HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-92-0465J92- 502
06-15-92 AW
� ;9
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION, APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT
OFFICER'S DECISION TO REJECT THE PROTEST OF
CBG, INC., IN CONNECTION WITH BID NO. 91-92-
006, TO PROVIDE ASBESTOS REMOVAL SERVICES, AS
IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHOUT MERIT.
WHEREAS, on January 21 1992, the City of Miami advertised
for bids to provide asbestos removal services to the City; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 1992, the City of Miami received
nine (9) responses to this bid; and
WHEREAS, after review, the City determined for business
reasons not to include the overtime rates and the work height
multiplier in
the
bid
tabulations; and
WHEREAS,
on
June
3, 1992, CBG, Inc., one of the bidders,
protested the method of awarding this bid; 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 CBG, Inc.'s protest was without
merit 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 CBG, Inc.;
CITY COMUSSXON
MEETING OF.
J U L 0 9 1992
Resolution Ido.
9
9-- 465
0
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 from CBG, Inc.., in connection with Bid No. 91-
92-006, to provide asbestos removal services to the City of
Miami, is hereby approved.
Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 9th day of July , 1992.
VIER Lk
SU EZ, MAYOR
ATTEST*
NATTY IRAI, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
r
r
CARMEN L. LEON
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
CORRECTNESS:
All. QYXNN J6)(2S, III
CITY A 7MEY
99- 465
a
-2-
�1 e
CT� Uc: ,.,,r,'" ri_ORiDA 20
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Commission DATEy �! s992 FILE
Resolution of Protest =_
SUBJECT to Provide Asbestos _
h Removal Services
=ROM � .` REFERENCES
Cesar H. Odiop"i
City Manager ENCLOSURES
RECOMME;NbATI ON
It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the
attached resolution approving the Chief Procurement Officer's
decision to reject CBG, Inc.'s protest, in connection with Bid
No. 91-92-006, to provide asbestos removal services to the City
of Miami.
On January 27, 1992, nine (9) bidders responded to the City's bid
for the above noted service. The bid consisted of fourteen items
to be awarded to the lowest aggregate bidder. City staff
evaluated the bids and eliminated from consideration Item 10, the
Work Height Multiplier, the Supervisor Overtime Rates in Item la
and Worker Overtime Rates in Item lb. This decision was based on
the fact that the City was not clear in delineating the manner in
which bidders should respond to Item 10. This resulted in* an
array of responses which confirmed that the item was generally
misunderstood by all bidders. In addition, budgetary constraints
did not allow for the use of overtime in Items la and lb, so
these items were also eliminated from consideration in the bid
tabulations.
CBG, Inc., one of the bidders, protested this method of award on
June 3, 1992, stating in part that had the above items been
included in the bid tabulations, it would have been the lowest
aggregate bidder.
Pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City Code,. the Chief
Procurement Officer investigated the matter and determined that
the protest lacked merit because the City made a business
decision not to award these items. CBG, Inc., was also further
reminded that the bid documents noted that the City reserved the
right to award all or some items, whichever is in the best
interest of the City.
Attachments:
Proposed Resolution
Copy of Protest Letter
92-- 465
;,>a -1
CITY OF 1AIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
Cesar H. Odio, City Managers June 11, 1992
A. Quinn Jones III, City Attorney DATE FILE
Protest on Asbestos —
SUBJECT Removal Services -
Bid No. 91-92-006 _
Judy S CarXelent
Chief P c Officer
Departmen ofJeneral Services
and Sod. i Wato
REFERENCES:
ENCLOSURES
I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by
CBG Environmental, Inc., in connection with the above noted bid.
The basis for my decision, as set forth in the attached letter,
is the fact that, for business reasons, the City elected to award
only some of the items in the bid documents. Therefore, CBG
Environmental's protest has no merit.
APPROVED:
14?�
Cesar H. Odio, City Manager
APPROVED:
,.
X. n J nes III, City Attorney
1�
C_ IF
C!'1:X* !ti
otntrx
c.�
9 2-- 465
3
%itv of �iiamt*
RON E. WILLIAMS
Administrator
JUN 2 4 1992 --
CERTIFIED FAIL
Mr. Robert D. Fingar
Huey, Guilday, Kuersteiner & Tuckerr P.A.
106 East College Avenue
Suite 900. Highpoint Center
P. O. Box 1794
Tallahassee, FL 32302
CESAR H. ODIC)
City Manager
Re: Protest in connection with Bid No. 91-92-006 for Asbestos
Removal Services
Dear Mr, Fingar:
As Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, I received
your protest dated June 3, 1992 on behalf of CBG Environmental,
Inc. and other correspondence, reviewed pertinent documents,
talked with employees, held a telephone conference call with you
on June 11, 1992, and researched the issues, pursuant to my
duties under Section 18-56.1, City of Miami Code, Resolution of
Protest Solicitations and Awards.
In the protest, you indicated that had the City included Item 10,
Work Height Multiplier, the Supervisor's overtime rate in Item la
and the Worker's overtime rate in lb, CBG Environmental would
have been the lowest aggregate bidder, in total. You cite as the
basis for your protest Paragraph 5, Method of Award Applicants,
in the Special Conditions of the subject bid, which states in
part that "While the award will be to multiple bidders in the
aggregate... the lowest bidder in the aggregate will be given the
first opportunity to perform under the terms and conditions of
the contract."
The City made a business decision not to recommend for award Item
10, and the overtime rates in Item 1, for the following reasons.
Item 10 was not included in the bid tabulation because the City
was not clear in delineating the manner in which the response was
to be given. This resulted in divergent responses from all
bidders, confirming that there was a general misunderstanding of
what the City was requiring. Additionally, City staff realized
that there were several ways to interpret responses to item 10.
Consequently, the responses could not be used in the tribulations.
Finally, the City determined that this item was a minimal work
requirement which could have been excluded from the bid
specifications because the standard room height for structures
affected by this contract is less than 10 feet. Item 10,
therefore, was eliminated from consideration in the bid
tabulations.
92-- 465
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND SOLID WASTE/Procurement Management Division
1390 N.W. 20th Street/Miami, Florida 33142/(305) 575-5174/FAX: (305) 575-5160
Mr. Robert D. Fingar
Page 2
Upon analysis of the overtime rates submitted by the bidders in
response to Item 1, the City concluded that budgetary constraints
would not allow the use of overtime in this item. Therefore, the
decision was made not to award the overtime rates and thus, they _�
were not included in the bid tabulations. No vendors would be
allowed to work overtime. -
After Item 10 and the overtime rates in Item 1 were eliminated
from consideration in the bid tabulations, the lowest aggregate
bidder was MCO Environmental. The City retains the authority to
award all or some items, as it deems in the best interest of the
City.
Based upon the foregoing, I have determined that your protest is
without merit. The City Manager and City Attorney have approved
my decision.
The resolution approving my decision to reject your protest shall
be placed on the Thursday, July 9, 1992, City Commission agenda
for consideration. The meeting will begin at 9:00 a.m. and will
be held in the City Commission Chambers, 3500 Pan American Drive,
Miami.
incerely, q(7
qq
J d S.Chef PrOfficer.
cc: Carmen L. Leon, Assistant City Attorney
Ron E. Williams, Administrator, GSA/SW Department
Hector Lima► Code Enforcement
File
92� 465
i
CA JIO H BU-N5
--OMAS G'J LOAY
MAPK E. HOLCOt'S
VAVID P. HJRE'E-TER-
J. M!CHAEL HJE"
J. D. BOONE KJERSTEINER
GEOFFREr B SCHWARTZ
M. KAY SIMPSON
WILLIAM D. TOWNSEND
KENORICK TUCKER
PEX D. WARE
WILLIAM E WILLIAMS
-@O-RO CEPTIII'-ED
REAL ES -ATE LAWYER
HUEY, CILDAY, KUERSTEINER & Tuck: , R, P. A.
ATTORNEYS 6 COUNSELLORS AT LA%V
I06 EAST COLLEGE AVENUE
SUITE 970. HIGHPOINT CENTER
POST OFFICE BOX 1794
TALLAHASSEE. FLORIDA 32302
19041 224.7091
FAX 1904/ 222.2593
DELIVERY BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
June 3, 1992
Judy S. Carter
Chief Procurement Officer
City of Miami
Department of General Services Administration and Solid Waste
1390 N.W. 20th Street
Miami, FL 33142
Re: Bid No. 91-92-006
Asbestos Abatement Services
CBG Environmental, Inc.
Dear Ms. Carter:
JOSEPH E. BROOKS
ROBERT D. F'INOAR
PAMELA K. FRAZIER
EDWARD D. MATHCWS. JR
CLIFFORD W. RAINEY
DOUGLAS J. RILLSTON£
JOHN A. RUDOLPH. JR.
VIKKI R. SHIRLEY
MICHAEL D. WEST
AMY J. YOUNG.
GJVCRNMENTAL CONSULTANT
JAMES F. WELLS. CPA
GENERAL MANAGCR
We are pleased to represent CBG Environmental, Inc., (11CBGI, a bidder on the above -
referenced project. The purpose of this letter is to serve as a follow-up to Robert B. Greene's
letters dated May 22, 1992 and June 1, 1992, indicating CBG's intent to protest the award. The
Notice of Award is dated May 20, 1992.
Paragraph 5 of the Special Conditions provides as follows:
5, Method of Award
Award of this contract may be made to three (3) responsible and
responsive bidders who bid on all items and whose bids offer the lowest price
when all items are added in the aaareaate and where bids will be most
advantageous to the City. While the award will be to multiple bidders in the
aggregate to assure availability, the lowest bidder in the aggregate will be given
the first opportunity to perform under the terms and conditions of the contract.
(Emphasis supplied.)
1
92- 465
l
Judy S. Carter
June 3, 1992
Page 2
It is our understanding that when items 1-14 on the Bid Sheet are added in the
aggregate, CBG is the lowest responsive bidder, pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 5 of the
Special Conditions. However, we understand that when calculating the Bid Sheets, the City
deleted the overtime rates for Items 1.a) Supervisor Overtime, 1.b) Workers Overtime, and 10.
Work Height Multiplier (for work exceeding 10 feet above finish floor). With these items deleted,
CBG is apparently no longer the low bidder and loses its right to "the first opportunity to perform
under the terms and conditions of the contract."
In discussing this matter with Sara Gonzalez of your office, the City apparently relies on
Paragraph 2 of the General Information to Bidders, which gives the City "the right to award item
by item or the total of all items proposed, whichever is in the best interest of the City." At best,
the City may argue that this Paragraph allows it to delete overtime and work over ten feet from
floor level from the scope of services to be performed under the contract. The City cannot,
however, delete these items when calculating the lowest responsive bidder and still expect the
(otherwise) lowest responsive bidder to perform these services. To do so would be an illegal
manipulation of the bidding process.
Nor can CBG fathom how the City expects to have the (otherwise) lowest responsive
bidder perform all work under the contract, but not be allowed to work overtime nor be allowed
to work ten feet above the floor. We find it difficult to understand how the City either expects
to avoid performance of these services or how it expects to bid these items out separately and
still comply with asbestos removal requirements in 40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M.
Pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City of Miami Code, we would appreciate the
opportunity to meet with you at your earliest convenience to discuss this protest further. We will
be contacting you shortly to arrange for this meeting.
Sincerely,
HUEY, GUILDAY, KUERSTEINER
& TUCKER, P.A.
William E. Williams
Robert D. Fingar
cc: Robert B. Greene, P.E.
RDF/gel
9\bob\2tor1er.hr
r
92- 465
ASBESTOS ABATEMENT SERVICES - BID No. 91-92 On.6
_i
Item No.
MCO
CBG
As Bid
Environmental
Environmental
Non Minority/Dade
Female/Dade County
County -
=
1. A. Supervisor/regular
time 18.00
29.10
=
B. Worker/regular time 14.00
20.10
-
C. Firewatch
14.00
15.10
2. Per project min. charge 200.00
800.00
3. Floors (sq. ft.):
=`
=
A.Tile
1. concrete
3.50
4.25 -
=
2. wood
5.00
3.75
B. Linoleum
-
-;
1. concrete
5.00
2.95
2. wood
7.00
3.25
-
4. Walls (sq. ft.):
A. Wallboard
7.00
6.80
=
B. Plaster
7.00
7.20
5. Ceilings (sq. ft.):
-_
A. Spray
10.00
11.25
B. Trowel
10.00
10.75 =
C. Accoustical
3.00
7.50
D. Tile
_-
a. 2'x4'
3.00
3.90
b. 1'xl'
3.00
2.95
=
6. Pipes (Ln. ft.) :
A. Less than 4"
6.00
6.50
B. 4" to 8"
7.00
6.50
C. 8" to 12"
8.00
6.00
-
D. Over 12"
10.00
8.00
7. Boiler Ins. (sq. ft.)
10.00
12.50
-
?
8. Roof (sq. ft.):
A. Flashing
7.00
2.10
B. Deck
5.00
2.05
t
9. Bulk Sample
22.00
5.00
11., 12., 13.1 14.
Cost plus %
10%
19.5%
390.00
**$2,000 x
200.00
Total
$584.50
$1,367.50
Overtime rate -supervisor
27.00
39.90
Overtime rate -worker
21.00
30.15
Height Multiplier
1,100.00
0.00
**Multiplier applied
by Building & Zoning
staff
i
i
9' 465