HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-97-0387J-97-333
5120197
RESOLUTION NO. 9 ►7 - 387
A RESOLUTION REJECTING ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED BY
j THE CITY JULY 25, 1994 FOR THE PROVISION OF
1 INSURANCE BROKERAGE SERVICES, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 93-94-166; FURTHER
DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO SEEK NEW PROPOSALS
BASED ON SUCH SPECIFICATIONS AS HE DEEMS
APPROPRIATE FOR THE PROCUREMENT OF SAID SERVICES
AND TO PRESENT THE QUALIFIED RECOMMENDATION TO
THE CITY COMMISSION FOR APPROVAL.
WHEREAS, the City issued Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 93-94-166, on July 1,
1994 for insurance brokerage services for the City of Miami; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission rejected the original recommendation to award the
contract to Arthur J. Gallagher and Company; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission appointed a second Review Committee (the
Committee) to re-evaluate the submitted proposals; and
WHEREAS, the Committee has met only twice; on April 30, 1996 and May 29,
1996; and
WHEREAS, former Mayor Stephen Clark's representative on the Committee
resigned effective September 10, 1996; and
WHEREAS, there have been several other changes in the membership to the
Committee since July, 1994, receipt of the proposals; and
CITY COMMISSION
MEETING OF
J U N 0 9 1997
Resolution No.
y7- 387
".
WHEREAS, pursuant to Motion No. 96-764.1, adopted October 10, 1996, the City
Commission stipulated that ".... each member of the Commission will submit a name in
writing to the Clerk......", and this Motion has not been fully complied with; and
WHEREAS, the City's current policy for property insurance expired April 30, 1997,
and the present insurance broker, Alexander & Alexander, has entered the market to obtain
property coverage for City properties commencing May 1, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the information contained in the 1994 RFP needs updating; portions are
no longer applicable and have been replaced with new requirements; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended at this time that specifications and requirements be
up -dated and a new RFP be issued for insurance brokerage services;
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. All proposals received by the City July 25, 1994, for the provision of
insurance brokerage services, pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 93-94-166, are
hereby rejected.
Section 3. The City Manager is hereby instructed to seek new proposals based
on such specifications as he deems appropriate for the procurement of said insurance
brokerage services, and to present the qualified recommendation to the City Commission
for approval.
i
i
2-
97- 38
Ail
Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption.
R
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of June 1997.
P11—ECAROLLO, MAYOR
A EST:
i
WALTER
CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
RAFAEL 0. DIAZ
DEPUTY CITY ATTOR EY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS:
�A ai�%, III
CITY ATT EY
W1618:CSK
3-
97-- 38
'•aa �4 !�3't�l r
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA _
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM "
TO : The Honorable Mayor and DATE : JUN 2 GS-7 FILE
Members of the City Commission
SUBJECT : Resolution Rejecting
All Bids for Insurance
Brokerage Services
FROM : d and Marquez REFERENCES
City Manager ENCLOSURES:
RECOMMENDATION:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached
Resolution which rejects all proposals (2) received in response to RFP No. 93-
94-166, entitled "Insurance Broker Services". The attached Resolution also
instructs the City Manager to prepare a new RFP for said services and issue
same in a timely manner so as to present a recommendation to the Commission
prior to procurement of property insurance in 1998.
BACKGROUND:
The process of getting from the receipt of the proposals to a final action for this
RFP has been long and arduous. Over the time period from July 25, 1994, to
present, one Review Committee has made a recommendation which was
rejected by the Commission. A second Review Committee was put in place only
to have met twice before the membership of the Commission changed and one
member of the Committee resigned. Also, during this time frame, the information
submitted within the proposals has become stale and requires updating. In
addition, the Administration would like to consider changes and modifications to
a new RFP which may better serve the needs of the City at this time. With all
elements on this issue taken into consideration, it is believed it to be in the City's
best interest to reject all bids and begin the process anew.
37- 387