The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-92-0638J-92-664 9/16/92 RESOLUTION NO. 9 2 - 638 A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OFFICER'S DECISION TO REJECT THE PROTEST OF THE OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, IN CONNECTION WITH REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 91-92-073, TO PROVIDE PHYSICAL EXAMINATIONS, AS IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED TO BE WITHOUT MERIT. WHEREAS, on April 24, 1992, the City of Miami advertised a — Request for Proposals (RFP) to provide physical examinations; and WHEREAS, on May 11, 1992, the City of Miami received six (6) responses to said RFP; and WHEREAS, after review, the City recommended to award Mt. Sinai Medical Center as the most responsive proposer; and WHEREAS, on June 11, 1992, The Occupational Medical Center, one of the proposers, protested said recommendation for award; 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 The Occupational Medical Center's, protest was without merit 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 The Occupational Medical Center; CITY COMHUSSION MEETING OF 0 C T 0 8 1992 Resolution No. 92-- 638 {' 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 The Occupational Medical Center, in connection with RFP No. 91-92-083, for physical examinations, is hereby approved. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of OctObe?- 1992. ATTE MATTY HIRAI CITY CLERK PREPARED AND APPROVED BY: CARMEN L. LEON ASSISTANT CITY ATTO Y CLL/rma/bss/M3156 ER L. Zr MAYOR APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS: // i. , , //��O �i Q • � - 0 .1 �� ,, =M1 - 2 - 92- 688 CITY 0P MIAMI, FLORIDA 17 INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members DATE w FILE of the City Commission i i992 2 SUBJECT : Resolution of Protest to Provide Physical ,• ..tom Examinations FROM : • REFERENCES: Cesar H. Odi City Manager ENCLOSURES It is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the attached resolution approving the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject The Occupational Medical Center's protest, in connection with RFP No. 91-92-073, to provide physical examinations to the City of Miami. On May 11, 1992, six (6) proposers responded to the City's Request for Proposals (RFP) for the above noted service. City staff evaluated the proposals and determined that the proposal that was most advantageous was received from Mt. Sinai Medical Center and recommended that vendor for award of contract. The Occupational Medical Center, one of the proposers, protested this recommendation for award. Pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of Procurement Officer investigated th Attachments: Proposed Resolution Copy of Protest Letter e 92- 638 � 17,I f, CITY OF MIAMI, PLOA10A INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM t Cesar H. Odio, City Manager July 7, 1992 ° A. Quinn Jones III, City Attorney BATE : FIDE Protest on Physical i sua,ECT Examinations, i Bid No. 91-92-073 I Judy S. Ca �QOM REFERENCES: Chief Pr u ment Off' er bepartm o G eral Services i and Soli a e ENCLOSURES: I hereby request your approval of my rejection of the protest by The Occupational Medical Center, in connection with the above noted bid. The basis for my decision, as set forth in the attached letter, is the fact that The Occupational Medical Center's protest has no merit. APPROVED: Cesar H. Odio, City Manager APPROVED: Q inn: J nes III, ty Attorney C. L4.-- 91- 638 13 #tav of t�t21tY� RON E. WILLIAMS = Adminwrator ��eel 0 W11 17i w ee July 71 1992 Mr. Randall Aderman The Occupational Medical Center 3270 NW 36 Street Miami, FL 33142 Dear Mr. Aderman: CESAR H. OD10 ON Manager As Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, I received your protest dated June 11, 1992, reviewed pertinent documents, talked with employees and researched the issues, pursuant to my duties under Section 16-56.1, City of Miami Code, Resolution of Protest Solicitations and Awards. The following is submitted in response to your letter of June 11, 1992, regarding RFP 91-92-073 for physical examinations. The City utilized the Request for Proposals (RFP) method to procure physical examinations. This procurement method allowed for evaluation of proposals based on important factors/criteria, other than price, as set forth in the solicitation. In this instance, the relative weight of each criterion was established and specified in the RFP document. Award is recommended to the responsible proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the City, Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc. Issue 1 - Price As stated above, RFP 91-92-073 was an RFP not a formal bid. Prior to issuance of the RFP, the City established the evaluation criteria and their relative weight, and set forth these requirements in the RFP. Further, the point system for evaluation was also established in advance of the solicitation. The selection committee applied the weighted criteria consistently and fairly to each vendor. (See attachment) Issue 2 - Facility and Parking The specifications stated that the service provider must have a licensed facility to conduct the required tests and further specified that the provider's facility to be used must be within the City of Miami limits. The recommended service provider, Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc., operates a facility at the Downtown Government Center. All facilities were evaluated on proximity, with firms in a five (5) mile radius of the City's Personnel Department earning maximum points. Mt. Sinai met these requirements as its facility is located within a five (5) mile radius of t!.e City's Personnel Department, which is located at 300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, in the Dupont Plaza Hotel. Occupational Medical's facility is not within a five (5) mile radius of the City's Personnel Department. 92- 638 DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION AND SOLID WASTE/Procurement Management Division 1390 N.W. 20th Street/Miami, Florida 33142/(305) 575-5174/FAX: (305) 575-5180. Mr. Randall Adermar w� Occupational Medic_ Center July 7, 1992 Page 2 RFP 91-92-073 The RFP also required that parking be provided at no cost to the employee/applicant. Mt. Sinai is in compliance with the RFP specifications. City employees/applicants will not pay for parking costs. Issue 3 - Who bid the City of Miami contract? Mt. Sinai Medical Center of Greater Miami, Inc., has several facilities, including a facility in the Downtown Government Center, at III NW 1st Street, which is the facility that will be used by City employees/applicants. The service provider, although it has its principal office in Miami Beach, met the City's specification requirements of having a facility within the City limits. 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, September 10, 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. Sincerely, dIfProcurement Car er C fficer/Assistant Director u cc: Ron E. Williams, Administrator Carmen L. Leon, Assistant City Attorney Renee Jones., Personnel Management enc. (ep 92— 638 THE { OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER June 11, 1992 3270 N.W. 36th Street 0 Miami. Florida 33142 • phone: 6294449 Ms. Judy Carter Chief Procurement Officer City of Miami 1390 N.W. 20 Street Miami, Florida 33142 Dear Ms. Carter: Thank you for the opportunity to bid for the City contract regarding Thysical examinations, RFP 91-92-073. It is my understanding that the bid has been initially awarded to another medical organization. I an sure you will agree that this bid, as others may have been in the past, is subject to individual interpretation of the guidelines. Prior to the actual awarding of the bid, I would like to discuss my interpretations comparing the lower two bidders, Mt. Sinai and occupational Medical Center. I will address the price issue, facility and experience categories. 1. Price. A 30 point maximum was awarded to the low bidder as noted in the attached. *Bidder #1 bid 15% more than Bidder #2. Yet there is only a 10% point difference in the point award. Conclusion: Bidder #1 should only have been awarded 26.5 points as opposed to the 27 points they were awarded. ADDENDUM: Question - Is not $11,000 a year a substantial amount with the monetary constraints pressing on a limited city budget? Since the contract is for 3 years with 2 one year extensions, the price differential may be as great as $60,000. 2. A. Facility. Specifically this involves proximity. Although proximity is technically defined as "nearness", for our purpose we will expand the definition to mean the distance and the time an employee must travel before he enters the medical center. The bid specifies that consideration is first provided to a location within the City of Miami limits. Bidder #2 is without question within the city., yet was awarded only 5 points for proximity. Of the five facilities considered for the bid, four were located within the City of Miami. (Assuming Mt. Sinai Medical Center, located in the Government Center proposed *Bidders will be noted by their numbers; ie., Mt. Sinai No. 1 and Occupational Medical Center No. 2. � '- 638 -� THE OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER F� 3270 N.W. 36th Street • Miami, Florida 33142 • Phone: 635.1445 the bid.) Three of the four were awarded the maximum to points. Understandably, the fifth facility, not located in the City of Miami, was awarded only 5 points. Conclusion: Since Occupational Medical Center is within the city limits with easy accessibility, we should have been awarded the maximum 10 points. 2 B. Parking - This bid specifies that parking must be provided at no cost to the individual. Bidder #2 provides ample parking at no cost. The current awardee of the bid (providt3 Mt. Sinai Medical Center located in the government center made the bid) does not provide free parking. Conclusion: A maximum of 5 points should have been awarded to the Occupational Medical Center as opposed to 2.5. In addition, Bidder #1, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, should have been awarded either 0 points or their complete bid rejected due to noncompliance to the bid specifications. 3. who is actually bidding for the City of Miami contract? Mt. Sinai Hospital, located on Miami Beach, Mt. Sinai Medical Center, located in the government center or both as a consortium. A. If Mt. Sinai Hospital is making the bid, the fact that they are located in the City of Miami Beach would reduce their points due to proximity. Conclusion: Points reduction, a minimum of 5 points. B. If Mt. Sinai Medical Center, located in the government center, is alone bidding for the contract, then 2 items of the selection criteria need to be addressed as noted below. First, this facility has been in existence for less than five years, therefore can not meet the seven year experience requirement, thus reducing the maximum of 20 points provided. Secondly, since there is no free parking available as required in the bid specification, the bid must then be rejected or at a minimum, the points reduced to 110" . C. If the bid is a joint venture and both facilities -are to be available for use, then you have two areas of question regar:':eng the "facility" points awarded: First, proximity and secondly, parking costs, both of which would reduce the number of points currently awarded. Is has been our goal for the past three years to obtain the City of Miami contract for their physical examinations. Each of the past two years all bids were rejected and the contract remained with a hospital entity. Please note that it is my understanding *Bidders will be noted by their numbers; ie., Mt. Sinai No. -1 and occupational Medical Center No. 2. 92- 63�' Y1GN1 1M OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER Ll 0 3270 N.W. 36th Street + Miami. Florida 33142 0 Phone: 635•1445 the past two years the hospital entity requested the contract be rebil. Although there may be a minimal direct cost incurred to rebid a contract, it is still time consuming and disruptive to the program. Our objective remains obtaining this contract. Y would like the opportunity to discuss the details of this letter with you at your convenience. Sincerely, kim 4Ar an President RMA/my Enc. *Bidders will be noted by their numbers; ie., Mt. Sinai No. 1 and Occupational Medical Center No. 2. 99- 638 (1} (2) (3) (4) mzY �y ry c Sigzal CM*AW !loaicst �Cssxtt r M!dical c�io Or �rnt Ccsitet tirrsttls Gmter townBaal 4 - - txwiftwe with gommmortaL 20 20 20 a,qwr-y (20 points) - !t least. 7 years e:perience 217 20 � parfocmisg pbysic3l 20 23 033rtinaucus (20 Points) 10 � 0 Pi1C0 lO 2'S � 5 2.5 - parking 2.5 5 2.5 2_5 - raditty 5 5 2.s ? ....-- to 10 5 - Fcpipmcstt ._ 70 62.5 45. g".5 �" aUte; tt�ct rat Mian (id naat Beet VP �tications F clt UO - r City of Miami Phy.,ical Examination LvaluaticA.. Point System la. Experience with governmental agency 7 years and up = 20 points 5-6 years = 15 points 3• 4 years = 10 points 1-2 years = 5 poii)t.s Under 1 year - 0 points lb. At least 7 years experience performing employment physical examinations Years 7 years and up = 20 points 5-6 years - 15 points 3-4 years = 10 points 1-2 years - 5 points Under 1 year - 0 points 2. Price $ 74,000 - $ 84,000 - 30 points $ 84,001 - $ 94,000 - 27 points $ 94,001 - $104,000 - 24 points $104,001 - $114,000 - 21 points $114,001 - $124,000 - 18 points $124,001 - $134,000 = 15 points $134,001 - $144,000 = 12 points (Less -than 12 points unacceptable) 3. Facility/Facility Location a) Proximity - Within 5 mile radius of Dept. of Personnel Mgmt. = 10 points - More than 5 mile radius of Dept. of Personnel Mgmt. = 5 points b) Parking - On site parking for approximately 20 vehicles - 5 points - Limited parking - 2.5 points c) Facility - Reception area for approximately 20 individuals _ 5 points - Limited reception area 2.5 points d) Equipment - On site back-up equipment = 10 points - Back-up equipment at another facility = 5 points 92 638