Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
R-01-0409
J-01-341 4/25/01 • RESOLUTION NO. O Of A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION ACCEPTING THE BID OF BISCAYNE HAVANA FIRE AND SAFETY FOR THE ACQUISITION OF INSPECTIONS, CERTIFICATIONS, TESTING, REFILLING AND REPAIR SERVICES OF FIRE EXTINGUISHERS FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING FOR USE BY VARIOUS CITY DEPARTMENTS, ON AN AS -NEEDED CONTRACT BASIS FOR ONE YEAR, WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW FOR TWO ADDITIONAL ONE-YEAR PERIODS; ALLOCATING FUNDS FROM EACH OF THE OPERATING BUDGETS OF VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS, SUBJECT TO BUDGETARY APPROVAL. WHEREAS, the Department of Purchasing requires the acquisition of inspections, certifications, testing, refilling and repair services of fire extinguishers for use Citywide; and WHEREAS, pursuant to public notice, Invitation for Bids No. 00-01-131 was mailed to fourteen potential bidders; and WHEREAS, three bids were received on April 2, 2001; and ComT OOI a =I= UZZWO or MAY 10 2001 .� i 409 WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Director of the Department of Purchasing recommend that the bid received from Biscayne Havana Fire and Safety, be accepted as the lowest and responsible bid; and WHEREAS, funds are available from each of the budgets of the various user departments, subject to budgetary approval; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The April 2, 2001 bid received from Biscayne Havana Fire and Safety for the acquisition of inspections, certifications, testing, refilling and repair services of fire extinguishers for the Department of Purchasing for use by various City departments, on an as -needed contract basis for one year, with the option to renew for two additional one-year periods, is accepted, with funds allocated from each of the budgets of the various user departments, subject to budgetary approval. Page 2 of 3 01- 409 • i Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor.11 PASSED AND ADOPTED this 10th day of May , 2001. JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR In aoaoRkm wllh MiarN Code Sea. 2.9f3, shoe fire Mayor did not kkate appnrn`1 Of this legislation by sielning it in the deli odpqf prove , said logisl; .v t,L^comus efl!ective with the elapse of tano)t date f coma : n regarding same, without the MayotwerfsIn9f0. ATTEST: WALTER J. FOEMAN CITY CLERK AND CORRECTNESS: JIMCK DRO 17LARELLO CITY ATTORNEY W5249:db:LB:BSS 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 01— too 1BUSscM� I• • CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA =6 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission M.31k#13 11j, DATE : AM 3 0 Z001 FILE SUBJECT . Resolution Authorizing Purchase of Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Service, Citywide REFERENCES! Bid No. 00-01- 131 ENCLOSURES: It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached Resolution accepting the bid of Biscayne Havana Fire A Safety, Non-Minority/Miami-Dade County vendor, located at 975 Hialeah Drive, Miami, Florida 33010, for the provision of fire extinguisher inspection and repair service, on an as needed contract basis, for one (1) year, with the option to renew for two (2) additional one (1) year periods to be utilized citywide on an as needed basis. Allocating funds therefore from various user departments and requiring budgetary approval of funds from individual departmental accounts prior to usage BACKGROUND The Department of Purchasing has analyzed the bids received pursuant to Bid No. 00-01-131. Fourteen (14) Invitation for Bids were trailed and three (3) responses were received. Biscayne Havana Fire & Sgfety, submitted the lowest responsive and responsible bid and is, therefore, recommended for the award. CAG/RJN/ S ttewMomo 0.1- 408 1 Intemational Fre Equipment -co? A. 5 pounds $ 1.00 B. 10 pounds 150 SW 27th Aveoue C 15 pounds Dave D.20 pounds Muni, FL 33135 E. 50 pounds $ 19.95 Sub Total: 2 ABC Dry Chemical S 13.00 A 2 'h & 2 % pounds NonAborityMade B. 5 & 6 pounds Redramirici C. 10 pounds TOTALS Red►ar4inu Caftation qdy Test D. 15 pounds E. 20 pounds PAchai Srino Sub Total: 3 BC Dry Chemical $ F. 2 % & 2 % pounds S G. 5 & 6 pounds S 10.00 H. 10 pounds $ 1.2 Gal VVM Pres . S J. 150 Pounds on Wheel $ 10.00 Sub Total: $ GRAND TOTAL: S Replacement Parts: S 10.00 Cost of relmoernent pelts wit sob be bOM at contractor's cost plus a Repair. nc Repairs of fire extinguishers $ will be at the rate of: TABULATION OF BIDS FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION AND REPAIRS: BID NO. 00-01-131 Prepared by Maritza Suarez, 4001 Intemational Fre Equipment Biscayne Havana Foe & Saidy $ 5Z $ 1.00 1695 West 39 Place, X 150 SW 27th Aveoue 975 Hula* Dave Hrateah, FL 33012 Muni, FL 33135 S 4.00 $ 19.95 Haleah, FL 33010 Nor> lirorrlyllocal S 169.50 S 13.00 lnspectioN NonAborityMade Redramirici CerWalim Onix TeMm TOTALS Red►ar4inu Caftation qdy Test hrspediow S 4.95 PAchai Srino Qerffimbon Ord Te9ft TOTALS $ 5.50 S 3.00 S 10.00 $ 14.95 $ 11.00 S 3.00 $ 10.00 S 1995 $ 1700 S 3.00 S 10.00 S 49.95 nc nc nc $ 99.75 $ 25.00 S 3.00 $ 10.00 $ 58.50 $ 12.00 $ 40.00 S 110.50 $ 6.50 $ 4.00 nc S 9.50 $ 4.00 nc $ 12.00 $ 4.00 nc nc nc nc $ 14.00 $ 4.00 nc $ 4200 $ 16.00 $ $ 58.00 $ 2.00 na nc $ 4.50 $ 4.00 nc S 6.00 $ 10.OD nc $ 240 $ 4.00 nc $ 90.00 nc nc $ 104.50 $ 18.00 $ $ 122.50 $ 2!101 0% $ 24.50 Mary Prepared by Maritza Suarez, 4001 $ 2.50 Intemational Fre Equipment Nan Fire Upirpnent $ 5Z $ 1.00 1695 West 39 Place, X 150 SW 27th Aveoue $ 1.00 $ 3.00 Hrateah, FL 33012 Muni, FL 33135 S 4.00 $ 19.95 Fispa*A)ade Nor> lirorrlyllocal S 169.50 S 13.00 lnspectioN lnspedoN Redramirici CerWalim Onix TeMm TOTALS Red►ar4inu Caftation qdy Test TOTALS S 4.95 $ 1.00 $ 4.00 $ 9.95 $ 1.00 $ 4.00 N $ 14.95 S 100 S 400 O S 1995 S 1.50 $ 500 N S 49.95 S 5.00 $ 20.00 $ 99.75 S 950 $ 37.00 $ 146.25 R $ 2.50 $ 1.00 $ 3.00 $ 5Z $ 1.00 $ 3.00 $ 9.25 $ 1.00 $ 3.00 $ 14.75 $ 1.00 S 4.00 $ 19.95 $ 1.50 $ 4.00 $ 51.70 $ 5 50 $ 17.00 S 74.20 $ 2.50 S 100 S 3.00 $ 5.25 $ 1.00 $ 3.00 S 9.25 S 1.00 $ 3.OD $ 3.00 - S 3AO S 149.50 $ 10.00 $ 25.00 S 169.50 S 13.00 $ 37.00 $ 219.50 $ 439.95 3D% $ 6.00 flour Page 1 of 1 Department Approval E S P O N S 1 B L E MwMd Mn4e po 1d* Pxsuanl b CRY of Mani Code Sec. 18.90 0 CITY OFJIIAMI OF THE CITY CLERK BID SECURITY LIS'' BID ITEM FIRE EXTINGUISHER INPECTION AiX SERVICE BID NO: 00-01-131 DATE BID(S) OPENED: APRIL 2, 2001 TIME 1U:00 a.m. jj1DDEB TOTAL BID ANOUNI BID BOND (ER) CASHIER'S hilX41 FIRE EQUIPMENT See attache 1 tel. 8ISCAYME HAVANA FIRE & SAFETY it hq�pr . INTERNATIONAL F18E EQUIPMENT reeolved lir.';-';-.; crn ' �'r, . �.. i ci. er offers eu..M-..- .. .: a - .:!, ,...- crrg hereby 'e -.c d c.s laic." =-7 c.. • L< l received L_) envelops on behalf of Person receiving bid(s) PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT on (City Depar;beptu`ryQty SIGNEp: / Ck owilor, a -A (Date) F 01_ 409 • • THU vrf fflinmi �� JUDY 5. CARTER � CARl05 A. GIMENEZ Director • r�o' rO City Manager May 2, 2001 BY FAX AND REGULAR MAIL Jonathan Goodman Ackerman, Senterfit & Edison, P.A. Suntrust International Center One Southeast Third Avenue, 281h Floor Miami, FI 33131-1714 Dear Mr. Goodman: Re: Bid No. 00.01-131 Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Repairs I am in receipt of your letter dated April 27, 2001 and have considered the information you have provided to me as part of the process of determining whether Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. Is responsible under Sec. 18-90 of the City of Miami Code. After due consideration, i have determined that the findings of the Inspector Generals report have not been rebutted to the satisfaction of the City. Therefore, with the concurrence of the City Attorney's office, I hereby declare Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. non -responsible under City of Miami Bid No. 00.01.131. We will proceed with the recommendation of award of the above -referenced contract to Biscayne Havana Fire & Safety, the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. This item shall be Included on the agenda of the City Commission meeting of May 10, 2001. incerely, Ju s. Ca er Chie Procurement Off cer c: Carlos A. Gimenez, City Manager Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney Robert H. Nachlinger, Assistant City Manager Rafael Dlaz, Assistant City Attorney William H. Bryson, Fire Chief Bid File 01— DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue, 6th FloodMiami, Flurida 331301(305) 416.1900IFax: (305)416-1925 E -Mail Address. pu1chasodci.mian-wi.0.uc1 Website Address: torp!/ci.miaml.0.ust Mailing Addreu: P.O. Sox 33D708 Miami, Fl 33233.0708 —IIIZIII�.q. 409 AKERMAN SENTERF= ATTORNEYS AT LAW SUNTRUST INTERNATIONAL CENTER ONE SOUTHEAST THIRD AVENUE, 28nm FLOOR MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131.1714 PHONE (305) 374-5600 • FAX (305) 374-$093 http://www.akerman.com April 27, 2001 Judy S. Carter, Chief Procurement Office City of Miami Department of Purchasing 444 S.W. 2 Avenue 8th Floor Miami, FL 33130 Re: Bid #00-01-131 Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Repairs Dear Ms. Carter: The law firm of Akerman, Senterfitt & Eidson, P.A. represents Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. in connection with your April 13, 2001 letter to Derek Deville, Secretary and Treasurer of the company. In your letter, you concluded that Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. has been deemed to be "non -responsible" because of the findings of an investigation conducted by Christopher Mazzella, Miami -Dade County Inspector General. Your letter then states that Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. shall not be considered for the award of Bid #00-01-131. I am writing pursuant to §18.90 of the Miami City Code. Specifically, that &LOori provides: (b) if a prospective contractual party who would otherwise have been awarded a contract is found non responsible, a copy of the determination and the reasons therefor shall be •ti sent promptly to such party, who shall be given a reasonable opportunily for rebuttal prior to a final determination 'of non ZZ responsibility. The phrasing of your letter (that Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. "shall not be considered" for the award because it "has been" deemed non -responsible) makes it seem ns though there has already been a final determination of non responsibility. Regardless MI64749u: l 01. 409 Awsomi, J CCwlTFYFfTT R. Vomcr%w DA Judy S. Carter, Chief Procurement Office April 27, 2001 Page 3 The polygraph examinations were conducted by Leonard Bierman, of Leonard Bierman & Associates, Inc. Mr. Bierman is one of the most well-respected polygraph examiners in the country. I urge you to contact veteran, seasoned prosecutors at the Dade State Attorney's Office or veteran law enforcement polygraphers to confirm Mr. Bierman's reputation. I am confident that they will confirm Mr. Bierman's outstanding reputation for competence and professionalism. As clearly reflected in the enclosed polygraph report, both Derek Deville and Valerie Deville were being truthful when they denied any involvement in fraudulent overbilling for replacement parts. The following critical questions were asked of both Derek and Valerie Deville during the polygraph examinations: Question 43: Did you knowingly and intentionally charge the County for replacing parts that were not replaced? Question 44: Did you authorize or approve anyone at Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. to charge for parts replaced that in fact were not? Question 45: Did you instruct anyone at Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. to charge for parts replaced that in fact were not? Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. has enjoyed a solid record of performance with City of Miami work. There is no doubt as to the company's technical competence and expertise. Similarly, there is no question about the company's financial stability and equipment. Instead, it appears as though the only ground upon which you branded Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. as non -responsible is Mr. Mazzella's report. Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. asks that you review Mr. Mazzella's report in conjunction with the enclosed polygraph report. We believe that your conclusion of non -responsibility Is unwarranted and should be reconsidered. MIN7490.1 0 '1 M 409 11011911111 • Judy S. Carter, Chief Procurement Office April 27, 2001 Page 2 of the phrasing of your letter, however, Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. must be given a reasonable opportunity for rebuttal. It appears as though the City of Miami is relying entirely on Mr. Mazzella's investigation. Unless I am mistaken, the City has not done its own investigation. Likewise, the City has not, as far as I know, audited the findings of the investigation or otherwise reviewed the investigation to determine whether it is accurate, complete or outdated. Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. takes issue with Mr. Mazzella's report. There are several points which we believe are important for you to know about and which will undermine your reliance on the report of another public entity. First, the County never forwarded Mr. Mazzelle's report to Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. Not only has Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. never received a final report from Mr. Mazzella's office, but it has not even directly received a draft or working copy from Mr. Mazzella's office. Ironically, Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. learned of the report when it received a copy, without exhibits, from a newspaper reporter. Apparently, the reporter received it from someone who had leaked it to the press. Regardless of the unorthodox distribution of Mr. Mazzella's report, Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. contests the findings in the report. As I believe Fire Chief William Bryson knows, Derek Deville and Valerie Deville are the active principals of Miami Fire Equipment, Inc. Their father, Phil Deville, has been effectively retired for several years. Phil Deville had a heart attack approximately five years ago and has not been working at the company since then. Although he is still listed as an officer of the corporation in the Tallahassee corporate records, Phil Deville has played no significant role for several years and has no involvement in the daily activities of the company. Given that Derek and Valerie Deville are the ones operating the company, the City should be most concerned about their qualifications and whether they are responsible professionals who are worthy of having their company bid for City of Miami contracts. I am enclosing a polygraph report concerning the alleged fraudulent overbilling discussed in Mr. Mazzella's report. The primary issue was to determine whether Derek and Valerie Deville knowingly and intentionally charged Miami -Dade County for replacement parts which were not replaced. In addition, the polygraph determined whether Derek and Valerie Deville authorized, approved, sanctioned or instructed anyone else at the company to charge for replacement parts in cases where parts were not, in fact, replaced. M1647490;1 �Z1Z�ZI • _ 01— 400 • Judy S. Carter, Chief Procurement Of floe April 27, 2001 Page 4 L` I thank you in advance for your careful and timely attention to this matter. Sincerely, AKERAA N, ENTERFITT 3 EIDSON, P.A. Jo Goodman JG:cvl Enclosure oc: Derek and Valerie Deville (w/o end.) Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney (w/encl.) Robert Nachlinger, Assistant City Manager (w/encl.) Maria Chlarc, Assistant City Attorney (w/end.) William Bryson, Fire Chief (w/encl.) M1074w:1 01- tog IUDY S. CARTER Director April 13, 2001 Mr. Derek D. Deville secreteryfrreasurer Miami Fire Equipment ISO S.W. 271" Avenue Miami, FL 33135 Dear Mr. Deville: Tifia vr# 'Mia d CARLOS A. GLVANEZ City Mwgw BY FAX AND REGULAR MAIL Re: Bid No. 00-01-131 Fire Extinguisher inspection And Repairs The City of Miami is in receipt of your Bid for Fire Extinguisher inspection and Repair services. Pursuant to Clty of Miami Code Sec. 18-90. Determination of responsibility which states, in part: (a1 Prior to contract award, the chief procurement off kw or Individual purchasing agent shah determine In writing that the bidder or offeror Is responsible. (b) If a prospective contractual partly who would otherwise have been awarded a contract is found nonresponsible, a copy of the determination and the reasons therefore shall be sent promptly to such party, which shall be given a reasonable opportunity for. ebut I prior to a final determination of nonresponslbnity. 10 Factors to be considered in determining responsibility of prospective of prospective contractual parties shell Include but not be linked to: (1) Availability OF appropriate financial, material, equipment, facility, and personnel resources and expertise, or the ability to obtain them, to meet an contractual requirements: 121 A satisfactory record of performance; lit A satisfactory record of Integrity; 141 Oualified legal standing to contract with the city; and Ill) compliance In supplying all requested Informtlon connected with the Inquiry concerning responsibility. Based upon the above and the findings of an Investigation conducted by Christopher Mazzella, Miami -Dade County inspector General concerning Miami Dade County Contract No. 4922.2/01.OTR, a contract utilized by the City of Miami via Resolution 00.008 to procure the same services at the same price, terms and conditions, Miami Fire equipment, Inc. hat been deemed non -responsible and, therefore, shaN not be considered for award of did No. 00.0131. qCh rel , CarteY f oc urement OPfii r Encl. c: Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney v 1 M 409 Robert H. Nachlinger, Assistant City Manager Marla J. Chiaro, Assistant City Attorney William H. Bryson, Fire Chief Bid File DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING/444 S.W. 2nd Avenue. 41A FlooHMiami, Flnrlda 331300051416.190NFu:130SNIG192S J-00-43 12/31/99 /�i RESOLUTION NO. t' 0 008 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPROVING THE PROVISION OF CITYWIDE ANNUAL INSPECTIONS/CERTIFICATION, TESTING, REFILLING AND REPAIRS TO FIRE EXTINGUISHERS, FROM MIAMI FZRE EQUIPMr", AWARDED UNDER EXISTING MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CONTRACT NO. 4922 -2/01 -OTR, EFFECTIVE UNTIL JANUARY 31, 2000, SUBJECT TO FURTHER EXTENSIONS BY MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING; ALLOCATING FUNDS THEREFOR FROM VARIOUS USER DEPARTMENTS AND REQUIRING BUDGETARY APPROVAL OF USER DEPARTMENTS PRIOR TO USAGE. WHEREAS, the Department of Purchasing has a need to secure a citywide contract for annual inspections/certification, testing, refilling and repairs to fire extinguishers; and WHEREAS, service will be provided under existing Miami -Dade County Contract No. 4922 -2/01 -OTR, effective until January 31, 2000; subject to further extensions by Miami -Dade County; and WHEREAS, funds are available from the operating budgets of the various user departments, requiring the budgetary approval CITY COMM5I01f MEETWC OF 01 409 JAM 13 M2 A.wluno. I+o e 9 • of funds from user departments prior to usage; and WHEREAS, the City Manager and the Director of Purchasing recommend that the provision of annual inspections/certification, testing, refilling and repairs to fire extinguishers from Miami Fire Equipment, awarded under existing Miami -Dade County Contract No. 4922 -2/01 -OTR, be approved; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by reference thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The provision of citywide annual inspections/certification, testing, refilling and repairs to fire extinguishers from Miami Fire Equipment, awarded under existing Miami -Dade County Contract No. 4922 -2/01 -OTR, effective until January 31, 2000, subject to further extension by Miami -Dade County, for the Department of Purchasing, to be utilized, is hereby approved, with funds therefore hereby allocated from the operating budgets of the various user departments, requiring budgetary approval of user departments prior to usage. Page 2 of 3 01-- 409 Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayor. - PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of February 1 2000. JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR in acewdom with Miami Code Sac. 2.36. shot ow iu v*r did rV. ine r,: to epprw^i Of this Inislatbn by siViMP d in th8:8n ida paated p ce provided, tci� ��;:s o becomes ettective with the elapse of (10) .' rJstl .• �..:c C-11 mgwdinp same, without the MayoryW sal / ATTEST: WALTER J. FOEMAN :6 If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective at the and of ten calendar days from the date it was pawed and adopted. If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission. 01- 408 Page 3 of 3 .Q. • • (rrr1 MEMORANDUM TO: Christopher Mazzella, Inspector General ce Of The Inspector General FRO eodbjG. Lucas, Director Department Of Procurement Mgmt. DATE: January 12, 2001 SUBJECT: Miami Fire Equipment Inc. Contract No. 4922-2/01 Fire Extinguishers (Service & Parts) Based on the OIG report dated January 8, 2001, on the above -captioned contract the department of Procurement Management has taken the following steps: 1. Letter to Miami Fire Equipment dated January 9, 2001 in which we inform the vendor we will not exercise the option to renew (Attachment A). ` 2. Memo to the using departments in which we inform them Miami Dade County will not be exercising the option to renew and that the contract will not be extended; therefore, future purchases will be done on small purchase orders until a new contract is issued and awarded (Attachment B). 3. Memo to Cathy Jackson, Director, Audit and Management Services requesting a full audit of the contract, as you recommended in your report (Attachment Q. If you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact me at (305) 375-5257. TGL:mh C: The Honorable Alex Peneles, Mayor, Miami -Dade County Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners, Miami -Dade County Mr. Merrett R. Stierheim, County Manager, Miami -Dade County Mr. Robert A. Ginsburg, County Attorney, Miami -Dade County Mr. R.D. Paulison, Fire Chief, Miami -Dade County Ms. Vivian Donnell Rodriguez, Director, Miami -Dade Parks & Recreation Dept. Mr. William Brant, Director, Miami=Dade Water & Sewer Department Ms. Cathy Jackson, Director, Miami Dade Department of Audit & Management Serv. The Commission of Ethics and Public Trust, Miami Dade County The Honorable Katherine Fernandez Rundle, State Attorney, Eleventh Judicial Circuit Mr. Tom Gallager, Fire Marshal, Division of State Fire Marshall, State of Florida Attachment 01.0 408 C) C-) v CD 3 x Jtn N♦_ C Zn T r.. N r n to In x N ►m110RANDNM Ile�sedvl7/ifr'7 H+tc1 ch M&r)-t' H MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLOE& MI STEPHEN P. CLAW CENTER DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT 8103 AND CONTRACTS January 9, 2001 111N.WMDIVR ET SUITE 2350 MIAMI, FLORIDA 33128.19!!9 (305) 376.6289 FAX: (305) 376.6409 Mr. Philip R. Deville Miami Fire Equipment 10120 S.W. 55 Avenue Miami, FL 33156 Re: Bid No. 4922-2/01-1 Fire Extinguisher (Service and Paas) Dear Mr. Deville: The County has determined that it is not in its best interest to exercise the Option to Renew for the above referenced contract. If you have any questions, please contact Maria Hevia, CPPB at (305) 37573022. Sincerely, alc�u�J C�I-'�"v s J �aHel�'4�B Department of Procurement Mgmt. Bids do Contracts Division Cc. Bid File All Using DekMent El 01" d09 "PACUMACORAYM ..Ga - W • Q 6, YY1t2 Il (®1 I MEMORANDUM Y1�PP TO: All Using Departments ,p FROM&a�ev a j C�U PP Dpm DATE: January 9, 2001 SUBJECT: Bid 0.4922-2/01-1 Fire Extinguisher (Service And Parts) Please be advised that the option to renew on the above -listed contract will not be exercised, and the contract will not be extended. This contract is due to expire on 1/31/01; therefore, future purchases for service of fire extinguishers will need to be done after this date on small purchase orders and/or through the emergency procedures until a new contract is issued and awarded. Attached is a copy of the Invitation to Bid. It is imperative that you review the technical specifications and make all appropriate revisions. I am available to assist you with your technical specifications to ensure the County has a quality contract. It is very important that you list the type and size of fire extinguishers your department will need ' to -service: -Please -take -the -time to look-arthe extinguishers' listed on Section 4.0 of this ITB and make sure your department has all the extinguishers that are listed. If possible, indicate how many of each type you have and make sure to list any new fire extinguishers that might need to be added. Revisions to the specifications and allocations are due no later than January 26, 2001. The department's allocations are listed below. Please advise if this estimate is accurate for your department. If a revised allocation is not received by this date, your allocation will remain the same. If you have any 4uestions 3r"need my assistance, feel free to call me at (305) 375-3022 or via e- mail at MHEV1AM MIAMI-DADE.FL.US. Distribution List: Aviation $12,000.00 CAA $ 2,600.00 Clerk $ 500.00 Corrections $32,500.00 DERM $ 1,500.00 Fire $10,000.00 GS $27,500.00 HUD $210,000.00 Human Serv. $ 6,700.00 Library $ 51000.00 409 MDTA $30,000.00 01- 1If I a ti Pop 2— Memo to AU Using Depwbn t Jwwq► 9, 2001 r Subject Bid No. 4922.2/01-1 Fite Extingaisba'tSavtce �nd`l�iprttj �`�',�� M �n ����-``� u , } �7 ro ' $22,000.00 Public Works 5101500.00 &apart S 7,500.00 �,. an $Q�id w SS 00000 1' ASAD 512,000.00 i v k•-SPS„ 1 `' 7 i n �t2.,.n „��. ,� a r i, *r 'sly w "+�FFi+ d i' ^i> �`''�y, aye r x d is s' ra y � a "�a x t x } x r k r i �•�' ,,r a`" ,4 t x. z 1 z .�t j.. ts:�" y'#`� a '`` �° xd 1a y i � p"s'° t 4! i. •k 1KC 4+ t t h �'*.iL y,4`�?$ii' .rsk' -td"4� �' 13 f *tkV � �� S�ad� Y.". f+� a� S; ,Z 4 J,a Wit sti i. a'��� a�•x c ,'�+: ,�" .h � � n t .x+�. 1j: �� =.r �;}.rot 409 �. MYIO�MOIM �ni11M1iiM ctch mev-4 `®J MEMORANDUM TO: Kathy Jackson, Director Audit and Management Services FROM: do G. mess, Director Deps Procurement Mgmt. DATE: Jorma y 11, 2001 SUBJECT: Hid No. 4922-2/01-1 Fire Extinguishers (Service and Parts) Based on the following report from Miami Dade County Office of the Inspector General and as recommended -in -their- report, we are hereby requesting your department to conduct a full audit on the above captioned contract. If you have any questions or need further information, feel free to contact Maria Hevia at (305) 375-3022 or a -mail your questions to her at MHEZAQCO.MIAMI-DADE.FL.US. Thank you. I TGL-MH ---- .- _ c: The Honorable Alex Penelas, Mayor Miami -Dade County - Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners Mr. Merrett R. Stierheim, County Manager Aline Tejeda-Hudak, Sr. Assistant, Office of the County Manager Christopher Massella, Inspector General attachment 01 IIR 01W 409 NOMNtAWMN AftiW41it" 14 w..t r4ow soca, &ft 220 MWK FL 33130 FhaM (306) ar5-1946 1 Fax (305) 579-M Report To: Mr. Merrett R. Stierheim, County Manager Miami -D County F topper Mazulla r Gectetal Date: 118/01 Re: Miami Fite Equipment Inc. Contract No. 4922-2-01 Fire Extinguishers (Service & Parts) The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) conducted an investigation into. alleged billing irregularities by County vendor Miami Fire Equipment Inc. (MFE). The OIG's investigation determined that the vendor was not billing the County according to its submitted bid proposal. MFE billed for items that, according to its bid, were to be provided at no cost. The OIG also found that the vendor inflated the cost of replacement parts and most egregiously, billed for items not replaced. In addition to the monetary impact of these fraudulent practices, MFE's actions impact the proper maintenance of the fire extinguishers and thus may pose safety risks to County employees and the public. Miami Fire Equipment Inc. (MFE) is a Florida corporation located at 150 S.W. 276 Avenue, Miami, Florida 33135. According to its latest business report, on file with the Secretary of State, Division of Corporations, MFE's corporate officers are: Phil Deville -- President, Valerie A. Deville - Vice President, and Derek D. Deville - Secretary/Treasurer. Miami -Dade County Contract No. 4922 -2/01 -OTR, "Fire Extinguisher (Service and Parts) for Dade County Departments for a Two (2) Year Period with Option. To Renew for Two (2) Additional Years" was awarded to MFE in December of 1997. The original contract period ran from February 1, 1998 to January 31, 2000. $825,600.00 was allotted for the original two-year period. The contract was extended for one additional year with an allotment of $376,312.00. The new contract period is due to expire on January 31, 2001, unless further action is taken to extend the contract for a remaining one-year term. , pi,. 409 The Fm Eadnguiaher eoaotact was brolaen Tato five groups (A- E). Group A consisted of three parts: 1) Annual Inspecrion/Cectification, 2) Hydmstadc Testing or Cylinder Inspection, and 3) Recharge Price. Grasp B was for "Semi -210181 Inspection of Certified Ametex AucJMawal Fitt Extinguisher Systems.' Group C eomistad of "Prlcx to Recondition Fire Extinguishers With Exchange." This is basically a swap -out procedure whereby fire County's extinguishers, in need of repair, are swapped with snvic cable reconditioned exiigipw3ers equipped with new parts. Gnxtp D consisted of miscellaneous hose testing and replacement options. Croup E repair options consisted of two line items: one for the labor cost per hour and a cost-phn percentage marls -up for xeplacematit parrs. Prior to the actual award of the contract, County departments were solicited for input regardwg the proposed contract award to WE. Recogoiziog that MFE's bid proposal was extrmugy unbalanced - too many line items were bid at "no charge" - GSA Procurement CPPB circulated a memorandum attached to the Bid Award Recommendation highlighting these concerns. The memorandum goes on to suggest that the user departments should inventory an of its fire extinguishers in order to better forecast the services needed during the contract period. Notably, the Miami -Dade Transit Authority (MDTA) voiced strong concerns over the unbalanced nature of the bid. The Miami -Dade Water and Seim Department (WASD) also recognized that the vendor tray declare that repairs or exchanges were needed, when in fact they were not needed. This would allow the vendor to mance up for the services that he was apparently giving away - charging no cost. (Bid Award Recommendation memorandums with atmehment(s) and responses thereto are collectively attached as Exhibit A). Ultimately, it was decided that even though the bid was extremely unbalanced, Groups A. C, and E would be awarded to MFE. (Contract Award and MFE's bid is attached as Exhibit B). Groups B and D would be awarded is a separate process. In recognition to the voiced concerns, a special condition was added: "It will be the deparmient's decision to repair unserviceable fire extinguishers or to access Group C [swap - out) of this contract." It is also noted that fire contract itself, Section 3.2.1, ells for de vendor to "notify/advise the respective County Departments when extinguishers require service (antaral or otherwise)." It was widely agreed upon that under the vendor's proposal, room existed for invoicing irregularities, however it was going to be the responsibility of each user department to ensure enforcement of the contract. Pose 2or16 , ,, 01— 409 OIG Report 1B/01 Firs Extinvidw Contract s • • IL COM Sbl is The initial complaint received by the OIG came from Miami -Dade Fire Rescue Department (MDFR). However, inquiries by the OIG uncovered allegations of a similar nature from the Miami -Dade Parks and Rea+ don Deparrnent (Parks) and WASD. They complained of services billed to the County that according to the bid were to be done without charge, billing for parts that did not appear to have been replaced. and for itemized billing that exceeded the cost of exchanging the extinguisher for "reconditioned" ones under the provisions of the bid. JIL motion On April 11, 2000, the OIG, in conjunction with the State of Florida Fine Manchal's Office, initiated an investigation to gather conclusive evidence on the issue of the fraudulent replacement of parts and fraudulent billings. This required the submission of a controlled group of extinguishers to WE for service. After reviewing the work performed by WE on the first group of extinguishers, it was decided to subrnit additional extinguishers to determine if there was a pattern to the inappropriate activity. In total, thirty-one (31) individual fire extinguishers were submitted for service. The extinguishers were submitted in a total of five (5) controlled groups. For uniformity purposes hereinafter, these , submissions will be referred to as Control Group (CG) 1 through CG 5. In preparing the controlled fire extinguishers for submission to MFM, the OIG retained the services of a fire extinguisher expert, Mr. John A. Gioseffi. Mr. Gioseffi has over 15 years of experience as a fire extinguisher service technician. He is the President and owner of Broward Fire Equipment & Service, Inc. Mr. Gioseffi has been the qualifier for his company's sm license since 1987, and is also a permittee under the company's license. Mr. Gioseffi also has ten years of experience as an instructor of the state certification classes in the field of fire extinguisher servicing. Neither Mr. Gioseffi nor his company does business with Miami -Dade County. The OIG, State Fire Marshall's office, and Mr. Gioseffi documented each fine extinguisher prior to it being submitted to MF'E. Each extinguisher was photographed and documented regarding its serial number, make, model and size. Certain parts of each extinguisher were marked using a device invisible to the naked eye. The expert examined each extinguisher and documented its physical condition, weight, and pressure readings. Pre -submission and post -submission paperwork recording the condition of each of the controlled extinguishers was created in order to compare the fundings with MFE's invoices and shop notes. The process was both photographed and videotaped for evidendary value. Page 3 of 16 01's 400 OIG Report 1/8101 Fim Fadiu8ulsber Contract 101111r. • Below is a general table idendbinS the five (5) control groups. Comd OriSia t Number Qmapooft MFE Amotas iB OW Grow COMW Department aobu bW 1 reaseood Invoice Number PW Invoice 1 MiUW-Duk 7n 24986 $210.OD Fine Rescue Dept. 2 MWW-Dade 5/5 23835 $122.70 garb DepwUnent 3 Mond -Dade 5/5 25836 St29.3o garb 4 Miami -Dade 8/6 25919 $112.8D pwb DqwUnent S Miami -Dade 6/6 25999 $82,50 Wow and Sawa Dqmuzm i1u . '. [•. ,iii I � 1\' 'a`. ': In general, tin identified overpbacges fell into three categories: 1) added charges for services that were either five or included w the price of another'semce, 2) charges for parts not replaced, and 3) infted prices for parts. Our discussion also bighlights shoddy and unsatisfactory repair service, which pose safety risks to the operation, of the extinguisher. Prior to laying out the results found in each of the five control groups, some important aspects of the contract specifications and MFE's submitted bid proposal will be disc ussed. 01- 409 FW4of 16 - OIG Report 1/8/01 Fire Extinguisher Contract First, it is important to note that there is a wide array of fire extinguishers and the technical aspects of servicing extinguishers vary. The contract's technical ins (atmched as Exhibit C) make clear that federal standards, from the National Fire Protection Association 10 (NFPA - 10), shall be used for portable extinguishers. NFPA lays out general safety standards but refers to the manufacturer's martual for service procedures and replacement parts. The OIG's retained expert also echoed these same standard guidelines and furthermore stated that all fire extinguisher service personnel must be certified and licensed by the state, and perform service in accordance with state standards. State standards also require that extinguishers are serviced according to the ms's procedures. MFE's total bid for Group A services was $7.00. For each and every line item in Group A. with the exception of one item, MFE bid "no charge." MFE had bid the price of $7.00 for the "Annual Inspection/Certificadon" for Dry Chemical Pressurized (Multi- purpose & Regular) fire extinguishers. Therefore, annual inspections for any other type of fire extinguisher was to be performed for free and recharges for all extinguishers were to be performed for free. (See MFE's bid proposal previously referenced as Exhibit B). A "recharge" is the process that replaces the extinguishing agent (including expellants) back into a fire extinguisher. A fine extinguisher should be "recharged" immediately after it is used. This is especially true of "dry chemical" extinguishers that expel a powdery substance as an extinguishing agent. According to our expert, powder residue of the extinguishing agent remains in the valve of the extinguisher often causing the extinguisher to leak. According to the NFPA-10, Section 45.1.2: "When performing the recharging, the tecommendations of the manufacturer shall be followed." It is important to note that the County's contract technical specifications do not spell out any recharge procedure. It only refers to the NFPA-10, which in turn look to each manufacturer. On all of the invoices received as part of the controlled submittals, none documented the procedure of "recharge" as being performed on the extinguishers. However, all the invoices contain a charge entitled "valve rebuild." After the controlled submittals were completed, Derek D. Devine, Secretary/Treasurer of MFE, was interviewed by OIG Special Agents. Deville is listed as one of many permittees under MFE's state license. A review of the returned documentation revealed that Deville is listed as performing four of the twenty-nine recharges. Deville described to OIG Special Agents the process of a "valve rebuild." He described it as the labor involved in disassembling the valve, cleaning the internal parts, checking to see if parts need to be replaced, and replacing the parts if necessary. The process described by Devilled is part and parcel of the procedure to recharge a portable dry chemical fire extinguisher. According to the manufacturers' manuals, these practices, as well as the replacement of the extinguishing agent (dry chemical powder) encompasses the complete procedure called for in a "recharge." This is especially true of recharging portable dry chemical fire extinguishers, as outlined in the manufacturers' manuals, and as explained by the OIG's expert. According to Mr. Gioseffi, it is impossible to recharge a Page S of 16 01- 409 OIG Report 118/01 Fire Extinpidw Contract --- dry chemical extinguisher without disassembling the valve parts. Gleaning and docking the parts is all part of the recharge procedure. Thus, in the appUation to portable dry chemical attinguishers. the "valve rebuild" is an added charge. With respect to replacement of valve stems, MFE uniformly charged the Couarty $5.20 far each valve stem. Aoomdiag to the bid, Group E. replacement parts were to be billed at cost plus 15 % marls -up. The bid proposal a mMes: "EvWem of actual cost will be required." In his statement to OIG Special Agents, Derek Deville staged that MFE's uniform charge of $5.20 In an average of valve stern prim, instead of an actual cost plus of a particular type of stem. According to Deville, MFE takes all the commonly used valve stems models, discarding the ten (10) most expensive and ten (10) least expensive ones off the list, to determine an average price. Deville justified this practice by saying that it makes the billing paperwork easier for MM because it does not need to look up the price for each type of stern used. Deville also told the OIG that WE primarily purchases parts from Brooks Equipment Co., Inc., (Brooks) a national distributor of fire extinguisher parts. WE is also a regional distributor for Brooks. A review by the OIG of the particular parts used in the control groups demonstrated that for each valve stem acnrally replaced, the actual price plus 15% marls -up was considerably lower than WE's average price. The OIG based this comparison using the Brooks' list price for the particular valve stem type replaced. Coincidentally, MFE average price of $5.20 is also based on the Brooks' price list. Deville provided OIG Special Agents with the valve stem price list that was used to calmilate WE's average price. Furthermore, Deville told OIG Special Agents that for We safety concerns, it is the policy of MFE to always rebuild the valve and always put new valve stems in the extinguishers. The OIG controlled m6missions conclusively demonstrate that out of twenty- nine (29) oWnguishers retuned, only fifteen (15) of them actually had new valve stems on them. (See valve stem chart aaached as Exhibit D). Dir- 449 Page 6 of 16; , OIG Report I1WOI noire EuWgWttzer Contract • • V. Reser of CG i (See docttments collectively attached as Exhibit E). On April I4, 2000, with the assistance of the Miami -Dade Fire Department, CG 1, consisting of seven (7) extinguishers, was submitted to MM for service. On April 21, 2000. all seven (7) extinguishers were retuned from MFE accompanied by invoice number 24986. The invoice reflected the following: 7 Inspections of exthlguishers 7 valve rebuilds (.5 hr. ea.) 7 valve stems 7 "O" rings 2 continuity tests (.25 hr. ea.) 7 lock pins 3 hoses 49.00 70.00 36.40 5.95 10.00 3.15 3-6.00 Total $210.50 A comparison of the invoice, contract, and documented pre and post submission condition of the extinguishers revealed the following discrepancies: 1. Two (2) of the seven (7) submitted were CO2 type ems. According to the bid, MFM was to provide annual lnspecdon certifications at no cost. This is an overcharge of $14.00 2. The charge for the "valve rebuilds" for the five (5) dry chemical extinguishers is an added charge as this itemized procedure is included as part of the procedure when recharging an extinguisher as described above. This is an overcharge of $50.00 3. The inspection of the extinguishers revealed that four (4) of the seven (7) valve stems still had the original markings indicating MFE did not replace them. Each valve stem is charged at $5.20. The fact that four (4) valve sterns were not replaced demonstrates a fraudulent overcharge of $20.80. 4. Of the remaining three (3) valve stems that were replaced, as demonstrated by the lack of marldogs, MFE charged $5.20 per valve stem. MFE's contract calls for replacement pans to be billed at cost plus 15 %. MFE has admitted to instead charging an average valve stem price, which it calculated at .$5.20 each. For these three (3) valve stems, the cost plus 15 % mark-up equals, $2.82 for each of the throe. This totals $8.46 and is an additional $7.14 overcharge. The above -identified fundings demonstrate an overcharged of $91.94. Pap 7 of 16 OIG Report 1/8/01 FtM.F hW Conbud IIIIIIIZ[�S 01M 409 0 0 Coosegtxtttiy, if the Group C bid items providing for swap•onts were utilized the County could have received seven reconditioned extinguishers with new puts, and recharged with annual inspection certiftxtes for a total of $69.00. Of the seven (7) types of e tfoguishers. three were price listed on Group C of the bid. The other four (4) were types that hM agreed to swap out for free. Thus, utilizing Group A tit C provisions the County was over billed $141.50 32. Results of CG 2 (Sec documents collectively attached as Exhibit 17. On June 1, 2000, CG 2, consisting of (5) five extinguishers was sent in for service. On June 6, 2000, the extinguishers were returned with invoice number 25835. The invoice itemized for the following services: 5 Inspections of Exdaguisbers 35.00 S valve rebuilds 0 hr.) 50.00 5 valve stems 26.00 5 "O" rings 4.25 2 gages 5.20 5 lock pias _m Total $122.70 A comparison of the invoice, contract, and documented pie and poet submission condition of the extinguishers revealed the following discrepawies: 1. The charge for valve rebuilds is an added on charge as explained above. This represents an overcharge of $50.00. In CO 2 all submitted extinguish= were of the portable dry chemical variety. 2. Tire post submittal inspection of the extinguishers revealed that one (1) valve stem sdtl had the original marking. Therefore it was not replaced. This represents a fraudulent charge of 55.20 3. The County was charged $5.20 for replacement valve stems. As noted above. the $5.20 price represented MFE's average and not the actual cost plus 1596, which according to the contract is the coma billing method. Of the four (4) valve stems that were actually replaced, the correct charge per the contract would be $11.27. This represents an additional $9.53 overcharge above and beyond the non -replaced valve seen noted in #2 above. The above -identified fundings demonstrate an overcharge of $64.73. opic 8 RqmlIAWI 01- 408 litre Exdnpkbw Coa&W • • C"lAft the Pyr charges under Group C (swap -out) and Group A (for anmial entified inspections) the total charge would have been $83.00. The County would have saved $39.00. IA addition to the overcharges, several technical deficiencies were noted in the named CO 2 extinguishers. • One of the extinguishers was overcharged. The gage on it was replaced with an improper gage requiring 190 lb. pressure when the extinguisher only required 100 lb. The exdnguisher was then presstuized to the improper level of 190 lbs. This; may cause the extinguisher to function unproperly, and subjects the cylinder to a greater load than k is meant to bold. • One of the extinguishers was filled below the prescribed weight. • One other extinguisher was not returned and a replacement was instead sent of the same type. This replacement extinguisher was improperly serviced as it was in need of a six-year maintenance procedure, which had not been performed. WE did not charge the county for a reconditioned extinguisher ($12.00); it instead itemized the bill for a higher total cost. NVQ. R21aM of CG 3 (See documents cwllectively attached as Exhibit G). The third group of extinguishers was sent for service on May 31, 2000. CO 3 consisted of five (5) extinguishers loaned from the Parks Department. They were returned on June 6, 2000 with invoice number 25836. The invoice reflects the following: 5 inspections of extinguishers 35.00 5 valve rebuilds (.5 hr.) 50.00 A valve stems 26,00 5 "O" rings 4.25 5 lock pins 2.25 1 bole 12.00 Total $129.50 A comparison of the invoice, contract, and documented pre and post submission condition of the extinguishers revealed the following discrepancies: Page 9 or 16 OIG Report 1001 Fire ExdR9WdW Cootrnet iL1I1IiL�I1 01" 409 0 • 1. The charge for the five (5) valve rebuilds is again a duplicate dirge as the submitted and recharged extinguisbers were all portable dry cbeanical extinguishers. This is a $50.00 overcharge. 2. Two (2) of the utinguishers still had the original markings on the valve sk ma. T6erefoie MFE fraudulently billed for two (Z) valve stems at $5.2D/each. This is a fraudulent overcharge of $10.40. 3. The three 3 valve stems were billed at $5.20 each. This is an incorrect price. The three (3) stems that were actually replaced were for Badger 5MB-6H ABC extinguishers. The valve stem, Part No. 19010B lists at $2.75/each. Including a 15% cost-plus mark-up, the County should have been billed $3.16 each. For these three valve stems, the County was over billed $6.12. 4. AD of the extiriguishers had the original markings on the hoses, therefore the one hose charge of $12.00 for a replacement on one hose is fraudulent. The above -noted reveals a $78.52 overcharge for CG 3. If Group A & C of the contract were utilized, the cost to swap these five extinguishers for reconditioned ones including an annual inspection would have cost $95.00. Compared to the total invoice cost, the County could have saved $34.50. MM, Results of CG 4 (See documents collectively attached as Exhibit H). CG 4 consisting of eight (8) extinguishers was sent to MFE on June 13, 2000. Only six (6) extinguishers were returned as two (2) of the extinguishers submitted were of such poor condition that it would have been hazardous to service them. Un. however, failed to notify the department that two (2) extinguishers would not be returned, and MFE failed to document this on the invoice. The remaining six (6) extinguishers were returned on June 15, 2000, with invoice number 25918. The Invoice reflects the following charges: 6 Inspections on dry chemical ext. 6 lock pins 6 "O" rings 6 valve stems 3 gages 2 hose/nozzle TOW Page 10 or 16 OIG Report 1/8101 Flm E*Wpddier 42.00 2.70 5.10 31.20 7.80 $112.80 01M 408 0 • A comparison of the invoice, contract. and docurno tad pre and post submission condition of the extinguishers revealed the following discrepancies: 1. Two (2) of the extinguishers still had the original markings on their valves indicating they were not replaced, therefore MFE fraudulently billed for $10.40. 2. The four (4) valves that were replaced were charged at $5.20 each. As toted earlier this is an incorrect price, and the true billable cost for these four stems totals $19.08. The overcharge is $1.72. 3. All of the extinguishers had their original markings on their gages, therefore MFE did not replace any of the three (3) gages that they billed the County for. The charge of $7.80 is bogus. 4. All the extinguishers had the original markings on their hoses, therefore MFE did not replace the two (2) hoses they billed for and fraudulently billed the County for $24.00 For CG 4. MFE fraudulently overcharged the County $64.72. It is important to note that this particular invoice does not separately itemize for "valve rebuilds," however, the invoice did charge for replacement parts. This is significant because, according to Deville, it is during the process of a valve rebuild that the parts are disassembled and replaced with new parts. When questioned about the apparent absence of "valve rebuilds" on this invoice, Deville stated that this particular service technician does not normally do "Metro work," and that he was not properly informed as to how he was to structure the charges. This statement re -affirms the OIG's contention that the "valve rebuild" is a subsumed procedure that in any other case, would be included in a recharge, but apparently not when pettfonning Miami -Dade contract work. For these six (6) extinguishers the Group C (swap out) with annual inspection (Group A) total price would have been $107.00. A safety concern was also noted during the post -submittal inspection of the extinguishers. One of the extinguishers was not properly serviced. It was undercharged and also needed a hydrostatic test due to the condition of the cylinder, which was not performed. Hydrostatic testing, according to MFE's bid, is to be performed for free. Page 11 or 16 0 1 r 400 OIG Report 1/8101 Piro uttngwsher Contract L� IX. ROWta of CG 5 (See doccm om collectively attached as Exhibit 1). The fifth group consisted of six (6) extinguishers, originating from MDWASD. Of the six (6), two (2) were CO2 type extinguishers. All six (6) were submitted to MFE on May 31, 2000, and were retained on June 9, 2000, with invoice cumber 23989. The invoice reflects the following: 2 valve rebuilds (.25 hr) 10.00 2 valve rebuild (.5 hr.) 20.00 2 valve rebuild (CO2) (.5 hr) 20.00 5 "O" rings 4.25 5 lock pins 2.25 5 valve stems MA Total $82.50 A comparison of the invoice. contract, and documented pre and post submission condition of the extinguishers revealed the following discrepancies: 1. The valve rebuild charges, other than the two (2) for the CO2 extinguishers are added on charges. This represents an overcharge of $30.00. 2. Five (5) of the extinguishers still had their markings on the valve stems, indicating that only one (1) valve stem was actually replaced. Because MPE purportedly only replaced five (5) of the six (6) valves, this represents a fraudulent charge for four (4) valve sterns. This is a fraudulent overcharge of $20.80. 3. The one (1) valve stem actually replaced was billed at $5.20. The true can including the 15% mark-up is $1.84. The County was overcharged $3.36. For CG 5, the total overcharge was $54.16. If the extinguishers were swapped for re -conditioned ones (in this can it would be Group C only because the original invoice did not charge for Group A annual inspections) the total cost would have been $56.00, thus providing savings of $26.50. The next table demonstrates the entire extent of MFE's overcharges to the County. 01- 409 Page 12 of 16 OIG Repat 14VOI Am Exdngubbw ConUva 0 • Control Group Annum Billed Per Invoice Identified Cast to County if Group C (swap out) with Group Overchuge A (amnial inspection) were utilized. 1 $210.50 $91.94 $69.00 2 $122.70 $64.73 $83.00 3 $129.50 $78.52 $95.00 4 $112.80 $43.92 $107.00 5 $82.50 $54.16 S56.00 (Group C only, as Group A - annual inspection was not originally billed on the invoice). Total $658.00 Total $333.27 Total $410.00 In total, the fraudulent overcharges revealed through the submission of the five control groups amounts to $333.27. This dollar figure represents a 50.6% overcharge to the Countyl While the dollar amount may seem insignificant, the County has tens of thousands of extinguishers, which need service every year, and our investigation only tracked 29 of these instruments. The initial contract allotment for the first two- year period was $825,600.00. An additional $376,312.00 was allotted for the one-year extension. The comparison also reveals that in these five instances, the County could have saved $248.00 if the MFE swapped the extinguishers instead of repairing them. This is a savings of 37.67%. However, the OIG's controlled operation demonstrated that overcharges were significantly higher in the first category. This is primarily due to the fact that MFE charged the County for parts that were not replaced. Simply put, the County did not get what it paid for. By pre -marking the extinguisher parts, the OIG was able to conclusively determine that certain billings for replacement parts was totally bogus. X. M M's lack of internal controls On October 2, 2000, Derek Deville, of MFE was interviewed by OIG Special Agents in reference to the company's billing procedures. Deville stated the service man that picks up the extinguishers is responsible for the malting of the invoices based on the work performed on the extinguishers by the repair shop. Deville provided the OIG with copies of the repair shop logs. These were then compared with the invoices in question. No consistent relationship between the work performed by the shop and what was billed to the county was demonstrated. The shop logs are not consistent with the invoices either. The shop logs also reflect replacement of valve stems that were not replaced. Page 13 of 16 OIG Report 1/8/01 Flm Extinguisher Contract 01W 409 MM bas engaged in a pattern of fraudulent activity as documented in its service of the five (5) groups of extinguishers. In every group. WE fnudulentty billed for parts not replaced, billed for services that were to be provided for free, and inflated the prices for replacement parts. At times, MFE bas provided sub -standard work and did not perform the necessary services and more costly inspections that according to the contract, would have to have been provided for free. WE's conduct is not only fraudulent but the investigation revealed instances where the extinguishers and their effectiveness are in question. possibly jeoprdlzing persons and ply. Questions also arise regarding the County's knowledge of the proper procedures to follow wben requesting service from this vendor relating to the repair or mplacemau of extinguishers. The contract gives the user deparunm the decision to replace the extinguishers with reconditioned extinguishers. However, without knowing whether the extinguishers will require extensive repairs (apparently not included in the price of a normal "recharge" procedure),. the user depar tn%mt does not know whether to request a reconditioned extinguisher in its place. In these five (5) test cases, it is apparent that WE did not give the departments an option to replace the extinguisher with the less costly reconditioned ones. Apparently it is more advantageous to WE and its service personnel to invoice for parts not replaced. Language pertaining to the "swap out" may also be confusing to both the vendor and the user departments. The specifications state "it will be the department's decision to repair fire extinguishers or to recess group C of this contract (reconditioned extinguishers)..." If the extinguisher is unserviceable then it c umot be reconditioned. It roust be discarded. The option of choosing Group C may also be confusing, because as it currently reads, there is no mention that dee exchanged reconditioned extinguisher will come with an annual v%spection certification. Yd, it sears ridiculous to be provided with a reconditioned extinguisher only then to pay for an annual certification This should really be a package deet. In light of the OIG's conclusive fundings of fraudulent over billing by WE, the OIG r+ecornMends the following: • The Deparanent of Procurement Management (DPM) should consider terminating the County's contract with WE and provide contingency measures until a new contract is in place. It should also consider initiating debarment procedures based on MFE's uhsadsfactory performance and fraudulent over bittuhgs. • PMD should consider requesting the services of the Audit Management Services Department (AMS) to audit this contract and identify the full extent of the overcharges. Page 14of16 01" 409 OIG Report 1/8/01 Pim EzdaguWwr Contract • The County Should initiate the necessary legal action to recover Overcbarges fiom MM. The County may wish to consider application of the False Claims Ordinance, Miami -Dade Code, Sec. 21-255 et. seq., as a'tlseans for recovery. • DPM d=W m-maunine the bid specifications and bid proposal. DPM should compare its format w similar contracts being used by other govermental agencies to determine wltetber another format is more suitable. Consideration should be made for an all inclusive maintenance contract that offers flat fees per type of fire mcdrtguisha. Suggestions to develop a full nuum ranee contract were voiced in 1997 in response to the Bid Award Reoonunerrdation. Perhaps it is now time to heed these suggestions. • Usa departments must inventory their supply of fire extinguishers. By idendfying the most common types of extinguishers the departmaoot uses, DPM will be able to more accurately forecast the services needed in a full maintenance contract or any other contract let out for bid. These inventories will help identify whether a bid proposal is extremely unbalanced. • User departments must be mindful of the safety concerns identified herein. The documented cases of poor maintenance directly impacts the effectiveness of the fire extingt» ahers. Undermined performance of an extinguisher may pose safety Asks to persons and property. All operators of County fire extinguishers should be sderted to the possibility of under performance. The OIG feels that these recommendations are necessary precautionary measures that address both the safety and fiscal concerns reported herein. The OIG suggests that these recommerWations be implemented whh due speed and that DPM report back to the OIG on the status of its rewnunendations by February 9, 2001. Pulp 15 of 16 409 OIG Report 1/8101 01— Fire Eldagubbw co ulmi • ARtaChQlOnta oc: The Honorable Alex Penins, Mayor hrmw Dade County Honorable Members of the Board of County Commiasiouers MiNni-Dade County Mr. Robert A. Ginsburg, County Adorney Miami -Dade County Mr. Theodore Luaus, Director Dgwtm nt of Pmcurement Management Mr. R.D. PwAim Fite Chief Miami -Dade Fire Rescue Depa mva Ms. Vivian Donnell Rodriguez, Director Miami -Dade Parks and Recreation Dgwtm= Mr. William Brant, Director Miami Dade water and Sewer Department Ms. Cathy Jackson, Director Miami Dade Department of Audit & Management Services The Commission on F.tluics and Public Tlrust Miami -Dade Cmmty 7U'Howrable Katberine Ferro mft Rundle, State Attorney • Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Miami -Dade County Mr. Tom Gallagher, Fire Marshal Division of State Fire Marshall, State of Florida 0X if APM U"I ftv Zdb**ber Con&W 01- 409 ••- I 1 � � a 1 w i y TO. Distribution List 'JUL 2 lei DATE: July 11, 1997 J • SUBJECT: 4922-2101 * 922-2101• FROM: Maria Hevia, CPPB Fire Extinguishers GSA Procurement (Service) The following is the result for bid no. 4922-2/01. As you can see both vendors provided a no charge for many of the items.' If we go ahead with the award of this contract, your department will be responsible for puking sure the vendor in fact doesn't charge for the items he provided no charge for. It will be the using department's responsibility for knowing what model of extinguishers are being serviced. If we go ahead ,with the award of this contract, your department will be responsible for making sure the vendor in fact doesn't charge for the items he provided no charge for. It will be the using department's responsibility for knowing what model of extinguishers are being serviced. The method of award on this contract is in the aggregate by Group (exclusive of the option). The award would be as follows: Group A - lowest bidder - Miami Fire Equip. Group B - lowest bidder - Miami Fire Equip. Group C - lowest bidder - Miami Fire Equip. Group D - Option - this group is exclusive of the method of award - please note, you will be doing your inspection with Miami Fire Equipment, if a hose needs to be replaced, they will advise the County representative and this will be done by them. The prices Miami Fire submitted for the hoses are double the price submitted by Security Fire. I need to know if you feel this contract can be awarded to vendor A, and do you believe they could bill the County in accordance with the Bid Proposal. Also, is there a possibility of obtaining a count on the type of extinguishers yoar department has? If you do not recommend the award of this contract, I need to reject and re -issue. Changes need to be made to the contract in order to avoid this from happening again. I am enclosing a copy of the Proposal part of the contract. Please review and advise what changes could be made. ... OtA 409 EXHIBIT Va iUw&cAucu► 4.a4140Ccwwa 0wwu BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION Date i.L ( q 9 7 To: From: aA4u 4L, r—PP6 (Procurement Specification peclalist) Bid No. 4-jq2kaL)4�• Thu RECOM ATION should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than . Contact the Specialist at 375-30aa for questions. ❑ e Depa tent CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder/s) hz4i.snu D be recommended for this Bid Award. ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(s) recommended by GSA Procurement . Managemeat. The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED and another bidder(s) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW BID VENDOR HID SECTIONS SP1ECIFIG7ION NOT MET: REQUIREMENT ITEM BIDDER PROPOSED AA" !6.r- Ohio.., 11 �vu p .: ins RECOMMEND bidder meet nit specifications as follows: BIDDER: ITEM: '% 11 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: PHONE: La- 5pgm-ft . .Iter. f/2Nli 01- 409 (► Procurement Management 4Wion BID AWARD RECOM W=ATIOri Tot Data 1 (q97 Fr�mt (procurement SpotiBeadon podalist) Bid Ne. Qaa- ` Tbb RECOATION shudd bt et tdrned h GSA PROCORE11zF.rTT MANACEN aW no iater than Contact the Spedalbt at 375-,jea for questions. a Depa Rent CONCURS that the Ionto re:ponsire bidder(s) be recommended for this BW Award. 0 The Department DrSAGRM whh the bidder(s) r+eeonumdedbT GSA Proearm mt Maau=emeOL The low, responsive bidder(s) should be R=CTM and another bidder(s) sboald be reoomtaeuded for Bid Award as follows: RI nCt IoW AD VENVOR ,IDUCTIONs sPLCWlCATWN NOT=Tt R;QLqRZNMM 1TLM em> n PROPOSED to Cl ai Cam tz-Ts RECOMMEND bidder meetine :nedileatians as follows AVCBDW= SIGNATOR& ?/T -d MOND b u„L Lf San . . -am de"s 01-- 409 WAT t TO M, t2 W" mamma DMW MENT OF NOUSMq • YROAN OMLrOPM♦IT 14M NORTHWIST ?TN irPM ' MMS• FLCHWA pOq tM:1m MALNG ADORUS: P. O. SOX 30M, MIAMI. PLONDA 3MU NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COYER: COMPANY NAME TO4f 7 �6 FROM: -74 - DATE: DATE RESPONCE NEEDED BY__� ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING TRIS FAX, PLEASE CONTACT: Ms. Angelica de Liaiis PHONE: '644 -5222 -----------FAX:• 644-0141 Thank You! pl- !00 z/t •d ••• « WoO1 t i0 A& to JfTi • Memo To: Maria Hevia, CPPB Procurement From: Maureen Daniels, B MDTA Procurement Date: July 17, 1997 0 Re: Bid 4922-2/01: Fire Extinguishers (Service) Award Recommendation We have reviewed the bid referenced above, and recommend the method of award be based on an item by item basis. We feel the vendors are bidding No Charge on items that they know are not requested on a regular basis, and bidding high on recurring items. This allows them to be low bidder by group, however they are not for particular Items. This is evident in Group B item 2B, Group D all items. The bids for Groups A & C seem unbalanced. Is it possible to eliminate nonrecurring Items, and eliminate the recharge service? The most commonly used fire extinguishers by MDTA are: MPDC (ABC) 2.5 lb. Pressurized Type --- MPDC (ABC) 5 Ib. Pressurized Type MPDC (ABC)10 Ib. Pressurized Type MPDC (ABC) 20 Ib. Pressurized Type Halon Type Ansul 10 E 10 Ib. CO2 Cartridge Type Amerex Model No. V-25 971-Upb 7 - �-s 41 ?A4;'C� COLD 0 P A an d =4 01" 400 O�7iTiL � em AWARD RECOMMENDATIN Date r . i61 1 K M. D. T. A. 4fi715S MATFRIALS MANAAFMFNT To: 3401 NW 31 RT MIAMI. Fl. 33A42 PAM- r.CkNL FY From: l-ko�r- .�...�.r. '�''•'�' r (Procurement )J Specification Specialist) _ Bid No. �`t a a - �l�. t Title • .±• �` - This RECOMMENDATION should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than Contact the Specialist at 375-.I= for questions. C3 The Department CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) be recommended for this Bid Award. The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(s) recommended by GSA Procurement Management. The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED and another bidder(s) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: fW,(',-,% S`je„lll 6ci st' REJEtT LOW BID SECTIONS SPBCiFiCATION [TEM BIDDER on 1;41r H>b VENDOR NOT MET: RlvQtJDtEMENT PROPOSED AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: PHONE: Z 2,T" w . RAM &AW 01. 400 41) AWARD RECOMMENDATIS Date l I cf •' . r PUBLIC WORKS 0E0/0 FINANCE DIVISION To: Iii N.W. !. ST. — t6TN FI_fi(lk MIAMI. Fl. 33t2B nRKY RODFtIBUF-7 From: r iy.. -amu-- -- JOS (Procurement Specification Specialist) Bid No. �iy �, = ���. Title'. '', mac: This RECOMMENDATION should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later (ban .- , :_ `' . Contact the Specialist at 375-� for questions. LM The Department CONCURS that the low, responsive bidders) / _-�,_,;;��.✓_ be recommended for this Bid Award. --ri' � ..�'�.►wJ.t�L>.:.c1 _c��-�ir..�1.. .�7r ', r,:�+--,zi _ ;. • � �`�'►"`��Ci�G%1�,`. ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(s) recommended by GSA Procurement Management. The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED and another bidder(s) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REFECT LOW BID VENDOR Bt•D SECTIONS NOT MET: SPEC[FICAMON REQUIREMENT ITEM BIDDER PROPOSED Q � m RECOMMEND bidder meeting specifications as follows: BIDDER: ITE : Q � m �PTO �ONf�Ilt 1.. o1- 409 I N T E R MEMO O F FIC E To: Maria Hevia, CPPB From: —�* E. P. Suchma Safety Section Supervisor Miami -Dade Water and Sewer Department Subject: CONTRACT 4922-2ro1 FIRE EXTINGUISHERS (SERVICE) Date: July 21, 1997 I have received your memorandum of July 11, 1997 regarding the above captioned. I am troubled by the Inge number of services that have been indicated as being performed with no charge. I do question how a company could stay in business by giving their products and/or services away. Ile Water and Sewer Department has a large number of facilities and we do have a large number of fire extinguishers throughout our system. I can very easily foresee a problem with an indication being made that a large number of these extinguishers should be exchanged or re- placed. The current proposal in the contract would allow for a vendor to declare that repairs or replacements are needed when, in fact, they may not be required. This would allow the vendor to make up for services that were apparently being given away. An alternative solution may be to have a full maintenance contract that would, on a per unit basis, allow for the necessary inspections, maintenance, repair and/or replacement of units as needed. In the intervening time, the Department could begin to compile a listing of the types and locations of the extinguishers throughout our system. This compiled list should be helpful in determining the service requirements for these units. I trust this information will be of assistance to you. Please do not hesitate to call me at 529-2767 should you have any further questions. EPS:v Enclosure: Proposal Part of Contract 01" 400 91D AWARD RECOMMENDATION Date i .. i of '1 DFVELOPMENT h FACILITIES MOT.. 0291 Tc til N.W. t ST — Sl1iTF 2430 MIAMI. FL 33s.2A SM. M. HIRSH From: 1 / ::,,.�. �r- R.. _ Ja�• (Procurement Specification Specialist) Lf j �� �✓ - _ - _ Bid No. Title.r�.'.w•.a-�-^-a- � f • v This RECOMMENDATION should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than :• i 'Y•7 Contact the Specialist at 375-_ for questions. Ltd The Department CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) )* )-1 .,c. be recommended for this Bid Award. E 71e Department DISAGREES with the bidder(s) recommended by GSA Procurement Management. The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED and another bidder(:) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW HID VENDOR BID SECTIONS NOT MET: SPECEnCATION REQUIREMENT ITEM BIDDER PROPOSED YZYZ�1 RECOMMEND bidder meeting specifications as follows: BIDDER.: ITEM: YZYZ�1 AUTHOR=D SIGNATURE � PHONE: 4Y-11 7 ' 01- 409 MEMORANDUM TO: GS DATE: August 6, 1997 (iSA a ara�tnait Division FROM: , Assistant Diractoc 3UBJBCT. Bid 4922 2/01 Mainteoaaoe Servica Division I Lave reviewed the bids as requested in your memorandum of July 11, 1997. While I have soma of the same reservations tbat you have, I recommend that you proceed with the award of the cootcact. While I agree, k is the prkwry responsibility of each user departm®t to ensure adwasmew of the conusat I suggest you con ider a ggKtKiv-naeW of the vendors' performance under dip comack in light of your concerns. 8bould the vendor comply with the cone= the County is rea6ving the best possible pricing. cc: C. Jackson o1a too MEM ORANOUM0 T O : 4nAta Ziabsmbamis DATE* Jules 29. 1997 Logistical, Services Division SUBJECT: iIDI49ZZ—Z/O1 Mrs Estiaguisbers ----� (.;@twice) FROM: �. YUvsntory & Supply Bureau I believe ibis contract is worthy of being awarded to'veudor A. The vendor's b4111ais can be by departoent personnel to ensure proper invoicing. cc: Maria Havia Y GSA Procurement 01- 409 SLID AWARD RECOMMENDATION Date 6: M-MUNTTY ACTION ASENCY 079/ VARIOUS DIVISIONS To: 395 NW i ST - ROOM t 01 MIAMI. FI. 3312E3 BARBARA .TTRIDIRnN From: (Procurement Specification Specialist) _ r Bid No. ��=f �► ��,_ _, Tide • -•'� !� .,.�x.1 • J —==- - This RECOMMENDA71ON should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than .� 1 Z •' Contact the Specialist at 375.3 for questions. 1�9The Department CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) be recommended for this Bid Award. ,r%.G.�i.(.... 1,:;.:.._.. �+r.-c�- .�3'►-rs�,��-vim'. _ L � +�r�+i••1.14.n�. ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(:) recommended by GSA Procurement ManagemenL The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED and another bidder(s) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW BID VENDOR BID SECTIONS NOT MET: SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT ITEM BMDER PROPOSED 1.1 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: .1 PHONE: 701 q1f . F.W. via" 01" 409 • tED AWARD RECOMMENDATION Date �=�•.� 1 f ti :' , SOLID WASTE MANAOFMENT 050101 DTRFCT0R' c OFFICF To: RF75 NW 53RD ST — SUTTF 201 MIAMI. FL 3316h KATHLEEN B. WOOnS From: �1a. "-a°'' (Procurement Speclricatiom Specialist) Bid No. 4-l4.aa • This RECOMMENDATION should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than s, ! , ., i. . �j ? . Contact the Specialist at 375- !. a for questions. © The Department CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) / ,..�.= be recommended for this Bid Award. ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(:) recommended by GSA Procurement Management. The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED avid another bidder(s) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW BID VENDOR BID SECTIONS NOT MET: SPECMCATION REQUIREMENT [TEM BIDDER PROPOSED In AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: k�l97 PHONE: ITiTiT"61 . tea Sam oi- 409 SLID AWARD RECOMMENDA77• _i Date `z+i , .. l -r MFTRn DADF. Pni-JCF DFF-ARTMFNT 0 1 02- t� S1jpFORT SFRVTCFc To: 9J 05 NW 25 CT - ROAM 3049 Mi Alit . Fl. 33172 RENEE WHFEL FR From: (Procurement Specification Specialist) ; Bid No. liC{ad - �;,. l Title This RECOMMENDATION should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than „ l• �; �' Contact the Specialist at 375- ' " : for Questions. E Tie Departjnent CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) I .rla,a r u.• be recommended for this Bid Award. ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(:) recommended by GSA Procurement Management. The low, responsive bidder(s) should be REJECTED and another bidder(s) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW Bm VENDOR BID SECTIONS NOT MET: SPECIFICATION REQUIREMENT ITEM BIDDER PROPOSED AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: � � PHONE: '-V7 I A S- � �-/ . a... "&M 01- 409 aAWARD RECOMMENDATIO10 CORRECTIONS & REHADZUTATION 039/01 DTRFCTOR'.4 OFFICE 8660 M FLAOt_F. R VT MTAMI. Fl. 33144 MARIA Q(llNnA Date 1 1 From: (Pneurement Spedfleadon Speeislist) Bid No. 41CJ�a • 2 Tick , Ibis RECO M ATION sbould be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT ANNT AGEME no later than . Contact the Specialist at 375.,-S as for questions. 7 e Deparquent CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) / be recommended for this Sid Award. , � t I / " �,J� ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidders) recommended by GSAProcumment Management. The low, responsive bidder(s) sbould be REJECTED and another bidder(s) sbould be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW 9W SEC77ONS 8M VENDOR NOT MET: SPSWICATION rTEM BWJ)ZR REQUMREMZNT PROPOSM ITEM: MBEDDER.- 10 RECOMMEND bidder!Deefinr specifications as follows: ITEM: MBEDDER.- 10 A1Tl HORMED SIGNATURE: G�%K,l P PSONL Z Z f .Wt. V"" 01" 400 .ur ice`'" C���`'' ��1ri1�1VItlSl�l.l11�1 TO: Marie Vakmti, BayerDiAM 8/1/97 Procuromeat &Coaftm Mat. SUBJECT: Bid 044922-2K11 Five 8setinauisber AROU. John Gutierlwl Buyer Service Parks Proewemeat & Coatracta MSt. In reviewing the memo Sam Maria Havia of MA Prowarwase dated 7/11/97 I realized that at this pudcWar time it would be impossible for me to answer many of her questions. Cuq=dy in the Parks Department there is no inventory of exactly what type of wWnguiahers are at what &Mdes. Maria's mon to have a &H maintenance convect all inchnive of parts and testing is a good idea but, again with no inventory that will not work at this time citber. My recarnumaariatton at this time can only be to award ties kwast bidder and have the individual facility monitor the chages very closely. Thank you. 01 16110 copy: Bill Solomon File Ola 409 u 'BID AWARD RECOMMENDATION PARK & RF_OREAT EON FTNANCTAL MANAGEMENT ? t75 NW t AVE - 1: FLnOR MIAMI. F1. 33128 WXLLIAM E, SOLOMON 093/03 :al 2 1 1991 Date (Procurement Specification Specialist) Bid No. 1-ICia a - Title This RECOMMEENDA77ON should be returned to GSA PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT no later than ^,1• �, Contact the Specialist at 375- ' zz for question. ' ' Ile The Department CONCURS that the low, responsive bidder(s) be recommended for this Bid Award. ❑ The Department DISAGREES with the bidder(s) recommended by GSA Procurement Management. The low, responsive bidder(:) should be REJECTED and another bidders) should be recommended for Bid Award as follows: REJECT LOW 1310D VENDOR Bfm SECTIONS NOT MET: SPEC nCATION REOU>RENMNT rMM BLDDER PROPOSED ' F"' GIC.( 5 RECOMMEND bidder meeting specifications as follows: BIDDER: ITEM: ' F"' GIC.( 5 AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: 9 ,as,GQ,;r PRONE:`j'G �l L�Co 0 -stew. M% 01- 409 Imm 61.iC CONTRACT AWARD 810 NO.: 4922 -2/01 -OTR FIRE EXTINGUISHER (SERVICES AND PARTS) CONTRACT PERIOD: 2/1/98 thru 1/31/00 COMMODITY CODE: 340-20 '1111j"Im.1, 11,11 F.E.I.N.: VENDOR: STREET: CITY/STATE/ZIP: F.O.B. TERMS: PAYMENT TERMS: DELIVERY: PHONE: FAX: CONTACT PERSON: 590752345 MIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT 10120 S.M. 55 AVENUE MIAMI, FL 33156 BEST. NET 30 AS NEEDED (305) 642-6626 (305) 643-6312 Philip R. Deville PART /,Z: ITEMS AWARDED SEE ATTACHED LIST OF ITEMS AWARDED PART ft &MARD INFOR TION (X )BCC ( )PMD AWARD DATE: 12/18/97 BIOS A CONTRACTS RELEASE DATE: 1/8/98 S H E E T WImp E!S b. I'D WeRhSAIL. Art�,Ac�� (Previous Bid No. 4922-0/96) OTR YEARS: TWO YEARS AGENDA ITEMS 0: 7FEA (974092) OTR YEAR: N/A ADDITIONAL ITEMS ALLOWED: Yes - Section 2. paragraph 2.32 - PURCHASE OF OTHER ITEMS NOT LISTED ON THIS BID SOLICITATION BASED ON PRICE LISTS PLUS 15x. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: IT WILL BE THE DEPARTMENT'S DECISION TO REPAIR UNSERVICEABLE FIRE EXTINGUISHERS OR TO ACCESS GROUP C OF THIS CONTRACT. TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE: $825,600.00 MODIFIED CONTRACT VALUE: $N/A DOLLAR AM USER �EP-,�R EXHt91'i AVIATION $24.000.00 C.A.A. $5,200.00 CORRECTIONS $65,000.00 GERM $3,000.00 FIRE $20,000.00 Qe". R m"'XI-L Scfptll o� O rs 1�✓-�a�c c�' '`;��"kV,�r�-,�"T ��'�Yt�t a � x����q���,.,t��`�'�r`fdb � � _ ,�%,��,1.`�r� K� '` �� 'aIN, ��;a4 ,,.s: ;,� a �;�w� .o-'a1r �x +" 'x 3 rvrs J 3y a x"i� "�.'S .c -� ✓,-��'r4 r�tmK:e9^ $. y409 x. MIN SERVICES •. $59000.00 139400.00 LIBRARY f 10,000.00 42/0,0000.00 NOPD MDNOMMAS �G a r, 10,00/ .00 SAD{#C' 10,000.00 PARK i RECREATION µy? 50,ODO.00 44,000.00 PUKIC WORKS 21,000.00 SEAPORT 159000:00 SOLID WASTE NINT. 10,000.00 PROCUR@IENT SPECIFICATION SPECIALIST: MARIA NMA. CPP6 rs 1�✓-�a�c c�' '`;��"kV,�r�-,�"T ��'�Yt�t a � x����q���,.,t��`�'�r`fdb � � _ ,�%,��,1.`�r� K� '` �� 'aIN, ��;a4 ,,.s: ;,� a �;�w� .o-'a1r �x +" 'x 3 rvrs J 3y a x"i� "�.'S .c -� ✓,-��'r4 r�tmK:e9^ $. y409 x. 6 XF titer �� F^ rs 1�✓-�a�c c�' '`;��"kV,�r�-,�"T ��'�Yt�t a � x����q���,.,t��`�'�r`fdb � � _ ,�%,��,1.`�r� K� '` �� 'aIN, ��;a4 ,,.s: ;,� a �;�w� .o-'a1r �x +" 'x 3 rvrs J 3y a x"i� "�.'S .c -� ✓,-��'r4 r�tmK:e9^ $. y409 t�TROPOLITAN DAVE COUNTY • 110 NO. 49U -2/01.i" FINN NAME: MIAMZ FIRE MIPAW, INC. NO. OESCRIPTION GROUP A I ANNUAL INSPECTION/CERTIFICATION. t NYOROSTATIC TESTING OR CYLINDER INSPECTION. 3 RECHARGE PRICE. I) PER UNIT PRICE FOR ANNUAL INSPECTIOWCERTIFICATION ON ALL FIRE EXTINGUIMERS Is, Cot type ;No Chaise ta. Foae type no Charge 3a. Mater, Pressurised Type no Chasse 4a. Ory 'Chmi cal 7.00 (Nuiti purpose i R"ular) (pressurised) ga. Ory CheisicaI Lis Charm (Nul ti purpose i Regular) (Cartridge operate Ga. Regular pry Chemicalao Chasee .Pressurized wheel type 74. COZ wheel type No Ch ms 8a. Annual Inspection of Halon 1b brae Fire Extinguishers 01- 409 METROPOLITAN DOE COMP OIO NO. 4922-2101-0TR FIRM NAME: XTAMT FIRE EQUTPMNT. INC. • ITEM . ' • • NO. OESCRIPTION . 2), PER UNIT PRRICE FOR HYDROSTATIC TESTING OR CYLINDER INSPECTION ON ALL FIRE EXTINGUISHERS IN CONJUNCTION 1IITR AWJAL INSPECTION AID CERTIFICATION 9a. Ca type $ft Cbarse 10a. Fow type 110 Charea 11a. Water, Pressurized Type go atmi-se •12a. Ory Chemical (Mu)ti purpose A Regular Be 13a. Ansul type m Ciusae 1". Regular Ory Chemical s , Charge 'Pressurized wheel type 154 COZ wheel type NO cbssse „ 01M 409 9 METROPOLITAN DME COMITY 820 NO. 4922 -2101 -OTR FIRM MANE: µ�IIAR RRE EQHPUBrr, INC. ITEM N0. DESCRIPTION 3) REC44!96E PR CCE_ MR THE FOLLDWIRR TYPES OF EXTMM MISIiERS 16a. HPOC (ABC). 2.5 Lb Vo Charge 17a. MPOC (ABC). 5 Lb. Pressurized Type NO Charge laa. HPOC (ABC), 6 Lb. No Charge Ila. MPDC (ABC), 10 Lb. Pressurized Type No Charge , 20a. NPOC (ABC). 10 Lb. Cartridge Type No Chasse 21a. NPM (ABC). 15 Lb. Pressurized Type No Chasse 22a. HPOC (ABC). 20 Lb. Pressurized Type No Chars* 23a. RDC (9C), 2.5 or 2.75 Lb. Pressurized Hs Charge .,, Type. 24a. RDC (80, 5 Lb. Pressurised Type=yi 25a. ROC (BC), 10 Lb. Pressurized Type 26a. RDC (BC), 20 Lb. Pressurized Type 27a. ROC (BC). 150 Lb. Pressurized Wheel Bio chs�rae type. 28a. CO2 •(9C), 5 Lb. 29a, CO2 (8C), 10 Lb. No Chart* 30a. CO2 (80, 15 Lb. No Charge 31a. CO2 (9C), 20 Lb. No Charg 01.. 409 01- 409 METROPOLITAN OAOE COUNTY 010 10. 49U -2/01 -OTR 8ID PROPOSAL FOR: FIRE E MNAUISNERS (SERVICES AND PARTS) FIRM WA.- BM sur N0. DESCRIPTIO!! - 32a. CO2 (9C, 25 Lb. 33a. CO2 (SQ, 25 Lb. 34a. 002 (BC). 35 Lb. 35a. COZ (BC). SO Lb. 36a. CO2 (BC). 100 Lb.0=igil 37a. CM (BC). 25 Lb. wheel type m = 38i. COZ (BC). 50 Lb. wheel type ML gHmm ,, 399. CO2 (BC). 100 Lb. wheel type No -Cb as 40a. CO2 (SC). 200 Lb. wheel type god. TOTAL GROUP A (Items Is. thou 40a.) t 7.Oo 01- 409 METROPOLITAN CADE COUNTY FIRM NAME: MTTAA4 FIRE MUTPAIE11C1. INC.._ 010 NO. 4922-2/01-OTI ITEM NO. DESCRIPTION ORO�IP C PRICE TO RECONDITION FIRE EXTIMISMSS M_ITHEXCNJINGE Per unit price for furnishing serviceable reconditioned fire extinguishers which includes and is not limited to gauge, lock pin, chain, o -ring, nozzle assembly, hose and horn replacements. lc. NPOC (ABC), 2.5 Lb S 12.00 2c. NPOC (ABC), 5 Lb. Pressurized Type 12.00 3c. MPDC (ABC), 6 Lb. No Charge 4e. MPDC (ABC). 10 Lb. Pressurized Type 12.00 Sc. MPDC (ABC). 10 Lb. Cartridge Type No Charge 6c. MPDC (ABC), 15 Lb. Pressurized Type No Charge 7c. NPOC (ABC). 20 Lb. Pressurized Type No Charge Sc. ROC (BC), 2.5 or 2.75 Lb. Zo Charge Pressurized Type. 9c. RDC (BC), 5 Lb. Pressurized Type No Charge 10c. RDC (8C), 10 Lb. Pressurized Type -No Charge 11c. ROC (8C). 20 Lb. Pressurized Type _ g _ 12c. ROC (BC), 150 Lb. Pressurized Wheel No -Charge type. 13c. CO2 (8C). 5 Lb. LO.00 14e. CO2 (BC), 10 Lb. No Charge 15c. CO2 (8C), 15 Lb. 10.00 16e. CO2 (80, 20 Lb. No Charge CP 17e. CO2 (SC, 25 Lb. No Charsee • WIRWOWAN DADE CM#M BID 10. on -2/01 -OTR nAN MM: iA-: 10. DESCRIPTION ISC. OOL 01.1 400 (9Q, 26 Lb. l ND Charse 19c. 002 (90, 35 Lb. !o Chasse 20c- 002 (90, 30 Lb. so a ame . ilc. CM (9C), 100 Lb. Ito Cbarse 22e. CO2 (90. 25 Lb. Wheel .type Ito Cbasye ' 23C. CO2 (90, 50 Lb. Wheel .tAw !a cite 24C. COY (BC). 100 Lb. Wheel type go Cbss" 25c- COY (90. 200 Lb. Wheal type no Marto TOTAL GROUP C (Items Jr. thru 26c) ! 36.00 01.1 400 - p�_ 4ub • E 9MNWSHMS 08MCES AND PARTS) GROUP E OPTION - IT WILL 0E IN USZNB OEPART"WoS OECZSIOM TO RiPAIR UNSERIRC MMNBUIMM MI?N THE AMN= VERS= OR TO ACCESS MW C EALLE RIRE impairs ether than those listed. above . Vir, 1 be at the rate Of 20.00 w• �.._..,. Per how*. 2e. Con of parts of 11 be bf 1 led at . amtractor's cost plus a (EVIDENCE OF ACTUAL COST WILL W RMIREO) 01- 408 MIL • METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY BID NO. W2/01 -OTR SECTION 3.0 =TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS - FIRE EXTINGUISHERS (INSPECTION, RECHARGE, TESTING PARTS AND REPAIRS) 3.1 All extinguishers shall conform to the latest NFPA Standard (NFPA-10) for portable fire extinguishers and OSHA Standards for the Hydrostatic Test intervals of twelve years. In addition, each cylinder shall meet the following requirements: - A. Finish: Corrosion and impact resistant. B. Certification: Tagged and -certified as to date of charge: C. , Resistance: A ring or similar device. shall.* be provided to discourage tampering..-. •1,.•• D. Gauge: • Threaded and •screw-in type; shall also allow visual indication of state of charge whenever possible. 3.2 SERVICES TO FIRE EXTINGUISHERS 3.2.1 It is the responsibility o•f the contractor to notify/advise the respective County departments when extinguishers require service (annual or otherwise). 3.2.2 All CO and other gas cylinders shall be weighed and checked according to record card for each extinguisher. 3.2.3 All extinguishers shall be recharged on the premises whenever possible. It will be the Department's decision to rechards the existing extinguisher or to order reconditioned fire extinguishes with exchange from the awarded vendor for Group C. 3.2.4 Contractor shall. issue a receipt/claim check to the County Department whenever in shop service, -is required. Receipt/claim check issued shall show quantity and type of extinguishers removed for service. Upon completion of service, contractor shall return extinguishers and furnish a delivery ticket for signature. The signed delivery ticket shall remain with the department"., A loaner extinguisher of the same type shall be left at the department by the contractor until the repaired unit is delivered. 3.2.5 Contractor shall label each extinguisher upon servicing with a decal (similar to Kidde type) identifying type of fire extinguishers i.e. Class A, wood, trash, etc.,, Class B, etc. and date of recharge and/or repair. EXHIBIT a Page 12 METROPOLITAN um"Cbumy • BID NO.922-2/01-OTR 3.2.6 All replacement parts shall be now and equal/exceed the original parts. 3.2.7• The contractor shall contact the following person's for infonaation pertaining to locations and number of fire extinguishers to be serviced. DEPARTMENT G ...;. i NAME .... ,.... ;PNONE NUMBER. Aviation .._ Chuck Voltz 876-7575 Community Action Agency Barbara Stridiftn .347-4612 Corrections;&.Rehab::.. Maria Quinoa : 547-7054 Department -of Solid Mast* Management Kathleen Woods 594-1502 Fire Department- Calbert Green- 470-1602 D.D.F.M. Charles Jackson 547-5246 Environmental Resources Alexis Castro 372-6789 GSA -. F.1 eat Management - . Martin Dareff- • 375-2302 GSA - Material Mpmt. Otto Castillo 592-3015 HUD _ Chris Porter . 372-3023 Human Resources - Health Services _ --Pat=Hill 375-3SBI Libraries Amir Ali.. 375-5012 Main Bookkeeping OCSIS .. Sergio .Boni Tla -596-8482 MDTA _ Paul Conley— 638-7218 Metro Dade Police Dept.. Judith Knapp .547-7478 Park & Recreation Dept. Diane Smith $96-4482 Seaport Phil Rose 371-7678 Public Works = Marlon Nelms 592-1186 Mosquito Control Public Works Orky Rodriquez 375-2940 Water &•Sewer Authority Bruce Ritter 665-7471 Youth & Family Development Andy Young 633-6481 0 1 " 109 - Page 23 METROPOLITAN DADE COUNTY • BID N0.*22-2/01-OTR 3.2.8 This contract covers Group A - Inspection/Certification, Hydrostatic Inspection' 'and Cylinder'Inspection, Group B - Service'.of Nalon. Type Fire Extinguishers, Group C - Recharge, ''Group D,-'-, Price to Recondition Fire Extinguishers.,. Group E - .Options,, as .listed, in the bid " proposal form: `' In- the event 'soine' extinguishers 'cannot be serviced, said extinguishers shall be returned to the using department with a written explanation of condition and recommendation for disposition. Note: Unserviceable extinguishers shall be returned to departments within one day of pick up. 3.2.9 INSPECTION & BIL.LING RECORD: An inspection record for each extinguisher covered under this contract shall be maintained by the contractor. Such record _shall reouest• The vendors invoice shall !be itemized to indic extinguisher's I.D. No., service performed and unit cost. 3.2.10 All fire extinguisher as per South Florida Fire Prevention Code Sec. 5.302 and N.F.P.A. #t10 - 1991 Edition. Standard for portable fire extinguishers State Fire Marshall 4.A-21-633.02/61. A copy of the County's Fire code may be obtained by contacting the Fire Prevention Office, 8175 N.W. 12th Street, Suite 301, at 470-1760. 3.2.11 Vendor to provide adhesive inspection tag replacing the paper tags currently in use for Corrections & Rehabilitation Department. 3.2.12 A. All building fire hoses shall be maintained as per South Florida Prevention Code ref. National Fire Prevention Association Pamphlet No. 2962 - 2988 Edition Section 5.302. A copy of the County's Fire Code may be obtained by contacting the Fire Prevention Office, 8175 N.W. 12th Street, Suite 301, Miami, phone 470-1760. S. It is and shall be the responsibility of the contractor to notify the respective County Departments when fire hoses require service (annual or otherwise). C. Rack fire hoses are to be identified and tagged when inspected. D. Annual inspection shall consist of removal of hose from rack, unrolling visual inspection and replacing in rack. E. Pressure testing shall be performed the fifth year after installation of hose and every three year thereafter. F. Approval for County representative is required before replacing unserviceable hoses. 01- 400 Page 14 WTWW TM • we • BID NO. 49n-WDl•O?R t , 3.2.13 "A11• firs'ixtingvisher's '. MIT "cooply 41th 'South .' Florida.. fire "Ye tionSwe Section 5. jam. •• _.ry .! •r .i•. .. .C•... .$:.._ aI i• ♦•: 3.2.34 AMerged�vindprrmust be'pt4t� eertifled.,fire "equip aht tecbnieia�i" elm 409 Page 15 Memo To: File 99,48 Fran: Andy Mays Date: December 26, 2000 Re: Valve StwnMwp Log Analysis The shop logs for the invoices in question were compared with the invoices and the work performed on the extinguishers. The following is a chart reflecting this. Invoice number Number of valve stems billed for Number of valve stems replaced per shop log Number of valve stems actually replaced 24986/CG 1 7 1 3 25835/CG 2 5 4 4 .25836/CG 3 5 5 3 25918/CG 4 6 5 4 25989/CG 5 5 N/A 1 T. replaced =15 'The shop log for invoice 24986 does not list all the extinguishers serviced. The two CO2 extinguishers were not on the list. *The shop log for invoice 25989 does not match the extinguishers repaired under that invoice. EXHI9IT 0 1 %-4 O CONTROL GORUP i INVOICE 0 249N rebMr S M 01- 409 • C7 _ no - aiginai 110ft. narked valve Buck Amerex 10THISA60ABC 424 ABC ABC 15 On. 103215tH 8093A Siem intact .Herr stern 55.20 $5,20 24.77 52,82 1520 - fo rw wad no - original marked valve BuckWe 205 HISAABC ABC 20 ft. 103215W Siem b ted $5.20 $4.77 $5.20 - not foplaced Amerex " 423 ABC 20 In. 609911Yes - new darn $520_1_$2.82 i2 38 Amerex 423 ABC 20 ft. 609311 - new atom 55.20 $2.82 x.38 no -original 120lbs. valve Buckeye 466 20CD CO2 900321 W Stem intact $5.20 $4.77 $520 - not replaced no - original marked valve unknownj unknown CO2 15tpsA unknown stem lnw $5.20 unitno n $520 - na replaced Total ovsrchwgo on valve Stem two � S27.si4 Addltlawl ovechoWd f14.l1I0 for annual inspection for two CO2 Addltlond ovsr�lsrge axil !alms Of $50.00 for "valve rSbulds! jTo�W:=�091.M Ca 1 rebMr S M 01- 409 • C7 94-24-69 12: to W&4 wmm� peowso lot. ►A` qg-ot6io3 24986,* MIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT Iso S.W. 2nh AVE. 642 -MG MIAMI, FL =135 �ingnc� (;ec�4y Go00 ssm. f -r Awe /r►; tom:, Fc- 3317s biv OFFICE COPY 31 A pO&OP.3 0 011409 409 i a►ss .. O ap loom Dm ON RAPT M 7- r 7 UA 3. os�.s 6-0 sue, UC.► 6839"9001.z - uc•0 00312000285 X V ► U`v i jJ S C7w: TAX TOTAL OFFICE COPY 31 A pO&OP.3 0 011409 409 CONTROX OORW 2 WMICE ! 20U 01- 409 • 40 IMirnira■v�nsii■i � Ll�zfYd ►���/17t��jl/l.�ii !��/ EDP— m����.��•.�i��irr�m�iii i� MI r��s�ss�rs�®��i■r�i ii m-��r�r�ss�ir�■�a�imi��ii �i mr.���ss■�i��r�i�ii ®-=,:-Ci �.rs�s��r�sr.�rra�i�■■� E 7? — ZMXAMi/�/_ I !�Rs�7!/liiii EPt7'A :�� , cMqmvWrAm OEM �r�i����ii■�ic- t_ii EU -.-A J�/�ls��ir��®iii�a�'�e E3�!--4 /FVWA �Wr�'Wl�T-��/il�l�iiO � EUiiUK,oMre.MOMI� ls�l�liii� EDPt=i r , '�'! ®IC'z7M] 0000535 mi AI fiZlFn��✓r3J�.���1�i���.��ll��� 36 0000534 ten, c��! - �r:�■rr�e��� MSR©����� ■�r� ray■ �s,� � �a � ins � .0 big MIAMI FIRE EQU PMENT Ifo L W 27ih Awmw • btlami. F64do 2=126 T06Piroet (MI 6424626 SERIAL NUMBERS AS REWIRED PER FLORIDA LAW SERIAL NUMBER INSPECT RECHARGE MYORUTWESt S YR. MAINT. �boy6S�T lip co 313 6 7 gg oo . j C z6 9 3-3v 3v r� Lft Z r� dr- mom r- mom f46 "warI '7 vsl�uc S Tsn.I �1`K�� �► U4101 "L I i I I oi- aog 0 r7 -`4'f 4d . KANO* 9. -PAIAMI - - TIRE' -.-EQ ULPMENT 1O.St.w. 27th AVE 642-6M MiASA1; FL 33135 rpAt k -� Rec re% r►on ; %%Mf t b;V(5i0N 27S 00•w Z ++0 STreer. s b ,� 20o Q L_ J 'MA I AAA. L i Fa-:: cw�ar a 3ciS �sy 9S Q 4 a cm1 L►•' a1� V V 0 DUE cw two NE�QR air. aYO1r110N Fly$ low 3t• O O S �A/ ..�' � •S.Y lo. o 0 IC a ' o s 1/r0 / S71�ir/S c s s. t o s e 4 .mss ?.z� sue ../it. 70 u0.9 sar e - u0.0 08357100"96 TAX mTAL JI?• 74 O1- 409 DELIVERY OOPII _ —0.0 -INV NP987106 01- 409 SWIBC I ASCH 15 lbs. I I ABC 15fe. I 1 col�lrlecl� oatur s NNVOICE • 25US no - aftmo MOW valve mom -"Oftf ,lei" kftd - .a— I $5-" *,".. WAw not $5.20 slim M10 IM S3.16 1 -ArAmr.—I I 'VON unwwwls on VOM sine apoweamd a2Ila &,1 $Nm ear m S boa ON boas w" • 'il:s'!�'�/�"�lJ•L� 17����iTii/_T�L+�i1�/��LT"—'1� ■own aI r�, 1�9 0000539 �! Wlmm i �MwaA tl 9 P� 1 q C&rl KWU FIRE E 110 S. W 27th Avenue. Mismi. F"71115 �j Tibphenn 130S) 642."u l" MAL NUMIMR AS REQUIRED PER FLORIDA LAW SERIAL'NUMSERT=ISPECT rpig"Rag I W RoTEST 6 YII. MAINT. �HWgS1' ' �Z67K? • Z r94V cm ,�s � •mss � �� isP� rl Z s 631 0lv- 409 Sus too o�»e000no: - ua.�•asoss000eu TAX + ; �� TOTAL / 9fG • DELIVERY COPY •� Rg-oR�oglS ~ 2583V MIAMI FIRE EOUIPMENT 150 SIX 27th AVE. .042-M MIAMI. FL 0135 rpAr iteEltq? l0Al ,. . �•ngnce 1� i u'�$ a�1 � � . SrceeT, 31 f1aoR AA%AAAw F1.,331ti? L J oe, •� AOfr- Seci&r;p- y Di✓isior� S70/S�"'• 7bA�'E' my aoa ' ewMae / ass - "W" DUE ON omr. totem a -stip S vlolu ,T.� cb Sus too o�»e000no: - ua.�•asoss000eu TAX + ; �� TOTAL / 9fG • DELIVERY COPY �l'1M-73 Ki KI KOLE� r:�y�-r�� r�r� Tc.s r .+� r� r� !� � r � !i■�� ■~ cp �r_=m� lav �■�s ©o c� ©� � �■■ �v■� r CONTROL G~ 4 INVOICE S 25918 PFWA095 PF664092 Buckeye B 10TH1SA80ASC 10THISABOABC ABC ABC lobs. 101bs. 103215W 103215W yes - now stem no - or Inas stun intad $5.20 $520 $4.77 $4.77 $0.43 $520 not is PF664110 B tOTHISA80ABC ABC 10lbs. 103215W no - orighal marked valve sten trNad $520 $4.77 $520 not re PF664107 Buds 10TH MAMABC ABC 10 tbs. 103215W yes. new stem $5.20 $4.77 $0.43 PF66395510THtSA80ABC ABC lobs.. 103215W - new stem $5.20 $4.77 50.43 LVV00 1 007 10TH1SAtl0ABC I ABC 10 �s. 10321 Silll - new Stem $520 S4. So Al 1:c 1 01- 409 TOW ovwcitsrps 9111 Wawa stao 1aptaC migi t s $12.12 911M rd wined marked = FAMOMW $24M"" 24 Bioses. (A hoses 11+ bnwd ma*W ss • • =5 E, 00.0. • 25918 - _ MIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT 150 S.W. 27th AVE. 842-8828 MIAMI, FL 33135 qG�o ot�J curl.�x �. L J oahw To �/ SC•4o/ .GS ?F7 I CCWTA r DELIVERY COPY � O •W n� 1 �Idr:1i . f o oIo o ...""" f . GG.s 3 s ia�S cw 7.o S,c1L ., IAI ,yes .7v z • G !r 7. gC ,2 yo sE . AI a z L GC i -SUB o s o0 0 - uo.o 000ws000:os TAX TOTAL A//C DELIVERY COPY � O •W n� 1 �Idr:1i . f o oIo o • • p C:iAfb 0 L O� CIM . • p Q nO 0 01 409 1�1 Ifo S. W ZTM+ Avon@ • Mimi. fie" 13175 • . Tdepbeae (5051 64=-"U RE111AL NUMMM AR RECWRED PER FLORIDA LAW BEIM. NUMUR RONB T RECHARGE MYDRDTEST 0 YR. MAWr. 8 01- 408 -- ER -104417 lwalW W52315 Bad H 01- 409 COMMM GORUP s INVOICE # 2Sti>!P 2.5 ABC -100 ARCM 2 5 ftm, 103215W . algins M"od valve stem iMW ro kioed $1.84 ro - original tmbumn FePkced $5.20 sown not msrkec valvedom 2.5 A8G100 ARCO 2.5fbs. 103215W I Intact IOTAS$ ABC 101bs. 8775466 - naw an ne- Msdw valve AgC20 ABC 17 lbs. w*nown slant iMac, 00. 331 CO2 IS lbs. 153" slam 1.#..4 815V I CO2 1 15 - orlglral *ed v&m I $5.20 $520 uu ons eutkrpalshs a rot charged is a IF slam, assume the era ttrla ora 4a atthouph 8 wrllled form vloa, °Ice"dwr0ed 5 now valve SMM E kwoks does not h to whkh hpWsher did not stye a new stem, E worts strop lops 0 do not match $520 slam not �� rc Isoed $5.20 stem rat Zt•77 ro kioed $1.84 $5.20 stern not tmbumn FePkced $5.20 sown not $4.71 ronr.n.d Tom over drams on valva sb nn a&seeernart - U4.16 AddNkmu l Overefreroa of $39.00 for ovwm ser.11"m 0 PPM ou IN= KIWI A[ITAtJi7�� IBM-are- m's�rs'r�:�r■�����w� rf v��'����■r`I 40 [1c+ 41 ff Z- 0000547 ter" mEMS 171 MIAMI • •&-vvvv FIRE , EQUIPMEN 150 S.W. 27th AVE. 642.8826 MIAMI. FL 3313 g4 , Aw AlMe,, Po . )SOX 3 133, 2 3 3. OSJVOITO /��.�X!/t�a4 �3G! n/iJ �+1: �yMaOlc�y � 33/6 L DELIVERY COPY 0.1— 409 c.o o. cwMoa DAM G AD DUE "'"' MWE o*r- PH= 7's ro ..Z u �v• 'fit. �.�►� `�, � r r�. •rc7. oo eZe? U r l de I: (�E C c�, �i 1. g e . uo 2, S t7 • r:.:.� r o • �+ � L o c K F i �' �faiJG 5T2�w �• ZD SU6 uc.0 0/8104000062 - UC.v ttssrtwttu TAX i DELIVERY COPY 0.1— 409 F7-�.� nt1 C��'l [tel • [ � £�w�.�w El�l� C�'►i1_� •'� E3�1[�.L�i11,."7 C.LrP�� �,'TT�7 rr IN= [?I�"�1r�3•»3PIMJ/rliT�Ii!/Zi�� U9W oll1MA Ilii'.j7llrr7 ��■■�� ww�w�wwwwwwwww ■'� 39� ww �■w�ww�■�■�w ,43 0000550 E�l • 0 BID AWARD RICOMMENDATION FORM BID NUMBER: nn -n1-111 -_ _COMMODITY/SERVICE: Fire Extinguisher Inspection and Repair Service DEPARTMENT / DIVISION: p„T baS4� fuer Citywide TERM OF CONTRACT: _Pnnrracr fer onn yegr vitb oTR. for twoda ditLanal one year pgriods NUMBER OF BIDS DISTRIBUTED: Mirrogn (14) NUMBER OF BIDS RECEIVED: Three (3) METHOD OF AWARD: t.owpat rRnpongible and responsive bidder meeting Specifications. RECOMMENDED VENDOR(S): STATUS. Biscayne Havant Fire & Safety Non-Minority/Dade TOTAL: THE FOLLOWING TO BE COMPLETED BY USER DEPARTMENT: CONTRACT VALUE: JUSTIFICATION: To provide fire extinguisher inspection and repair _ services citywide on an as needed when needed basis. ACCOUNT CODE(S): DEPARTMENT APPROVAL: Department Director/ Designee BUDGET REVIEW APPROVAL: Budgetary approval from various user Departments Linda M. Haskins Director OTHER FUNDING APPROVALS, IF APPLICABLE: II�III11.1e� PAGE 2 OF 2 PURCHASING APPROVAL: A5['-��-- Judy S. iter or TITLE: 01- 409 BID ITEM: CITY OF MIAMI OF THE CITY CLERK BID SECURITI' LIST FIRE EXTINGUISHER INPECTION Ai�D SERVICE BID NO: 00-01-131 DATE BID(S)OPENED: APRIL 2, 2001 TIME BIDDER TOTAL BID AMOUNT BID BOND (ER) CASHIER'S C C hIAMI FIRE EQUIPMENT See attache bid dISCAY4E HAVANA FIRE & SAFETY INTERNATIO14AL FIRE EQUIPMENT " received iimr.'y c-^ c -1 ,. c,. '�' an-' t'm A." other offers eu m:.:-,: ,i 0 u73 ffrm, hereby ted c.s lato, ' Ew.c.lationo 13 cmy. O/- 0 Aj _ received son eceivtng bi (s) PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT on (City Department) SIGNED l eputy City Cr rk (.�) envelops on behalf of (Dat) Doi CITY OF MIAMI ADVERTISEMENT FOR BID i Sealed bids will be received by the City of Miami City Clerk at his office located at City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, FL 33133 for the following: BID NO. 00-01-131 FIRE EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION AND SERVICE OPENING DATE: 10:00 A.M. MONDAY, APRIL 2, 2001 (Deadline for Request of additional Information/clarification: March 26, 200 Detailed specifications for this bid are available upon request at the City of Miami, Purchasing Department, 444 SW 2nd Avenue, Sixth Floor, Miami, FL 33130. Telephone No. 416-1906. THIS BID SOLICITATION IS SUBJECT TO THE "CONE OF SILENCE" IN ACCORDANCE WITH MIAMI-DADE COUNTY ORDINANCES 93-106 AND 99.1. (PLEASE PRINT THIS SECTION IN BOLD PRINT). AD NO. 7243 of ac a is Carlos A. Gimenex CITY OF MIAMI City Manager LOGO fINSTRUCTJONSe •���,; 07245 � City of Miami e •.,I; .i.,. �� REQUISITION FOR ADVERTISEMENT u nbth muss appenumber .,.,. advertisement. so tvpl and attach a copy f 1. Department: 2. Division: PURCRASING CITY-WID--- 3. Account Code numb- ` 4. Is this a confirmation: 5. Prepared by: 001000.8$0101.6..Z$j ❑Yea__ n No F --MARL SOI. MALDONAIIP._._ _ tisement: 7 Starting date: r—Size of adver_J/ L4LQj 8. Telephone number. T� 4:j6-1906 9. Number of times this advertisement is to be 10. Ty a of ublished: 0.�1C1a____._--�-----__.._____--. Legal tisement: + ClaBeified adver12. . Q Di��' 11. Remarks: FIRF. EXTINGUISHER INSPECTION AND SERVICES SID N0. 00-01-131 Publication Date(s) of Advertisement In No. r • Amoultt HI�1,�TIMES .___ — - ' ---- ------ 4M,,jAMI REVIEW I --- -- - __-------- -------- 1 I + 13. VT Approved ❑ Disapproved De ant I �/D0319 Date Approved for C GSiPC 503 Rey. 12169 Boutiny Forward White and Canary to G.S.A. (Procurement Management) and retain Plnk Copy. - DISTRIBUTION: White • G S.A.; Canary • Department IIIIIIIIi1. • r a ment F