Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-90-0533AN /9 .- r 90- 53 RESOLUTION NO. x .r. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT OPPICER'S badtawN TO WECT THE PROTEST RECEIVED FROM MIAMI MAINTRUST CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE REOUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE FEDERAL LAW ;. ENFOROEMENT BUILMNG. _- - WHEREAS, in connection with the Request For Proposals for the development of the Federal Law Enforcement Building, a a protest filed by Miami Maintrust Corporation was submitted to the Chief Procurement Officer in his role as the arbiter of bid protestb,pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the protest of Miami Maintrust Corporation was - reviewed and investigated by the Chief Procurement Officer; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the Sunshine Law had not been violated; and WHEREAS, it was determined that the Technical Committee conducted the evaluation in a proper manner; ,and WHEREAS, it was determined that the proposals were equally considered with regard to issues involving the South Florida Building Code; and WHEREAS, the Chief Procurement Officer's finding that the -_ protest of Miami Maintrust Corporation is without merit and therefore rejected, has been approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney; rt I Av .. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY ` t - OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the t Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted by references thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this _ Section. rv. ,. Crff Y JUY„nb". - k s i Y fb, won 7 a d section to Cohn ion with the Request for Propoaala for the development of the Pederal Law Enforcement Building# the .` Chief Procurement Officer's rejection of the protest filed by: Miami Maint runt Corporation Is hereby approved. Section 3. This Resolution shall become effective 4r immediately upon its adoption. t PASSED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of ^July 1990. Y,� CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM '0: Honorable Mayor.and Members of the City Commission :ROM Cesarii. Od City, Manager # A111" Tr z�,aI A 54�m DATE : JUL - n 1990 FILE SUBJECT: Resolution of Protest of Miami Ma i nt rus t Corporation REFERENCES : ENCLOSURES: It is.respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt a resolution approving the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject., the. protest received for the Request for Proposal, for de-veloment. ,of a Federal -Law Enforcement Building, from. Miami Ma int rust. Corporation. - 'BACKGROUND: The Chief . Procurement Officer received a protest from ,Miami Maintrust Corporation in to the'Federal Law 'Enforcement ,regard Building project and it was determined by `the Chief Procurement ra Officer In hisrole as the arbiter of bid - protests P ,Pursuant to Sect i-on 18•-56. i of, the ,City Code, that this, protest lacks 'Merit' for the following reasons: 4 1. 'That the Sunshine law had not been violated `since the meeting of. May 17, 1990. was neverclosed to :the ._ publics } 2. That the Technical. Committee conducted the evaluatiom in a proper manner . in accord' with the.'' 'f evaluation crit-eria set" forth in' the request or' proposal. 3. That the proposals were equally considered with regard to issues involving the South Florida `F Building Code. ti Yitr�'�, j a a ti• i h � � � f J ;q"_I • 2q4 1 rye... rt. ST May 11, 1990 Ms. Arlene Weintraub Assistant Director, City of. Miami` Dept. of development 100 Biscayne Boulevard Way Suite 400 Miami, Florida 33131 :,e: Request for Proposals (RFP) for Development of a Federal Law Enforcement Building Dear Ms. Weintraub: Since the selection committee will begin to evaluate the four bids for the above -mentioned RFP on May 11, the Maintrust team has examined the plans and specifications submitted by the other three proposers and would like'to bring to your attention the'.following deviations from the Technical Criteria, which are 'the "minimal acceptable designs requirements" applicable to this RFP: 1. All -six passenger elevators shall serve all floors, including the basement parking area.. 2. Detention cells, sally.port, and U.S. Marshall offices• shall be in%the same level at ground floor. 3. service elevators shall have a rear door serving all floors. 4. No compact car parking spaces. 5. Maximum distance from the most remote corner of then building to the door of the toilets shall be 15Q.feet. 6. Maximum distance from any point to a drinking fountain shall be 50 feet.'' My•purpose for writing you is two -fold. F1rst,. to point out. for the record the deficiencies; and, second, to advise you that in your evaluation of the bid price,,. you phould note thet.had these items been -included in our compotltors' proposals, that Y s r r .any S.MY ,C z xi` f i Y 6 . I 1 Arleen R. Weintraub N-.;..�rtmert of Development Cil- of Mirtmi rt gym: P. G. Fraga,` A.I.A. mailittust, J.V. Rv Federal Law Enforcement Bldg. :etc Arlene: to reference to the above mentioned project l would like if you could v ;,rify the following questions: 1- Why did some designs provide compact car parking spaces? I personally asked,yau, after checking with -Mr. Johnston. and you' ;aswerec: me:_ "compact car spaces are not allowed". 2- The addenda calls for all six passengers elevators to serve the 5zse=ent. 'Why is it that some designs don't have this facility? "3- The program calls for a rear. door for the service elevator. Why is -it that some designs don't have this requirement? +- Why is it that some designs do not comply with the South Florida Building Code in relation to?: capacity of the stairs, -distance separation between stairs and maximum dead and distance for stairs. 5-- According to Mr.: Johnstoa.•the'Committee would not take in consid- eration any additional information that was not required. Why is it that some Teems provided more drawings that required? pi- Why w4s the Structural Design evaluated in relation to the'cost? Tht program calls for -four Court Rooms at the eleventh floor. why is At that some designs have only two Court Rooms? order torespond to the othgr members of my Teams I need .this clarifications s soon as possible. SiucerCZ ut , Ps�oyo y p Y + -1: ,x } K t „,,C•.e •a s a#. r< # s+i,a 5.kfr 'r ,4a,r• f 1 1 •' S 4 { N . F% Va L MAIN` RUST CORP.co­ - May 24, 1990 - Ms. Arlene Weintraub Assistant.Director _ City of Miami Dept. of Development Mr. Ron�_Williams chief Procurement Officer Director GSA.- City of Miami 300 Biscayne Blvd Way Suite 400 Mia:ni r Florida 33131 Dear Mrs. Weintraub and Mr. Williams: This. letter is to formally protest, pursuant to Sect.18-56 1 . of,, City of Miami Code, the following irregularitiesi.n the bidti procedure for the Federal Enforcement Building'(GSA) in Miami, the bid procedure for the Federal Enforcement BuildingAGSA)` In Miami >. I.) On Thursdhy, May 17 the evaluating committee appointed asked that•the bidders "voluntarily" not attend the committee:1)". Cinal evaluation meeting. Under,' -the. circumstancas, thi .constituted coercion. No minues weare. taken of this, >Alettnd. The tape recording taken at th®,_Reet 'ng'£ails'to identify" the { speakers and !a unintelligible in parts. The above constitutes 4 violation of* the Sunshine .Law of Florida thereby,'voiding any' action of the committee per Section 286.'01'1'Fiorida Statutes. y'} Ii.) During the committee deliberations a member suggested that the Maintrust project ke •reconsidered'. The reevaluation: w3s not permitted by city staff. This decision %was arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable. 5 I11'.) Under the South Florida Building Codes, the 41at,ance1 separation between stairs cannot be less' than half of the, d1agona3 distance in the footprint of the affected floor. In the case hf Miami Capital,the recipient of 94 points by the committee, the F building code would, in our, calculations, require. no. less' thap. 126 ft. whi.le Miami Capital has in their plan lab ft., t 4 p, , ;• s OUSIK$5 MYfi.OPME VT, MAL t IATF AND "TCAAM OR""40S .s+ s•'r>i*p1f. 10f 4M.k%4%PJ fWAA*,33111 011144'.1 ** 1 1.17A�'ii)!tt1iw tr11�1�►s#"L.41rri1�3 1 4' all 'wu "ax i � 9 is s rt s t - �W :- w j r � Sr a MS. Arlene Weintraub 2 May 24, 1990 Mr. Bon Williams � x 1: Furthermore, the maximum dead end travel distance can not exceed 5o ft. We calculate that in the.proposed Miami Capital. project from the furthest corner to the center of the stair door of the nearest stairway there are approximately 100 ft. Both of.the above mentioned supposed violations of the South Florida Building Code would prohibit the City of Miami's Fire Vepartment approval of the proposed building. I have enclosed copies of previous letters* pointing out `significant variations that translate in their totality to hundreds of thousands and in some cases millions of dollars of y differences for non-compliance. If this new bidding system is to work, all submitted plans must be within the regulations and certainly meet the South k} Fiorida Building Code. To award a project to a developer who has major violations, and to give`such :a low grading to our project that carefully and, x specifically follows both the RFP and SFB Code is patently, ' unfair. S ceraly, M_ OP • u ve o.J J. V . s , Mercedes M. Ferie MMr a fA tt , . A st L �t C7' 3: ' Y � l..t 7 • �4 w � �. �� RON [. WILLIAMS Director t ,7f of c�tzt� HNN U - June 22, 1990 - a M.s. Mercedes M. Ferre ) Maintrust Corp. — 1390 Brickell Avenue, Suite 400 _ Miami, Florida 33131 Dear Ms. Ferre: +7# Re: Federal Law Enforcement Building Project 7 I, as Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, have read your protest filed on behalf of Miami Maintrust Development, J.V. ("Maintrust"), a copy of which is enclosed. I have talked with the City departments involved in the issue, and reviewed the - pertinent documents. Pursuant to myduties under Section 18- fry 56.2, City of Miami. Code, I have determined that your protest.is without merit for the reasons set forth below. The City Manager and City Attorney have approved my determination and will submit it to the City Commission, whose decisi.on'shall be final. T Below., in the same format and order of the protest are: I.- This office and the City of Miami City Attorneys Office have reviewed this allegation and have concluded that the a t , Sunshine. Law was not violated, The meeting of May 17, 1990 was never closed to the public. 'Had members of the proposing -team sought to_ attend, they could have done so without 'restriction. t However, the individuals representing the development teams r, agreed not to attend. these meetings as a professional. courtesy. During discussions with 'other teams, this , extension of - pro-fessional.courtesy was confirmed. At no.time does this ap'eai z to be an open or direct attempt to exclude anyone from the: — meetings. The tape recorder 'for the meeting was not fully functional, a fact not discovered until after the meeting wais. completed. At that point, summary minutes of the. meeting were — prepared. Oh :t R AL SERVICES ADM 1MSTRATION nFP42TMENTI'1391 N.W. 13141/130$) 4110 p�b • {v rip. "Ye? 3� '� 5 _ ..�a hy� ! M1 Y _ t �., 7 „f�ro'y.5e .vp " _x,�zv`k�'ur+'�u.�l'• Y.: 4x Ms. Mercedes Mi Ferre Page 2 June 22, 1990 it. The tape -recording of the Technical Committee's deliberations meeting 'on May 17, 1990, does not reveal any. discussion by the Technical Committee of reconsideration of Maintrust's project. The Committee discussed.each proposal in accord with the Evaluation Criteria set forth in the Request For Proposals (RFP). Each proposal was scored by consensus of the Committee on an 'item by item basis. III. Even though the RFP provided that' plans should be in compliance with the South Florida Building Code and meet all other regulatory requirements, all were treated equally, in that none were reviewed or examined specifically for compliance. As stated in Public Notice in the RFP, the City reserved the right to accept any proposal deemed to be in its best interest, or to waive any irregularities in any proposal. Specific plan review and'final construction document approvals would be granted by the {r appropriate agency/agencies responsible for issuing permits. If variations to the South Florida Building Code are found, itwould be the responsibility of the successful proposer to rectify` these, and attain SF'BC and other local approvals at his own expense, within the negotiated price. It appears the proposals are in substantial agreement with the SFBC. Sigcerely yogrs, r` o E. i aMS Chief procurement Officer Approved: Cesar H Odin City Manager Approved.,as to Form and Correctness: Jorge TL. Fernandez.—' City Attorney Enclosure: .'Bid Protest 4 _ 00. u- i .. d.TYl i` its Y a,$ ig ye 4 f. .