott Fixler
Yeah, I trying to recapture, yeah, I don't know what I did with it. I
looking through the extras I had and I'm
Pamela Burns
Do you wanna then, pause at this time to kinda go off record until
you finish so that we can go back on record, so you can read us your
scores.
Stuart Myers
Yes. Could you.
Pamela Burns
About how much time do you think we need?
Elliott Fixler
Five minutes.
Pamela Burns
OK. We'll do that. Thank you.
Elliott Fixler
inaudible question to Stuart Myers]
StuartM ers
Yes. Would you please inaudible
Pamela Burns
OK. Elliott, you've had enough...
Elliott Fixler
OK. Category one. Of potential assignable points 20, Firm One,
six; Firm Two, five; Firm Three, seven; Firm Four, two.
Pamela Burns
OK. Overall Strategy.
El 'ott Fixler
Firm One is four, Firm Two is four, Firm Three is five, Firm Four is
C()
two. Third Category `Marketing Expertise'. Firm One, seven; Firm
Two, ten; Firm Three, eight; Firm Four, five. `Outstanding Claims'.
Firm One, one; Firm Two, two; Firm Three, two; Firm Four, zero.
U
`Financial Proposal'. Firm One, ten; Firm Two, nine; Firm Three,
six; Firm Four, five. Total [inaudible] if my math is correct is 28
Firm One; 30 Firm Two; 28 Firm Three; 14 Firm Four.
art Myers
OK. Ah. I'll just read off my number for him. The `Professional
Qualifications', I've got six for Brown & Brown, five for Summit
Global Partners, seven for Gallagher, and two for AON.
Petillo
Oh, were you copying my numbers?
art Myers
[Laughter] For `Overall Strategy', I've got a four for Brown &
Brown, four for Summit Global Partners, four for Arthur J.
Gallagher, and three for AON. On the `Marketing Expertise', I've
got eight Brown & Brown, eight for Summit Global, ten for Arthur
J. Gallagher, and four for AON. On the `Claims', One, One, Two
and One. And on the `Financial Proposals', fourteen for Brown &
Brown, nine for Summit Global Partners, four Gallagher, three for
AON. If my math is correct that is 33, 27, 27, and 13.
Pamela Burns
[inaudible] talked about at the last meeting, is we, add in ... did we
decide that, whether, or not we add them up or we average to
03 227
LU or -
T_ o
0 0
z �
O
M U
W w
- U
J
m m
Cn CL
�3
227 G
determine our ranking?
Stuart Myers
We didn't talk about that but we might as well. Add those up and
see what we come to.
Pamela Burns
So for Firm One... and I am just going to read what I am
showing ... I'm going to have to go back and just check our math just
to make sure. 33, from John; 28 from Elliott, and 33 from Stuart for
a total of 94. This is for Brown & Brown. So we have three of you
with an average score of 31.33. Next one is Summit, we have 27,
30, and a 27 for a total of 84 for an average of 28. Gallagher, 27,
28, 27 for a total of 82, the average being 27.3. The last one is
AON, 13, 14, 13 for a total of 40 and average of 13.3. OK. So,
based upon your scores, average together combined. Number One is
31.33 is Brown & Brown; Number Two is Summit with 28;
Following by Seven -Tenth of a point by Gallager at Number Three
and Last is AON. Any discussion of the scores?
John Petillo
What do you want us to discuss?
Pamela Burns
I mean...is that you all recommending that Brown & Brown is your
overall Number One Firm as a Committee
John Petillo
Based on?
Pamela Burns
Based upon the scores. And my issue would be you have a total of
100 points. From a purchasing standpoint your average score is 31
points. Are you even gonna recommend a number one ranked firm
with 31 points out of 100. That's my question to you. I mean, their
ranked number one are you gonna recommend them?
Jolu i Petillo
Why would the... Why would you ask thatquestion?
Pop ela Burns
Well, because... The reason why I'm asking that is, usually it is still
yes. But there might a process where you have a maximum number
of points, they are still ranked the best out of the proposers but it is
still not a firm you would recommend to... do the work.
Jo Petillo
I think under the circumstances we had three firms that I could have
:2:
recommended and that the services that they were, that were
0
available to us at these three firms could supply are all very good.
Three of the four participants. And the thing that seemed set Brown
Al
& Brown above the other two of these, at least in my voting, was the
price differential and under those circumstances, I feel, very
common in recommending them, even though the score says 31.
ela Burns
Is that the will of the Committee? To recommend Brown & Brown
UJ
to providing services. I have another question. Should negotiations
fail with your top ranked firm, Brown & Brown, when you negotiate
a contract, sometimes negotiations don't work out. Will you
recommend also, should negotiations fail, to go to your number two
ranked firm and/or your number three or your number four down the
road, until you actually negotiate that contract.
John Petillo
I would say to that. Although, my preferences, I think my
preferences would be given, given the clarifications that have come
in, as well what appears to be the [inaudible] stuff on the references
�3
227 G
Uj
= 0
F- LLL_
0 Q
F- Of
Z O
p U
LLJ W
J
m M
U:) CL
03- 227
n�e
that perhaps we ought to get these people in, at least get a couple of
them in to talk to about it. I'm also alittle bit ah, befuddled as to the
enormous difference in pricing, between what should be four firms
that should be relevantly close in terms of, I mean, I would think,
would be far closer in terms of what the cost would be to do this
kind of thing. And ah, I know that, I know that, other members of
the committee gave greater, I think they gave greater influence to the
financial numbers than perhaps I did. But if that raises, if that raises
questions, some serious questions on my part as to the ability to do
the job and will to do the job at those numbers. So, it would, it
would be my, my desire to, to actually meet these people and get
some, perhaps direct responses from them as to how they plan on
doing what they need to do at those numbers.
Pamela Burns
Are you talking about your number one ranked firm, which is
Brown?
John Petillo
Yeah, I would say the top, the, the, the two, whatever top, top two..
Pamela Burns
But then your number three is only seven -tenths behind, so those are
so close, from m.., from my standpoint, if you're gonna make a
recommendation, I would at least recommend the top three..
John Petillo
ok, yeah.
Pamela Burns
because there is no clear break
John Petillo
OK.
Pamela Burns
between two and three. There is one between three and four.
John Petillo
OK
Pamela Burns
and or recommend number four but if you're gonna recommend any,
I would recommend at least the top three, if not, all four.
Jo Petillo
OK.
P la Burns
So, you're recommending all four or the top three?
Jo Petillo
Top three.
P la Burns
Now what I, what usually would happen in this is that you
recommend number one, ah, you recommend all three in rank order
Z
should negotiations fail. We go to the Commission, and you start
0
negotiating a contract and maybe those issues will come out during
contract negotiations, maybe there were some factors that wasn't
factored in. But when we go to the Commission, we're going to the
Commission based upon the numbers that they give us. Unless you
find out in advance that the new numbers are so low but that is part
of this evaluations. So then, you may decide to go to number two
LU
and or number three. If they can't do the work at the prices they
quoted. And you can't negotiate a satisfactory contract. So..
Myers
I think that would work out for us and for the City. [inaudible] Time
is up, we are under some time pressure. Is it possible to put a time -
limit on the negotiation?
Pamela Burns
Well, unfortunately, it's the User Department who usually
negotiates the contract in consultation with Law Department to get
contract done. Usually, I am not involved in that and that is
03- 227
n�e
LU
0
Z
0
LU
M
LL ff
03- 227 oe
something that I can't really advise you on time constraints, so it's
really, what we first have to do is number one you have to make
your recommendation as Chairperson. As Chairperson, you need to
make a recommendation in writing to the Manager. The Manager
approves the recommendation. Once I secure the signature on that,
it lifts the code of silence. We get an agenda package on the
Commission, the same time we can actually contact the Proposer
and talking about contracts. So you can do both of those
simultaneously so that once you go to the Commission, once they
give approval, you can, hopefully, execute at that time. Now, you
know, we're actually, now working on a March agenda so, even
though it's only January, we're working on the first thing in March.
So those are the issues we have in front of us.
Stuart Myers
We'll need to get this on an earlier agenda.
Pamela Burns
That's what we're saying. You know, I could, I could assist you and
the User Department in working, and getting the legislation. I could
help you with the legislation and getting the agenda packages and
work with your staff to get that on the agenda. In the same time, we
got our, once we get the Manager's approval the User Department
can contact the number one firm and start talking money, start
talking some of the issues you have concerns with and start putting
in writing some of those issues. We have contract templates with
the exception of the scope of work and pricing. That's negotiated,
that goes to ether with the template and goes to Law.
Stuart Myers
Great.
Pamela Burns
And I could assist, but I, that's a Law decision. So, we could try to
get it somehow, somehow put on a February agenda, if somebody
puts it as a pocket or puts it and just takes it out for the agenda
deadline issues. But negotiation of contract is spearheaded by this
young lawyer here and he's..
John Petillo
Pamela, are we're going to talk about actually meeting or
interviewing, these top three?
Wela B s
No. At this point in time. The only one, what you will do is, I think
0
the issue was with the number two, if you can't negotiate a contract
LL r
or if their $100,000 — `no that doesn't involve this, this and this' and
Q Clj
they said I should've priced it at 2 or 3. Yeah, you have an issue.
You may then go to number two. Now your number two is a
0 Z
situation that you discuss before, at that point in time you meet with
U 0
number two to get some clarification because even though they rank
W
number two you still have issues. I mean, you have to walk through
(�
this. If I go to the Commission tomorrow, I will say with $106,000
and whatever that dollar amount was.. and you would have to
V
negotiate a contract within this parameter for five years. For one
j
year, with four renewal options. Assuming that they could do all the
m
UJ
work and that they said they could do, under the terms of [inaudible]
I
that contract. If they can't, and you're fine with that for that dollar
LL ff
03- 227 oe
W We
= 0:
0 OC
0
p U
LL J =J
J .
U:) CL
03- 227 Q
amount, you move forward, you get a contract and you're ready to
go. If they can't then you go to number two. There's a lot of things
that has to be done and all at the same time. Make sure that this is in
lace b , what time do you need the contract?
Stuart Myers
The renewal is, the renewal for the property is due May 1, which
means we will have a ninety days, most of time you ought to be in
the market within ninety days and so we are pushing ourselves right
now, on that time limitation.
Pamela Burns
Well, what I would recommend is we get somebody to put this as an
item on the agenda. And I'll work within your due dates, whatever
date we can get on the agenda to make sure we have agenda item,
legislation prepared, the contract is another issue, but I can help you
inaudible
Stuart Myers
Very good.
Pamela Burns
And then once the code is lifted with the Manager's approval. Then
you can all talk. Start talking and trying to negotiate and hammer
out the details. So what, do you need anything as Chairperson from
me, do you need..
Stuart Myers
If you would prepare the draft recommendation.
Pamela Burns
I'll do that for you.
Stuart Myer
Thank you.
Pamela Burns
What I also do on your behalf is I take your scores and I put in what
I call a tabulation, to kinda see who scored what and who gave who..
that is just a little simple thing that will go with the agenda item. I'll
do that for you, but I'll prepare it for you on you behalf. I'll email it
to you?
SMyers
Yes, please, that would be great.
P la Burns
And when you send it back, (come in) do you have a letterhead or
something to send it on, on behalf of, under your signature?
Stu Myers
I might. Yes.
P la Burns
Put somewhere on there and I'll put somewhere so that the Manager
can sign it and it can be sent to me as a fax, and I can.. or an original
if you get the Managers signature. We gotta try to get this in.
art Myers
Well, be here, we have a... We'll be meeting with the Manager on
Monday.
Par4ela Burns
Oh, good. I'll, I'll..
Stuk Myers
So, if you can have that to me with,
aj ela Burns
I'll try and do it, I'm trying to actually leave by 4, 3 or 4 today. But
I'll pop something out for you. Do youAs there anything as a
recommendation, other than the standard things you want me say. Is
there anything else in the recommendation you want me to mention
or is it just the standard.
Stuart Myers
[inaudible response]
Pamela Burns
OK. I'll send that out to you today.
Stuart Myers
Thanks very much.
Pamela Burns
Any other questions, any other issues? Alright, I know we have
03- 227 Q
LU W
ON
F.._ ,
LL t
0 Q\
Z 0
® C)
L.LJ LU
� J\
� m
C/:) M
03- 227 0
another gentleman here, the code will still be in effect once you
leave this room you still can not talk to this gentleman or vice versa.
Until the City Manager approves in writing with a recommendation.
The code then lifts at that time. So you're still under the code, even
though you made a decision. Once, we get the Manager's approval
thenyou're free, OK.
Stuart Myers
Great..
Pamela Burns
Thank you for volunteering and I'll talk to you later and I'll get you
that inaudible .
Stuart Myers
Thank you.
Pamela Burns
The information that you have in front of you as far as those
proposals, I need each of your score sheets in writing, I need to
check score sheets, I need you to sign and date those, it becomes
part file. Anything else you can keep, those are yours or you can
leave them here.
[Inaudible statement from someone
Pamela Burns
If you have it, in pencil, if would go over it in pen or at least sign
our name in ink.
Inaudible statement from someone ..Over again..
Pamela. Burns
Whatever you want, but that's, that's gonna become part of my
permanent file and anybody has an opportunity to come and take a
look at that. Copies of the proposals or your evaluate or your
reference checks you can take with you or you can leave here. That
will be up to you. If you leave them with me, I'll give them to Mr.
Fixler, so that he cantake to his office. Alright, thank you.
Stuart Myers
Thank you.
Pamela Burns
Go ahead and just put today's date on it and do it with the blue ink,
otherwise I'd do it cause [inaudible] Alrightie. Once the Manager
signs it, your recommendation approves it, I then send out letters
notifying everybody of the results and the anticipated date that we're
gonna have this on a Commission agenda. So, that all [inaudible]. I
don't know, if you want to see when we could possibly get on an
agenda just let me know. I don't know.
Stu irt Myers
Right away.
Par. iela Burns
Yeah.
Stu irt Myers
And if we need an emergency... we'll we will because, we will need
one
ela Burns
If you thinks it's going to be the February meeting then, I'll
art Myers
Absolutely.
ela Burns
I'll, I'll, be the February 14 or 15 versus the second meeting, I'm
not sure.
Stu ul Myers
Please, the first meeting in February.
P ela Burns
OK. And, I don't know but somebody needs to be in touch to get
that on. And I'll work with those timeframes. OK. Elliott, you just
gave me yours, OK. Take with you what you want. Leave with me
what you don't want and again that's for participating in the process.
03- 227 0