The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutR-90-0535J-90-514 6/15/90 11 90- 535 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER FOR THE SELECTION OF MIAMI CAPITAL FACILITIES, INC., AS THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDING TO BE LOCATED ON A CITY -OWNED LAND PARCEL ON BLOCK 78N, BOUNDED BY NE 4TH AND 5TH STREETS AND NE 1ST AND NORTH MIAMI AVENUES, IN DOWNTOWN MIAMI, FLORIDA; AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH MIAMI CAPITAL FACILITIES, INC., FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF A FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDING; REQUIRING THE AGREEMENT TO INCLUDE CERTAIN TERMS AND CONDITIONS (MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED HEREIN) AND TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S MINORITY PROCUREMENT ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER APPLICABLE LAWS; DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PRESENT THE NEGOTIATED AGREEMENT TO THE CITY COMMISSION AS SOON AS PRACTICABLE FOR ITS REVIEW, CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION THEREOF; AND FURTHER PROVIDING THAT THE HEREIN SELECTION OF MIAMI CAPITAL FACILITIES, INC. AS THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER DOES NOT CONVEY ANY CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS UPON SAID PROPOSER UNLESS AND UNTIL THE PROPOSED AGREEMENT HAS BEEN EXECUTED. WHEREAS, on July 23, 1987, the City Commission adopted Resolution 87-746 authorizing the City Manager to execute a lease agreement between the United States of America and the City of Miami, setting forth the terms and conditions for the City to construct and lease to the United States of America an approximately 250,000 sq. ft. building to house Federal law enforcement agencies in Miami, to be located on a specified land parcel acquired by the City on Block 78N, located between NE 4th and 5th Streets and NE 1st and Miami Avenues, in downtown Miami; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 1988, the City Commission adopted Resolution 88-540 authorizing the issuance of a Request for Qualifications as the first phase of a two-phase selection process by the City and the U.S. General Services Administration ("GSA"), as agent for the United States of America, inviting qualified and experienced development teams to submit professional qualifications for the development of an ,jUl It ON 90- 5 t n approximately 250,000 sq. ft, building in downtown Miami to be Occupied by Federal law enforcement agencies; and '- x WHEREAS, in response to the solicitation for professional qualifications, twelve teams submitted qualifications on July 22, 1988, the published submission due date; and- .t WHEREAS, two of the twelve teams submitted letters dated February 27, 1989, requesting that their submissions be withdrawn from consideration; and e WHEREAS, ten submissions of qualifications were reviewed for compliance to requirements set forth in the Request for Qualifications that included demonstration of professional experience and capability in specified disciplines, demonstration of financial capability to successfully complete the project, and compliance with specified minority participation requirements. - and WHEREAS, on November 30, 1989, the City Commission adopted Resolution 89-1060 qualifying five teams in accordance with the minimum requirements set forth in the Request for Qualifications; and WHEREAS, on November 30, 1989, the City Commission adopted - Resolution 89-1060 further authoriziny the issuance of a Request for Proposals on December 6, 1989 for project design and cost of the Federal Law Enforcement Building, said issuance solely '- limited to the five qualified development teams as the final stage of the selection process= and WHEREAS, the Request for Proposals for project design and cost of the development contained specific evaluation criteria to s- A- be used by the Technical Committee appointed to evaluate proposal submissions; and ry WHEREAS, in response to the issuance of a Request for Proposals, four development teams submitted proposals on April , 10, 1990, the published submission due date; and WHEREAS, the Technical Committee received the proposal submissions and, after extensive analysis and discussion of the four proposals, rendered a written report to the Cityx Manager r 2 11 containing an evaluation of each of the proposals based on the specific evaluation criteria included in the Request for Proposals f and WHEREAS, the Technical Committee recommended to the City Manager that the proposal submitted by Miami Capital Facilities, y Inc. be recommended to the City Commission as the successful proposal for selection to design and construct the Federal Law Enforcement Building in downtown Miami, and further recommended that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate an agreement - with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the City Manager, taking into consideration the findings of the Technical Committee, recommends the acceptance of the Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. proposal for the design and construction of the Federal Law Enforcement Building in Miami, Florida; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDAt Section 1. The recommendation of the City Manager is hereby accepted, selecting Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. as the successful proposer for the design and construction of the Federal Law Enforcement Building to be located on a City -owned land parcel on Block 78N, bounded by NE 4th and 5th Streets and NE lot and North Miami Avenues, in downtown Miami, Florida. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to negotiate an agreement with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. for the design and construction of the Federal Law Enforcement Building. Section 3. The said applicable agreement to be negotiated is required to comply with the City's minority procurement program ordinance requirements and other applicable laws and to include, but not be limited to, compliance with such other terms and conditions which are necessary or practicable to further the best interests of the City of Miami and the U.S. General Services Administration, as determined by the City Administration, with the concurrence of the City Attorney's Office. 3 9v 04 r r section 4. The City Manager is further directed to present the negotiated agreement to the City Commission as soon as practicable for its review, consideration and approval, prior to its execution. The herein selection of Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. as the successful proposer, does not confer any contractual rights upon said proposer unless and until the proposed agreement has been executed. { Section 5. This Resolution shall immediately upon its adoption. u r g Ali CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM a: 'gonorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission ROM Cesar R. Odio City Manager DATE : J U L - J 1990 FILE SUEUECT : Re so lu t i on Selecting Miami Capital Facilities Inc./Federal Building REFERENces For City Commission ENCLOSURES Meeting of 7 / 12/9 0 RECOMMENDATION: is respectfully recommended that the City Commission adopt the ,It attached Resolution accepting the recommendation of the City Manager for the' selection of Miami Capital Facilities, inc. as the successful proposer for the design and construction. of -a - Federal Law Enforcement Building- to 'be located on a City -owned land. parcel. on Block 78N, bounded by NE 4th and Sth Streets_ and z NE lst and North Miami Avenues, in downtown Miami=. authorizing .and- directing the City Manager to negotiate an agre-ement with a Miami.Capital Facilities,.Inc. for the design and construction of - a Federal Law _Enforcement Building; requiring .the agreement to include certain terms and -conditions- and to comply with the City's.minority procurement Ordinance requirements alnd.applicable`_ #x laws; directing the City Manager to present the negotiated agreement to the City Commission as soon as practicable for its -review-, consideration and approval prior to the execution - thereof; and further providing•that the herein selection of Miamir Capital Facilities, Inc. as the successful proposer does' not convey any contractual rights upon..said proposer unless and until the.proposed agreement has been executed. _- BACKGROUND: The ,Department of Development has administered, the; -selection for.. the development of - the Federal Lilwnfcr+ement ,process Building and recommends the attached ' Resolution be- adopted by .the City Commission. on July 23, 1987, the City Commission adopted Resolution 87-746'`k= author-izin' the execution -of a lease agreement with the U.B. : .General Services Administration (,GSA' for. the City to conotruct h f and ; lease to the U.S. GSA a. building to house Federal. law enforcement agencies in downtown Miami. QQ.June. 9, 1988, the City Commission adopted -Resolution 88we40 authorizing the issuance cif .a Request for ,Qualifications (R ) As 4y the first phase of a two-phase selection process to pre -qualify 'F1k l °` 4,"^ a� W 'y3 ti n t i1 G ' t e Y! - Honorable Mayor and Members L of the City Commission _a --I Page .Two interested development teams. on November 30, 1989, the City Commission adopted Resolution 89-1080 qualifying five teams in accordance with the minimum requirements set forth in the RF+Q and further authorized the issuance of a Request for.Proposals (RFP) - seeking project design and cost, as the final phase of the _ developer selection process. The RFP was limited in response solely to the five pre -qualified development teams. The RFP outlined the evaluation process and evaluation criteria upon which proposals were to be reviewed.The RFP stated the defined process sought "best design at best price." A seven - member Technical Committee was appointed to conduct an evaluation of the proposal submissions. 4n April 10, 1990 four development teams submitted proposals. _ The Technical Committee received the submissions and after - extensive analysis and discussion, rendered. a. written report to the City Manager (attached). The Committee recommended`that.tb.e _ ' proposal submitted ''by - Miami Capital Facilities, Inc., be recommended to,the City Commission as the successful proposer to design and* construct the Federal haw Enforcement Building.. The :. Committee further recommended that the, -City Manager be authorized to negotiate an agreement with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. The City Manager recommends, based on the findings of the Technical Committee ana on the review by the.Administrati,on, that the City Commission accept the recommendation 'selecting Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. as the successful proposer for the } design and construction of the Federal Law Enforcement Building h — on City -owned property in downtown Miami. It is further, recommended that the City Manager be authorized and directed to ..' negotiate an agreement with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. for. this project, said agreement required to comply with the Ci•ty's F, minority procurement program Ordinance' requirements and other: applicable laws and to inc.lude.but' not be limited to, compliance with such other terms and conditions which are necessary or -practicable to further the best interests. of the City, and further that the,,.negotiated agreement. be- presented to •tfie Commission for. its review, consideration and approval prior',* to - its execution., — Attachments.: Proposed Resolution — Technical Committee Report to the City Manager '- 2 PIP • s _ n. 4 ' r -Y f r0 #3 v 1 J: June.19P 1990 Cesar it. Odio City Manager, city of Miami P. 0. Box 330708 Miami, Florida, 33233-0708 Dear Mr. Odioi This letter concludes the business of the TechnicalCommittee you establisbed on December 19, 1989, to evaluate the proposals for development of the Federal Law Enforcement Building. The Technical Committee thanks you for the opportunity to have participated in this important project. The Technical Committee report is furnished as an attachment' to this letter and includes minutes of the.commitree meetings. Additionally; we would like 'to thank your Deportment of `Development for the excellent staff support. Based upon our evaluations,.the Technical Committee recommends that:Miami•Capital Facilities, Inc.'be selected as, -the .successful proposer and.further,recommende that Miami Capital Fact-lit'iesi Inc. bey recommended to the -City Commission as the successful developer to design and build the Miami Law Enforcement Building., Sincerely. _ Ronald H. Johnston �. Committee Chairman Director — a U.S. GSA'Deign & Construction•Diviston wi'lli4m Jews Architect 1 U.S: GSA Design & Construction .-Divia f Roberto Martinez, Esquire, Attorne # �� ?t Zuckerman, Spaeder; . Tayior & Evens,/ w{ William F.,Noraan !3 - Branch Chief of steal Estate iA�r - -UA. ask Design A Construction Division . t Al�► n.I. Poms, Chief Architect. r Cifg of Miami Dopartment of Public Works Halter M. Smith, Deputy Director r { x U.S. GSA Design & Construction Div BMW w�.•,A Elbert . W+atexe► Assistant Director City of Miami. Department of Planning► i _ & On -PC -3P VN53! p r • s tr'U 1 'rABt,� 09' COM Pa e MEMBERS OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ..............•.•••••••••• 3 r� a RECOMMENDATION...............•••••••••••.••.•••••••••••••.e. BACKGROUND• .........:..........:......................•.. 3 # PROCEEDINGS••i•••.•�•••••••••••.•.'.•••••.••••••••••••••i•••.•• 4 � EVALUATION PROMS$••••••••.•.•••.•:•••••••••••••••..••••••.• 8 9 Avs- EVALUATION CRITERIA..•.. ... ....•••••••.••••:•e.••••••e.••.:• I'. April 19, 1990.Technical Committee Meeting 1 BXHiBIT Summary_ 1 May ll, 1990 Technical Committee Meeting EXHIBITII. (with attachments) Summary `h = III. May 17, 1990 Technical Committee Meeting1 EXHIBIT (with -attachments) q Summary EXHIBIT-, IV: May 29, 1990 Technical Committee Meeting- ='`x Summary EXHIBIT V. June 6, 1990 Technical Committee Meeting Summary (with attachments)* r � ! • kY,. Y' S 4 i_7ryry}l� . t1 s ' x 4 i p � :a4 7 • • r js ^L t.# MEMBERS OF TEM TECHNICAL COMMITTEE fi Ronald,H. Johnston, Committee Chairman xi r Director U.S. .GSA Design & Construction Division William Jew. Architect U.S. GSA Design & Construction Division Roberto Martinet, Esquire Attorney. 7uckerman, Spaeder, Taylor & Evans William F. Norman Brancti Chief of Real Estate U.S..GSA Design & Construction Division Allan.I, Pours Chief Architect City of.Miami Department of Public Works Walter M. Smith Deputy Director US.' .GSA Design & Construction Division Elbert L. Waters Assistant Director City of Miami Department of Planning, Building & Zoning f "�a #'. Fy Asa RSC01MffDATYON on June 6r 1990, the Technical Committee concluded its deliberations and evaluation of the four proposal submissions for the development of the Federal Law Enforcement building in downtown Miami.. The. Technical Committee, by, a unanimous vote of its members, respectfully, recommends to the City Manager, that the proposal submitted by Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. be recommended as -the successful proposer to the City Commission for its selection to design and -build the Federal Law Enforcement Building. it is' further recommended that the City Manager seek authorization from the City Commission to negotiate a contractual agreement with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. for the development of this project. - The Technical, Committee hereby .wishes to' Inform the''tity Manager that thee development team of T3M, Ltd. is ranked #2 and the development team of Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc."' is _- ranked #3. The Committee suggests that in the event an agreement cannot be consummated with Miami Capital Facilities,. Inc., the `-: Technical Committee's recommended: development team, the City Manager consider the other proposers, in rank order. BACKGROUND On November 301, 1989, by Resolution' 89-1060, the City of Miami Commission' qualified five development teams in accordance with - the requirements set forth in aRequest` for Qualifications 'for _ the ,development 'of a Federal Law Enforcement Building on Block` 78N, in downtown Miami, Florida-. The teams determined qualifiedf included Miami -.Capital Facilities, Inc., Miami Development Group-, Inc.,Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc., Miami Maintrustgt Development, , J.V.,,, and T3M, Ltd.. On November 30,.-1989, by Resolution 89-1060, the City of,.Miami Commission further- authorized the issuance of a Request fop° .limiting - Proposals, on December 6, 1989., responses thereto solelx to. the . five development teams pyre -qualified by'.the,.` C%ty,. � Commission at the conclusion of the first phase 'of a two; phme.' e; selection, process. The Request for Proposals issued December b 1989'extended invitations to .development teams for project design and cost: evaluation of project design anii, cost constituted .tfia# second pnd concluding phase, of the selection pxouess., The, submission.due date'o-was April 104 1990, a� On December 19, 1990, the City Manager appointed seven members It' 1r a Technical Committee as outlined in the Request for Proposals 'to evaluate proposals and. render. a written . recommend atIon; to; the, �* Manager bused on ite ftndii�ga. The Individuals appQi?ttu} - evaluate proj+ct design and cost proposals me a Irechni�c r 9 f} 1 f y_ f i Yri 7 k Committee possessed the technical expertise required toreview submissions in the areas of planning, urban design,.architectural design,.:engineering, building systems, programming, and user requirements. On April 10, 1990, the proposals submission due date, four proposal submissions were received.- Proposals were submitted by Miami Capital Facilities, Inc., Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc., Miami Maintrust Development, J.V., and T3M, Ltd. A complete proposal package consisted of a written proposal,` a set of -drawings, and a sealed envelope containing'a price. A set of each of the four proposals was distributed to. the Technical Committee for use during.its deliberations. PROCEED I FIGS The Technical Committee appointed•by the City Manager -scheduled` -,a total :: of f i've meetings. One was not held due to lack"of'. a• quorum. The Technical Committee. convened fogr times. Throughout the proceedings, the, Committee observed requirements as set forth in the "Government in the Sunshine" law and -the Public Records Act.. Meetings were duly advertised. as public meetings and recorded. The first meeting of the Technical Committee was -held April 19", 1990# it served as an organizational meeting for staff from the Departments of Development and Law to present an,overview to the Committee of the proposal .'evaluation. process and its responsibilities as outlined in the Request for Proposals .documents. The Technical Committee elected Ronald H. Johnston, Directorof the. U.S. General Services Administration Design -& Construction Division, Committee Chairman. Minutes of the April 19, 1990 meeting, as adopted by the Committee -on June 6, 19901, are attached as Exhibit I and incorporated herein by reference. ;{ •A second meeting of the Technical Committee was held May 199Q: Stage I of the evaluation - process, as defined' in the +t Request for Proposals, conducted by CI ty staff - was - presented �, td "y= the Committee. The four .proposal submissions were found to beA",'', ' substantial .comformanc.e to the Request for Proposals a•nd eligible for evaluation by the Technical Committee, Commenter received from the State Bureau .of Historic Preserv,ati.Qne:n, pursuant- to an. executed agreement regarding Skate evahuation each of the four:. proposals' sensitivity to surrounding historic buildings eras . distributed to the Committee for their` t x� consideration in the evaluation process .At the meeting of mayus' 19901 the Committee Chairman discUe 644 ST; ' the methodology to be followed daring,otage II by the Co ittee In Its evaluation of propc�sai,s. each proposal was to F � hda'r,`�� em4s -... �.-.S. sAi:,at,, .. a. ,.i.'�t+J1 tT nF.,_•; .�z: , _ :;5'k�d;1..a .- t11A . .-., 7 _.:... .. ., •. . ,'t._. ...�,.. _ � ._.>.....:n ....ut 5;ai..�..-aua.3i�,»,Z''��,..�. fi .�. re e.. _�.:.sa��i . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IN discussedp in alphabetical order by all participants In detai'�. its The scoring process of design criteria, defined In the R04uest, for. Proposals, would be conducted at the conclusion of the Committee's review of all four proposals. The Technical Committee.wodld score each proposal as a full Committee, bringing its member's specific, areas of expertise to this part of the process as one entity. The Technical Committee further determined It would allot twenty minutes for each development team to. make a brief presentation and answer any questions the Committee may have, after concluding Its detailed review of each of the four proposal submissions. The Committee 'noted - the intent of the evaluation process was to quantify design (Stage It) to the extent possible and associate a price (Stage 111) to each design proposal to achieve "beat design at best price." At the May llth,meeting, the Technical Committee fully reviewed and discussed the proposal submitted by Miami Capital Pacilitiesp Inc. , The Committee then began its review and discussion of the proposal submitted by Miami Justice Center Associatesl,`Inc. minutes of. the May lle 1990 meeting, as adopted by the Committee:: on June , 6 # 1990, are attached as Exhibit 11 and Incorporated herein by reference. Included as a part of Exhibit 11 are a) "Stage I —Responsiveness to Request for Proposals"- Checklist - Form; b) Letter dat4d May 9s, 1990 from the State Bureau' --of Historic Preservation- and c) "Stage II--Evaluationby Criteriir ofDesignG Project Scheduling" Sample Form. The Technical Committee convened for Its third meeting on May 17, 1990. The Committee completed Its review of the Miami Justice center Associa'tess, Inc. proposal. The Committee then reviewed and discussed the proposal submitted' by =Miami Maintrust- Developmentr J.V. Afterwards, the proposal submitted by T3M,,', Ltd. was reviewed and discussed. At this point In the May 17th deliberations, the Committee. determined the order of presentations to be made by the —four development teams Invited by the Committee during the may, -Utb, 'one meeting, by drawing .numbers out of a hat, number presenting, first, etc, The Committee established the ground rules for presentations. could only address their own propolsa'l .,P.resenters and only .,that information submitted as a part of the propo6alfb No modifications or additions to the Information was periiltte4'*' Each development team agreed to extend the courtesy of not attending other team's presentations Presentations were heard In the following order: Miami Justice Cnter Apsociateof Inc. Miami NairtrupteDevelopment, JoV. Miami Capital*Facii1iti6sp Inc, T3M Wb. K 90 The Technical.Committee commenced Its deliberations in accordance with the procedures outlined in the Request for Proposals. The Committee used a score she6t indicating the criteria down the left side and each of the proposer's names, in alphabetical order, across the top. The Committee discussed each criteria set forth in the Request for Proposals under the major headings of Building system Designs, Site Design, and Project Development Schedule. The seven -member Committee scored as a Committee each of the criteria for each of the four proposals. The results of the Committee's technical deliberations (scoring) are as followst Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. 94 Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc. 80 Miami-Maintrust Development, J.V. 66 T3Mr Ltd. 77 The Technical Committee stated that, in accordance with the - Request for Proposals, any proposal that did ' not achieve a mini . mum score of 75 at: the end of Stage 11 would not proceed to Stage III* opening of price envelopes. Accordingly, Miami Maintrust Development# J.V. would not be considered further by the Techn'idal Committee and their price envelope would' remain sealed, for return to the proposer# as stipulated in the Request for'Proposals. Minutes of the May 17, 1990.meeting, ,as adopted by the Committee on June 6, 1990, are attached as Exhibit III and incorporated herein by, reference. included as a part of Exhibit rir is the Technical 'Committee Score. Sheet entitled "Stage 11-Rvaluatioh, by Criteria Of Design a Project SchedulingF". attested 'to by the signatures of.its members. A Technical Committee meeting scheduled and advertised for May 29, 1990, did not take place due to lack of 'a quorum. Exhibit IV, attached and incorporated herein by referencer includes a summary of the actions on this date,, as adopted by the Technical committee 'on June Go 1990. '60, The f ina,l meeting of the Technical Committee -was held June 1990. The Committed reviewed and adopted by motion• the. minutes of Its meetings held April 19thp May Ilth as amended, May. ;7,th., as amended# -and May 29tht 199,0. Staqe, III --Evaluation of Project Costs procedures were 'reviewed by-Committiee members and, staff# referencing the Request' for, . Proposals. opening of the price envelopes,. In' alphabetical ..order, was announced -for the three proposals that achieved a m-Inimum, score of - 75. at . the- conclusion ' of Stage 11 in, the, evaluation process. The following prices were read -into the - record, as the opening the sealed envelopes occurredt Miami capital facilities, Inc'* $35, 000#000 Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc. $36050,000 T3M? Ltd. $29e842,000 6 �.j 1 Y }i5 '1 The Committee proceeded with Stage III of the process by calculating the ratio between design and- price --design score divided by price (in millions.. of dollars). The adjusted. total score was.- calculated as followss ?' Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. 2.6857 Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc. 2.1651 T3M, Ltd. 2.5803 The Technical Committee announced its final ranking, based on the calculated values, as follows: Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. #1 T3M, Ltd. #2 Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc. #3 The `remainder and concluding portion of the Committee's final meeti-ng Was dedicated- to the Committee formulating . its recommendation for . transmittal to the City Manager by a, vote of its members. The Technical Committee unanimously adopted a motion, 7-01,'"to recommend_ the. #1 ranked development team of -,Miami. Capital Facilit-ies', Inc. to, the City Manager,,. as ,the successful' proposer, = + , and further to recommend that the City Manager be authorized to negotiate a contractual agreement with _Miami Capital. Facilities, Inc. to design and build the Federal Law Enforcement*8uilding. The Committee 'expressed its desire to notify' the ;iCity',Manager of the development teams achieving the #2. and. #3 -rank order, in the event 'an agreement could not be successfully negotiated 'between ' the City of Miami and Miami Capital Facilities; Inc. Minutes of the ,June 6, 1990 .meet.ing are attached as . Exhibit V and: u incorporated herein by reference. Included as a part, of kk' hibit � V'are.a) "Stage III --Evaluation of Project Costs",Sample Forms b) Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. Price Proposals c) Miami Justice Center Associates Inc. Price Proposal; d) T3M, Ltd. price Propos;1I and, e). "Stage III --Evaluation of 'Project Costs" r. Technical Committee Evaluation Score Sheet. All correspondence between.the.Technical Committee, C1 ty:staf f and.. the, development - teams; proposal document's= proposal drawings; price proposals; taped recordings;- and any other .materials related to the design and development of. itie._f'eder , Low EnfQroement Building are on file and available at the City, Cif Miami.. Department of Dq�velopnaent.. 74 a' r, atu: ;Y [ Mai -A. r 7. m. tt`"' A'�14 R '4 t'rs yh. _ 4. L ,x i� EVALUATION PROCESS {> All proposals were evaluated under a three -stage process, defined in the Request for Proposals, summarized as follows: = Stage 1--Responsiveness to Request for Proposals: The first stage review of proposal submissions was conducted by City and U.S. General Services Administration staff for responsiveness to the Request for Proposals including all _ Appendix and Exhibit materials, issued December 6, 1989._ The four proposal. submissions were -found to be in substantial compliance and eligible for consideration in Stage 1l of the - evaluation process. Stage I1--Evaluation by Criteria of Design &Project Scheduling-.^ - Responsive proposals were evaluated according 'the design and - project scheduling criteria specified in the Request for Proposals. by a Technical Committee possessing the professional expertise in the relevant disciplines, appointed by the City Manager. The Technical Committee consisted of four U.S. General -_ Services Administration personnel, two City of Miami employees, and one individual from the private sector. The Technical Committee conducted its analysis based on the evaluation criteria and corresponding point system established {` for building design, site design, and project scheduling. Bach =' -- proposal was scored accordingly by the Technical Committee.. A _ proposal had to achieve a, minimum of 75 points (out of 100 - possible) to be. -considered further in Stage Ill -of the evaluation process. Any proposal not achieving, at minimum, at 75-point n score did not proceed to the evaluation of project cost (by sealed bid) -portion of the. process. In that event, it was - stipulated that the sealed bid component of the proposal k� submission was to remain sealed and be returned to'the proposer. . Stage III --Evaluation of Project Costs The•sealed envelopes that contained.a lump -sum price.submitted by F each proposer as- a component of a complete proposal submission package were opened for those. proposals under Stage lt1 - consideration.` r The respective project price (in millions of dollars) proposed was diw4ided into the score obtained for. project design and �4 scheduling to obtain an adjusted total score. The propose.that achieved' the highest adjusted total score is the Technical i Committee's #1 recommended proposal to the City.Manager.• E tin � 14 a� ;ti a "W qE EVALUATION CRITERIA Proposals were evaluated by the Technical Committee on building system ,design, site design, and project development scheduling evaluat`3on criteria published in the Request for Proposals.issued December 6, 1989, as follows: Building System Design............80% (80 Points) Site Design .... ...................15$ (15 Points) Scheduling.*,.,**.,,.,,,,,,,,,,,.. 5% (5 Points) Total 100% (100 Points) A detailed list of the specified building system design, site design and scheduling evaluation criteria, accompanied by the relative weighting factors assigned, is attached to Exhibit II (pp. 'I1-10 through II-12) and is incorporated herein by reference. a x b 1 4 } wEXHIBIT Y➢ EXHIBI ` I A Federal taw Lnfurcement Building Project - Technical Committee Meeting April 19, 1990 s -Summary of Meeting-- - Meeting was duly advertised in the Miami Review. All committee members and development team members were notified by letter via - "PAX" transmission. - Meeting called to order at 1005 a.m. - Conference call placed to U.B. GSA Regional Offices in Atlanta, Georgia and an office in Savannah, Georgia to patch -in three_ members, via telephone that could not be present in Miami. - In attendance: Staff: Arleen Weintraub, City Development Department Maria Perez, City Development Department Herbert Bailey,'City Manager's Office fi Linda Kearaon, City Law Department Thomas Maguire, U.S. GSA Committee Members: Allan Poms, City Public Works Department Elbe'rt`'Waters,.-City'Planning Department - Roberto Martinez, Esq.,. Zuckerman, Spaeder, et. al. -_ William Norman, U.S. GSA Ron Johnston (via telephone), U.S. GSA William Jew (via telephone), U.S. GSA Walter Smith (via telephone), U.S. GSA - - Introductions of staff and committee members - Review of -selection process: r Five development tennis were determined qualified by the Commission. ., Four proposal submissions were received by the City on �►pr.l:. 'were M . 1990, the proposal submission'clue date. Proposals received, in alphabetical order, fromi` Miami Capital facilities, Ltd. xf, Miami .justice System `Associates, Inc. ~� - Miami Maintrust Development# J.V. T3M, Ltd. The four proposals were reviewed for conformance- to the Request for Paco osale (RfP) and found to., be in subs , at,.14� � t cap►l*sacs ' end are able to be considered by the T60hnt��. o Committee in its evaluation process. ¢. 9Q_ � r f . L4 • t 1 t sC ♦ "' 91 k; 4 procedural announcementsY 's Deloitte Touche, Certified Public Accountants, have been retained by the City to review the updated financial information of each proposal submission. - Pursuant to a Memorandum of Agreement entered into between the City, the State Preservation Office, U.S. GSA, and the National Advisory Council on Historic Preservation* each set _ of proposal drawings has been sent to the State for its - review and comments, to be received by the .City within 30 days. Comments are to be 'considered by the Technical - Committee in the evaluation process under the appropriate criteria. -- Announcements by the Law Department: — it is the opinioih that a financial disclosure form,does not - apply to Technical Committee members. Any conflicts of interest among committee members must be disclosed, either a direct or indirect conflict, and a determination will be made prior to proceeding. If none exists, then the process may go forward. Proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with Government. - in the Sunshine Law. No committee member may discuss this project with another member outside of a meeting. No proposer or its team members. may discuss this project with any -Committee member. Meetings shall be recorded. Committee Procedures: A set of proposal documents will be available at each meeting. `. The Committee will follow the procedures established in the 5# Request for Proposals, Volume I, pp..21-22; Stage I, II, and Sealed price envelopes remain sealed and locked in a safe.. Election of m Chairman: Ron Johnston nominated -as Chairman,? SeSoaded by Elbert Waters. Passed 7-0. �* Motion 'to direct all contacts made by the press tothe, Administration, Department of Development. Passed 7-0. i z. Y X i f •r.5''� "� 1 f,`lE" § 1 ,5 +a+ . T i}I+vq i•.. `f Ft ; t ,. i It F43 ii� i��^C }� - S l �. t+ 'r•`I� t r _. `i 10 �C'6 7 T r •"` Sly. ' f p' it t,'� 1 ...+ F - Scheduling of next meetingo _ Discussion of members' schedules. Discussion of length of °time needed by members to review proposals prior to convening. = Discussion of Commission meeting dates. -Next meeting scheduled for Friday,, May 11, 1990 at 10tOO a.m., Department of Development offices, Marge Conference EN All1-3 g , } B s+ k t� Y 4N 7M s �i ti E XH11311 11 ,lW Federal Law Enforcement building Project Technical Committee Meeting r May lit 1990 ---Summary of Meeting -- Meeting was duly advertised in the Miami Review. All committee members and development team members were notified by letter via, "PAX" transmission. - Meeting called to order at 1000 a.m. - In attendance: Staff: Arleen Weintraub,.City Development Department Maria Peres, City Development Department Herbert Bailey, City Manager's Office Linda Kearson, City Law Department Committee Members: Ron Johnston, U.S. GSA, Committee Chairman William J®w, U.S. GSA Roberto Martinez, Esq., Zuckerman, Spaeder, et. al. William Norman, U.S. GSA Allan Poms,.City Public Works Department Walter Smith, U.S. GSA Elbert Waters, City Planning Department - Introductions of staff and committee members - Administrative Issues: Stage I checklist for -responsiveness to Request for Proposals distributed to Technical Committee and attendees present (attached). 'Stage I did .not require -nor include an r "evaluation'.. -It was a. "check".. Regarding the Memorandum of . Agreement , with the State 'on ` t Historic Preservation issues, the City,' received the StatoOs yi! comments.that are to be considered by'the committee. Letter from David E. Ferro, Administrator, Bureau of Historic. Preservation, Division of. Historical Resour-ca►, Fl ri~da Department of State, distributed to Committee,, and . . attendees (attached)'. - Discussion Of insthodology that the committee will follow Mtn , ,ts, E evaluation: Chairman recommended that each item on -:tho wore , ehoot copied from -the RFP, Volume It p, 22 (attached be4ifads,40' ,ems by the co m ittee with input from all members, epee L9104 y 4� from those with expertise in the areas under discuf*A4, After a full 41scussiono the Committee as a each item for each proposal on one *core about= (ire a t's 4tetributed to Committee a.nci 4ttendeos.) Key F " M R Y 3•� B"r g' 1 .Discussion regarding each criteria and its corresponding scores Each proposal will be assigned points pursuant -to the pre-. established criteria. Each criteria/item deserves discussion, point by point. Committee determined that each proposal will be discussed in great detail, then at the end of the review of all four, the scoring will take place. Committee discussed presentations by each team and the merits of holding. presentations or not.. Committee determined it would be desireable to hear an explanation of each proposal from each team, a question/answer session, not a formal presentation. Discussion regarding other teams listening to the questions and answers of the team being interviewed and the advantages, if any, of the other teams. being privy to such dicussions: Committee determined it would be appropriate. that after the committee reviews the four proposals, 20 minutes would be set aside for each team to point out anything to the committee that they feel may have been overlooked or that they want to highlight. Committee determined -it desired to notify all teams that they` should be' advised that they may be called upon to clarify their proposal. Committee discussed the Stage.III-criteria and reaffirmed it was the established system as outlined in the'RFP and it would be.followed. The committee's responsibilities include evaluating the design as presented, the.best design at the best price. This is not the end of.the entire process. The design recommended would no doubt go through a refinement y process between design development and preparation of. construction drawings. This exercise, the committee's ro-le,. is to compare each design and evaluate each design to formulate/score what, in its opinion, is the'best design -at x this stage, to define its quality. Any building recommended would be subject to and.required to be in conformance. with all local building codes, state and federal laws/codes as applicable.. The highest number ;= achieved here will be *an indication of highest quality... The Price will then associate the dollars to be paid for. a quality of design. Each Committee member was selected because of their hrea- of expertise, and. as a full committee,' covers all the bases - site design, building system esigp� scheduling, user'.s perspective. This is the intent behind, the process of Stage II and III, quantify design to the extent possible and associate a price to achieve beat design , at best price..3 0 4/ _ r fy A" t ''a `! 9� a74 I F � �l a � r 4n yyz� Committee determined it would begin its in-depth review and Y discussion of each proposal in a. "workshop" forum by arranging one set of drawings and accompanying proposal materials, beginning with Miami Capital Facilities, Ltd., being first in alphabetical order, on the table for review, sheet by sheet. Review and discussion of the proposal submitted by Miami Capital Facilites, Ltd. commenced, according to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. (Tape recording of full discussion available at the City Department of Development offices.) - Adjourned for lunch at.12:25 p.m. Reconvened meeting at 1:05 p.m. - Committee scheduled next meeting for Thursday, May 17, 1990, at, 9:00 a.m., at the Department of Development offices. Committee asked that each team be -present and available beginning at 1:00 p.m. on May 17, 1990, for a 20-minute session with the Technical Committee. Committee continued its review and discussion of Miami Capital •Facilites, Ltd. proposal. Review and discussion of the proposal submitted by. Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc. commenced, according 'to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. (Tape recording of full discussion available at the City Department of Development offices:) k Meeting adjourned at 200 p.m. ATTACHMENTS Stage I --Responsiveness to Request for Proposals .checklist Form Letter dated May 9, 1990 from David E. Ferro, Administrator, Architectural Preservation Services, Bureau of Historic Preservation, :Division of Historical Resources, Florida Department of State .Stage II --Evaluation by Criteria of Design Project Scheduling Sample Form A Y IQ 444vrr y h` t II-4 1. S t'. C • skii� t 53•�,' 1 PROPOSAL EVALUATION PROCESS x STARE I—RUPONSIVtows TO RROURST FOR PROPOSMA R PRIM Riami Mail Submission, Capital Justice Maintrust T3M ' Requirements- Lacilities Center Jove Ltd Inetruetionss Rec'd 4/10/90 by'`2 pm Bound Proposals (5) Drawings (5) Bid Envelope (1) Drawings Architectural Floor Plans "Blevationi Wali Sections Curtain Wall Details Interior Elevations Resflerted Ceiling Plani Finish schedule ,Door :Schedule Structural • oun atTon Plan Floor Framing Plans Roof Framing Plan Wall Sections Mechanical HVAC D Duct Layout Piping Diagrams Plumbing Riser Diagram, Mech. Equip. Floor Plas HVAC Equipment Schedul+ Plumbing Fixture Sch. Fire Sprinkler Layout Electrical ....Office Floor Lighting Office Floor Power Parking Level Lighting Single Line Riser Diags Fire Alarm 6 Sec. Rise] X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X •X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X i X X X X X X X X X X X X x X X. X X X X X X X X X Xh X X X X X X X X X X X X_ X X X X X X X X X X X.. -X X X X { X X X. X z • >M 3„ d f4 - }4*`1''t4 s.:b.i`g4 *.4m,')[t e{•Af4 • •13 C 4 - �t xt y r &N i r } ME r 3 RFP a MR. M am Submission Capitail Justice Maintrust T3M — H ,iremente Facilities Center J.V. Ltd °tk _ 2. Description: - Found. & Struct. Framing ng X X X X CurtainWall Syst X X X X Elevator System X X X X HVAC,Plumb.& Fire Protec X X X X _ Electrical System X X X X 1F 3. proposal Forms Declaration X X X X Organizational Struct. X X X X Proposer X X X X Partnershipor Corp.. X X X X Financial Data X X X X Professional Consults. X X X X General Contractor or CM X. X X X MinoritCmposition X X X , u 4. Contract Terms a conditions: X X X X 5. Construction Schedules Allocation of Resources X X X X Management Plan X X X X - - . .. : ,4 • �' • - • Fz H L-A Y F k�Kx r }� 4* Ct("f I IARPtiNMt�p OCPi. • • 90MAY 10 AM 21 i4 i;L.ORMA DFhARTMFr ift WA r.-s„r;.r- Jim Smith .. h DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES R.A. fir„► B Wlrx r; so seeth eteaomo � 'Pe>lehew�. 11ttM4 !>t!M•OS�O MtMcter•s om" Telte"ke Nua+Mr %PAXI may 9, 1e90 tow) W-1410 cowl "CUM �. llrhsen .Meihtrsub - Assistant Direottor u4 ct3wnt ace "Volopment: Cf of •Kiaai _ 300 aiaoayne soalevard, suite 400 Hismi, Florida 33131 — R21 Kesloranftm ot. Agreesent, Federal Law snforcement Suilding, miami, Florida Pear, lts. Weintraubt in accordance with the Memorandum or Agreement MAYIJ executed :try •the City of Miami,,'the Florida gate HLdtoric Preeervetion••Office (this agency, the U.S. General. Services Administration and the Advisory Council on Historic 3` _ Presetvation, we have revldw4d each of the lour proposals included in your April 13.transmittal for the,reteranced: _ ' pre jest. The objective of this . review was -to to eva►luaate ths <: compatibility of each of the proposed strucstures.,with ilia fiank1w.historic prope,rtios, the U.S, post olfieet and = Courthouse and the Central- soptist Church. As you know, the Post Office and -Courthouse is listed in the National ; = Retgistlr of Historic Alamos and the Church building .has been t determin" eligible for such listing. The now construction provisions in 'the• SWMQta► n of the _ 5: _ =taterior•e for Rehabilitation and Guidt.10wet rar • Nehebilitati" Ristorie HuildLags- provide . the basis for ,Ur_ evaluations ot these proposals. '. consistent with. the ' - provisions of -the referencod 140A, Chet goal of theme evetlnations';as to identity the proposal which is nett so»lritivo to the adjacent historic proportleo in .eRtorl.or- ' ti>nlrh oat4ciOX* scale, massing send settin . our c+emnent�►' �� regarding each oqf 4 proposal tolio>�r .- � Fleets! »otP _ .theRt , e#lgue�e=a at those oomsonte U contidtent with our overall ranking of the merit of the .tour proposals rolative to` ° appil abbe htstoric.prsservation'issues, 3fi . ,. .� *i3C itI r •e.-, t'•.s.• . i,•tvti'�• PftRVrw411. 1�{NVI'�• rrv*"va",sn �lst ltA 4*1toAltle+tte►� I1-7 B - ` k ,N. ��ue. �'teotl i�ttrauis ��5�=M psr�a �aa . 1. p3ropoasl by Harper CarrenO mateu In o1sr this proposal' is nighly : rosponsi.ve to the .opiniaho two "ndiqhboring*historic buildings as Veil as other l,hportarnt bleftnts- of the surrounding built environment (the »etrio Ksysr siretiorr end this ootitemporary oftive bui.id9riq first Street.). The spatial articulation ol.this_ acrars dsri and "its 'eeulptural quality hreek down the zaps of this build ng-and diminish perception of the unavAidabla t in sdAle b&tw000n the now structure and the "die'ai ,.neighbor nq historic buildings.-, rn vartteal sdals and ten*Attation; the entry Module compares.lavorably with aosporaele{'aspeats'ot both noLghborinqq historic buildings. fihe;°_openness"of the structure'supportinq the upper.oftioa 'reinforcement.to this Macs provides`iwportant visual aoupetibility: A further point to the credit of this Lit pro is that sensitivity ttri>sthe cvntoxtbat a bold environment han.been achieved within and �Aonrly contemporary architectural design.. ' Far' these reasons, or the four proposate rivieMsd, . We. find this. one`'tb:be'. the taost sonaitive , to the historic .,structures imidk; will be- affected by the project. Thisr proppoqsal is.,., '- seen se a si inif loam addition to the urban: tabric .a ::this conr�opolitan vity, our only reservation rogarding this proposal is an -absence tUr6. Of off : In, yreaa�rdinq the intended:. color and to thee` ttetsi n*Vl 'tinish' systems - Through ; sensitive-- 4q:. of color �exture ire belleve, that,: satisfactory, finish =. r .and material compatibility can be achieved. u Z, P.ropgoal by Miami Capitol facilities, Ltd. .with tts principal oiovat on to this old courthouse, this { -design makes use at a shelloW entry ,pavilion as e trersiti,onatl device between the three-story courthouse and y adjacent tw4lve-►story budding. an in th'w project -above, has -Mon an offtrt to represent the fenestrkation; .these corn oe line and parspet .h®ight of the courthouse in.lower 'portion of the :composition. 9mve, an inter I y of ,floss Vurtsl�n walls and precent concrete is intended � t.Q irauipt - and; visually liquen. that building in an effort to aopnta�ratat lts` � aassiveheas. Despite -Chas• efforta, the building appaero to T.t oMeraftedow the neighboring bi.storia -buildinga. 'base 1e400 Y,y notwithstanding, the proposal exhibits elegAnce and a rofittepOnt . in its detail. 4 .98— {i zI Q a r " - Gam'.,^. 3, �• =rk' me* Arisen Weintraub r may t, 1990 Page Three 11. proposal by Fr*ga and peito. in thin pproposal, an effort hats beers Made to achieve oompatibilit with the adjacent hietcrie structures through use of, oxteror finish materials similar to those on the old courthouse (keystone veneer at the pedestrian level and a barrel tale root), and development of a precast bdnd Above the pedestrian level which roflects the cornice and third lovfenestration of the courthouse. These cosmetic treatments are not sufficient to alleviate concern about the significant disparity in scale and massing which would exist between tho'hiatoric buildings and the proposed structure. Parenthetically, ' they use of ae tilo roof on such a building is lost on the pedestrian'ande therefore, contribute* little in achievfnq compatibility between the.old and new. .4. Proposal by Mfeermelto, Kurki and Vora, Inc. This proposal exhibits no wppereint conoorn for tbo neighboring historic properties. This brutal composition would loon ominawly over its htstorla neighbors' ` partioulariy the massive projecting feature (shield?) on the south elevation,, the olovation which addresses the courthouse.; In our opinion this is the least sensitive of the roux proposals with respect to historic preservation cumnerns . should you h4VO any questions r"oraing, the above CoUNants, please contaeti - we at (904) a6.7-1333 . We took torwaird to «xx working with you in any way possible toward they suco"s of thiw.project. 3 sincerely, i" Daviq in Ferro, h4mirnistsstor Architectural . Preservation services Bureau, o! ,Nistorio preservation 'xoa Borah tstan �ee ei g±r 11-9 90— 5 35- 2 PROPOSAL EVAL0NTION PROCESS i CRTITERIA STAGE II--EVAUMMOR BY CRITERIA OF DESIGN i PROJ=T SCSSDULIM Criteria Building System Design Points low high a: Structural System .............. 0 6 b. Exterior Skin Material.......... 0 8 c. Mechanical Syst w components.... A 8 d. Mechanical System.Cperational Characteristics 6 Operating costs ........................... 0 12 e. Plusbing.Systes Materials....... B 4 f. Interior Finish.Materials....... e 6 g. Interior PArdware a Fixtures.... 0 4 h. Interior Door Units/hall ;. ,. System ................,....:.... 0 4 .,. i. Floor a Ceiling Systefts ........ 8 6 j. Lighting Systems ................ 0 6 k. Roof. .... ..... 8 8 ky = 1. Security i Surveillance Systems. 8 8 :. Subtotal B B/ L U swami Justice Cmnter 4 Him capital Justice Maintrust '13% Ltd. criteria Facilities center J.V. site, lb"iga Pouts low high " s. A dhitectural Dbsiga a Cowpatibility With Adjacent Public i sistoric buildings..... 8 6 -- b. tzterior Mblic Spaces i Pw.. ......... 4 �• eaities... . c. Site yaadscaping/Signagi..•••.•• A 3' r d 'Pedesttiaa a Vehicular -- s circulation..:...... ..... A 2 _ "notal .. A is t .�. r , � q a' t t.. . �� ar , y�. t • L sYR w M{ 10, qp K-W- ni Miami tal Justice itier Center Or s'rn fit w3 > ie y VY F })T r • - . tea" - 1 vl EXHIBI 1.4 f A3 Federal Law Enforcement Building Project :r aY 'ty Technical Committee Meeting' May 17, 1990- --Summary of Meeting -- Meeting was duly advertised in the Miami Review. All committee �z members and development team members were notified by letter via "FAX" transmission. ri Meeting called to order at 9s00 a.m. _6 - In attendance: - Staff: Arleen Weintraub, City Development Department Maria Perez, City Development Department Herbert Bailey, City Manager's Office =- Linda••Rearson, City Law Department - 5- Committee Members: #- Ron Johnston, U.S. GSA, Committee Chairman William Jew, U.S. GSA 4ir Roberto Martinez, Esq., Zuckerman, Spaeder, et. al. William Norman,=U.S. GSA Arlan Poms, City Public Works Department Walter.'Smith U.S. GSA Elbert Waters, City Planning Department Committee continued its review and discussion of the Miami r Justice Center Associates, Inca proposal. Review and discussion. of the proposal submitted by Miami ' Maintrust''Development, J.V. commenced, according to th ' evaluation criteria established in the.RFP.' (Tape recording.of full, discussion available at the City Department of Development F„ offices.) Review and discussion -of the proposal: submitted by T3M, Ltd...' � commenced, according to the `evaluation criteria established .•i -the. RFP. (Tape recording of full discussion evailable at the ' City Department of Development offices.) DiscuIs'ion regarding. • order. of proposer's question and an ice' ssaession* Suggested 'method .to determine order by pu11,1 ng names out of a hat. Due to the questions to . be asked and the w k statements that will be given, discussion. ensued an . to whether this could affect. the other- presentations,. .'Low, Depart m+�att � y#� stated . that no ono from the public could be excluded fr .,tie a,e°tY = presentations the Sunshine Law, but the t�e�ims +could x �5 .mutually agree to afford each* other the courtesy... lof Act_�k attending each other's resentation. The. general. public that 90.E •`.. } lg 7 1. c 2 — •- • _ k D ,rt X. £ bis s *.•.aq y7.�;Y � � ° '��rkk .�c�� „�+ ,+»"d ram `` � •+ . t � ''h i - ars } to .>a �r. • k had no interest in any one team shall be present during all presentations. The team members can agree amongst themselves. Each team _though, must agree. Each team was are ked and responded; as -,follows:: Miami Capital? Agree Miami Justice? Agree Miami,Maintrust? Agree TVp, Ltd.? Agree Committee member asked if after the review. and the presentations phase was concluded, was the Committee going. -to be able to discuss anything? Law Department stated that not without all present. They may elect not to be there, but they cannot be excluded. The deliberations will be recorded. The presenters may not bring in.additional information. They may use: the materials and .the drawings already submitted. The order was . then. picked' out of a hat, first name picked..going first, etc., as follows: Miami Justice,Center Associates,.Inc., Miami Maintrust Aevelopment,.J.V. Miami Capita].., Facilities, Ltd. T3M, Ltd. - Committee adjourned for lunch 12:10 p.m, - Committee reconvened at 12:45 p.m. - Ground' -rules established for presentations: Team members may only address their own proposals] no comments on any other proposals may be made. No. other information may be submitted beyond the proposal' already submitted. No modifications may be made to a proposal during the presentation. 20 minutes. were allotted 'for each .team. - Commit tee.,.determined'-that they would ask each team to allow the Committee* to deliberate without.their presence, as it would.b , recorded. `•u Y' - 15 minute break b l -. Committee continued Its review and discussion of. TM,, Lkd proposia l • NO'1'8: _ Upon • transcription of 'the tape recordings . .of the reaentations that occurred at this time in the meeting', t was discovered by staff that the tapes of this portion Q"J of the meeting did- not properly function. During the presentational due diligence was used tb .record. those sµr recorder red recordn light wse speaking. The tape 4 y'a' 3� visible giving no indication of equipment failure, Ili-2 r tea — The following summarizes the presentations to the staff's recollection, as noted on May 18, 1990: y best of — Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc.: Mr. ©avid Michael Harper as proposer`.and architect of the firm of Harper Carreno Mateu, Inc. led the presentation,. -on behalf of Miami Justice Center Associates, Inc. Mr. Harper offered to the Committee a brief overview of the project — highlighting its strengths. Other members of the development team were in attendance and were introduced,, The model, submitted as a part of the proposal submission.on April.10, 1990, was placed on the table for reference during = the team's presentation. Mr. Harper stated the building proposed is. site specific, designed for this site and this use. Mr. 'Ron Mateu, the principal architect of the proposed facility, added comments regarding the design intent and'the _ responsiveness of the building's design to the surrounding. structures as seen in the similarity of the window. —_ treatment, scale, and -proportion with the U.S. Posh Office/Courthouse and other nearby historic buildings. It was noted that the State Preservation Officer agreed and — rated:the Miami Justice Center proposal as #1 among the four - proposals for its sensitivity to the historic structures —_ that will be affected by this project. He added that the twin pillars at the entrance and the elevated :roof design F provides a sense of importance and uniqueness to. this building. He further pointed out that the pedestrian -,plaza running. through the building was a valuable public amenity. Mr. Mateu emphasized the high quality finishes and •systems = of the building and stated their proposal was all inclusive: Mr. Harper made closing remarks and invited questions from , the Committee. Committee member 'R. Martinez asked about the effect of the public plaza on security. Mr. Harper, Mr. Mateu and their security -consultant responded that the public < was., at : all' times monitored by the components of the ir•.securi"ty and surveillance systems includibg a check, -point -located at the entrance of a passage -way that the.publ-ic had to use to gain Access to the offices or the courtrooms. In tbe.buildin' L. Rearson, on behalf of the Committee, asked the team if. = :'the yy desired .to allow the Committee to deliberate without ,{ their•presence. She stated that if any of the other teams, , when -asked privately as, she was asking this team, declined,. then all teams would- be. present,. Miami ..Justice Center. agreed. SStu s L 90 ;} 5 Miami Maintrust Development, J.V.: Mr. Pelayo Fraga and Mrs Jose Feito of Fad' Fraga and Feito Arch itects/Planners, .Inc. led the presentation- on behalf of, a the proposer, Miami Maintrust 'Development, J.V. In Al attendance and introduced --were other members of .the design q and construction team. .The model and renderings, -submitted as a part of the proposal submission on April 10, 1990, were =`s placed on the table for reference during the presentation. The architects gave a brief overview of their— design, - ccncept. They stated that the building. was sympathetic to = the adjacent structures including The Wolfson Center, the u.s. Post Office and the Baptist Church. It was noted that the mansard roof was covered with barrel tiles, cornices. were incorporated, glass curtain walls and reflective glass was minimized, in an effort to combine both materials and forms of surrounding buildings. views of the proposed building from different vantage points was discussed. They, discussed the proposed sidewalks, exterior walls, pedestrian entrances, covered portal,- finish treatments, landscaping, pedestrian lighting, and other project amenities. It was stated that the typical floor layout -was designed ..to provide maximum flexibility. it was stated that the, location. of the elevator's core was established by the size and relationship of the four large courtrooms. It, '.was. stated that in order to comply with the SFBC, the toilet, facilities had to be separated. It was noted that they cooling towers were located on a separate structure from the- main building for security and maintenance, reasons.. Reference was made to the building structural systems' including foundation recommendations,- floor, systems' elevator systems, HVAC, plumbing, fire sprinklers, electrical systems, security design systems. It was stated that .the systems designs incorporate flexibility and cost- effectiveness. At this point in the presentation, the floor was opened to questions by, the committee members. The team was 'asked to explain its solution to . the, security r I s ki posed by ' the entrance of vehicles to .the parking area that.. -could be used . by 'both secured personnel and. by prisoner dropoffs..' It -.was explained by the team that -no security risk -was present, because -of the placement of a sally -port that prevented .a<ny conflicts between the users. "d It was .asked by a member of 'the Committee -why: the elevator systems were designed to stop at every. -flour. : The' team responded that''the system was in conformance with the RFP specifications and addendum issued. ... ,.-. i fR dr T r 4 0. .A r [ g }'R� '{�.« ty� " 'Y1 - f }-;Gk S`'" "• .,fit i' SA t yid L.. Kearson, on behalf of the Committee, asked the team. -If they desired to allow the Committee to deliberate without their presence. She stated that if any of the other teamsy r when asked privately as she was asking this team, declined,e then all teams -would be present. Miami Maintrust agreed, - Miami Capital Facilities, Ltd.: Mr. Jack Lowell, -president of Miami Capital Facilities, •other4 r Ltd., began the presentation by introducing team members and, key consultants present, briefly highlighting their qualifications and experience. Mr. Lowell turned the. presentation over to Mr. Raul Rodriguez of Rodriguez & Quiroga, the architects of the* proposed project. The project's design plans were placed on top of the table for reference during the discussion. Mr. Rodriguez gave an overview -of the project and design intent behind it. He stated that the design reflects the stability and strength of the Federal Governmentand — complemented the character of adjacent buildings. Mr. _ Rodriguez noted. that the State Preservation Officer scored them high in this regard. He stated the building featured 4 high quality materials such as natural stone, architectural —` precast concrete, granite, and polished stone.- Mr. Rodriguez briefly described the major building systems including the foundation/structure solution, mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems and security systems. Mr. -Rodriguez noted that special attention was paid .to operational, maintenance, and efficiency considerations. The success of- a design/build-project revolving around the = coordination of. each team • member'a activities was emphasized. It was stated that, this team had the In-house capability to do so. and meet or exceed all program requirements. Closing remarks .were made by Mr. Rodriguez. Mr. Rodriguez invited any questions. The team was ,' asked to respond, to the assumptions and — clarifications included.in.the ir'proposal submission. Mr. �µ Lowell responded that the proposal submission materials �s= ,drawings, and sealed envelope represented a complete and' > full proposal. L. Kearson, on behalf of the Committee, oaked the team if _ they desired to allow the Committee to deliberate without "5 their presence.. She stated that if any of the- other keams, when asked privately as she was asking this team, declined, 'then all teams would be present. Miami Capital agreed.: T3M, Ltd,: Mr. Willy A. Bermeilo of the firm of Bermello $trki .Vera.' , Inc,, as principal architect for,the T3M projecto,lotr duoe r bimeelf and the other key members of the 'proposer entity and. • development team in attendance for the presentation* The �F pro ject's design plans were placed on top of the `table fir}r reference during the discussion, 1 - 5 3 ,. a. Yi - ,�'y y 3' , 5t¢k J S N� Mr. BermeIlo commenced the presentation by discussing r briefly the quality and features of the building systema incorporated into his design. Mr. Bermello highlighted _ major systems and- expressed the design conoept that led to the proposed building. He added that the proposed structure met and/or exceeded. the City's and the U.S. GSA'9 requirements as set forth in the RPP. He pointed out :that the facade treatment featuring, a . unique shield-likeE projection represented a symbol of justice. He noted. that this feature could be altered if its symbolism was found''to be inappropriate or not desired by the U.S. GSA or the City. F Mr. Bermello then concluded his remarks and asked the Committee to pose.any questions at this time. A member of the Committee asked about the function of the shield -like facade feature. The response was that it served as a balcony. -- L. Kearson; on behalf of the Committee, asked the team if they desired to allow the Committee. to deliberate .without ,their presence. She stated that i,f any of the other teams', when, asked privately' as she was asking this team, declined, then all teams would be present. T3M agreed.. =- . X ;x MOTE: - At this point in the meeting, approximately 4:30 p.m.`, the Committee - began its deliberations that included scoring each of the four proposals based on the criteria - established in the RPP. A new cassette tape was inserted 5 tx; into the recorder, at the beginning of these deliberations. The.foliowing represents a summary of the tape recording that worked. properly from this point forward. n, - Committee Deliberations: - Each member had a sample Committee score sheet (attached) fry indicating the • criteria down the. left side and each of the proposer's names in alphabetical order, across -the top, left, :to right.IN s Building System Design.,= ; a. Structural Systems g: 5 Discuselori of different- systems. proposed and ` their merits, �u R. Johnston proposed:' 6 5 4 3 r.. Discussion. A. Poms- and .W. Smith discusse-d ranking.... W. Smith and A. Poms proposed.: 6 6 5• 6 Committee agreed. A: Weintraub stated she would keep .the c'ormmi ttee score sheet' and function as -the recorder of the scores.` 111•-6 t' { .n no- rh1 P, N, p b. Exterior- Skin: Discussion regarding materials. '{ 1. Waters proposed: 6 8 .6 6 R. Johnston stated he felt strongly'aboui a coquina finish and Its relationship to the Post Office, and that metal skin was not in .his opinion, a top quality finish. W. Smith agreed and stated he felt the most effective presentation of a skin was coquina with a granite base. Discussion +about precast. W. Smith proposed: 8 6 6 6 A. Poms commented about architectural expression of finish and expressed mixed emotions about differences and -the technological advances that have been made. Discussion. Scorereported by A. Weintraub: 8 6 6 6. Committee voted, passed. e. Plumbing System Materials: Discussion about systems, members expressed _satisfaction with all. Proposed:- 4. 4 4 4 Discussion about chillers, life costs, components, details.. -' R•. Johnston stated Miami Capital provided excellent detail= Justice Center didn't provide as many details: and had a _ —_ problem, with Maintrust because,, even though they;,had.a lot of extra components, it.wasn't centrally located. Agreed.. c. 'mechanical System Components:_ R. Johnston proposed: 8 7 6 7 R. Martinez asked for agreement by motion. W. Smith seconded. All ' agreed. d. Mechanical System Operational Characteristics `and Operating, z N Costs: 4 'R. Johnston stated that Miami -Capital Facilities outlined.` }u- everything asked for . and more•, had a' total grasp for the fact tjoat it was supposed.to be efficient and had to look at total cost of operation of system, would. give them a top. score* 'as 13M did almost well --a job, 'did not • address ' cost•. `r inforrhat,ion, would give them a 10: Miami Mbihtrust gave vury little information,, would _give them an 8, _. W.. Smith stated' he would give them a 7. Mia,ei, Justice.CeDt+e,r dealt 'with most of. it, but provided nothin • ail. operating cost, a total• blank, would give them a 9r- on that other part they did quite well.. Discussion. R9 Martinez stated; 12 9 8 10 �ff Agreed ten•. I1-7 vk £k a x n y "kJ f .2 lk r' u.i to �j n Y (e interior Finish Materials: Discussion. .y W. Smith proposed: 6 6 (for Miami Capital and Miami Justice) R. Johnston proposed: 4 5 (for Maintrust and T3M) Agreed: b 6 4 5 g. interior Hardware and 'Fixtures: + W. Smith stated all proposers, except T3M, did not address it well.T3M addressed it more than any of the others. •A. -Pours stated T3M brought in a hardware consultant. W. Smith proposed: 2 2 2 3. A. poms stated Miami Justice said they,would meet it'. W. Smith stated intent is one thing, doing is something else. At poms stated that, to him, they are bound by the standards set. RFP said a commercial quality line of hardware, they can't give less, not a builders. R. Johnston stated•'the specs controlled the quality of the hardware but didn't say .-the quantity or- types on what doors. What doors got it, that is what was missing. R. Johnston proposed: 2 2 3 4 Discussion. W. Smith proposed: 2 2 2 3 .Discussion. All had a door schedule. That was the easiest — place to':put a hardware schedule. A Weintraub re -stated last proposed scone: 2- 2' 2 3 All agreed:r h. interior Door UnitalWall Systems: — R- Johnston stated no one did an excellent job. Miami Capital did a very good 'job, had wall sections. Miami Justice reflected. most of the. finishes but no sections. _ Miami Maintrust had door information, but no wall sections. T3M was in the same category, they: had. " exterior 4a1-1' - sections. There are quantities in the RFP.' A. Poms .stated T3M described it quite well. ° W''.. Smith confirmed and agreed with A. Poms . t W. Smith proposedt' 3 2 2 3 Agreed. i : Floor. and * Ceilirn ` S stems: Ro Johnston stated Miami Capital 'was 'excellent, Miami Justice was very good, an J.K.' for •Maintrust and an O.K.• for: T3M. R. Martinez pioposeds 6. 5 3 3 .1 x.Yi 'Agreed: x lE aF � � 4) j • •nt ��jn •4 ,h z+�r " J6 Lighting SZstems,-. A. Poms stated ali'had so'me'basic electrical approaches. W. Smith stated Maintrust didn't have too well the agility. R 'Johnston stated he had. only' an O.R. for Maintruste, Discussion regarding exterfor.lighting. R. Johnston proposed: 6 4 3 5 A. Poms stated he thought. T3M did a good Jobe Discussion .He waters stated a 4 was low for Miami Justice. A. Poms proposed a S. Score stated ,as: .6 , S 3 5 Seconded,by A. Martinez,, Passed unanimously. k . Roof We Smith stated Miami justice did not have any roof plant' nothing said, nothing in descriptive material. W 46 Smith proposed: 8 8 8 Three addressed it. We Smith gave Hiami*Justice a 3.- Suggested score: 8 4 .8,, -by R. Martinez,. Agreed., 1. Security_ Surveillance System: 'Discussion. Re Martfnez discussed having a real problem with the* -Justice Center bridge, i,t poses a security problem.' W. Smith stated he did not think anyone-had'a.perfect system. Proposed: , .7 5 5 5 Discussion. A, Pons made comments as to of vision.' Miami' iustic'e _field tried, to approach this early. Metal detectors were at' the top of the escalators'. Discussion regarding how metal detectors are placed, two U.S. Marshalls 'at each. Discussion on surveillance. Re Johnston stated the sally port and the Marshals were to be an the ground f loor. Two proposals had It -down in the basementl they looked at the - new courthouse, It was what we. did,not want. The progeads clear In ' , tentiori as topair king was to have 19,000 .occupiable'sq f t.' iii the basement. . On the first floor,, -we said we wanted 19,000 occupiablep,minus.wfiat.., the Marshals 'take UPS It 'was intended to have more secure - parking for the U.S. attorneys. -It is a weakniss.. 16 the secur"Ity, those that did not. Re Martinez - 7 6 5 5 proposed: Re -Johnston proposed:'7 .6 .4 4 Be Waterp proposed: 7 6 4- 4 A# Weintraub Confirmeds 7 6 4 4 Discussion., A. Weintraub read 7 6 4 .4 0"A Agreed. 111-9 i it ,Y•.� -� ... psi ,f 1 A. Weintraub stated subtotal, out of a possible 80 is: f 76 61 55 64 -, A. Weintraub. corrected for the record that the correct subtotal. is: 76 .62 55 64 Site Design 4 Discussion regarding.p.7 of RFP, suggested building footprint and.; siting. Reference to Addendum I, p.5, expressed desire as to suggested footprint and to be aware of a second building on the site, not in the scope of this RFP. Reference to p.9. Reference to Addendum rrr, parking' requirements. Intent was to maximize number of secured parking spaces in the structure. Discussion regarding street directional flows. Reference.. to Addendum rrl--siting, access. R. Johnston stated Miami Capital followed RFP intent in almost all respects except for -its entrance. RFP recommendedpublic ..a pedestrian, entrance on RE 1 Avenue, closer to the .HE -4 Street end. That was a good suggested requirement. Discussion regarding access to building. E. Waters 'discussed urban design objectives of City and its. encouragement of public transportation ridership. ' - A. -Poms discussed alternative could have. been _toturn the lobby and move.the mechanical. W. Smith discussed distances to the Metro mover system. A. Poms stated it should, as a public building, have a presence - on RE lot Avenue. It could be .worked out. - A.Weintraub.stated that even. though revisions could be.,made.once a proposal.is recommended,.`the Committee is to score based on,the proposal before it, as submitted. d. Pedestrian and Vehicular Circulation:. E. Waters proposed: -2 2 1 1° Discussion. . A. Weintraub asked if the, consensu's was: 2- 2. 1 : 1 Discussion regardin handica ed accessibility., 9 ' PP - R. Mar-tinez suggested' all 21s. '# Discussion regarding handicapped accessibility. ` -R: Martinez proposed: 1 2 1 l' _ Agreed. c. Site Landsca2inSZSi2na26: —. B.. Waters proposed:: 3 3 2 2y _ Ag rood .. r Y r x '{{ ♦ j i 90 Y .` ✓4 F;J '`,-a� e4•a+k`".a;'-,` 'FS�4'h.,_ �,'x-F�sK;�i. (.hvc'' ��F"r �,ry :i . t b. Exterior Public Spaces and Amenities: yy WYWY Ir i w1 M /y tlY.p/• 1 =}4 B.` Waters proposed: 3 4 2 a_ R. �Johnston. stated he thought Miami Maintrust's entrance Was remote, .so he agrees._ `. Discussibn'regarding planters of .T3M. W Smith stated entrance to lobby was too small for.-. the massive area, the ratio/proportion is out of scale on T3M'96 A. Weintraub stated proposed score is: 3 4 +2 2 Discussion regarding Justice Center. A. -Dome stated they tried to achieve a public welcoming to the. building, rather than just an entrance. They did a better treatment of the public spaces and amenities. A. Weintraub stated score is: 3 4 2 2 'Agreed. a. Architectural Design and Compatibility with Adiacent Public and'Historic Buildings: Discussion. B.` Waters stated Miami Capital had' a good design, . gave therm a S. Miami . Just ice had a very good design, gave them &. 61. Miami Maintrust with its barrel tile roofs gave. them4. Gave T3M a 49, but he is thinking about that. - Discussion. W.-Smith discussed what architectural design meant to.him,.it not only encompasses the skin,. but it encompasses' the r :bui'ldi•ng functional layout. Function and form go together. Looking at it in that light, towards the future -,.he has to go — along with Miami Capital*because they were sensitive to an - expansion program in the future. Miami Capital stated :they stayed away from the property line because they didn't know what would happen right next to them. That was an architect r - that thought through the entire problem. W. Smith added that Miami Maintrus't did too, - with them pulling back as far:.as P they did, they blanked out the walls for sun exposure,. not. knowing what was going to go on the other side, so they.would not have. a conflict. _' W. .Smith . stated. he liked theJustice { - Center design, it is an excellent architectural statement, but it doesn't lend itself to total layout of the office ,the building functions as well as being almost in a juxtaposition 'E= on the property line, it is too close. W.., Jew - commented he felt the Justice Center's .arcbitecturre was overpowering. ' The - .statement. is too strong, ; Se. , felt' _j Miami .Capital took into consideration the existing buildinga' ; R. John-ston'stated that he felt T3M was wild. They did make - an architectural statement, but he does not .feel comfoartab$, r _ ! as the,* Federal Government, . seriously. With ' 189 bui-Iding.4i,, there'was.A lot of controversy over art and features.of: spore axe I. of the new buildings built in -the bite •70's. where things got -; out of control from. an architectural standpoint,.. it' is not fun being. a building.- owner" when its a subject of. controversy.. yx� j n {cam asr' w f • s PCs• IX R•. Martinez stated that he thought Miami Capital and Miami Justice were done well, although different designs, no Martinez stated he thought Maintrust lacked creativity. He fv saia`he would not grade T3M as high as a 4.- R. Johnston agreed and recommended a 2. He said he would rate Miami Capital and Miami Justice the same, although 3 different statements felt they are both very good. W. Smith stated that the Maintrust building, the scale is not there. Looks like they added to the building, put a Arnioe around -it, set a box on top of it, with a mansard roof. That is the impression he gets. W. Jew proposed: 6 6 3 3 4 Seconded by A. Poans. Discussion. R'. Johnston proposed: 6 6 3 2 A. Weintraub restated: 6 6 3 2 R. Martinez asked if they should give T3M'a 2. A. Poms felt that even though Miami Justice's building is different, it is fairly conservative. Maintrust to him, is. uninspired. Miami Capital is not quite as inspired, it is more elegantly detailed and worked out than Maintrust and stands above it. The T3M group, in certain ways the building is 'not that bad, if you could get some of the elements that are disturbing off of there. They could come out perhaps in the. refinement. R. Johnston stated the State Historic Preservation Officer said -it was' brutal. A'. Poms wondered if it should not be on the same, level 'a8 ' Maintrust, 6:. 6 3 3 A. Weintraub restated the score is proposed as: 6 6 3 3 — Committee agreed. ,x A...Weintraub • stated the subtotal for this sections., out ,:of a x - possible 15, is: 13 15 8 8. A Weintraub rechecked. math and stated the subtotal 'is - correct 'at: 13. 15 8 8. y, A. Weintraub asked' if the Committee desired a total,a*f:' two ;' * subtotals. A. Wei,ntraub:stated that the RFP stated that if a j team does hot. achieve a' minimum of 75,.' they' do not go ' forward. A. Weintraub -stated the total' so far 3s• Miami -Capita l--89; Miami'Justice--77s Miami Maintrust--63j and T3M, Ltd.---72. i Ron Johnston stated that was correct. F "A 5 1, it y7 ��rx l� 0 A. Weintraub stated the last category points: R Martinez asked what .did Maintrust, have. A. Weihtraub stated a 630 W. Smith stated that they would have a 68 it (the next 'section's score) . The. Law - Department stated that they are each item. A. 'Pours stated the Committee did not requirement, that was in the RFP. R. Johnston said to continue. A. Poms stated that the subtotals were for iAl v r r x'9 =i y total is worth r If they got all of. - being evaluated on set the minimum their information. Project Development Schedule. a. Schedule for Com letion of Construction and Bid Documents: R. Johnston stated all proposals reflected detailed - schedules. R. Martinez proposed-.* 1. 1 1 I R. Johnston agreed: 1 ,1 1 1 Agreed. b. Schedule for Completion of Construction: R. Johnston stated that all four proposals said they could accommodate the 28 months. That was the intent, to not make it any iinpossible'schedule. He thought they all dealt with It about equally;: W. Smith proposed: 2 2 2 2 Agreed. 'c. Allocation of Material Resources to Meet Stated Schedules: .- o- R. Johnston stated Miami Capital had a very detailed'; allocation of who was going to be on the project, where t•0'e, } materiels were going to.go, outlined where they would `'store, the '-materials.' He rated there as excellent' Miami Ju:at, i'ce ' .1 � Center, they touched on the subject. R. Johnston rated tfi'em O.K. Maintrust was very minimal, 'could not, find much•en ski allocation. T3M was good. R. Johnston-- stated they were dealing with1 point, proposeds 1 0 Q 1f 3 Agreed:: .!fit i c • t tFsrw: d x 3 o..;&3` 5 A k) s..x .ti_= +k=,i; s.>..,.n i .. .. .... .. .. .1 .-. .,... ... ,rc. ,a�ism'h Ec:k 'l..•E,4,F'a{', atr4YS,.d;.•'ri!s r,..:b ifln7 ail '-; . %'N f b +?(5R" ✓hL Fq`i,1,ti'+x�{•�''Fy '".�%M.I}T""Y'4k," y Rl r k a{ d. Management Plan -for Time Performances` R' Johnston stated Miami Capital Facilities. had a very i� ' comprehensive management plan. Miami Justice Center acknowledged' the need for a management plan. Maintrust did the same thing. T3M had a list of players and a chart•.of duties and responsibilities. R.—Martinez proposed= 1" 0 0 1 R. Johnston agreedt 1 0 0 1 + A Weintraub restated: 1 0 0 1 V. Smith stated, for the record, that the observation -was ,that Miami Justice, to him, and Maintrust, they put'too much emphasis on financial statements and literature about their company, instead of going to the management resources and the management plan. A•. Weintraub stated, for the record, that the City requested all of that information and they could not be criticised for that. The lack of the other information is what the Committee is scoring. :. .A. Weintraub restated score proposed is:, "l 0 0 1 Agreed: - A. Weintraub totaled this section and 'read into the records 5 3 3 5 A. Weintraub added the three subtotals aloud to achieve a total for each team. A. Weintraub stated the total score. -for Miami Capital Facilities is 94. Miami Justice Center is::8O. -Miami °Ma -intrust, J.V. is'.66.. T3M, Ltd. is 77. :k -A, Weintraub .verified the calculations twice. _ - Discussion of next step in the -process: —. R. Johnston stated that this is the 'Completion of'Phase "III. The Phase III description is to divide the numerical -score. -by the. bid price, in millions of dollars*. . The_ sealed envelopes x nr are in a safe in Atlanta bet*g held, by.. the <•U.s;_e :GSA Contracting • 4 officer who mentioned he was willing to:cQme:•to : Miami 'for the public opening. - For the record,,-R. Johnston referenced the paragraphs ,on"the RFP, Volumd I, p.21,• and stated that in the evert and =' proposal did -not achieve a minimum of 75' at the ;end. of Siage II, that envelope would not .be opened and would be returned rF to the proposer. R. Johnston 'stated. the Committee - should establish its next •meeting date to open the envelopes.for- stage III. II1-14 F .. ^90 5 - t V yy 'Yl,.rP•Y>, � Ia ^ Y • e� S .r i • • i� r 74, k Disdueaion of Committee member's schedules. `<1 ;i Ai Weintraub stated that*the Committee after concluding Stage III has to take formal action and slake ••a recommendation, based on its proceedings, to the City Manager. Discussion as to anticipated length of time of next meeting and availability of members. R. Johnson requested Tuesday, May 29, 1990, at 9:00 ads for Its next meeting. Agreed. Discussion regarding the sealed envelope to be 'returned to Maintrust. L. Kearson stated it should be brought back to W,. Smith asked if all Committee members were to sign' the Committee score sheet document, as evaluators to verify their participation and that the scores are accurate. A. Weintraub stated yes. L. Kear.son-stated all individual work sheets and hand written -. notes were to- be turned in, even though the score sheet is the one Committee Score Sheet. Committee Score Sheet was passed around and all seven members - attested to it with their signature (attached). L. Kearson read into the record that if the purpose of any - documents were prepared in connection with the official'. business of a' public agency, then it is public record. She - stated that members were required to sign any worksheets and = turn them in. A. Weintraub stated the methodology of scoring as acommittee was well, established. • A. Weintraub stated that upon hearing the scores, the -. proposers would be requesting*copies of everything, that they :x could be available in the morning'. Everything 'in public. record. The Committee Score Sheet is on top of the materials.„ 5 • A d • yt_f �i A y y., � 5 1 S� Fv �Y SN .The proposers were called into the conference room. R, Johnston stated that the Technical Committee had completed its technical deliberations and scored the four proposals pursuant to the categories established. He stated that _F copies of the materials would. be available the following& morning. R. Johnston read out the scores as follows: Miami Capital Facilities 94 + F= Miami Justice Center 80 Miami Maintrust 66. T314, Ltd. 77 r R. Johnston announced that the next meeting which would be Stage. Ill, opening of price envelopes for those proposals having a score of 75 or greater, will be on Tuesday, May 29, •1990 at 9 am, in this conference room. (Dept. of Development offices) . R. Johnston asked if there was any other business to attend to. - Hearing none, R. Johnston adjourned the meeting at 6:38 pm, w w y, h III-16 y � � �+Q1 fl .F • . m'n'asape d 1 t K •� q ATTACHKENT ` Stage II --Evaluation by Criteria of Design & Project, Scheduling, Technical Committee Score Sheet 1 x ar rat Y S • _t t �t y iY tyy p i'— . -,;. .. .:'. .' � '. a �`. '� 1, f'.'v.n•Y vSl�_ do „dam.<p,Li�`Y' ♦�E'izW - • T�.��cA t.. j��r.•u71E�- Scd� - Stt'�E7� - - �/I�L..C� �•IIi�,CGfs»f�/l B+t//<D/�(7' PROPOOM RVMM=Og PROCESS a CRTITERZA STJkAZ jj_W UULTIOB HY CRITERXA OF DESIGB :� N6 - Criteria - lsnila'lsr4 mow! Design Points l.� gh a. structural System .•• ... 0. 6: b. Ezlarior Skin Material..",•..:= B 8 o. Medk&nieal Systiva Components.... Y 8 d. bmioal Sysilm operatlonai CO Ccaracteristi+cs'i Operating s' 12 %hats.........: ................. materials....... a 4'. Inpwbiag.system f. interior Piaish Materials....... O 6 4jSatiarior sar4rsr. i 1►istures.... s 4 h. Interior Door Units/Nall 4 Systgm.......:..:.....:.... . s L. Floor i tailing Systems.... • • • • • ® 6 t i tit►g Justice canter n+oww. • maintrust J.V. A� s;h R l VYJ T3M Ltd. s ...(�. --• p 2 jo r .. ........ • k. Roof ............... �•�r ��L.._3'f',' p . 1. security i Surveillance systems . SS 74 G� _w subtotal a ss " • - t;5 yr..� .,:Y.. .. ..•.-...t .-_J.. ......... .... .. �: . r ...,.i ::.,.. .. n :t. .. .': .. ..r.. ..� ... ... :. .. ... in ,.. ♦, .. ., �. J(, =`1F .:y'f• +i.+s.. J. `L'.i 1= .�.. Y ' e� 't yT� 1's • ?k. �: 4' .. w"2• `. ..., � .(�-.. .-,... iz. ice... ,. . +. .,. ::..:_:. •.,<. ..::.. ...:.:.v ._-_....(.... ,. _ ,. �a`�i: � Critwria Mod Capital Justices. Miami Maiatra" T3K SLt•Design , Points low a. ArChitietvral DgiIa & . w DoMpatlbiutp with lldSaosat +•� Public #Historic Suildiags.,... i 6 i v b. B;t4"Or Pab1iC.8p&Css i Jvenitiss ....................... 9 4 c. ' .City taMaoapieg/signaga.. , ..... � •3 �_ �_ ,� oZ ;��' „ Psdastrian i Vabiewlar. t A 3 .......... ......... 9. Z • " �L�.�.� �y„G� Y subtotal 9 is 4 1 AM a $ , 4}n c -. sk,� - . • - . - „��-:ram - c. , r ,, rn r :.F�+P, :'t... .. -� 'S• •'.. .t. .. ,x. ,..: r 1R „�. ;[-,,,r.>. -. ;,,Ja k:'. :.� ,:, :+-J.- u. t t^:r :' ^r•» '}" i ,.,,. ,yaw I� ;� _ 'r-. w, ,r,:A`-tv �. ' ,.:.s n .. N .� ....« .t . .•-... .,^k' mow!?-, : �t; . . _.!.i't 4.r,-u. Y�dT . ,i4n. �Gv,'�, Kt ��' ` ` �.. �� .. �. ..'S lA' � �••R .: i. b . d �� G .4",. 'a '� IM�'� 'I '. �' .� I '9� , �� .�i':T�ntl s•,�•�.5:2",?1 .iA .� IC, si ��i 40 M Capital Justice Maintrust 'P3M Catoria Paeilitiee Center J.V. Ltd. pso jent nevel,opment Befieduln Points n.. 8dsadnle far cospletioo of Construction It sia 1 1 l Documents ....... ........... 8c�eelnie l�or--©ooplotion of .21 � b• 1p cmetruction........ .•....•••.•• 8 �{ �x AVE c. l►Ylooation of Material a ; yteso*rces to most. Stated i t Q SaD ivies........... ......... B• _ d I Manage wAt Finn for Ties ' Pertoroances • . • • . • • • . • • .:i • • • • • $ r 1 TOM l88 77 - k war+ �-'1.0 ,.;.. :. .. ., h ..., 9. ... . .'. .r.. n :- .- ,... .. .r• , ..: -. �,,.. .. a -:: _ �1 +^ ��YY rnEl F.`•rv: � .. .,..� Y:, � .c v r. -. .,. N � ..�. :. , -.. ..,_� .:�'. '�f 4.- ,�>' Y. .4� 2,� f..K': .-:fl'�A..: �:,V�-'+�M'a"'�I�{+.h n...1 •4.3 j;, Mil.'. h1 rG. yr kr.•a � ,.3'-. +,.yif.':.:.^f" 'i s,� r �.;... � 3..: q��. r „�. --l�`' '`+, �,"� � r'X _;' :.. q,,.';i ,c 3 t .� qe � .. � n a,�'°1-a .r•.. .. .. ;• •;ri`� y' 4"',"' � �' f ,�,� .;� ',a�t•f, ' a-, ':r *•+� � �..:..,. �n W'G. u.s. 5. �, yqy- d 4r r ,�. r,f'r v✓ � sr i,.`�i.°.'��, "? 4 M Imo.. ✓�� 9JyD N Allan Z. PONS J EXHIBIT'IU Federal Law Enforcement Building Project Technical -Committee Meeting May 29, 1990 --Summary of Meeting -- Meeting was duly advertised in the Miami Review. All committee members and development team members were notified by letter via - "PAX" trahemission. - Meeting called to order at 9:05 a.m. - In attendance: Staff Arleen Weintraub, City Development Department Maria Perez,'City Development Department Herbert Bailey, City Manager's office Committee Members% Allan'Pomsl'City Public Works Department Elbert Waters, City Planning Department - Herbert Bailey announced that' due to a miscommunication; the Technical Committee.lacks a quorum. - Meeting adjourned 9:16 a.m. .. P<Y ,i^5'`§i r r�c`�,`'�r rk lJ(a(e yrgs' «it,'.i .t Y .,• f"��.?" s, ,y, �i�,{,. EXHIBIT �* W Federal Law Enforcement Building Project x Technical Committee Meeting .Tune 6, 1990 --Summary of Meeting Meeting was duly advertised in the Miami Review. All..comr#ittee members were notified by letter and development team members were notified by a. copy of the legal advisement, via "FAX" - transmission. Meeting called to order at 9:10 a.m. - In attendance: Staff: Arleen .Weintraub, City Development Department Maria Peres, City Development Department Herbert :Bailey, City Manager's office Linda Kearson,City Law Department committee.Memberss Ron Johnston, U.S. GSA, Committee Chairman William Jew;. U.S.. GSA Roberto_ Martinez,'Esq., Zuckerman, Spaeder, et. al. William Norman, U.S. GSA Allan Poms, City.Public'Works Department Waiter Sm th,-U.S. GSA Elbert Waters,''City_Planning .Department Administrative Matters: Ron Johnston stated that staff produced.minutes of past meetings.' that he would like to,distribute for review by the Committee. } Summary of - April '194, 1990 Technical Committee meeting (attached) distributed.: to Committee members, staff, and attendees. Committee reviewed summary- Chairman eked if there '. we re- any corrections- or additions to be* made. (heard.- none) : W. ' Smith made -a . motion .to accept the minutes of •tb* April '•1.9, 1.990' Committee• meeting.. B. Waters . seconded.. Adopted - 7-0. .. ,. - Summary of May 11, 1990 Technical , Committee meeting ,Jattached) ` 4t distributed 'to' Committee members, staff, and attendees. Committee 'reviewed aw�mary. Chairman ' aakscl if ths�c,a were `:aaY �x corrections or additions.. B. Waters no that a typograph4d4 . error, appeared on . 2, second: paragraph, "pre-establiPshed". , c A. PQ*o noted that * a ty' raPhical . error appei►red on. P. 2, :fast paragraph, "highest". V 1 90- 5 1 rF W. Smith made motion .to accept the minutes of May 11, 1990 Committee -meeting, as amended. B. Waters seconded. Adopted 7r 0. -.Summary of May 17, 1990 Technical Committee meeting (attached). distributed to the Committee members, staff, and attendees. Committee reviewed summary. Arleen Weintraub called the Committee's attention to P. 24 last paragraph, through P. 6., third paragraph. A. Weintraub stated that this section of the minutes represented a summary of the -_ meeting to the best of her and M. Perez's recollection as the tape-recording equipment did not function properly during_th•is time.' A. Weintraub requested the Committee to modify, change, _ or add comments as they. recalled* that portion of the - meeting when the 20-minute presentations were made to them. R. Martinez recalled that at the end of each presentation each team was asked by the Law Department, on behalf of the Committee, if they, wished to allow the Committee to deliberate without them being present. ` L. Kearson added that they .were asked privately and were told that if any other team did not agree when asked, that the teams would be present during the deliberations. . All teams agreed when asked. A.. Weintraub. stated that she would correct the`minutes of May 17, 1990 to ,reflect 'these revisions. k Chairman. asked if there were any comments, corrections, or revisions td�be made. ,a R. Johnston statedthatE. Waters and B. Waters were one and the same: Elbert/Bert. - �4 B.` Waters requested that the third sentence on P..11, last two words, be corrected to read, "so he agrees".F .t R. Martinez requested that portions of the tape transcribed at the top of P. 12,. first sentence, be Listened to again ,and corrected to reflect his comment made.in reference to Miami Justice and to confirm that tie did not say "interior ' courtyard." - W. Smith made -a motion to adopt the summary of'the May 17,.1990 meeting, as amended. R. Martinez.seconded. Adopted 7-0. —_ - Summary of, May .29, .1990 Technical .Committee meeting (attached) distributed to 'Committee members, staff, and attendees. - Committee'reviewed summary. Chairman asked it there were`and `3 corrections or additions (none heard). R. Martinez moved '•to' ' - adopt the summary ' of the May 29, 1990 meeting, 0. Wat.+ars = seconded. Adopted 7-0-. : �3 .t 3' 40 (, t v -i a r , �r T^ Z • kQ_ - For the Technical Committee's information, R. Johnston stated that two protests had been filed with the City's Chief Procurement officer, and that the City Manager would handle �. these protests according to the established procedures. Stage Irl Evaluation of Project Costs: wk H. Bailey stated he would open the sealed price envelopes. 4 - A. Weintraub distributed the form (attached) prepared to record the prices. R. Johnston read the form aloud. A. Weintraub read into the record the Stage III procedures as defined in the RFP, Volume III, P.. 21. A.' Poms noted that the parenthetical sentence appearing below the heading 'on• the form' entitled "Adjusted Total Score", is reversed and should be crossed out. t`= A. Weintraub was- instructed to do no. A. Weintraub was requested by the Chairman to act as the official recorder of the scores for the Committee. - A. Weintraub stated for the record that the sealed price envelopes before them were received by the City Clerk not later than 2:00 p.m. on April 10, 1990, as a part of a complete proposal submission package submitted by each team. The sealed Y envelopes were•sent, via Federal Express, to Mr. Michael Roper, U.S. GSA Contracting Officer, in Atlanta, Georgia. Mr. Roper placed,the•sealed envelopes in a safe where they remained until - 'being sent to the City of Miami, via -Air Borne Express, where } 5. they remained locked in a cabinet until being placed in H. Bailey's possession at this time. H. -Bailey. stated the Air Y Borne Express package appeared intact; inside that, the Federal r: Express package appeared intact; inside that, the clamp envelope appeared intact; and inside that, the four price - envelopes- appeared intact. - - H. Bailey announced the opening of the price envelopes, -in alphabetical order. I. Miami''Capital Facilities, Inc. aX H. Bailey read into the record the letter addressed .to Ceear Y=; Odio,.City Manager (attached), submitted by John Lowell, Jr., President'Miami Capital Facilities, 'Ltd., that stated the' lump sum price of'$35,000,000. H. Bailey noted there was an, attachment of unit prices. 2. Miami Justice Center Associates Inc.- H. Bailey read.into the record the letter addressed to -Cesir {. H. Odic, City Manager, and Thomas R. Davis, •Assistants Regional Administrator (attached) submitted by David.Michael.' Harper, president, Miami, Justice, Center Associates, Inc., that stated the bid price of $36,950,000. H. Bailey Noted "3 — there was an attachment of unit - prices. Y F �. f• _ � '` s'-F� "'a'��3�. r s� ��.x ti fi• 4 ..- a' `c1•i'nx, 39 s Fw ,� � W f+'L "4 . t � F� R 3. T3M, Ltd. ; H. Bailey- read into the record the bid proposal aheet,__ attached, submitted by Manuel D. Medina, President,.• Terremark, Inc., general Partner of T3M, Ltd., that stated a, lump sum price of $29#842,000. H. Bailey noted there was an attachment, of unit prices and a letter from their bonding _ company. - H. Bailey announced the conclusion of the opening of the price envelopes. - R. Johtteton. calculated aloud: Miami Capital Facilities, Inc.: 94 35.0 .- 2.6857 Miami Justice -Center Associates, Inc.: 80 36.95 2.1651 _ T3M, ' Ltd . : 77 ; 29.842 2.5803 - R. ,Johnston announced the final ranking, based on the y calculations, to be: Miami Capital Facilities,.Inc. #1 VM, Ltd. #2 Miami Justice Center. Assoc., Inc. #3. Committee Recommendation: a - R. Johnston stated he wished the Committee to make a motion that the Technical Committee recommerid-the development team of Miami Capital Facilities, Inc. to the City Manager, as the successful proposer and further recommend that the City Manager recommend to the City Commission that he be authorized -to , negotiate a contractural agreement with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc., to design and build the Miami. Law Enforcement Building. >: A. Foms asked what.the procedure was and inquired if it. .goes to the City Commission. A. Weintraub stated yes. The Committee would make its i. recommendation to the City Manager. The City Manager. than ky takes his recoidnendation to the City Commission, ' W. Smith moved that the motion be adopted. and submitted -to the a City Manager. B. Waters seconded the motion. Adopted .Unanimously 7-•0.. } �n V- 4i 3A�, ' k - �+x-4. X% ✓i dx=u7 £G. i^1i Kri x 7 >fS -R. Johnston requested that staff assemble these meeting minutes and prepare a draft report of the Committee's proceedings for distribution and review by each member, after which the final document would be prepared reflecting any revisions, and be distributed to each member,'prior to transmittal to the City Manager. Each member will be contacted to sign the Technical Committee Report, which will conclude this Committee's deliberations. - W. Smith requested that each member sign the Stage III tabulation,sheet. - H. Bailey stated -that protests had been submitted to the City's Chief Procurement Officer and that the City was presently going through the established procedures. Concurrently to the Committee process, which will be part of the conclusion to this awarding process., the City Manager will be presented with the Chief" Procurement Officer's report regarding the protests, for consideration before the City Commission.' - H. Bailey stated for the record, that the sealed price envelope submitted by Miami Mairitrust Development, J.V., remained sealed and would be returned to Miami Maintrust. (Sealed envelope was returned via certified mail on June 6, 1990.) - R. Johnston expressed -his thanks to the participants, to the staff, *and to the Committee.members for a fine job.. by -.A. Poms asked, if. in. the event the City Manager could not successfully conclude an agreement with the #1 ranked team, did ' the Committee want 'to 'make. a recommendation that he go to the rF #2 team. A. Poms clarified that the Committee is recommending #1 and could notify the Manager of those teams ranked, #2 and #3 B. Waters stated that, assuming there is not a deal consummated with #1, then the Manager, as the next step, could go.to #2, etc. B. Waters stated that the Committee - has concluded its? responsibilities by recommending #1 as the successful developer to negotiate with, and advising the administration of the #2 -and #3 rank order in the event the administration cannot reach WF$ agreement with Miami Capital Facilities, Inc; t� --•H.-Bailey stated the -Committee's desires would be reflected in _ its report. t; Y -.Meeting adjourned.approximately 11:10 a.m. }tfr i o r :3r V-5 , 90 535 n 3 a,..6Ks: . V Al PROPOGAL �YIILMlIO� P! 'JiBi 'i suns : ru -"swum oR l OF P �6"t own Mimi Capitsi Faeilitiss,-Ltd. ti 14 t f k=' t i 7� Miami capital Facilities, Inc. 801 Brickell Avenue Miami, Florida 33131 - 305 372-1600 April lot 1990 - — `S 1' Mr. Cesar H. Odic - City Manager THE CITY OF MIAMI - -_ P.O. Box 330708 Miami, Florida 33233-0708 Dear Mr. Odic:. Providing planning, design and construction services for the proposed Federal Law Enforcement Building presents a- challenging and exbiting oppertuinity. We are plaaeed to t- present our Design/Build Proposal for this important.. project. Miami•Capital Facilities, Ltd. proposes to provide all - planning, design and ccInstruction.in mcoordgnce•with the , - City of Miami's and the U.S.,General Service Administration's Request�for.Proposals Vol. I, II and 111 - dated''Dscember 6, 1989 and including Addendums I -VI. - Miami < :Capital . Facilities, Ltd. , will provide these* services in accordance with the design documents, written descriptions, proposed Agreement, Assumptions & q = Clarifications, and schpdules..for :the Lump Sum Amount- of J1 V _ .COAQ (Contract ]?rice) .. The`.requested unit price information is'attachsd. -- -We look forward .-to revsewin 4 proposal with you, : axed q our — making a formal opasrational-pres+entation to members df the`. City Commission andTechnical Committee. We apg�reoLate the service to the City opportunity to provide Chia of Mfami and the United -states General Services Administration. — Very. truly. yours,?11 r '.00 /00 400%Qtoo xz aobn lrowellr Jr - - President Miami Capital Facilities, Ltd. i /la t - f �' h 1 - ya tad�� r t i k iF1f '4•x 1 h � t , s , a 11 {_ 20 xjwil 1M IngGumum TO $ W- P[MESM) AM la F-6 1-3� SQ.YDa _3 BQ.YD IA-7 SQ JFT 700 WIT t�33. - �,= L.PT _---�- sW-13.ono L.FT • _9eo L.FI' W�-14 L�.PT a.add A UFT W-15 2.000 ,'s»FT - -16 8485_pg LIFT -ma L.PT � W `? • L� ee i WF�2 do _ n_ L.FT _1 11 1SQ L.PT WF-6 _80D L.FT UPT 200 L.PT8240, "."" L.FT 920_ Wood 11aars . FA ssc�e ao► 2400 • � ., a �_.ee F� (f 63.)ZL POW— j • �' 63.' _ 7' f4< al �Iyl F rvt� • Y� X"a 4$ i MIAMI jUE STILE CENTER ASSOC. INC. BID PROPOSAL Cesar H. Odio City Manager City of Miami Miami, .Florida. Thomas E. Davis Assistant Regional Administrator U.S..General Services Administration =• Atlanta, Georgia The'iindersigned, as Bidders, proposes and agrees, if this -proposal is accepted, to contract with The City of Miami, Florida, in the form of*z a contract to be negotiated, to furnish all necessary imypleu►ente,: machinery, equipment, tools, apparatus, materials, "ans of transportation, permits, and labor necessary to compl®te the ab4y0 captioned project in Gull and complete accordance with the ahowi2, noted, described and reasonably ifttend@d requirements of- the..p.arie azd specifications and design documents, including the additional,.Aesign t#, and professional services required. 14, Thirty -Six Millions, Nine'Hundred and Fifty Thousand--- E . .- r--------w—---w---------- MY36.960,000, 0, i 5 r p • • 11 ! 1 I 1 1 � IIIIlII ■1l11111l I11 l! 'h 3.+p _ EASE : BID . UNIT' PRICES•+„ (Bid only( steci.fled.1julricer ` v Et 3V�, Fill :in unit on which price is based, i:e., per;sq. yd.,_etc. Ivia Bidder further proposes and agrees that the'following UNIT'FRI G be "used' to. amend the Contract as conditions may rewire, t � Suits $440 OnolfneW Touvr • 2 South aaynm Blvd • Itiamt FlonWa1 $01,8 V-10 9'� r 4 F-1 F-2 F-3 UNIT PRICE #1 F-4 UNIT PRICE42 F-5 UNIT PRICE #3. F-6 UNIT PRICE #4 g_8 UNIT PRICE #5 F-9 C-1 C-2 C-3 W-1 W-2 W-3 W-4 W-5 W-6 W-7 W-8 W-9 • W-20 UNIT PRICE #6 W-11 UNIT PRICE #7 W-12 UNIT PRICE #.8 W-13 UNIT PRICE #9 W-14 UNIT PRICE #10 W-15 UNIT PRICE #11 W-1.6 UNIT•PRICE #12 W-17 - WF--1 . UNIT FRICE #13 wF-2 UNIT PRICE #14 WF-3 UNIT PRICE #14 WF-4 UNIT PRICE #15 WF-5•. UNIT. #RICE . 06 WP'-6 UNIT PRICE #11 WF-1 UNIT PRICE #18 WF-8 UNIT PRICE #19 WF-9 UNIT PRICE #20 WF•-10 QUANTITY TO 9E FURNISHED gRg�tONTR= As required As required As required !__90�_•sq. ft. 2_.__.—J5A sq.yd. 2 3®sq.yd. eq • Yd. As required As required As required As required 23 4 i., � Q. k L: ft. 6�5Q-L, ft. $. 2, ir N ft. ' as _ nflfl _L, - - - . ft. $ 17 it. , ft.. Zo�L. ft. $sue..-L.:, loci � y.i � � f• ., ,G-3 �� yak, s� i - 1 i=- S. t • J 5 r • y vti r �6n k r� Init 1 QUANTITY TO UNIT PRICE BE -FURNISHED ADJUSTMENTS PER CQ=RACT . (ADD OR.. ]DEDUCT I WF-11 As required W-12 As required UNIT PRICE #21 Wood Doors 910 ea. $ 115.00_ ea. (Paragraph 25.) UNIT PRICE #22 -Duplex Receptacle 2,400 ea. $ 135.00 ea. (Paragraph 63.) UNIT PRICE #23 Dedicated Outlet 500 ea. $ 320.00 ea.`. (Paragraph 63.) UNIT PRICE 424 Telephone putlet 2,000 ea. $ 105.00 ea, (Paragraph 63.) The undersigned, as proposer, declares that the' -only persons interested in this proposal are named herein, that no other person has any interest in this proposal, that this proposal is made without connection nor arrangement with any other person and that this -proposal is in respect fair, -in good faith, and without collusion or fraud. The proposer further declares that he has complied in every respect.with-, all of the instructions to proposers, that he has read .all addenda,. if w any, and that he has satisfied himself fully with regard to all matters �, and conditions with respect to the Request for Proposals to which this rA?, proposal pertains. The proposer agrees, if this proposal is •accepted, to execute, _an', appropriate agreement for the purpose of establishing- a forma. f; contractual relationship between the - proposer and the City of M:i.ami., x {� Florida, for the performance of all requirements to which this pxoposa. pertains.k The proposer states that this 'proposal entitled "Request for'Proposals for the Enforcement Building" and Addenda No. 1, V-12 •, 3 x Y � R. 4- z NO wz 'G;�t DESIGN AND DEVELOPMIENI FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENI Miami, Florida The undersigned, TERREMARK INC., a Florida Corporation and General Partner of 73M, Ltd., a Florida Limited Partnership, proposes to the City of Miami and the United States General Services Administration to furnish all pro- fossional services, testing services, permit fees, bonds, Insurance, labor and materials usoclatod with the design and construction of the Federal Law Enforcement Building. For. I a, LUMP - SUM PRICE OF TWENTY NINE MI TWO, THOUSAND- DOLLARS ($29,842,000). The above referenced Lump Sum Price Includes In the REWEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR DEVELO ENFORCEMENT BUILDING (Volumes 1. 11 do111; w As part of the proposal we submkdng the exhibits,In-so- ano* with the RFP.* VOLUME I DECLARATION FORMSI VOLUME, 11 BUILDING SYSTEMS, SCHEI VOLUME Ill SCHEMATIC DESIGN *DOCUh Also attached Is a letter from our banding representing their commibnent- to bond our price. company, proposal In witness whereof, T3M - Ltd., has hereunto set (101h) day of April, 1990. 42 6w 9�= , Msnu* D. Medina Title: TERREMARV, INC., President Gen" Partner of T3M, Limited j'.1 AY 101 R- OF THE BUILDING LION EIGHT HUNDRED FORTY an cost of the work as d"ned MENT OF A FEDERAL LAW d Addendum I - VII). following documentation and MMS/CONDITIONS CLAUSES. LE & TECHNICAL ENTS. SEABOARD SURETY COMPANY, for 110% of our bid his signature this tenth Of 4. Xf ........... /Wft _101 90 53v- 'STt -r RAA, -p � 4r r f'> d k� Syr ip 3{u. IATE (DEDUCT) mW to DEDUCT r ruin of One MINIon Swan iron On bid prim propo" if dw City of m tm &Ad&dlon of `Oryva or syntt do r drat proosrt ooncrew prnrta the buNdhsp rodrrtor. qw SY: 3Y �< F N t _. FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BUILDING- UNIT PRICESf- ,, 1. F-4 VINYL TILE $ 1.10/8f 2.: F-5 CARPET TYPE A 22.00/sy _- 3. F-6 CARPET TYPE B 22.00/sy_ 4. F-7 CARPET TYPE C 22.00/sy - - S. F-9 COMPUTER ROOM FLOORING 12.00/sf 6. -W-11 CEILING HIGH•PARTITION 20.00/lf _ 7. W-12 CEILING HIGH PARTITION STC-45 25.00/lf - 8.` W-13• SLAB TO SLAB PARTITION 30.00/lf -_ 9.' W-14 SLAB TO SLAB PARTITION STC-45 35.00/lf 10. W-15 SLAB TO SLAB W/9 GAUGE ' EXPANDED METAL 52.00/lf. 11.11 W-16 ...SLAB TO SLAB W/ 9 . 'GAUGE - EXPANDED METAL STC-45 58.00/lf 12. W-17 PARTITION -SLAB TO SLAB -ARMOURED 130.00/lf 13. WF-2 VWC WITH VINYL BASE 11.00/if 14. wF-3 FABRIC WALLCOVERING/WOOD BASE/ CROWN MOLD 3 5 . 0 0 / if 15. WF-4 WF-3-WITH CHAIR RAIL 39.0011f } -� 16. WF-5 PREMANUFACTURED PANEL WALL SYSTEM 275.00/if- 7 17. WF-6 WF-5-- WAINSCOT ONLY W/FABRIC_ WALL COVERING 195.00/if ' 18. WF-7 AS ABOVE WITH GRASS CLOTH 195.00/lf, _ 19.. WF-8 3/411 VENEER PANELING 160.00/lf {z` 20. WF-9 FABRIC'WALL.PANELS 155.00/if 21. WF-10 BOOKCASE.WALL SYSTEM 350.00/lf.k 22. WOOD DOORS 350.00/ea - 23.. DUPLEX RECEPTACLE 96.00/ea s- - 24. DEDICATED'OUTLET 102.00/ea' 25. TELEPHONE OUTLET 51.00/e$ THE ABOVE UNIT MCES DO NOT INCLUDE ANY OVERHEAD AND/OR PROFIT.. ,t .THESE SHALE. BE ADDED AT THE TIME OF ANY-CHANGE.PROPOSALS. V-16 7 1 A It.c. MCA wysvr %'al. f rd t E > URD EABOARD 'C�C COMPANY « - rrnc� � JINJMANI�i ►ai ihu•s•wN. rY April 9. 1990 Mr. Cesar H. Odio City Manager CITY OF HIAMI Post' ornoe Box 330708 Hiamis Florida 33231-0708 Re: T3M6 LTD, Proposal for The Federal Law Enforcement Building Project (°Project") 7r Dear Mr. 0dio: Please, be advised that Seaboard Surety Company is prepared, subject to Rooney Enterprises, Inc.'s ("Rooney") approval of its contract with T3M; LTD., to, furnish on behalf of Rooney and UK, LTD. •spayment and performance bond for the completion of the. project in an amount equal to 110$ of the propose submitted by T3H. LTD. SE Y Resident. ice President r ..' -44 FCH/lho 1~�•• I'��`� : .'1� 'I•I I • . Il ��•. )AIw ii7• T xtvs 752 �1-rva R4 �i UO It I• a i' �R� �, a y 'Rz ' y 4.ill (1.�1 l.,�f� R .�rrr. „n•-,�._+...._ r.l�...pjv...- _...:L t.... �u-_..: .• .....:-,�.a.�.,�....+:�.a.:J..��.".i.._uil...•...e.r..a�in... i,.. -.. n .. ..._ 1 01.... _._.__.r�W.. .r,. _.--. . .. _.�.�.�.�....-. ....�....�...�.....�_ru.m,_��..�i.�' ,�..I-I_.• .r_c�0.1_i .-. ..' .".-..�Y._oo._ • _. _ _.._. - _.__..79L^.•'-:.JI��3'.S!_1 _Q+IIn1lYIrIMEi4f11llllr IM4111/Ill it iI1 Ml I -l.'i� I I I I' II -', I ;l illy "I PWPCW" EVALUMIOU PaOC'M - STAGE III--8D11M&TICK OF PiAJEC? COWS Development Stage II Sealed Adjusted Total Scatre Final Team Score a Envelope Ranking - _ Price Miami Capital 9e $ �.a,✓off, d� d.. - Facilities, Ltd. C - s� Miami Justice 80 $ 3 : f1 JC,C Center associates, Inc. �4 TU o Ltd. 77 c;Jr>p