The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-93-0248M �a I 41S/9S 93- 243 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER'S DECISION TO REJECT THE PROTEST OF SOUTHERN RECYCLING SYSTEMS, INC. (SRS), IN CONNECTION WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) 91-92-102, WHICH SOLICITED FOR A FIRM TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT, ACCEPTANCE TEST, FINANCE, OWN/OPERATE A SOLID WASTE PROCESSING FACILITY, AS IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHOUT MERIT. WHEREAS, on August 11, 1992, the City of Miami solicited proposals through Request for Proposals (RFP) 91-92-109, to seleot a firm with the capabilities to design, oonstruot, aooeptanoe test, finanoe, own/operate a solid waste prooessing faoility; and WHEREAS, the City's established deadline for reoeipt of proposals was 11:00 A.M. on February 3, 1993, and seven proposals were reoeived on that date; and WHEREAS, on February 3, 1993, SRS' proposal was rejeoted and deemed non -responsive beoause it did not meet the City's submission deadline; and r WHEREAS, a protest was filed by Southern Reoyoling Systemic, Ino., and received by the Chief Proourement Offioer on Maroh 23, 1993; and WHEREAS, SRS' protest does not oomply with the fourteen day time requirement established in Seotion 18.56.1 of the City Code, CITY Com m"lon NE£iING OF APR 15IM r bra � 93- 24 - iS $es�ilutic�n cf+� pt'ctes'�ed. gcii ni f�*� n�r1 b.,.w a... .• because thEi formal protest teas received by the City forty-eight (48) days after ORS knew of the City's rejection of its proposal; and WHEREAS' the Chief Procurement Officer, pursuant to Section 18-86.1 of the City Code, in her role as arbiter, investigated the matter and determined that Southern Recycling Systems protest was untimely and has rejected the protest; and 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 Southern Recycling Systems; 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 deoision to rejeot the protest of Southern Recycling Systems, Inc., in connection with RFP 91-92-102, which solicited for a firm to design, construct, acceptance test, finance, own/operate a solid waste prooessing facility, is hereby approved. -2- 93- 2 48: u Seotiou a. This Resolution ilgOdiately upon its adoption. shell become effeotive PA889D AM ADOPTED this 25th day Of 1003. L. UARE�,kAYOK CITY CLjjj- PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: CARMEN L. LEON ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: Y CIT�ATTTT RvS . BSS:M3 -3- a a VT OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO : Honorable Mayor and Members DATE r FILE of the it Commission fir • Resolution of protest SUBJECT . in Connection with RFP F 91-92-102 for a Solid Waste Processing Facility FROM : CeBar M. Odio REFERENCES. City Manager ENCLOSURES: i- RECOMMENDATION = It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject Southern Recycling Systems' (SRS) protest, in -_ connection with RFP 91-92-102, to select a firm with the capabilities to design, construct, acceptance test, finance, own/operate a solid waste processing facility. BACKGROUND On August 11, 1992, the General Services/Solid Waste Department 4 solicited proposals for the above noted project. The City 's deadline for submission of proposals was 11:00 a.m. on February_ 3, 1993. On that date, SRS' proposal as rejected and deemed non- responsive because it was submitted after the RFP's submission deadline. By letter dated March 18, 1993 and received by the City on March 23, 1993, SRS filed a protest with the City. SRS failed to meet the City's fourteen -day time requirement for filing a protest, in accordance with Section 18-56.1(a) of the City Code. Pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City Code, the Chief Procurement Officer investigated the matter and rejected the protest based on its untimely submission, as detailed in the attached letter. Attachments: a CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTEn-OEFIOE MEMOnANDUM to : Cesar H. Odio, City Manager DATE April 7, 1993 FILE A. Quinn Jones III, City Attorney Protest on RFP 91-92-102 sua,ecT . ----�� _ for a Solid Waste Facility � rnom Judy S . N Chief Pr Departme and So Assistant' Director g[rEnENrES t Officer neral Services ENCLOSURES I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by Southern Recycling Systems, Inc., in connection with the above referenced project for a solid waste processing facility. The basis for my decision, as set forth in the attached letter, is the fact that Southern Recycling Systems' protest has no merit. 4= APPROVED: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager APPROVED: Qu Jon II, C ty Attorney r DRAFT LY FAX, REGULAR & CERTIFIED MAIL Ms. Marilu Diaz, President Southern Recycling Systems, Inc. 7327 NW 36 Street Miami, FL 33166 Dear Ms. Diaz: Res Protest concerning RFP 91-92-102 for a Solid Waste Processing Facility I. as Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, have read your formal protest dated March 18, 1993 to Ron E. Williams, Assistant City Manager, in connection with the above noted project. Pursuant to my duties under Sec. 18-56.1, City of Miami Code, Resolution of Protested Solicitations and Awards, I have reviewed pertinent documents, talked with employees and determined that your protest is without merit because your protest was not received on a timely basis. (Please see enclosed a copy of the City Code which was a part of the proposal document). Section 18-56.1.(a) of the City Code specifically requires that "Any actual or prospective contractual party who feels aggrieved in connection with the solicitation or award of a contract may protest to the chief procurement officer. The protest shall be submitted in writing within fourteen (14) days after such aggrieved party knows or should have known of the facts giving rise to the action complained of." Proposals for this project were received at 11:00 a.m. on February 3, 1993. On that date, your proposal was rejected and deemed non -responsive because it was submitted past the deadline set for receipt of proposals. Your protest letter was received on March 23, 1993, forty-eight (48) days after SRS knew of the City's rejection of the firm's proposal. Ms. Marilu Diaz Page Southern Recycling Systems The matter has been scheduled on the City Commission agenda for Thursday, April 15, 1993, beginning at 9:00 a.m. The meeting will be in the City Commission Chambers, City Hall, 3500 Pan American Drive, Miami, Florida. 6 - Sincerely, Judy S. Carter Chief Procurement Officer/ t Assistant Director „- cc: Ron E. Williams, Assistant City Manager Carmen L. Leon, Assistant City Attorney f- Humberto Hernandez, Assistant City Attorney Enc. i j 1 L i 3 A 4 .q �I y{f i Southern itecpcling Systems, file. MAT, N 18 , 1993. Honorable Mr. Ron Williams, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami City Hall 35Ro Pan American Drive Ccc:ohut Grove, Fl. 33133 G�NER�►t- +tICES RE 70" ORE DI 93 NAa 23 MI IP 31 Ref: REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL # 91-92-102 Dear Mr. Williams: I am writing to you today, in reference to the above stated City of Miami proposal number. On the 3rd of February, 3993, two representatives from our company, Mr. Gustavo Diaz, Vice -President, and Mr. hector Moreno, Consultant, appeared in person at these offices, with our proposals in regards to said reference number, for disposal of solid waste, in the amount of 215,000 tons/yr. Participants in this Request For Proposal were held to an 11:00 a.m. deadline that same day. . Wnen our two representatives approached the desk where the proposals were to be turned in, it was several minutes before the posted deadline. However, at that time, there was a group of people standing before our representatives, in what seemed to be a detailed explanation of what they were proposing; something that should have been left to the commitee. This unnecessary and certainly untimely delay caused our proposal to be logged at 11:11 am. After so much preparation, money and time spent to at least have a chance to present our ideas, it is very discouraging 't0j. to be cast away, or disregarded as a serious bid, simply because of another participants, seemingly, strategic delay. Had we known that this delay would.have cost our opportunit to propose our ideas to the City of Miami, we certainly would have handled matters differently at that time. Nonetheless, believing that civility would allow them their chance, Mr.' Dia; and Mr. Moreno silently stood "in line",as the clock unknowinly wound down on them. This, we feel Iis very unfair, and presents more than enough reason to file! a formal complaint with the City; one that we feel can easily be rectified, by simply allowing our proposal to enter irito consideration with the rest of our peers. I am a late n woman, and feel that it is in the best, interest, not only of our city, but of our community as a whole, that r proposal at least be given the serious consideration that Sher non -minority, male -owned companies are given. ate►. filing address: 7327 N.W. 36th St. Miami, Fl. 33166 93- 248 t 305 j4??-5300 "i pg. 2 Furthermore, we feel it is wholly in ap ropriate for our peers, perhaps more versed than us in obbying, to take advantage of ones candidness and civility. In the name of what is roper and fair, we ask that you look into this matter, and pease do whatever is in your reach, that we not be excluded over a technicality, or as some may put it, "an act of God". If there is anything more I can do to help, please do not hesitate to contact me at (305) 477-5300. I remain, Sincerely, / Ma ilu Diaz, Pre ident Southern Recycling Systems 1 CT `I'Y OU MIAM2 CooDr FIN ANCY iH f�E 2 !2v An audit may be required N•hen, in reSl►t--ct to an actual or prospective contractual party, there is: ti► A question as to the adequacy of account- ing policies or cost systems; +iiir A substantial change in the methods. or levels of operations; (iii► Previous unfavorable experience indicating doubtful reliability of estimating, account- ing or purchasing methods; i iv) A lack of cost experience due to the pro- curement of a new supply or service; or (v) Other evidence that an audit is ill the city's best interests as determined by the chief procurement officer, the city man. ager or the city commission. ir) Conduct or audits. Whenever possible, au. A-.s shall be performed so as not unduly to delay -r inconvenieme the contractual party. Contrac- t):,; Fatties shall make availnMe of no charge to the city all reasonable facilities and asxistance, for the ct m•enience of the city r: presentativ► s per. forming the audit. (Ord. No. 9572, § 1, 2-10 83) Sec. 18-36. l isputes and legal remedies. The following procedure ehall be used for arriv- ;ng at early settlement of grievances by inter- cz,ted parties who have participated in the cit.y's proxurement process. (Ord. No. 9572, 6 1, 2.10.83) :Sec. 18-W.1. Resolution of protested solicita- tions and awards. tat Right to protest. Any actual or prospective contractual party who feels aggrieved in connec- tion with the solicitation or award of a contract may protest to the chief procurement officer. The protest shall be submitted in writing within four. teen (14) days after such aggrieved party knows or should have known of the facts giving rise to the action complained of. (b) Authority to resolve protests. The chief pro. curement officer shall have the authority, subject to the approval of the city manager and the city attorney, to settle and resolve a protest of an aggrieved actual or prospective contractuai party concerning the solicitation or award of the con- tract in question. Provided that in cases involv- ing more that. four thousand five hundred ticllar; -pp. Nu. 10 ($4,500.00), the decisions of the chief procurement officer must be approved by the city commission after a recommendation by the city attorney and city manager. The chief procurement officer shal I obtain the requisite approvals and communicate to the protesting contractual party; or alter- natively if the amount involved is greater than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500M. submit decision to the city commission within thirty (301 days after he receives the protest. (c) Compliance kith time requirements. Failure of an aggrieved party to submit a protest within the time provided in subsection (a), above, shall constitute a forfeiture of such pa►rty's right to complain and shall bar any legal action therelbr by such party. Failure by the city officials to com- ply with the time requirements provided in sub- sections (b) shall entitle the aggrieved party, at its option, to bypass the provisions of this s►wl inn and institute legal action immediately. (Ord. No. 9572, li 1, 2.10.8:3) Sec. 18-56.2. Resolution of contract disputes. (a) Authority to resolve contract disputes. The city manager, after obtaining the approval of the city attorney, shall have the authority to resolve controversies between the contractual party and the city which arise under, or by virtue of, a contract between them; provided that, in cases involving art amount greater than four thousand five hundred dollars ($4,500.00), the city commis- sion must approve the city manager's decision. Such authority extends, without limitation. to con- troversies based upon breach of contract, mi-:take. - misrepresentation or lack of complete performance. and shall be invoked by a contractual party by submission of a protest to the city manager. (b) Contract dispute decisions. If a dispute is not resolved by mutual consent, the city manager shall promptly render a written report stating the reasons for the action taken by the continis- - sion or the city manager which shall be final and =_ conclusive. A copy of the decision shall be imme- diately provided to the protesting party, along, —_ with a notice of such party's right to seek judicial relief, provided that the protesting party shell not be entitled to such judicial relief without first _ having followed the procedure set forth in this _ section. (Ord. No. 9572, $ 1, 2.10-83) 1215