HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-02-0538.2J-01-358
4/29/02
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI COMMISSION
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS OF THE
SELECTION COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR
PROPOSALS ("RFQ") NO. 01-02-049, DATED
JANUARY 28, 2002, THAT THE MOST QUALIFIED
FIRM IS THE CHESAPEAKE GROUP, INC. TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR A MARKETING STUDY
OF THE BUSINESS CORE OF COCONUT GROVE FOR THE
DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR, WITH
THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ONE ADDITIONAL
SIX -MONTHS PERIOD, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $90,000 FOR THE INITIAL AND EXTENDED
PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE
NO. 344102.509202.6.270; AUTHORIZING THE
CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN
AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY
ATTORNEY, WITH THE CHESAPEAKE GROUP, INC. AND
TO REISSUE THE RFP IN THE EVENT A FAIR,
COMPETITIVE AND REASONABLE AGREEMENT CANNOT
BE NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED WITH THE
CHESAPEAKE GROUP, INC.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recommendation of the City Manager to
approve the findings of the selection committee pursuant to
CITY Gf?
MSE :NG
Resolution lQo•
Request for Proposals ("RFQ") No. 01-02-049, dated January 28,
2002, that the most qualified firm is The Chesapeake Group, Inc.
to provide professional services for a marketing study of the
business core of Coconut Grove for the Department of Real Estate
and Economic Development for a period of one year, with the
option to extend for one additional six -months period, in an
amount not to exceed $90,000 for the initial and extended
periods, is accepted, with funds allocated from Account Code
No. 344102.509202.6.270.
Section 2. The City Manager is authorized" negotiate
and execute an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney, with The Chesapeake Group, Inc. and to reissue the RFP
in the event a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement cannot
be negotiated and executed with The Chesapeake Group, Inc.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.�'
1 The herein authorization is further subject to compliance with all
requirements that may be imposed by the City Attorney, including but not
limited to those prescribed by applicable City Charter and Code
provisions.
21 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 2 of 3
-,.2
02
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of May , 2002.
ATTEST:
9.,.,
PRISCILLA A. THOMPSON
CITY CLERK
APPROVED ASCO FO
LLO
C ITT AT
W 618 9 *f'r : L B
Ix
C
MNUEL A. DIAZYOR
TNESS 2%
Page 3 of 3 A 0 — � 18.2
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Cit ommission
FROM: S1 ez
City Manage
RECOMMENDATION
19
DATE : APR 219 2;'�'J2 FILE :
SUBJECT:
Resolution Accepting Proposal for the
Coconut Grove Marketing Study
REFERENCES:
For City Commission Meeting
ENCLOSURES: of May 9th, 2002
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution accepting
the recommendation approving the findings of the selection committee that the most qualified firm
to provide professional services for a marketing study of the business core of Coconut Grove is The
Chesapeake Group, Inc., and further authorizing the negotiation and execution of an agreement with
The Chesapeake Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $90,000.
BACKGROUND
Following prior directives of the City Commission and the recommendations of stakeholders in the
Coconut Grove area, the City through its Department of Real Estate and Economic Development,
issued a Request for Proposals on December 21, 2001 seeking Professional Services to conduct a
Marketing Study of Coconut Grove.
The City Clerk received three proposals by the advertised deadline of January 28th from 1) The
Chesapeake Group, Inc., 2) Gibbs Planning Group, Inc. and, 3) Turkel Schwartz & Partners. A
five -member selection committee was appointed consisting of three stakeholders in the area of
Coconut Grove and two members of City staff that included the North/East Coconut Grove NET
Administrator. The selection committee met on February 28`h, 2002 and a final time on Thursday,
March 21, 2002, at which time it completed its evaluation of the proposals.
The selection committee found the proposal submitted by The Chesapeake Group, Inc., to be the
number one ranked proposal and forwarded its recommendation to the City Manager for
consideration. Please refer to the attached selection committee report for a discussion of its
deliberations, ranking and recommendation.
Having considered all of the pertinent information, I concur with the selection committee's findings
and recommend that the City Commission accept The Chesapeake Group, Inc., as the firm to
provide professional services to conduct the marketing study of Coconut Grove. Subject to
Commission approval, a professional services agreement will be negotiated and entered into with
The Chesapeake Group, Inc., in an amount not to exceed $90,000 to conduct this study.
02-538.2
FISCAL IMPACT
This agreement, in an amount not to exceed $90,000, will have a direct fiscal impact on the City
budget. Funds have been identified from Strategic Initiatives CIP Account 344102.509202.6.270
02-538.2
Budgetary Impact Analysis
1. Department Real Estate & Economic Development Division: Economic Development
2. Agenda Item # (if available)
3. Title and brief description of legislation or attach ordinance/resolution:
Resolution accepting proposal for the Coconut Grove Marketing Study
4. Is this item related to revenue? NO: X YES(If yes, skip to item #7.)
5. Are there sufficient funds in Line Item?
YES: X Index Code 344102 Minor Obj. Code 509202.6.270 Amount $90,000
NO: Complete the following questions:
2
Source of funds: Amount budgeted in the Line Item $
Balance in Line Item $
Amount needed in the Line Item $
Sufficient funds will he transferred from the follnwinu line items -
ACTION ACCOUNT NUMBER
ACCOUNT NAME TOTAL
Index/Minor Object/Project No.
Verified by:
From
$
From
$
From
$
To
$
7. Any additional comments?
8. Approved b
NPOD!epartment Director signee
04/15/02
Date
FOR DEPARTMEF
MENT AND BUDGET USE ONLY
Verified by:
Verified by:
Transfer done by:
Department of Manag a udge /
Budget Analyst
Budget Analyst
Director/Designee /•�
Date /
Date
Date
42-538.2
April 5th, 2002
Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager
City of Miami
444 SW 2"d Avenue — 10th Floor
Miami, FL 33130
RE: Recommendation of Selection Committee for Professional Service to Conduct a Marketing
Study of Coconut Grove.
Dear Mr. Gimenez:
As Chairperson of the selection committee reviewing the submittals for a Marketing Study of
Coconut Grove, I am pleased to offer the attached report of the Committee's findings. The
recommendation of the Committee is as follows:
After thoroughly evaluating the three responsive and highly qualified proposal submissions, it is
the Selection Committee's recommendation that The Chesapeake Group, Inc., be contracted to
provide professional services to conduct the marketing study of Coconut Grove for a fee not to
exceed $90,000. The Committee deems that through their collective expertise and well-rounded
experience The Chesapeake Group, Inc., and its sub -consultants are most qualified to perform
the marketing study, provide recommendations for corrective action and assist local merchants
and stakeholders in securing a niche in our highly competitive economy.
The Chesapeake Group's proposal offered a superior work program consisting of the following
phases:
Phase 1 — Data Collection & Research
Phase includes but is not limited to one -on one/in person interviews, telephone
surveys of area households, and focus group meetings.
Phase 2 — Analysis
Phase includes but is not limited to analysis of the current market conditions,
market/trade components and demand, characteristics of market area, population
spending, and commercial utilization.
Phase 3 — Specific Marketing & Management Concepts
Phase involves the development of specific marketing and management concepts.
Consultant will delineate actions necessary by both the public and private sectors
to maximize development opportunities.
Phase 4 — Strategic Implementation Program
Phase involves the development of a strategy, with both retention and recruitment
elements. Strategy will include a list of potential tenant prospects for retail
activity
02-538.2
Carlos A. Gimenez
April 5, 2002
Page 2
deemed appropriate in the analysis. The marketing plan will also be developed in
this phase and will include suggested, creative promotional concepts.
Phase 5 — Plan Documentation
Phase 5 Details deliverable materials that will include a camera ready Executive
Summary of conclusions and suggestions.
Phase 6 — Project Monitoring (Optional)
This optional phase proposes project monitoring to coordinate the overall
implementation of the approved plan. Individuals who have had extensive
experience in developing projects in Miami would staff this phase.
The Committee also took into consideration the qualifications of team members and sub -
consultants that would be involved in the project. The Chesapeake Group was found to have
assembled a superior team consisting of Howard Kohn, Matthew Schwartz and Marla Dumas,
joined by Daniel A. Biederman of Biederman Redevelopment Ventures Corp., and Robert J.
Rodriguez of NatCom Marketing.
Mr. Kohn is the President and co-founder of The Chesapeake Group and will act as Co -Project
Manager for this endeavor. Mr. Matthew Schwartz, AICP, will serve as the Co -Project Manager
and is very familiar with issues facing the City of Miami, having served as the Executive
Director of Miami's Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Team member Marla Dumas
will be responsible for data collection and community outreach. Before joining The Chesapeake
Group, Ms. Dumas was the Director of Planning for the city of Sunny Isle.
Daniel A. Biederman, of Biederman Redevelopment Ventures Corp., is also the co-founder of
-the Grand Central Partnership, 30 Street Partnership and the Bryant Park Restoration
Corporation. He will focus on the creation of marketing strategies and management related
implementation programs. Mr. Biederman has written, lectured and taught extensively in the
field of urban management. Being twice ranked an INC 500 Company, NatCom Marketing
brings considerable experience to the project the firm represents entities such as Lucent
Technologies, Chevron, and Wells Fargo among others. Mr. Rodriguez, Co -Founder and CEO of
NatCom Marketing will assist in the creation of marketing strategies and be responsible for the
development of concepts related to public relations and marketing.
Following careful consideration, the Selection Committee for the Coconut Grove Marketing
Study RFP recommends The Chesapeake Group, Inc. for the City Manager's consideration. The
Committee further recommends reissuina the RFP in the event a fair, competitive and reasonable
agreement cannot be negotiated and executed between the City and The Chesapeake Croup, Inc.
02-538.2
Carlos A. Gimenez
April 5, 2002
Page 3
Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to participate in this process. The work to be
performed and implementation of the study's findings will be critical to the future of the Coconut
Grove business community.
On b alf of the Coconut grove Marketing Study Selection Committee,
Elena V. C��4'ltection
erChairperso, Committee
c: Members, Coconut Grove Marketing Study Selection Committee:
Haydee Regueyra
Carmen Sanchez
Orlando Alvarez
Robert Masrieh
APPROVED BY:
. C401-
y a�
Carlos . Gimene ity Manager Date
®2"`53$.2
SELECTION COMMITTEE REPORT
Marketing Study for Coconut Grove
Selection Committee Members
Elena Carpenter, Publisher, Massmedia Enterprises, (Committee Chairperson)
Orlando Alvarez, President Coconut Grove Chamber of Commerce
Robert Masrieh, President, Sunny Investments, Coconut Grove Parking Trust
Haydee Regueyra, NE Coconut Grove Net Administrator (staff)
Carmen Sanchez, Economic Development Coordinator (staff)
Support Staff
Arleen R. Weintraub, Director, Department of Real Estate and Economic Development
Pamela Burns, Sr. Procurement Contracts Officer, Purchasing Department
First Meeting on February 28, 2002
Meeting began with self -introductions. Staff advised that the City Clerk received three proposals
from:
• The Chesapeake Group, Inc.
• Gibbs Planning Group
• Turkel Schwartz & Partners
Each member of the Committee was given a packet consisting of copies of the individual
proposals, evaluation forms, City Clerk's Bid Security List and the Request For Proposals issued
for this project. It was noted that the committee meeting was being recorded.
Committee member Elena Carpenter did not attend this meeting as she was out of town.
Subsequently, Pamela Burns met with Ms. Carpenter and confirmed she had no conflict of
interest with the firms who responded.
Chairperson
When the Committee indicated that it was ready to proceed, staff suggested that the Committee
first select a chairperson to guide the rest of the proceedings and to present the Committee's
findings if called upon to do so by the City Manager or City Commission. The Committee
proceeded to vote a chair and Ms. Carpenter was selected for this position by a unanimous vote
of the members.
Discussions
1. Finding of Responsiveness
As the first order of business, Ms. Burns instructed the Committee on procedures,
minimum requirements, evaluation criteria, M/WBE certification and Local Preference
Selection Committee Report — page l
Coconut Grove Marketing Study RFP
02- 538-
consideration. The Committee was also instructed on how to determine responsiveness of
the proposals.
2. Use of Evaluation Form
Staff had prepared an evaluation form conforming to the criteria and their relative
weights as set forth in the Request for Proposals, which was briefly explained.
I Presentations
It was agreed by members of the committee that each of the three firms submitting a
proposals would be invited to present to the selection Committee. Each firm would be
allowed a fifteen -minute presentation time, followed by a 20 -minute question and answer
session in which the Committee would pose questions to the proposers. The presentation
was restricted to the materials submitted in the Proposal, in accordance with procurement
procedures.
Second Meeting of March 21, 2002
Meeting was called to order. All five members of the Committee were in attendance, along with
support staff. Committee agreed to hear presentations and hold -off on scoring until the
presentation session was finished. It was noted that the meeting was being recorded. The
Committee heard the presentation of The Chesapeake Group, Inc. first, followed by Gibbs
Planning Group via telephone, and completed the session with Turkel Schwartz & Partners.
1. Evaluation
After the presentation and question and answer session was completed, Ms. Burns
instructed the Committee on evaluation procedures. The evaluation process was
conducted in two phases: the technical analysis phase and the cost/fee phase. The
Committee in a unanimous voice agreed to evaluate each submittal individually, then
having the collective score calculated by staff and averaged.
The following evaluation criteria was used by the selection Committee as stated in the
RFP:
a. Qualifications and Experience (45 Points)
After a review of the information contained in the submittal, each member
evaluated the proposer for a possible maximum award of 45 points. Professional
credentials, expertise to perform the required services and lists of clients for
which proposer has provided similar services were taken into consideration for
the evaluation.
b. Approach to Project (45 Points)
Each member of the committee evaluated the proposer's approach to the project
for a possible maximum award of 45 points. Approach and methodology of work,
Selection Committee Report — page 2
Coconut Grove Marketing Studv RFP
02-53$,2
statement outlining plan and schedules were reviewed as well as the firm's overall
resources to accomplish the work and their ability to monitor and implement the
recommendations of the final report.
Minorityaomen Participation
It was agreed by the Committee to grant each proposer 3 points each for
Minority/Women Participation as none of the firms were certified but did have
key members of staff assigned to the project that met the requirements.
d. Local Preference
It was further agreed that the firm of Turkel Schwartz & Partners would be
awarded 5 points for local preference because its office is located in the City of
Miami.
Staff and Committee briefly discussed the scope of work set forth in the RFP. The four specific
points mentioned therein were intended to generate creative and innovative approaches to
address issues identified in the scope and those identified during the development of the proposal
without the confines of prescribed requirements.
2. Cost/Fee Phase
After oral presentations and evaluation of proposals, the Committee entered the Cost/Fee
phase of the evaluation process for proposers being considered. This phase was assigned
a maximum of 25 points. Proposals were evaluated in the following manner; as outlined
in the RFP:
a. The responsive Proposal with the lowest all-inclusive lump sum cost (as requested
in Section 5.1.1.10(a) Fee Proposal) will be given the maximum number of points.
b. Each proposal was be given points proportionately in relation to the lowest total
lump sum cost proposed.
The cost/fee proposal will be evaluated utilizing the following formula:
Lowest Total Cost Proposed 25 Points (maximum
Proposer's Cost/Fee Proposal X points for Cost/Fees) = Points
This point total was calculated by dividing the lowest total cost by the Proposer's costs
being evaluated with the result being multiplied by the weight (points) to arrive at a cost
equal to or less than the maximum points for fees. The points were added to the
Technical Points to arrive at the overall total points for both the Technical and Cost/Fee
Phases.
Upon conclusion of the evaluation by criteria, the committee proceeded to the Cost/Fee phase.
The proposed fees, which were submitted under separate cover and remained sealed, were
Selection Committee Report — page 3
Coconut Grove Marketing Study RFP 02-538.2
opened at this time and reviewed by the members of the Committee and staff. Subsequently the
lowest fee was identified. The fees were then subjected to the aforementioned formula and firms
ranked accordingly.
After all calculations were complete, the Committee, in a unanimous voice decided to
recommend the top ranked firm of The Chesapeake Group, Inc., to provide service to conduct a
marketing study of Coconut Grove, further recommending reissuing the RFP in the event a fair,
competitive and reasonable agreement cannot be negotiated and executed between the City and
The Chesapeake Croup, Inc.
COMMITTEE FINDINGS
Of the three firms that responded to the Request For Proposals, the approach and methodology
proposed by The Chesapeake Group and its sub consultants was found to be superior. Even
though, headquartered in Baltimore, Maryland, The Chesapeake Group has permanent offices in
Miami Dade County and is very familiar with the area having worked with other cities like
Miami Beach, Hialeah, Ft. Lauderdale, and Coral Gables. They also bring considerable national
experience to the project through previous engagements with other communities like Memphis,
Tennessee, Tacoma, Washington and Watertown, New York, all areas that have recently
struggled with maintaining and establishing market niches in their respective communities.
The Committee also took into consideration the qualifications of team members and sub
consultants that would be involved in the project. The Chesapeake Group was found to have
assembled a superior team consisting of Howard Kohn, Matthew- Schwartz and Marla Dumas,
joined by Daniel A. Biederman of Biederman Redevelopment Ventures Corp., and Robert J.
Rodriguez of NatCom Marketing.
Mr. Kohn is the President and co-founder of The Chesapeake Group and will act as Co -Project
Manager for this endeavor. Mr. Matthew Schwartz, AICP, will serve as the Co -Project Manager
and is very familiar with issues facing the City of Miami, having served as the Executive
Director of Miami's Downtown Development Authority (DDA). Team member Marla Dumas
will be responsible for data collection and community outreach. Before joining The Chesapeake
Group, Ms. Dumas was the Director of Planning for the city of Sunny Isle Beach.
Daniel A. Biederman, of Biederman Redevelopment Ventures Corp., is also the co-founder of
the Grand Central Partnership, 34th Street Partnership and the Bryant Park Restoration
Corporation. He will focus on the creation of marketing strategies and management related
implementation programs. Mr. Biederman has written, lectured and taught extensively in the
field of urban management. Being twice ranked a INC 500 Company, NatCom Marking brings
considerable experience to the project the firm represents entities such as Lucent Technologies,
Chevron, and Wells Fargo among others. Mr. Rodriguez, Co -Founder and CEO of NatCom
Marketing will assist in the creation of marketing strategies and be responsible for the
development of concepts related to public relations and marketing.
Selection Committee Report — page 4 Q
Coconut Grove Marketing Study RFP 0 2 — 5 3 8.2
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION
Having thoroughly evaluated and considered all of the pertinent information, it is the Selection
Committee's recommendation that the City Commission accept The Chesapeake Group, Inc., as
the firm who will provide professional services to conduct the marketing study of Coconut
Grove. The Committee deems that through their collective expertise and well-rounded
experience The Chesapeake Group, Inc. and its sub consultants are better qualified to perform
the marketing study, provide recommendations for corrective action and assist local merchants
and stakeholders in securing a niche in our highly competitive economy.
Selection Committee Report - page 5
Coconut Grove Marketing Study RFP
ow`rt-If 38,
TABULATION SUMMARY
RFP 01-02-049
COCONUT GROVE STUDY
Name or Proposer: The Chesapeake Group, Inc.
MAX. RATER RATER RATER RATER RATER TOTAL ADD FINAL
EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS it 1 it 1) -ft 12 -M A is C M„.,r,.
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
45
Rater # 2:
- -
•• -
Orlando L. Alvarez, Jr.
vn� i v
nvu�nvC
f CCJ
JLVRC
I'CNIVt\IIVh
45
40
43
45
45
218
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
45
40
40
43
45
40
208
MINORITY / WOMEN PARTICIPATION
5
3
3
3
3
3
15
LOCALPREFERENCE
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS
100
88
83
89
93
88
441
88.2
17.5
105.7
#1
Rater # 1:
Haydee Requeyra
Rater # 2:
Robert M. Masrieh
Rater # 3:
Orlando L. Alvarez, Jr.
Rater # 4:
Carmen Sanchez
Rater # 5:
Elena Carpenter
TABULATION SUMMARY
RFP 01-02-049
COCONUT GROVE STUDY
Name of Proposer: Gibbs Planning Group
MAX. RATER RATER RATER RATER RATER TOTAL ADD FINAL
EVALUATION CRITERIA PniNTR 3t 1 if 1) 4# 4 -H A 4A r n�1K1Tc1 A lr-M n
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
45
Rater # 2:
Robert M. Masrieh
Rater # 3:
Orlando L. Alvarez, Jr.
Rater # 4:
Carmen Sanchez
Rater # 5:
Elena Carpenter
30
25
30
40
20
145
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
45
30
25
26
40
20
141
MINORITY / WOMEN PARTICIPATION
5
1
1
1
1
1
5
LOCALPREFERENCE
5
0
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL POINTS
100
61
51
57
81
41
291
58.2
25
83.2
#2
Rater # 1:
Haydee Requeyra
Rater # 2:
Robert M. Masrieh
Rater # 3:
Orlando L. Alvarez, Jr.
Rater # 4:
Carmen Sanchez
Rater # 5:
Elena Carpenter
TABULATION SUMMARY
RFP 01-02-049
COCONUT GROVE STUDY
Name -of Proposer: Turkel Schwartz & Partners
MAX. RATER RATER RATER RATER RATER TOTAL ADD FINAL
EVALUATION CRITERIA POINTS # 1 # 2 # 3 # 4 it Fi P()INTS AVFRAG.F FFF.q IRMPF RANKING;
QUALIFICATIONS 8 EXPERIENCE
45
Rater # 2:
Robert M. Masrieh
Rater # 3:
Orlando L. Alvarez, Jr.
Rater # 4:
Carmen Sanchez
Rater # 5:
Elena Carpenter
40
40
27
40
35
182
APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY
45
25
30
20
35
35
145
MINORITY / WOMEN PARTICIPATION
5
3
3
3
3
3
15
LOCAL PREFERENCE
5
5
5
5
5
5
25
TOTAL POINTS
100
73
78
55
83
78
367
73.4
9.26
82.66
1 #_3
Rater # 1:
Haydee Requeyra
Rater # 2:
Robert M. Masrieh
Rater # 3:
Orlando L. Alvarez, Jr.
Rater # 4:
Carmen Sanchez
Rater # 5:
Elena Carpenter
CITY OF MIA:Mi. FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE NIEMORANDUM
Marcelo Pehna, Acting Director
Budget Department
/X J Com' v✓�' �rc�G'
FROG.I Arleen R. Weintraub, Director
Real Estate and Economic Development
_ March 28t', 2002 FILE
SUBJEC- . Funding of Professional Services
for Coconut Grove Marketing Study
REFERENCES .
E?:CLOSURESResolution
At a City Commission meeting last summer, the Commission directed the Administration to issue a
Request for Proposals for professional services to conduct a marketing study of the Coconut Grove
business area. A discussion was held whereby the Commission stated that the fee for this work was
not to exceed $100,000. That competitive process was conducted by the Department of Real Estate
and Economic Development. On March 215`, the selection committee concluded this part of the
process by formulating a recommendation to the City Manager to select a firm to perform the work.
A resolution is being prepared to present to the Commission on May 9t' to accept the City
Manager's recommendation and enter into a professional services agreement for an amount not to
exceed $90,000.
The study will include an implementation plan identifying development projects that will assist the
business area in retaining and attracting the appropriate commercial mix of activities. Improvements
may include street improvements, beautification projects, parking solutions, installation of new
lighting and signage.
In preparation for the City Commission's consideration of the attached resolution on the May 9t'
agenda, it is requested that available funding be verified for this purpose from CIP Account
344102.509202.6.270.
Thank you for your assistance.
Account Name:
Amount
Purpose:
Verified:
ARW/CSS
344102.509202.6.270
$90,000
Funding for professional services to conduct a marketing study
of the Coconut Grove Business Core.
Marcelo Pehna, Acting Director
Budget Department
2
®2-538.2
Form I(a)
SERVICES AGREEMENT
OR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 200_ (but effective as of
) by and between the City of Miami, a municipal corporation of the State
of Florida ("City") and , a
corporation ("Provider")
RECITAL
A. The City has issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the provision of
services ("Services") and Provider's proposal ("Proposal"), in response
thereto, has been selected as the most qualified proposal for the provision of the Services. The
RFP and the Proposal are sometimes referred to herein, collectively, as the Solicitation
Documents, and are by this reference incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.
B. The Commission of the City of Miami, by Resolution No.
adopted on , 200_, approved the selection of Provider and authorized the City
Manager to execute a contract, under the terms and conditions set forth herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and promises herein
contained, Provider and the City agree as follows:
TERMS
1. RECITALS: The recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated into and
made a part of this Agreement.
2. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall be commencing
on the effective date hereof.
02--538.2
3. OPTION TO EXTEND: The City shall have option(s) to extend the term
hereof for a period of (__)______each, subject to availability and appropriation of
funds. City Commission approval shall not be required as long as the total extended term does
not exceed two (2) years, or a period equal to the original term of this Agreement, whichever is
longer.
4. SCOPE OF SERVICE:
A. Provider agrees to provide the Services as specifically described, and under the
special terms and conditions set forth in Attachment "A" hereto, which by this reference is
incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement.
B. Provider represents and warrants to the City that: (i) it possesses all
qualifications, licenses and expertise required under the Solicitation Documents for the
performance of the Services; (ii) it is not delinquent in the payment of any sums due the City,
including payment of permit fees, occupational licenses, etc., nor in the performance of any
obligations to the City; (iii) all personnel assigned to perform the Services are and shall be, at all
times during the term hereof, fully qualified and trained to perform the tasks assigned to each;
and (iv) the Services will be performed in the manner described in Attachment "A".
5. COMPENSATION:
A. The amount of compensation payable by the City to Provider shall be based on
the rates and schedules described in Attachment `B" hereto, which by this reference is
incorporated into this Agreement; provided, however, that in no event shall the amount of
compensation exceed $ [per year].
B. Unless otherwise specifically provided in Attachment `B", payment shall be made
within forty five (45) days after receipt of Provider's invoice, which shall be accompanied by
cm:PSAForml(a)-M(Corp) 2
®2-538.2
sufficient supporting documentation and contain sufficient detail, to allow a proper audit of
expenditures, should City require one to be performed. If Provider is entitled to reimbursement
of travel expenses {i.e. Attachment `B" includes travel expenses as a specific item of
compensation), then all bills for travel expenses shall be submitted in accordance with Section
112.061, Florida Statutes.
6. OWNERSHIP OF DOCUMENTS: Provider understands and agrees that any
information, document, report or any other material whatsoever which is given by the City to
Provider or which is otherwise obtained or prepared by Provider pursuant to or under the terms
of this Agreement is and shall at all times remain the property of the City. Provider agrees not to
use any such information, document, report or material for any other purpose whatsoever without
the written consent of City, which may be withheld or conditioned by the City in its sole
discretion.
7. AUDIT AND INSPECTION RIGHTS:
A. The City may, at reasonable times, and for a period of up to three (3) years
following the date of final payment by the City to Provider under this Agreement, audit , or
cause to be audited, those books and records of Provider which are related to Provider's
performance under this Agreement. Provider agrees to maintain all such books and records at its
principal place of business for a period of three (3) years after final payment is made under this
Agreement.
B. The City may, at reasonable times during the term hereof, inspect Provider's
facilities and perform such tests, as the City deems reasonably necessary, to determine whether
the goods or services required to be provided by Provider under this Agreement conform to the
terms hereof and/or the terms of the Solicitation Documents, if applicable. Provider shall make
cm:PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 3
available to the City all reasonable facilities and assistance to facilitate the performance of tests
or inspections by City representatives. All tests and inspections shall be subject to, and made in
accordance with, the provisions of Section 18-55.2 of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as
same may be amended or supplemented, from time to time.
8. AWARD OF AGREEMENT: Provider represents and warrants to the City that it
has not employed or retained any person or company employed by the City to solicit or secure
this Agreement and that it has not offered to pay, paid, or agreed to pay any person any fee,
commission, percentage, brokerage fee, or gift of any kind contingent upon or in connection
with, the award of this Agreement.
9. PUBLIC RECORDS: Provider understands that the public shall have access, at
all reasonable times, to all documents and information pertaining to City contracts, subject to the
provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and agrees to allow access by the City and the public
to all documents subject to disclosure under applicable law. Provider's failure or refusal to
comply with the provisions of this section shall result in the immediate cancellation of this
Agreement by the City.
10. COMPLIANCE WITH FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LAWS: Provider
understands that agreements between private entities and local governments are subject to certain
laws and regulations, including laws pertaining to public records, conflict of interest, record
keeping, etc. City and Provider agree to comply with and observe all applicable laws, codes and
ordinances as they may be amended from time to time.
11. INDEMNIFICATION: Provider shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the
City and its officials, employees and agents (collectively referred to as "Indemnitees") and each
of them from and against all loss, costs, penalties, fines, damages, claims, expenses (including
cm:PSAFormI(a)-PFP(Corp) 4
0 2 -5382
attorney's fees) or liabilities (collectively referred to as "Liabilities") by reason of any injury to
or death of any person or damage to or destruction or loss of any property arising out of,
resulting from, or in connection with (i) the performance or non-performance of the services
contemplated by this Agreement which is or is alleged to be directly or indirectly caused, in
whole or in part, by any act, omission, default or negligence (whether active or passive) of
Provider or its employees, agents or subcontractors (collectively referred to as "Provider"),
regardless of whether it is, or is alleged to be, caused in whole or part (whether joint, concurrent
or contributing) by any act, omission, default or negligence (whether active or passive) of the
Indemnitees, or any of them or (ii) the failure of the Provider to comply with any of the
paragraphs herein or the failure of the Provider to conform to statutes, ordinances, or other
regulations or requirements of any governmental authority, federal or state, in connection with
the performance of this Agreement. Provider expressly agrees to indemnify and hold harmless
the Indemnitees, or any of them, from and against all liabilities which may be asserted by an
employee or former employee of Provider, or any of its subcontractors, as provided above, for
which the Provider's liability to such employee or former employee would otherwise be limited-
to
imitedto payments under state Workers' Compensation or similar laws.
12. DEFAULT: If Provider fails to comply with any term or condition of this Agreement,
or fails to perform any of its obligations hereunder, then Provider shall be in default. Upon the
occurrence of a default hereunder the City, in addition to all remedies available to it by law, may
immediately, upon written notice to Provider, terminate this Agreement whereupon all payments,
advances, or other compensation paid by the City to Provider while Provider was in default shall
be immediately returned to the City. Provider understands and agrees that termination of this
Agreement under this section shall not release Provider from any obligation accruing prior to the
cm:PSAForml(a)-RFP(Corp) 5
02-538,2
effective date of termination. Should Provider be unable or unwilling to commence to perform
the Services within the time provided or contemplated herein, then, in addition to the foregoing,
Provider shall be liable to the City for all expenses incurred by the City in preparation and
negotiation of this Agreement, as well as all costs and expenses incurred by the City in the re -
procurement of the Services, including consequential and incidental damages.
13. RESOLUTION OF CONTRACT DISPUTES: Provider understands and agrees that
all disputes between Provider and the City based upon an alleged violation of the terms of this
Agreement by the City shall be submitted to the City Manager for his/her resolution, prior to
Provider being entitled to seek judicial relief in connection therewith. In the event that the
amount of compensation hereunder exceeds $4,500, the City Manager's decision shall be
approved or disapproved by the City Commission. Provider shall not be entitled to seek judicial
relief unless: (i) it has first received City Manager's written decision, approved by the City
Commission if the amount of compensation hereunder exceeds $4,500, or (ii) a period of sixty
(60) days has expired, after submitting to the City Manager a detailed statement of the dispute,
accompanied by all supporting documentation (90 days if City Manager's decision is subject to
City Commission approval); or (iii) City has waived compliance with the procedure set forth in
this section by written instruments, signed by the City Manager.
14. CITY'S TERMINATION RIGHTS:
A. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, in its sole discretion, at
any time, by giving written notice to Provider at least five (5) business days prior to the effective
date of such termination. In such event, the City shall pay to Provider compensation for services
rendered and expenses incurred prior to the effective date of termination. In no event shall the
cm:PSAForml(a)-M(Corp) 6
02-532
City be liable to Provider for any additional compensation, other than that provided herein, or for
any consequential or incidental damages.
B. The City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without notice to
Provider, upon the occurrence of an event of default hereunder. In such event, the City shall not
be obligated to pay any amounts to Provider and Provider shall reimburse to the City all amounts
received while Provider was in default under this Agreement.
15. INSURANCE: Provider shall, at all times during the term hereof, maintain such
insurance coverage as may be required by the City. All such insurance, including renewals, shall
be subject to the approval of the City for adequacy of protection and evidence of such coverage
shall be fiimished to the City on Certificates of Insurance indicating such insurance to be in force
and effect and providing that it will not be canceled during the performance of the services under
this contract without thirty (30) calendar days prior written notice to the City. Completed
Certificates of Insurance shall be filed with the City prior to the performance of services
hereunder, provided, however, that Provider shall at any time upon request file duplicate copies
of the policies of such insurance with the City.
If, in the judgment of the City, prevailing conditions warrant the provision by Provider of
additional liability insurance coverage or coverage which is different in kind, the City reserves
the right to require the provision by Provider of an amount of coverage different from the
amounts or kind previously required and shall afford written notice of such change in
requirements thirty (30) days prior to the date on which the requirements shall take effect.
Should the Provider fail or refuse to satisfy the requirement of changed coverage within thirty
(30) days following the City's written notice, this Contract shall be considered terminated on the
date that the required change in policy coverage would otherwise take effect.
cm:PSAForml(a)-RFP(Corp) 7
®2-53&2
16. NONDISCRIMINATION: Provider represents and warrants to the City that Provider
does not and will not engage in discriminatory practices and that there shall be no discrimination
in connection with Provider's performance under this Agreement on account of race, color, sex,
religion, age, handicap, marital status or national origin. Provider further covenants that no
otherwise qualified individual shall, solely by reason of his/her race, color, sex, religion, age,
handicap, marital status or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied services,
or be subject to discrimination under any provision of this Agreement.
17. MINORITY AND WOMEN BUSINESS AFFAIRS AND PROCUREMENT
PROGRAM: The City has established a Minority and Women Business Affairs and
Procurement Program (the "M/WBE Program") designed to increase the volume of City
procurement and contracts with Blacks, Hispanic and Women -owned business. The M/WBE
Program is found in Ordinance No. 10062, a copy of which has been delivered to, and receipt of
which is hereby acknowledged by, Provider. Provider understands and agrees that the City shall
have the right to terminate and cancel this Agreement, without notice or penalty to the City, and
to eliminate Provider from consideration and participation in future City contracts if Provider, in
the preparation and/or submission of the Proposal, submitted false of misleading information as
to its status as Black, Hispanic and/or Women owned business and/or the quality and/or type of
minority or women owned business participation.
18. ASSIGNMENT: This Agreement shall not be assigned by Provider, in whole or in
part, without the prior written consent of the City's, which may be withheld or conditioned, in
the City's sole discretion.
19. NOTICES: All notices or other communications required under this Agreement shall
be in writing and shall be given by hand -delivery or by registered or certified U.S. Mail, return
cm:PSAFormI(a)-PSP(Corp) 8
G2--532
receipt requested, addressed to the other party at the address indicated herein or to such other
address as a party may designate by notice given as herein provided. Notice shall be deemed
given on the day on which personally delivered; or, if by mail, on the fifth day after being posted
or the date of actual receipt, whichever is earlier.
TO PROVIDER: TO THE CITY:
20. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS:
A. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced according to the laws of the State
of Florida.
B. Title and paragraph headings are for convenient reference and are not a part of
this Agreement.
C. No waiver or breach of any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a waiver
of any subsequent breach of the same or any other provision hereof, and no waiver shall be
effective unless made in writing.
D. Should any provision, paragraph, sentence, word or phrase contained in this
Agreement be determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or otherwise
unenforceable under the laws of the State of Florida or the City of Miami, such provision,
paragraph, sentence, word or phrase shall be deemed modified to the extent necessary in order to
conform with such laws, or if not modifiable, then same shall be deemed severable, and in either
event, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full
force and effect or limitation of its use.
cm:PSAForml(a)-RFP(Corp) 9
02-538.2
E. This Agreement constitutes the sole and entire agreement between the parties
hereto. No modification or amendment hereto shall be valid unless in writing and executed by
properly authorized representatives of the parties hereto.
21. SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS: This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties
hereto, their heirs, executors, legal representatives, successors, or assigns.
22. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR: Provider has been procured and is being
engaged to provide services to the City as an independent contractor, and not as an agent or
employee of the City. Accordingly, Provider shall not attain, nor be entitled to, any rights or
benefits under the Civil Service or Pension Ordinances of the City, nor any rights generally
afforded classified or unclassified employees. Provider further understands that Florida
Workers' Compensation benefits available to employees of the City are not available to
Provider, and agrees to provide workers' compensation insurance for any employee or agent of
Provider rendering services to the City under this Agreement.
23. CONTINGENCY CLAUSE: Funding for this Agreement is contingent on the
availability of funds and continued authorization for program activities and the Agreement is
subject to amendment or termination due to lack of funds, reduction of funds and/or change in
regulations, upon thirty (30) days notice.
24. REAFIRMATION OF REPRESENTATIONS: Provider hereby reaffirms all of the
representations contained in the Solicitation Documents.
25. ENTIRE AGREEMENT: This instrument and its attachments constitute the sole and
only agreement of the parties relating to the subject matter hereof and correctly set forth the
rights, duties, and obligations of each to the other as of its date. Any prior agreements, promises,
cm:PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 10
02-538.2
negotiations, or representations not expressly set forth in this Agreement are of no force or
effect.
26. COUNTERPARTS: This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts,
each of which shall constitute an original but all of which, when taken together, shall constitute
one and the same agreement.
27. SPECIAL INSURANCE AND INDEMNIFICATION RIDER: Please initial if
applicable: ❑ ❑
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this instrument to be
executed by their respective officials thereunto duly authorized, this the day and year above
written.
ATTEST:
Priscilla A. Thompson, City Clerk
cm:PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp)
"City"
CITY OF MIAMI,a municipal
corporation
LIM
II
Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager
U2-538.2
ATTEST:
Print Name:
Title: Corporate Secretary
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
"Provider"
a
By:
Print Name:
Title: President
corporation
APPROVED AS TO INSURANCE
REQUIREMENTS:
ALEJANDRO VILARELLO R. SUE WELLER
City Attorney Acting Administrator
Risk Management
Form I (a)-(RFP/Corporate)
cm:PSAFonn1(a)-RFP(Corp) 12
REQUESTING ACCEPTANCE
OF RFP NO. 01-02-049
ITEM: Professional Marketing Study Services (of
Coconut Grove)
DEPARTMENT: Real Estate and Economic Development
TYPE: Request to accept Proposal
REASON: It is recommended that the proposal of The
Chesapeak Group, Inc., be accepted to provide
professional services for a marketing study of the
business core of Coconut Grove; authorizing the
City Manager to negotiate and execute a
Professional Services Agreement, for an initial
period of one (1) year, with the option to extend for
one (1) additional six month period, for the
Department of Real Estate and Economic
Development, for an amount not to exceed
$90,000 during the initial and extended period of
said agreement; allocating funds therefore from
Account Code No. 344102.509202.6.270.
Dire c r of Pu hasing L
e�
4/12-1 2 --
ate ate
AwardlssueRFP
02-538,2