HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-93-0176J93--1tR7
03-01.=93
RESOLUTION NO. 9 3 `" 17 C
A RESOLUTION, APPROVING THE CHIEF
PROCUREMENT OFFICER'S DECISION TO
REJECT THE PROTEST OF URBANIZA, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE REQUEST FOR
QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) TO PROVIDE
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR THE TOWER
THEATER RENOVATION PROJECT, AS IT HAS
BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.
WHEREAS, on November 6, 1992, the City of Miami solicited
proposals through a Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the
Tower Theater Renovation Project; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami received eight (8) responses to
this solicitation on January 8, 1993; and
WHEREAS, the proposals were reviewed by the Certification
Committee, in accordance with the requirements of the City Code,
Administrative Procedure #1-89 and Resolution 92-575; and
WHEREAS, a consultant competitive selection committee was
appointed to evaluate the proposals, pursuant to the criteria
advertised in the RFQ document, and short-listed the teams
eligible for interview; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1993, Urbaniza protested, inter
alia, the evaluation process; and
WHEREAS, the Chief Procurement Officer, pursuant to Section
18 -56.1 of the City Code, in her role as arbiter, investigated
the matter and determined that Urbaniza's protest was without
merit and has rejected the protest; and
CITY COSOC SBIOR
REEKING OF
MAR i 1 M3
Mesa} *Wu Na
93- 176
WHEREAS, the City Manager and the City Attorney concur with
and approve the finding of the Chief Procurement Officer and
recommend rejection of the protest filed by Urbaniza;
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 Chief Procurement Officer's decision to
reject the protest of Urbaniza, in connection with the RFQ to
provide professional services for the Tower Theater Renovation
project, is hereby approved.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this lath day of
ATTEST:
NATTY HIRAI, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
i
CARMEN L. LEON
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
March
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
, 1993.
93- 176
TO
FROM
GTY OF ':1!A".':. FCC?"'s��:'�
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
J
Cesar H. 0dio
City Manager
DATE FILE
? 199
SUEMECT : Reeolution of Protest
to Provide Professional
Services for the Tower
Theater Renovation Project
REFERENCES;
ENCLOSURES:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the
attached resolution approving the Chief Procurement Officer's
decision to reject Urbaniza'a protest, in connection with RFQ to
provide professional services for the Tower Theater Renovation
Project.
By Resolution 92-575, the City Commission designated the Tower
Theater Renovation Project as a Category "B" project and approved
acquisition of professional services for the project. On January
8, 1993, eight (8) proposers responded to the City's solicitation
for these service.
Pursuant to the above noted resolution and Section 18-52.3 of the
City Code, a consultant competitive selection committee convened
to evaluate the proposals, based on criteria advertised in the
RFQ document. After initial evaluation, the proposals were
short-listed and several firms were invited for interview.
By letter dated February 10, 1993, Urbaniza protested, inter
alia, the evaluation process, when the firm was not included in
the interview phase for final selection.
Pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City Code, the Chief
Procurement Officer investigated the matter and determined that
the protest lacked merit, as detailed in the attached letter.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Copy of Protest Letter.
93- 176
39-e
R
C;T'. OF t,'W!!, FLOR,D<. 34
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission
FROM : Cesar H. Odio
City manager
DATE : �-103 FILE
SUEUECT : kt i olutlon of Protest
to Provide Professional
Services for the Tower
Theater Renovation Project
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES:
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the
attached resolution approving the Chief Procurement Officer's
decision to reject Urbaniza's protest, in connection with RFQ to
provide professional services for the Tower Theater Renovation
Project.
0
By Resolution 92-575, the City Commission designated the Tower
Theater Renovation Project as a Category "B" project and approved
-_ acquisition of professional services for the project. On January
81 1993, eight (8) proposers responded to the City's solicitation
for these service.
Pursuant to the above noted resolution and Section 18-52.3 of the
City Code, a consultant competitive selection committee convened
to evaluate the proposals, based on criteria advertised in the
RFQ document. After initial evaluation, the proposals were
short-listed and several firms were invited for interview.
By letter dated February 10, 1993, Urbaniza protested, inter
alia, the evaluation process, when the firm was not included in
the interview phase for final selection.
Pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City Code, the Chief
Procurement Officer investigated the matter and determined that
the protest lacked merit, as detailed in the attached letter.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Copy of Protest Letter
93- 176
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO Cesar H. Odio, City Manager DATE : March 1, 1993 FILE
A. Quinn Jones 1I1, City Attorney
SUBJECT: Protest on RFQ for the =
Tower Theater Project -
FROM JUkd.
ter, As scant Director &REFERENCES :
Chrement Officer_
Deof General Services ENCLOSURES
d Waste
I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by
Urbaniza, in connection with the RFP for professional services for
the Tower Theater Renovation Project.
The basis for my decision, as set forth
the fact Urbaniza's protest has no merit.
APPROVED:
Cesar HH, 0 io, City Manager
APPROVED=
A. Quinn Jones III, City Attorney
in the attached letter, is
93- 176
3
e
Mr. Victor Morales By FAX & CERTIFIED MAIL
URBANIZA
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 826
Miami, FL 33131
Dear Mr. Morales:
Res Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for the Tower Theater
Project Renovations
As Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, I received
your protest of February 10, 1993, reviewed pertinent documents,
listened to the tapes, talked with employees and researched the
issues, pursuant to my duties under Section 18-56.1, City of
Miami Code, Resolution of Protest Solicitations and Awards.
The following is submitted in response to your letter:
Issue #1:
You allege that the process did not reflect statements made in
the RFQ and at the pre -proposal conference, regarding scope of
services and required qualifications for the project. You
further allege that the evaluation criteria did not carry any
points for assessing operations/management services.
Response:
The provisions for operations/management consultant services as
requited for this project were considered under the Profess oval
Eperignce criterion. Page 9, section l(b) of the RFQ outlined
"...specific experience of the prime and sub -consulting firms in
planning, design, operations and/or management as it relates to
cinema/multi-cultural facilities," as a factor to be considered
under the Professional Experience criterion. As staff
represented at the pre -proposal conference, the City was seeking
a management outline/scheme, to describe the internal and
optional uses 'of the theater for utilization in designing an
optimally efficient and functional facility, compatible with the
complexities of a multipurpose center within a multi -cultural
community. The operations/management element, as it relates to
design, was discussed by the consultant competitive selection
committee '(committee), was considered and graded, in conjunction
with planning and design, according to the experience presented
in each teams proposal.
5`5. 93- 176
T
Mr. Victor Morales
URBANIZA
Wage 2
Issue #2:
You state that the evaluation criteria for organization and staff
qualified size and capability relative to this project and that
evaluators disregarded the concept of relative size.
Responses
The term you coin as 'relative size' does not exist in relation
to the QrUanizatJ2A an Staff criterion, nor is your intended
meaning clear. Size and capability of both prime and sub -
consultants are factors in evaluating organization and staff.
Contrary to your assertion, the JJj=1 size received no
consideration in the evaluation process. The teams were Assessed
on the experience and qualifications of the individual members
assigned to perform tasks for the project and on whether the team
had assigned a sufficient number of individuals qualified to
undertake this project.
Issue #3:
In your opinion, at least one evaluator did not evaluate each
item on the evaluation form, allowing for subjective and
generalized assessment of the proposals.
Response:
The Evaluation Form, in accordance with the criteria on page 9 of
the RFQ document, listed factors which may be considered under
each criterion. The RFQ assigned maximum points to each
criterion but did not delineate specific values for each factor.
At the initial evaluation meeting, committee members were given
the option, as a committee, to further divide the points under
each criterion. The committee declined to exercise this option
of breaking down the points. It is noted that the Evaluation
Form did not require members to assign points to each factor
listed under each criterion. These factors were included as
guidelines to assist committee members in computing the subtotal
for each criterion.
In response to the remaining 'intangible issues', please be
advised that, pursuant to Resolution 92-575 and Section 18-52.3
of the City Code, the project was designated as a Category "B"
project. Section 18-52.3 (e) (ii) of the Code delineates the
composition of the consultant competitive selection committee for
Category "B" projects. The required departments and disciplines
were represented, consistent with the Code: the Finance
Department, the Planning, Building & Zoning Department, the
93- 176
I
Mr. Victor Morales
URBAN I ZA
Page 3
Public Works Department, three architects and a film consultant
from the private sector. At the initial meeting to evaluate and
short-list the firms, the committee was given an overview of the
project and provided an explanation of the process, which
included a clear definition of the committee's role.
Additionally, each proposal was evaluated on its own merit and
points were allotted based on the experience and the
qualifications presented for each team as a whole. Sub -
consultants for each team were not individually ranked but were
evaluated, along with the prime consultant, as a team. Also, as
stipulated on page 9 of the RFQ, paints for location of office
were allocated, based on the location of the prime consultant,
the party with whom the City will be contracting. The location
of offices for subconsultants was not a consideration.
Based upon the foregoing, I am rejecting your protest. The City
Manager and City Attorney have approved my decision.
The matter has been scheduled on the City Commission agenda for
Thursday, March 11, 1993, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The meeting
will be in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 3500 Pan
American Drive, Miami, Florida.
Sincerely,
Judy S. Carter
Chief Procurement Officer/Assistant Director
cc: Ron R. Williams, Assistant City Manager
Carmen L. Leon, Assistant City Attorney
93-- 176
IN
U
urbaniZa
February 10, 1993
11
25 S.E. 2nd Avenue, Suite 826, Miami, FL 33131
Judy Carter
Chief Procurement Officer
City of Miami
This letter is to formally protest the selection process for Professional services for the
renovation of the Tower 'Theater in the City of Miami. A request for qualifications, issued by
the Department of Development of the City of Miami has led to the selection of a short list of
4 candidates from the 6 applications deemed qualified. Our firm, Urbaniza was in the list of
qualified firms but was not granted an interview.
We protest the evaluation process and propose that the competition was unfair on at least
three counts:
1) The evaluation process did not in fact reflect the statements in the RFQ and verbal
statements made at the pre submittal conference regarding snipe of services and required
quidi&Ations for the project.
a) Page 2 of the RFQ describes the scope of services as including normal
architectural/engineering and in addition:
"... the &-velopment of an operational program and a management pion. "
b) Page 3 further states that tearns must:
"...consist of firms and/or individuals having Me ability to provide professimW
architectural, services for the Project. Of particular importer to the City is
achieving a cinema "got and opff&dowVmanqgevwd ywogrew.. "
The evaluation criteria however did not carry any points for assesing the
operationdmanagement services to be provided. In fact two of the firrns short fisted, teams B
and H do not list a "operations/management" component to their team. It appears that theater
design consultants were acceptable as operations/management consultants for some teams.
This is clearly not flair to teams who included a bonafide operations/management consultant.
11) The evaluation criteria for "organization & staff' qualifies size and capability relative to
this project: (see evaluation fb ms)
"Size do c gPability of the prime consulting firm ndadw to this type of pvject and
to the managment of the design team"
"Sire d E capability of Me subconrulting f rms r alive to dwir portions of the work
on this type of project"
93- 176 ?
Several of the evaluators however disregard the concept of "relative size" and consistently
award the most points to the largest firms. This is competition based not on qualifications but
on sheer size, a factor that does not in any way reflect on ability.
III) The evaluation sheets are organized so that each item in a category is evaluated, the
points then subtotaled for each category. At least one evaluator, Maria Perez, did not
evaluate each item, instead assigning total number of points for the category. This lack of
attention to a very sensitive procedure easily allows for a subjective and generalized
assesment. In fact this evaluators spread of points is not as exact as the others.
Other, more intangible issues could be addressed. What is the criteria for choosing
evaluators? Is the criteria appropriate? According to their titles, only one of the evaluators has
extensive experience in film projects of this type. What briefing did the evaluator's receive
relative to this type of neighborhood theater?
Why does a theater consultant whose typical work is for projects like Linclon Center in New
York be ranked as more appropriate than a qualified smaller local consultant? Why are teams
with out of town consultants awarded the same points for "location of office" as teams solely
from the City of Miami?
Based on these irregularities and violations of fair competition, we request that the process of
procurement for this project be declared null and void. In addition we submit that an
investigation be made as to the process for choosing appropriate evaluators and establishing
fair competition that is based on ability relative to the scope and intent of the project.
Sincerely,
Victor les,
Principal, Urbaniza.
cc. City of Miami Mayor Xavier Suarez
City of Miami Comissioner Miriam Alonso
City of Miami Comissioner Victor De Yurre
Assistant City Manager Herbert Bailey
Assistant City Manager Sergio Rodriguez
encl.
93- 176