HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-98-1018J-98-917
8/20/98
RESOLUTION NO. 10, nQ - 1 018
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 ADVANCED DATA
PROCESSING, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 96-97-110,
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 Adorno & Zeder filed a timely
protest on behalf of Advanced Data Processing, Inc. on
August 16, 1998; and
WHEREAS, the allegations contained in the protest were
On comb 8SION
STING C>F
r
0 C T 13 1998
R"Oh eim Pro.
98-1018
investigated pursuant to the authority of the Chief
Procurement Officer 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 Advanced Data Processing, 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 Advanced Data Processing, 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 98-10is
immediately upon its adoption and signature of the Mayors/.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 13th
1998.
ATTEST:
day of October
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 now
becomes effective with the elapse of ten (10) days from the date of Commission action
regarding same, without the Mayor exercising, ayeto.
Waftekhrrbemfin, City Clerk
WALTER J. FOEMAN
CITY CLERK
AND CORRECTNESS Z
VDRO QILARELLO
ATTORNEY
' W2867: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
98-1018
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA 28
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members DATE: AUG 2 5 i93reE, FILE:
of thid-City Commission
SUBJECT: Protest Adorno & Zeder on
RFP 96-97-110 EMS
FROM: REFERENCES. Billing
on H. Warshaw
City Manger ENCLOSURES:
RECOMMENDATION
.It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission approve the decision of
the chief procurement officer regarding the Protest filed by Adorno & Zeder in
behalf of Advanced Data Processing, 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, Advanced Data Processing, Inc. retained Adorno &
Zeder to handle its protest. The notice of protest was filed timely, consistent with
§ 18-99 of the City Code. Subsequently, Adorno & Zeder timely filed a formal
written protest. Adorno & Zeder's allegations contained in the formal written
protest were investigated and determined to be without merit.
98-1018
CITY OF MIAMI. FLORID<
M .Z
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
o Donald H. Warshaw, City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
DATE: duly 31, 1998 FtLE :
SUBJECT. Rejection of Protest received
from Adorno & Zeder on
FROM: WAVO/I
er REFERENCES: RFp 96-97-1 10
Chief Procure en Officer ENCLOSURES:
I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by Adorno & Zeder on
behalf of Advanced Data Processing, 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 Adorno &
Zeder's protest is without merit.
boriald H. Warshaw, City Manager
l
o ello, City Attorn
98-10i8.
� t j
JUDY S. CARTER
Director
August 3, 1998
George F. Knox
Adorno & Zeder
2601 South Bayshore Drive
Suite 1600
Miami, FL 33133
of rat
oau um -
�
�CO., ttitiJa`
Re: RFP 96-97-110 Emergency Medical Transportation Billing
and/or Collection Services
Dear Mr. Knox:
I have received your formal protest, related to the above noted Request for
Proposals ("RFP"), filed on July 15, 1998 in behalf of Advanced Data Processing,
Inc. ("ADP"). 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.
I concur that "the integrity of the competitive bidding process relies on an
even playing field whereby all proposers, as well as the City, abide by the
specifications and instructions set forth in the Request for Proposals." While I also
agree that the City cannot and should not introduce additional selection criteria not
contemplated in the RFP, I disagree, with your allegation that suggests the City
introduced a material component in evaluating proposals about which all proposers
were not fully informed prior to bid submission. Section 4.4 Proposal
Submission, C. Approach to the Scope of Work and Work Plan of the RFP
does offer proposers an option to provide innovative billing and/or collection
proposal.
I do find, however, that this criterion was inappropriately labeled as "bonus
points" and, thus, weighed in excess of the allocation defined by the RFP. In order
DEPARTMENT OF PURCHASING✓444 S.W. 2eml Avenue. 6th Floor/Mimi, Florida 11130/f.1US1416-1900/Faa: f30S1416-1925
E Mail Address: purrhise0ci.mum".11-W Website Address: http!/ci.miami fl.tW
Mailing Address: P.O. 8-A 130708 Miami. FL 3323 1-0708 Q Q — 1 O 1 8
Mr. George Knox
Adorno & Zede-
August 3, 1998
Page 2
to "even the playing field," as you suggest appropriate, and to maintain the
integrity of the process, I have corrected the arithmetic off the score sheets to
reffe-ct the proper weight of the Approach to the Scope of Work and Work PIan as
a criterion (25%, as defined within the RFP). The score sheet that was used by the
evaluators designates 35 points as the total points available for this criterion. The
total points scored for each proposer in the Approach to Scope of Work and Work
Plan category (including the bonus) divided by 1.4 (35 points 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
2. ADP
3. Medaphis Corporation
408.71
401.25
378.79
Thus, your assertion that ADP would have been the first ranked firm if the
selection criteria had been followed, as published, is incorrect. Any other approach
would disregard the intent of the evaluation committee and undermine the validity
of the solicitation process. I am unable to find that the evaluation committee's
actions in the instant case constitutes an abuse of discretion.
The evaluation committee was given the opportunity to approve the
weighing of sub -categories within the criteria defined by the RFP, including the
bonus. The evaluation committee agreed that it wanted to consider innovation in
its evaluation. That sub -category was appropriately placed beneath the criteria
labeled "Approach to Scope of Work and Work Plan" on the score sheet.
Further, I find the argument that Lockheed Martin omitted its RFP
Information Form and, therefore, failed to provide a fee proposal as required by
the RFP to be without merit. The document does not state that failure to provide
"the form" will would deem the proposer non -responsive. The relevant section of
the RFP (p.22) actually states "Failure to provide this information will deem the
Proposal submitted as non -responsive." As Lockheed Martin did address the fee
within its proposal as required by the RFP, I am unable to find in your favor with
regard to this issue.
98-1Ui8
Mr. George Knox
Adorno & Zede -
August 3, 199b
Page 3
The RFP requests a fee proposal and does not limit or in any way require
that -this information be included on 6.1 RFP Information Form.I In fact,
Seerion IV.D of Lockheed Martin's proposal is specifically addressed to
explaining the prospective fee. I find the tiered proposals offered by Lockheed
Martin to be consistent with the "straight percentage of collections" required by
the proposal.
The RFP Information Form is, in fact, a standard form included with any
RFP. You will note that the text of the form incorporates language that regards
supplies as opposed to service hours or collections. The form is not intended to be
utilized exclusive of a narrative fee proposal in the text of the proposal.
Lockheed Martin was not under any obligation to disclose the cost of the on
board, pen -based computers contained in its proposal as it bears no additional cost
to the city. Lockheed Martin's reference from Houston corroborated that
Lockheed Martin had donated the pen based computers used in Houston's pilot
billing program. Though the value of the computers may be at issue, the cost to the
City in acquiring the equipment is not.
The last point in your proposal addresses the return to the City. 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 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.
My understanding of the Lockheed Martin proposal is that it introduces
innovative methodology to increase the billing information and, therefore, the
collection rates of the City. As this technology has not been thoroughly tested, the
historical collection rates of Lockheed Martin would be insufficient in this instance
to truly estimate the likely collection rates with the City of Miami. 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 Lockheed Martin's proposal will be successful
exceeds the scope of this review.
' Lockheed Martin did submit this form with its proposal. The photocopy of the proposal provided your
firm may have erroneously omitted the form.
98-10i8
Mr. George Ka, -A
Adorno & Zeder
August 3, 1998
Page 4
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 ADP, Inc. is
without merit. Your request that the Lockheed Martin proposal be deemed non-
responsive, not in the best interests of the City, and the contract awarded to ADP is
hereby denied.
Sincerely yours,
1$0udy S. Carter
Director
C. Donald H. Warshaw, City Manager
Alejandro Vilarello, City Attorney
Christina M. Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Rafael O. Dias, Assistant City Attorney
Deanna Gross-Rasco, Assistant City Attorney
98-10i8