Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-02-0566J-02-474 5/9/02 RESOLUTION NO. 02— 566 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER APPROVING THE FINDINGS OF THE SELECTION COMMITTEE FOR REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 01-02-069, DATED MARCH 18, 2002, THAT THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRMS TO PROVIDE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR THE SOUTHWEST 7th AND Stn STREETS CORRIDOR WITHIN LITTLE HAVANA FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF REAL ESTATE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ARE, IN RANK ORDER: (1) LAMBERT ADVISORY AND ( 2 ) MIAMI ECONOMIC ASSOCIATES, INC.; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO THE CITY ATTORNEY, WITH LAMBERT ADVISORY, THE FIRST -RANKED FIRM, FOR AN INITIAL PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS, WITH THE OPTION TO EXTEND FOR ONE ADDITIONAL SIX -MONTHS PERIOD, IN A TOTAL AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $90,500 DURING THE INITIAL AND EXTENDED PERIODS OF THE AGREEMENT; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI ECONOMIC ASSOCIATES, INC., THE SECOND -RANKED FIRM, IN THE EVENT A FAIR, COMPETITIVE AND REASONABLE AGREEMENT CANNOT BE NEGOTIATED AND EXECUTED WITH LAMBERT ADVISORY; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM ACCOUNT CODE NO. 344184.509301.6.270. 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 for Request for CITY COMMISSION MEETING OF Ml.y 3 2002 Resolution No. 02- 566 Proposals No. 01-02-069, dated March 18, 2002, that the most qualified firms to provide an economic impact analysis for the Southwest 7th and 8th Streets corridor within Little Havana for the Department of Real Estate and Economic Development are, in rank order: (1) Lambert Advisory and (2) Miami Economic Associates, Inc., is accepted. Section 2. The City Manager is authorized!' to negotiate and execute an agreement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, with Lambert Advisory, the first -ranked firm, for an initial period of six months, with the option to extend for one additional six -months period, in a total amount not to exceed $90,500 during the initial and extended periods of the agreement, with funds allocated from Account Code No. 344184.509301.6.270. Section 3. The City Manager is further authorized to negotiate and execute an agreement with Miami Economic Associates, Inc., the second -ranked firm, in the event a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement cannot be negotiated and executed with Lambert Advisory. ii 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. Page 2 of 3 02- 566 Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.' PASSED AND ADOPTED this 23rd day of May , 2002. MANUEL A. DIAZ, MA 0 ATTEST: PRISCILLA A. HOMPSON CITY CLERK APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS • `W AL JANDRO VILARE 0 C Y ATTORNEY 6353:tr:LB zi 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 02_. 566 ,w C CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA CAM5 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: The Honorable Mayor and DATE: 1 FILE: Members of the City Commission 1JfiY ���% SUBJECT: Resolution Accepting Proposal for the Little Havana Economic Impact Study FR os enez REFERENCES: 5/23/02 City Commission Meeting City Manage ENCLOSURES: Resolution, Committee Report T)raft Prnfeggional Service,; Algeement 0 RECOMMENDATION 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 an economic impact study of each of three options in connection with proposed traffic changes on SW 7th and 8th Streets, is Lambert Advisory, and further authorizing the negotiation and execution of an agreement with Lambert Advisory in an amount not to exceed $90,500. In the event that a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement cannot be reached with Lambert Advisory, it is recommended that City Commission authorize the negotiation and execution of an agreement with the second ranked firm, Miami Economic Associates, Inc. BACKGROUND Following a directive of the City Commission, the City through its Department of Real Estate and Economic Development, issued a Request for Proposals on February 8, 2002 seeking Professional Services to conduct an economic impact study of each of three options in connection with proposed traffic changes on SW 7th and 8th Streets, between Brickell and 27th Avenues in Little Havana. The City Clerk received five proposals by the advertised deadline of March 18th from 1) Economic Research Associates, 2) Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc., 3) Innovative Economic Development Resources, Inc., 4) Lambert Advisory, and 5) Miami Economic Association, Inc. A seven -member selection committee was appointed consisting of four members of the community familiar with Little Havana, transportation and economic issues and three members of City staff that included staff from Public Works, Real Estate and Economic Development and the City's Transportation Manager in Plpmng and Zo in ng. The selection committee met on March 28th, 2002; April 12th, 2002; and a final time on Wednesday, April 24th, 2002 at which time it completed its evaluation of the proposals and determined its ranking of two proposals chosen for an interview phase. The two proposals were ranked in the following order: 1) Lambert Advisory and 2) Miami Economic Associates, Inc. 02- 566 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission Page Two The selection committee found the proposal submitted by Lambert Advisory 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 Lambert Advisory as the firm to provide professional services for an economic impact study of each of three options in connection with proposed traffic changes on SW 7t' and 8t' Streets. Subject to Commission approval, a professional services agreement will be negotiated and entered into with Lambert Advisory, in an amount not to exceed $90,500 to conduct this study. FISCAL IMPACT This agreement, in an amount not to exceed $90,500, will be a direct fiscal impact on the City budget. Funds have been identified from CIP Account 341184.509301.6.270, entitled "Business District Street Improvements." DB/ARW/MJN 02- 566 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: • Motion 01-1258, December 11 2001 directing RFP process to obtain consultant • Resolution accepting proposal for the 71h/8th Street Corridor Economic Impact Studv 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: _ Project No. 341184 Index Code 509301 Minor Obj. Code 270 Amount $90,500 NO: X Complete the following questions: 6. Source of funds: Amount budgeted in the Line Item $ 50.000 Balance in Line Item $ 50.000 Amount needed in the Line Item $ 40,500 Sufficient funds will he tranef--rrPrl frnm tha fnllnwinQ lino itcmc- ACTION ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT NAME TOTAL Index/Minor Object/Project No. From 319301.830.341184 Construction Improv. $40,500 From $ From $ To $ 7. Any additional comments? 8. Approve �2, �/� GY 04/26/02 Department Director/Designee Date FOR DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET USE ONLY Verified r Verified by: Transfer done by: Dyp-irttgMana0ment, a .d Audget Budget AnalystF ly/st T%-*%/-----�. lt--� I WW-� JEgg 'A I[�W 02- 566 PLANNING AND ECONOMICS GROUP, INC. April 25, 2002 Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2"d Avenue —10th Floor Miami, FL 33130 RE: Recommendation of Evaluation Committee for Professional Services to Provide Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor within Little Havana Dear Mr. Gimenez: The Evaluation Committee for recommending a team to conduct the economic impact analysis for the SW 7th and 8th street corridor met on three occasions to consider proposals to conduct the analysis. At the first meeting I was selected chairperson, and in that capacity I am representing the Evaluation Committee's findings. The Evaluation Committee reviewed five written proposals, all of which were well thought out and presented. The Evaluation Committee, following the evaluation criteria presented in the Request for Proposals, evaluated the five written proposals, and found two proposals to be significantly better suited to the City's needs than the other three. The Evaluation Committee subsequently requested that the two short-listed firms, Miami Economic Associates and Lambert Advisory, present their recommended approaches to the project as well as their qualifications to the Committee. The firms were advised in writing that, at a minimum, the project manager assigned to this work with the City needed to be present, and that the presentations needed to be restricted to the material submitted in the proposals. After hearing presentations from the two short-listed firms, the Evaluation Committee continued its evaluation of each team's proposals and qualification as well as each team's proposed fee, in all cases following the evaluation criteria set forth in the Request for Proposals. The Evaluation Committee concluded that the proposal presented by Lambert Advisory, whose subconsultants include Curtis & Kimball and Jackson M. Ahlstedt, best meets the City's needs. Key members of the Lambert Advisory team include Paul Lambert and Eva Garza. Paul Lambert, founder and managing principal of Lambert Advisory, has many years of experience directly applicable to this project. Ms Garza offers experience in economic development and neighborhood revitalization strategy, which should prove relevant and useful in the execution of this work. Jack M. Ahlstedt, P.E. will provide the transportation input necessary in a project of this nature to ensure that traffic considerations are taken into account in the analysis and development of the different scenarios applicable to the study area. Curtis & Kimball will be responsible for 2050 CoFukLWnr, Surre 301, Mint, RoFam 33145 - TBMIP ONE (305) 858-8708 - FAx (305) 858-9511 566 see the end at the beginning Letter to Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager, City ofA PL SING AND ECONOMICS GROUP, INC. April 25, 2002 Page 2 — _ analyzing and coordinating issues relating to physical planning and regulations. We consider the team members very well qualified and suited to the project. The attached report of the Evaluation Committee describes in some detail the process followed by the Committee, including specific evaluation results from the written proposals, presentations, and fee proposals. The Lambert Advisory team proposes to conduct the following activities and provide the following work products: Task 1 — Market Analysis This task includes, but is not limited to, analysis of pertinent economic, demographic and market factors that impact land use, business expansion, and space utilization within the a St. corridor. The information and data collection will be based upon primary field research and secondary sources. Task 2 — Projected Market and Development This task will entail forecasting proposed growth in the area and provide guidelines that will be instrumental in the evaluation of roadway alternatives. In this task the consultant will identify key locations within the recommended street configuration for the a Street corridor, and assess development potential on the corridor, taking into account the reinvestment that has occurred in the area to date, so that it is not only sustained but promoted. Task 3 — Economic Impact Analysis This task's objective is to identify various benefits and costs created by the proposed traffic routing alterations contemplated for Little Havana and the resultant impacts on visitor and business growth throughout the immediate area. Task 4 — Community Participation This task is viewed as critical in the success of a community-based planning effort such as this one. The task includes town hall meetings that will be publicized through local print media, community and business activists and government agencies. The objectives of the meetings are to present the research and findings and to encourage public participation among residents, business owners, and community leaders; and to note and address relevant concerns of the community regarding the economic impact from the proposed roadway changes. The deliverables include a final report to be provided upon completion of each task. In addition, the Lambert Advisory team is proposing to provide City staff 02-- 566 Letter to Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager, City of A PLAN. .JG AND ECONOMICS GROUP, INC. April 25, 2002 Page 3 — - with interim memorandums, executive summaries, and progress reports during the project. The members of the Evaluation Committee found that these activities are appropriate for this project and can be expected to produce the results needed by the City of Miami. The Evaluation Committee recommends that the City select the Lambert Advisory team to provide professional services to conduct the economic impact study in Little Havana for a fee not to exceed $90,500, the amount of the firm's proposed fee. The Committee further recommends that, in the event that a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement cannot be negotiated and executed between the City and Lambert Advisory, the City initiate negotiations with the second ranked firm, Miami Economic Associates, for conducting the analysis. I and the other members of the Evaluation Committee will be pleased to respond to any questions that any City official may have concerning our evaluation and findings. On behalf of the Evaluation Committee, Isabel Gonzalez- i Chairperson, Evaluation Committee Enclosure Cc with enclosure: Members, Economic Impact Analysis Evaluation Committee: Mark Alvarez, Meridian Consulting Carole Ann Taylor, President, Little Havana To Go Walter Martinez, The Russell Partnership Jorge Aviflo, City of Miami, Public Works Clark Turner, City of Miami, Transportation Manager Meredith J. Nation, City of Miami, Real Estate and Economic Development APPROVED BY: IAT46 .r_CITY MANAGER i 02- 566 EVALUATION COMMITTEE REPORT Economic Impact Analysis for 7t'/8th Street Corridor Selection Committee Members Mark Alvarez, Meridian Consulting, Certified Planner and Traffic Engineer Carole Ann Taylor, President, Little Havana To Go, President, Calle Ocho Merchants Association Isabel Gonzalez-Jettinghoff, Planning and Economics Group Walter Martinez, The Russell Partnership, Past Co -Chair of the Latin Quarter Review Board Jorge Avino, City of Miami, Public Works Clark Turner, City of Miami, Transportation Manager Meredith J. Nation, City of Miami, Real Estate and Economic Development Support Staff Pamela Burns, Sr. Procurement Contracts Officer, Purchasing Department Evaluation Process and Results The Selection Committee conducted the evaluation through the course of three meetings and a period of individual review of written proposals. The first meeting focused on the procedures to be followed. Between the first and second meetings the Selection Committee members individually reviewed the written proposals that the City received. At the second meeting the members presented, compiled, and interpreted the results of the individual evaluations. At the third meeting the members heard presentations from two shortlisted teams, opened the fee proposals of those two firms, and selected the top-ranked firm. The following paragraphs summarize the process and results of the evaluation. First Meetina on March 28, 2002 Meeting began with self -introductions. Staff advised that the City Clerk received five proposals from: • Miami Economic Association, Inc. • Economic Research Associates • Lambert Advisory • Innovative Economic Development Resources, Inc. • Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. Evaluation Committee Report — page 1 7'"/8'" Street Economic Impact Study RFP No. 01-02-069 02— 566 Each member of the Committee was given a package 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. Pamela Burns asked each committee member to confirm that they had no conflict of interest with the firms who responded. The Committee was asked to nominate a chairperson. Meredith Nation nominated Ms. Gonzalez-Jettinghoff, who accepted. This was acceptable to all members. It was determined that the chairperson would guide the rest of the proceedings and present the Committee's findings at the City Commission meeting. Discussions 1. Finding of Responsiveness As the first order of business, Ms. Burns instructed the Committee on procedures, minimum requirements, evaluation criteria, MIWBE certification and Local Preference 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. It was noted that at the next meeting Selection Committee members needed to come prepared to discuss qualification, methodology, and overall responsiveness of the proposal. It was also explained that the respondents would receive a score and depending on whether or not there was a clear break in the scores, the Selection Committee members could decide whether to short list, and hear presentation from all of some of the respondents. Second Meeting of April 12, 2002 Meeting was called to order. All seven members of the Committee were in attendance, along with support staff. Committee agreed to discuss proposals and hold -off on scoring until the discussion session was finished. It was noted that the meeting was being recorded. 1. Discussion The evaluation process was conducted by having each committee member comment on the proposals, the experience of the firms, and more specifically on the approach and methodology envisioned for the project. Evaluation Committee Report — page 2 7ti'/8' Street Economic Impact Study RFP No. 01-02-069 0 2 _ 5 6 2. Evaluation After the discussion, Ms. Burns instructed the Committee on evaluation procedures and responded to questions regarding minority certification, local preference, and the options available to the committee members for scoring the proposals received. The Committee agreed to evaluate each submittal individually, then having the collective score calculated and ranked. 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, Selection Committee members evaluated each proposal for a possible maximum award of 45 points in this category. Professional credentials and expertise to perform the required services was given 35 points, and the lists of clients for which the firms had provided similar services were allotted 10 points in the evaluation. The reviewers in this category were concentrating in the experience of the personnel assigned to the project and the relevance of the projects executed in the last 3 years. b. Approach to Proiect (45 Points) Each member of the committee evaluated the presenters' approach to the project for a possible maximum award of 45 points. Approach and methodology of work, 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 if requested. In this category, the Selection Committee members viewed the overall approach and methodology and the overall resources of the firm as the factors with the most weight. c. MinorityNVomen Participation The minority/women participation criteria was only met by Lambert Advisory and Miami Economic Association, Inc., which were certified as Minority/VVomen Participation with the City, County or State. The other firms were assigned points based on the composition of key members of staff assigned to the project that met the requirements. d. Local Preference The local preference criteria was only met by Lambert Advisory because it was the only firm whose headquarter was located in the City of Miami. Lambert Advisory team received the maximum 5 points allowed for these evaluation criteria. It was decided by the Selection Committee members that Miami Economic Association, Inc. would receive 3 points for having an office in Miami -Dade County. The two national firms with a local representative on their team, Innovative Economic Development Evaluation Committee Report — page 3 7t'/8t' Street Economic Impact Study RFP No. 01-02-069 ® 5 S s Resources, Inc. and Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc., were each awarded 1 point. 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. The Selection Committee members then wrote down their scores on the evaluation sheet for each firm proposing on the project and the scores were recorded on a computer model that allowed the Committee members to view the results immediately. The results of the evaluation presented the total scores for each firm, by each Committee member, the average score for each firm, and the number of first place votes each firm received. Table A shows the results. 3. Presentations It was agreed by members of the Committee that the two highest-ranking firms would be invited for oral presentations. Each firm would be allowed a twenty - minute presentation time, followed by a thirty -minute question and answer session in which the Committee would pose questions. The presentation was restricted to the materials submitted in the Proposal, in accordance with procurement procedures. Third Meetina of April 24, 2002 1. Evaluation After the presentation and question and answer session was completed, Ms. Burns instructed the Committee on evaluation procedures. The scores for the firms making oral presentation were finalized, and the Committee continued with the review of the fee proposal. 2. Cost/Fee Evaluation The fee proposal for the two firms under consideration, the Lambert Advisory team, and the Miami Economic Associates, Inc. team were opened. Following the evaluation criteria stated in the Request for Proposals, a maximum of 25 points could be awarded. Fee proposals were evaluated applying the following formula outlined in the Request for Proposals: 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. Evaluation Committee Report - page 4 7t'/8'" Street Economic Impact Study RFP No. 01-02-069 02- 566 b. Each proposal will be given points proportionately in relation to the lowest total lump sum cost proposed, as follows: Lowest Total Cost Proposed 25 Points (maximum Proposer's Cost/Fee Proposal X points for Cost/Fees) = Points The points resulting from this calculation were added to the technical points to arrive at the overall total points for both the Technical and Cost/Fee proposals. A summary of the points received by each firm in the Cost/Fee Phase is presented in Table B. The total average scores on the Technical Phase and the points received on Cost/Fee Phase for each firm under consideration are the following: Lambert Advisory Team — 111.8 Miami Economic Associates, Inc. Team —106.7 Selection Committee Recommendations On the basis of this evaluation the Selection Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the top ranked firm, Lambert Advisory, be awarded the project. Further, the Selection Committee unanimously agreed to recommend that in the event that a fair, competitive and reasonable agreement cannot be negotiated and executed between the City and Lambert Advisory, the City negotiate with the second ranked team, Miami Economic Associates, Inc. Evaluation Committee Report — page 5 7t'/8'" Street Economic Impact Study RFP No. 01-02-069 02— 2— 566 Table -A City of Miami Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Number of evaluators 7 Page 1 of 6 4/25/2002 02- 566 Table -A City of Miami Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Evaluation Criteria I Points (Technical Phase) I Assinned I IBGJ I JA I MN I MA I CPT I CAT I WM I Total Aver 45 and Methodology 5 10 8 8 7 8 5 10 56 8 Overall resources 1 of firm 5 7 8 8 5 5 10 8 51 7 Plan to approach Study '� z,.. 5 8 6 7 10 10 10 56 8 Schedule/plan to Y! y accomplish work4 8 6 3 5 5 10 41 6 Provision of sample final report 8 2 3 5 5 5 4 32 5 Plan to monitor City's final report, if reauested 341 341 31 1 271 331 351 421 2361 34� participation 5 5 2 3 1 3- -1 14 2 Local Preference 5 - 2 - - - - - 2 0 Total '� z,.. 67 73 77 63 59 55 72 466 67 Y! y First place votes Number of evaluators 1 7 Page 2 of 6 4/25/2002 U2-- 566 Tabled► City of Miami Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Number of evaluators 7 Page 3 of 6 4/25/2002 02- 566 Table -A City of Miami Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Number of evaluators 7 Page 4 of 6 4/25/2002 02-- 566 Table -A City of Miami Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Number of evaluators 7 Page 5 of 6 4/25/2002 02- 566 Table A City of Miami Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Totals Miami Econ Inno Evaluation Criteria Points Econ Res Lambert Econ (Technical Phase) Assigned Assn I Assts Adv Dev Res HR & A 45 credentials and expertise 188 138 200 1 156 168 List of Clients 78 76 97 76 88 Subtotal points assigned 266 214 297 232 256 45 and Methodology 71 56 82 63 53 Overall resources anew s of firm 49 51 61 46 47 Plan to approach Ri777} 77- a ��` 5si fr Ak Average Study62 66.6 93.9 56 69 54 51 Schedule/plan to 1 1 accomplish work 50 41 53 44 42 Provision of sample final report _ ,, ; 27 32 33 25 28 Plan to monitor City's final report, if T requested Subtotal points assigned 259 236 298 232 221 Minority/Women participation 5 23 14 27 11 13 Local Preference 51 24 2 35 6 4 Total 572 466 657 481 494 anew s First place votes 7 Ri777} 77- a ��` 5si fr Ak Average 81.7 66.6 93.9 68.7 70.6 1 1 Number of evaluators 1 7 Page 6 of 6 4/25/2002 02- 566 Table B City of Miami Economic Impact Analysis for a Corridor Within Little Havana Evaluation of RFP 01-02-069 Summary Evaluation Criteria Points (Technical Phase) Assigns Qualifications and Experience 45 credentials and expertise List of Clients Approach and Methodology Overall Approach and Methodology Overall resources firm Plan to approach Stud Schedule/plan to accomplish work Provision of samp final report Plan to monitor City's final report, if Points for Proposed Evaluation Fees Overall Evaluation Lambert Miami Econ Lambert Miami Econ Lambert Adv Assn Adv Assn Adv 11 1 14 38 42 10 12 7 9 9 10 7 8 4 5 37 43 I participation 5 31 4 Assn Adv $ 90,500 5 3 5 Lowest Local Preference $ 65,000_ s, Ratio Lowest fee to proposed fee Total 100% 100 82 94 25.ON 18.0 106.7 111.8 ,go LAM� _ 7 Points awarded 25.0 First place votes Fee Evaluiation 4/25/2002 Miami Econ Lambert Factors Assn Adv $ 90,500 Proposed fee r. $ 65,000 Lowest proposed fee $ 65,000_ s, Ratio Lowest fee to proposed fee 100% 72% Maximum points for fee 25 ,go Points awarded 25.0 18.0 4/25/2002 0 Form I a SERVICES AGREEMENT ) 4AP OR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT This Agreement is entered into this _ day of , 2002 (but effective as of of Florida ("City") and ("Provider"). ) by and between the City of Miami, a municipal corporation of the State RECITAL a corporation A. The City has issued a Request for Proposals ("RFP") for the provision of economic impact analysis 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 May 23, 2002, 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. 02- 566 2. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall be six (6) months commencing on the effective date hereof. 3. OPTION TO EXTEND: The City shall have one (1) option to extend the term hereof for a period of six (6) months, 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]. cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 2 02- 566 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 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 cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 3 02- 566 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 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. cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 4 02- 566 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 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 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, cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 5 02— " 6 6 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 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 cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 6 02-- 566 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 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 famished 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 cm:Contract Template PSAForml(a)-RFP(Corp) 7 02— 566 (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. 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. cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 8 566 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 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 cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-MCorp) 9 02- 566 event, the remaining terms and provisions of this Agreement shall remain unmodified and in full force and effect or limitation of its use. 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 cm:Contract Template PSAForml(a)-RFP(Corp) 10 02-- 566 rights, duties, and obligations of each to the other as of its date. Any prior agreements, promises, 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 "City" CITY OF MIAMI, a municipal corporation Lo Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager cm:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 11 42- '5.66 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:Contract Template PSAFormI(a)-RFP(Corp) 12 02- 566