HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-98-1017J-98-918
8/20/98
RESOLUTION NO . `-' 8 - 1 "
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE DECISION MADE
PURSUANT TO THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT
OFFICER'S AUTHORITY UNDER SECTION 18-99
OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI,
FLORIDA, AS AMENDED, TO REJECT THE
PROTEST FILED BY MEDAPHIS, INC. IN
CONNECTION WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
NO. 96-97-110 FOR EMERGENCY MEDICAL
TRANSPORT BILLING AND/OR COLLECTION
SERVICES.
WHEREAS, on May 27, 1998, the City of Miami solicited
proposals through Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 96-97-110
for the provision of emergency medical transportation
billing and/or collection services; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami received three (3) responses
to said solicitation; and
WHEREAS, an evaluation committee evaluated the
proposals received, heard oral presentations, and ranked the
firms in the following order: 1. Lockheed Martin IMS,
2. Advanced Data Processing, Inc., 3. Medaphis, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the law firm of Holland & Knight filed a
timely protest on behalf of Medaph is, Inc. on August 16,
1998; and
WHEREAS, the allegations contained in the protest were
CirT cob wsmn
XMING QF
OCT 13 1998
ae.o1u*= rio.
98-1017
investigated pursuant to the authority of the Chief
Procurement Officer contained in Section 18-99 of the City
Code; and
WHEREAS, the decision was made that the protest was
without merit; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the City Attorney concur
with and approve the finding and recommend rejection of the
protest filed by Medaphis, Inc.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY 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 decision made pursuant to the Chief
Procurement Officers authority under Section 18-99 of the
Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, to reject
the protest filed by Medaphis, Inc., in connection with
Request for Proposals No. 96-97-110, for emergency medical
transport billing and/or collection services, is hereby
approved, as said protest has been determined to be without
merit.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
2 98-100
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayorl/.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th day of October
ATTEST:
JOE CAROLLO, MAYOR
In accordance with Miami Code Sec. 2-36, since the Mayor did not indicate approval of
this legislation by signing it in the designated place provided, said legislation nowbecomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) days from the date of Commission action
regarding same, wlew the Mayor ex e _'sing ve .
Walter J. City Clerk
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
AND CORRECTNESS.6,
W2868:CSK
1/ If the Mayor does not sign this Resolution, it shall become effective
at the end of ten calendar days from the date it was passed and adopted.
If the Mayor vetoes this Resolution, it shall become effective
immediately upon override of the veto by the City Commission.
3 98-10
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO:
Hondible Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FROM:
onaldWarshaw
City Manger
RECOMMENDATION
27
DATE : AUG 25 1�.;u FILE:
SUBJECT:
Protest from Holland &
Knight on RFP 96-97-110
REFERENCES: EMS Billing
ENCLOSURES:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission approve the decision of
the chief procurement officer regarding the Protest filed by Holland & Knight in
behalf of Medaphis, Inc. as a result of the evaluation committee's findings on RFP
96-97-110 (Emergency Medical Transport Billing and/or Collection Services).
BACKGROUND
The committee which was convened to evaluate proposals submitted in response to
the Request for Proposals issued by the Purchasing Department. The evaluation
ranked the proposers as follows:
1. Lockheed Martin IMS
2. Advanced Data Processing, Inc.
3. Medaphis, Inc.
Upon learning of its ranking, Medaphis, Inc. timely filed a notice of protest,
consistent with § 1.8-99 of the City Code. Subsequently, Holland & Knight timely
filed a formal written protest in behalf of Medaphis, Inc. Holland & Knight's
allegations contained in the formal written protest were investigated and
determined to be without merit.
98-10i7
CITY OF NIIAW FLORI►"
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
ro Donald H. Warshaw, City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
DATE: July 31, 1998 FILE
SUBJECT: Rejection of Protest received
4Cer
from Holland & Knight on
FROM:" "�� V "` REFERENCES: RFP 96-97-110
YJud S. CarterChief Procuremen ENCLOSURES:
Jbi,
I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by Holland & Knight on
behalf of Medaphis, Inc. relative to the above noted RFP for Emergency Medical
Transportation Billing and/or Collection Services.
The basis of my decision, as set forth in the attached letter, is the fact that Holland &
Knight's protest is without merit.
H. Wars &W, City Manager
City Attorne
98-100
Cat#g f
JUDY S. CARTER
Director
Augast 3, 1998
Laurie A. Thompson
Holland & Knight
701 Brickell Avenue, Suite 3000
Miami, FL 33131
��tY t7I•./�
nas our e
Re: RFP 96-97-110 Emergency Medical Transportation Billing and/or
Collection Services
Dear Ms. Thompson:
I have received your formal protest related to the above noted Request for
Proposals ("RFP"), which you filed on July 16, 1998 in behalf of Medaphis, Inc..
Pursuant to the duties of the Chief Procurement Officer as defined under Section 18-99 of
the City of Miami Code, Resolution of protested solicitations and awards, I have
investigated your allegations and determined that your protest is without merit.
The allegations contained in your protest are discussed in the order that they appear in the
protest.
I. LOCKHEED'S PROPOSAL WAS NON -RESPONSIVE
Your protest alleges that Lockheed's proposal did not specify or provide a "proposed
collection rate" and, therefore, should be deemed non -responsive. As you note, Section
2.17 of the RFP, "Review of Proposals for Responsiveness," states that "[fJailure to
comply with these requirements [of the RFP] may (emphasis added) deem a proposal
non -responsive." The "may" contained in the phrase leaves the issue to the discretion of
the selection committee. Additionally, the City reserved the right to waive any
irregularities that may be contained within a proposal.
Lockheed Martin did, however, refer evaluators to the collection rates reported for
what it considered to be a similar city New Orleans. As this issue was a discretionary
item per the RFP, the evaluation committee was completely within its authority to decide
that such a reference was sufficient.
DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASINC✓++•+ i.W. -Intl Avert. bth F1c4w1Miafni. Flotida 13( S0H30S) 416•1g00/F4x: (30S)41GA92S
E.AA.ril Add": purch.w.•dri.mwmi.tl.uJ W.Mrre Address: hnp!/ci.mumi.N.ud
Mr11rUg Atk)m,.: P.O. yu: 1107M Mirror. Ft 11233.0708
98-100
Holland & Knight
August 3. 1998
Page 2
You should note that the RFP process is not intended to limit a proposer's offer su
that the City would accept and therefore establish a contract_ The RFP process anticipates
addittonal negotiations before a contract is finalized. This stage of the selection process is
meant to establish a ranking that will guide the Using Department and the Purchasing
Department for negotiating the final contract(s). All conditions and terms contained in
the RFP that are not limited by "will" or "shall" as well as the resulting proposal are
subject to subsequent negotiation by the City.
II. ADP'S PROPOSAL CONTAINED MISLEADING COLLECTION RATE
INFORMATION
As you note in your proposal, Medaphis and Advanced Data Processing ("ADP') are
the current vendors for these services under the existing contract, and two of the
evaluators are familiar with the reported collection rates of the films. The disparity
between ADP's collection rates, as noted in its proposal, and the rates, as understood by
the using department, were discussed during the evaluations. The chairperson of the
selection committee, one of the two individuals you note, did request that ADP state its
collection rate on the record during its presentation. Later, the chairperson did call the
committee's attention to the fact that the collection rate quoted by ADP within its
proposal and the collection rate accounted for by the fire department are incongruous.
III. EVALUATORS INCONSISTENTLY APPLIED THE EVALUATION
CRITERIA
A. Overall Cost to Provide Required Services
This sub -category appears beneath the general criterion defined in the RFP as "fee
proposal." I find that it is wholly within the evaluation committee's discretion to consider
the investment by the that Lockheed Martin's proposal included as well as the impact of
the fee's proposed by Lockheed. That the committee did not limit its consideration of
"overall costs" to the percentage of collections proposed does not constitute reversible
error.
B. "Bonus" Points Improperly Awarded to Lockheed
The points designated as "bonus" under the Approach to Scope of Work and Work
Plan criterion were inappropriately labeled as "bonus points" and, thus, weighed in excess
of the allocation defined by the RFP. In order to maintain the integrity of the solicitation
process and preserve the intent of the evaluators, I have corrected the arithmetic on the
98-10'i
Holland & Knight
August 3, 1998
Page: 3
score sheets to reflect the proper weight of the Approach to the Scope of Work and Work
Plan as a criterion (25%, as defined within the RFP). The score sheet designates 35 poir
as the total points ..available for this criterion. The total points scored for each proposer,._
the -Approach to Scope of Work and Work Plan category (including the bonus) divided
total by 1.4 (35points per score sheet/25 points actually available=1.4) corrects the
disparity in the weight applied to the category.
While it does substantially close the gap, this arithmetic correction does not
change the rankings of the firms. The correction discussed yields the following result:
1. Lockheed Martin IMS 408.71
2. Advanced Data Processing 401.25
3. Medaphis Corporation 378.79
Whether the technology will actually enable the City to increase its collection rate
for the City is an issue properly left to the analysis of the evaluation committee. It is not
realistic, in my opinion, to expect that a "innovative proposal" would have substantial
information available to demonstrate its effectiveness in achieving a greater overall
collection rate. The evaluators had an opportunity to contemplate the approach and how
the evaluators anticipated the approach would contribute to the effectiveness of
collections.
Further, the committee did receive some supporting data for the technology.
Although the protest suggests that additional information was made available to the
evaluation committee that other cities have used this type of technology yet found that it
is ineffective, the committee received a reference from the City of Houston which
celebrated the success of the Lockheed Martin's proposed technology as it was
implernented for a pilot program in Houston.
Medaphis took advantage of the opportunity to sit in on the Lockheed Martin
presentation and, therefore, had the opportunity to raise any issues or provide any
opinions that they thought would impact the decisions of the evaluators. The information
raised about the effectiveness of the technology in the protest is not compelling nor
relevant at this stage.
C. Point on local preference criterion was not correctly awarded
Medaphis, Inc. was clearly denied one point that it was due for being located within
Miami -Dade County. As this criterion could have been removed effectively from the
evaluators purview without sacrificing any of the process' integrity, I do not find this
9S-1017
August 3. 1998
Page 4
error sufficient to make the entire process suspect. Awarding Medaphis the additional
point it deserved for being located in Miami -Dade County does not materially alter t;
ranking.
IVAOCKHEED'S PROPOSAL IS NOT IN THE CITY'S BEST FINANCIAL
INTEREST
I believe this issue is properly left to the reflective and well-informed analysis of
the evaluation committee. The object of the protest procedures is not to ensure any
particular outcome or to second guess the analysis of the evaluation committee; instead,
the protest procedures exist to ensure that the process is an objective and fair one that
incorporates fair and impartial evaluators. The evaluation committee had the opportunity
to consider each of the proposals in its entirety and had the opportunity to make inquiry of
Lockheed Martin as to the specifics of Lockheed's proposal. Whether the evaluation
committee properly evaluated Lockheed's responses exceeds the scope of this review.
Having considered the various issues raised in your formal written protest, I am
left with the conclusion that the protest filed in behalf of the Medaphis, Inc. is without
merit. Your request that the City Manager's current recommendation to the City
commission [to adopt the rankings of the selection committee] or, alternatively, that the
"evaluation results be disregarded and that the procurement be re -competed under new
procedures... or with a new or appropriately reconstituted Evaluation Committee" is
hereby denied.
Sincerely yours,
P'Judy
S. Carter
Chief Procurement O er/Director
C. Donald H. Warshaw, City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Christina M. Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Rafael Diaz, Assistant City Attorney
Deanna Gross-Rasco, Assistant City Attorney
"
9&-101t