HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-89-0445RESOLUTION NO. 89 -445
A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT
OFFICER'S DECISION TO REJECT THE PROTESTS
RECEIVED PROM BERMELLO, KURKI, & VERA, INC.
AND FROM BOSCO, KIRKLAND ARCHITECTS AND TO
UPHOLD THE PROTEST RECEIVED FROM CHARLES
HARRISON PAWLEY, ET AL, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PROCUREMENT
OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, PHASE II.
WHEREAS, in connection with the request for proposals for
the Procurement of Professional, Architectural and Engineering
services for the City Administration Building, Phase II it was
determined by the Chief Procurement Officer in his role as the
arbiter of bid protests pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City
Code that the firm of Bermello, Kurki, & Vera, Inc. had submitted
expired Architectural and Engineering licenses; and
WHEREAS, it was also determined by the Chief Procurement
Officer in his role as the arbiter of bid protests pursuant to
Section 18-56.1 that the firm of Charles Harrison Pawley, et al.
-
had provided proof of an architectural license for this firm,and
his firm is the prime consulting architect and it having appeared
on the response of said protesting entity that two additional
-
architect firms were designated therein as consultant architects
and as such are not required to. have separate Florida
architectural licenses; and
-
WHEREAS, it was further determined by the Chief Procurement-
Officer in his role as the arbiter of bid protests pursuant to
ufi'
Section 18-56.1 that the bid protest filed by Bosco, Kirkland`
-
Architects be rejected as untimely because it was not made within
fourteen (14) days of the decision to disqualify that firm as
required by Section 18-56.1 of the City Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY;
r
u
=now?
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in
PrsAmble ; to this.Resoluti, are hereby adopted by reference
thereto : aid incorporated herein as if fully set. forth
'
section,
CITY, W,§011131�
,--CO
F
R�S9tdlTlON � c
9 �
,- rage._ 1 _of 2,
-BID SECURITY LIST
DID IYEM:� AdnL istration Suilding Phase 71 Project
DID NOs
DATE BIDS RECEIVED: ,gahrLarg . 21 ,�.1989 11 0 0 a.m.-
TOTAL BID BOND (or)
BIDDER BID AMOUNT CASHIER'S CHECK
Harper Carreno, Inc.
Architects International, Inc.
Rodriguez Khuly Quiroga Archit cts
The Architectural Partnership, Inc..
Borrelli & Associates
Charles Harrison Pawley
_ Stull and Lee Inc.(Joint Venture)/
Architectonica International dorp.
Bellon Perez & Perez, Inc.
Taquechel-Eguilior & Assoc.,
Matthews and Associates
The Smith, Korach, Hayet,
Haynie, Partnership
Gambach Architects, Inc.
D N N Architects Engineers
B K V, Inc.
c.
Tilden & Associates, AMchite.cS.
Andres Duany and Elizabeth P1 ter-Zyberk, Architects i`'r
Pancoast, Albaisa, Architects
t°
Spillis Candela & Partner, In
H.J. Ross Associates 2r
The Russell Partnership, Inc. (.Continued). 3
F
5 3i
RECEIVED 'envelopes on behalf of Department of Develo meet a r
t apartment
SiOMED: DATE:
k}
4
•-s- --,. ,a , ;,�r�,
- Received the hereinabove described checks" this day of,
i in Connection with the; hereinabove citedbids, .w ich were an d to the unckrOshe onb6hWf
` ^CC%
intin$ pivision(or)
(City Department) !4.
DAT ° ka 10, OEM!
- '• 1 v+ ��'1 `:. '✓�v :�'„�c .l{ .�, .�r t1;„f, yb s _ 'u �Y � „E.yys t'X ,f�i .�yfia..� ' -
r
-. ��s� C� � ..t ..x.,. . r s.4 .'s 4<. •- -''•t ,,r..`mi ��"iuc��.�r_. --___
r'
y,yf� f1r
S
-BID SECURITY LIST
so ITEM: C t Administration Building,Phase 11_. Pro ' ect(Continued)
NO. RPP_
DATE BIDS RECEIVED: February
21. 1989. 11: Q 0 a . m ,
-
TOTAL
BID BOIL (or)
BIDDER
BID AMOUNT
CASHIER'S CHECK
,.
j
Lemuel Ramos and
Associates
H M D Group
Bosco/Kirkland Architects
•
ODA
fir. • �� �,t�-r��,�„if + t
c-'
s
t
ss
S
f
4
RECEIVED { ) envelopes on.behaif of Department, of ..'Development;.,
SIGNED. {City Departmentjr
• DATE:
La
p
Received the hereinabove described checks this day of
— in connection with the hereinabove cited bids, w ich were anded to the un rsigneon alf:o Ilk
Accounting Division (or)',
(City Department)`,
�• r o-sr rxt��
��
.DATE: .,n
u F'�'q.
F'
s
it
ti
$ City CerR
o-
February 21, 1089 _
y
Roney Mateu
Matsu Rizzo Associates
RB: CITY OF MIAMI ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PHASE II
.A
Dear Mr. Matsu:
As requested by you, I am confirming What transcribed in
connection with your proposal for City Administration Building,'
Phase II project.
You arrived at the City Clerk's window at approximately 1:30 p.m,'
to submit a proposal for the above captioned project which was
due at 11s00 this morning. I called Bob Clark, Chief Deputy City
Attorney for guidance on your late submittal. Mr. Clark referred'
me to Juanita Shearer, Department of Development, who is handling
the proposals for the project and is the individua4 to decide
what to do with your proposal. I called Ms. Shearer who informed
me that your proposal was late and therefore could not be
accepted. Ms. Shearer stated you had come in this morning a few
E
minutes after 11:00 and she had informed you then that the
-proposals were late and therefore could not be accepted. While I-
was on the phone with Ms. Shearer, your telegram arrived (copy
§
attached) indicating to us your grievance.
s.
s
If I can be of further assistance, please let me know.
'K
Sincerely,¢
Sy is Lowman
Ch of Deputy Clerk'
r
�w
OFFICE OF THI CITY CLERK/City Hall/35M Pan American Drive/P.0.8ox 33070E/Miami, Florida 33233-C748/(305) 5TF�06S
J
r
IAMIts��IyyFL
ICa IPM*Tu CSP
ICZC" 3058840554 FRB TDMT COCONU'T A3R0VE'-F ,_173 02-21 1941P CST
Oft CITY CLERK CITY OF . 411*1, AT. DLY MGM. DLR
" .
PAN AMCAICAN DR
z
MI'IAMIFL 33133`
I ATTEMPTED TODAY TO PRESENT OUR TEAMS RESPCNSE TO THEtwo"',
ADMIINISTIti 't'iCM1 `BUYLbING PHASE I I AT APPROX IMATEI..Y , 114 AT
HAL1.
1.
{
I WAS DENIED ACCESS TO THE CITY CLERKIS OFFICE BY JUANITq 8lbER�.
`
WHO INDICATED THAT SHE WOULD NOT ACCEPT NOR VALIDATE BY $TANG OWR �
`
SUBMISSION. ALTHOUGH NO TIME PIECE WAS VISIBLE ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE
BUILDING. A DISCUSSION OF SOME DURATION ENSUED. AFTER WHICH.WE WERE
FINALLY PERMITTED TO ENTER. RECEIVING A STAMPED RECEIPT BEARING m,.
—,
110SAM AS THE TIME MARK.
3
MINORITY CONTRACTOR. I VIEW THIS ,REJECTION AS UNJUST. CAPRICIOUS`..
ASAM :..;.
AND ARBITRARY. I HAVE SPENT SUBSTANTIAL TIME AND FINANCIAL RESOURCES
—
.
TO PREPARE OUR SUBMISSION AMID-TO.$E REJECTED.ON.SUCH.A QUESTIONABLE
o
TECHNICALITY WITHOUT IMMEDIATE PROOF OF THE TIME. IS PATENTLY UNFAIR.
•.� ...rr� rra.r r.r r....wrw . write w14wr.ww TA —..— -- — —r� ui �vr%l MT I\leTMIi
— ;�:;
�'
tN� tk�►
;_
�'
�.
..
,. _.
.
,;
i� .
� � =s
.�
3
���
� .��
_ Z t Y J,}.
CP{ fA
t� t
!;_
��
TRANSACTION REPORT' f
FEB-21-89 WED 15
-0
-
DATE START
RECEIVER TX TIME PAGES NOTE
f
+
EED-21 15:41
3719710 1926°7 3 OK.,
:'�::t::fi+-'f•4'W3Y��-*=fi***:'YY•k?kk�k�*�k/:�k�•f=*k�k:F:k�*.R�*}:****�+►-***�:K!k*kW?Y•#:*��k+k
x
-
�
sr
77777
I:
cf `3 3�i z
s q; I
S
1 ..
f. .
`'Tasan
r]
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
�[MEMORANDUM
3 f 1 1 -- 9 e's 2: 7J3
to February Matty Hirai DATE : y 2, 1989
City Clerk ► 1 I City Administration
(: i TV ! r SUBJECT
r ;-' Building Phase Il
Juanita D. Shearer, AS
FROM _ Landscape Architect IIIREFERENCES:
Department of Developm t RFP
V
ENCLOSURES:
RUE
Please provide us with assistance in the receipt of proposals
from Consulting Teams for professional planning and design
services related to the City Administration Building, Phase II,
w to the City Clerk's Office at
1:OOAM on Februar �ob�esub;,,itted
I have discussed the deadline with
Ms. Silvia Mendoza of your staff and the Public Works Department
to ensure that there are no conflicts with this submission date. —
For your reference this memorandum is accompanied by the Request
for Proposals Document, (RFP), which includes the public notices
on pages 3 and 4. The cover of the RFP and page 9 indicate the time, date and location of submission.
The first Public Notice for this project which, was published in
three papers and mailed directly to the + 1000 architects and
architectural firms inDadeCounty, indicated a RFP issuance date
of January 13 and a submission date of February 6, 1989. We were
unable to provide. the documents to prospective proposers on the
issuance date and revised the schedule as indicated in the jl
Revised Public Notice and RFP.
Based on a discussion with the Law Department, Revised Public
Notices were published in the same papers but we did not send out
revised direct mailings. Both public notices indicate that all
interested firms must contact me and therefore we sent out the
RFP, which includes the original and revised public notices and a
letter explaining the revised schedule to all those who have made'
inquiries.,
Hopefully you will not receive any proposals on February 6, 1989,
but if so we would rather that they be resubmitted on the correct. -
date. This will avoid the problem of them becoming available to the public for review before the actual deadline, and prevent us
from having to keep track of them in the interim.
Thank you for your assistance and cooperation. Please call me at
579-3366 if you have -any questions. -
JDS/wp
REVIS90 SUDMISSION SCII
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR
PROFESSIONAL, SERVICES
CITY ADMINISTRATION BULLOF DING II PROJECTCI
CITY or MIAMI
XAVIER L- SUAREZ, Mayer
VICTOR II. I)1: YIIItItE, Vice Mayor
MJ:LLGR J. DAWKINS, Commissioner
ROSARIO KENNEDY, Cuminissioner
:J.1,. PLUMMI.R, Commissioner
CESAR 11. OD10,
Request for Proposals issued:
Submissions Due Date:
Submission time:
Submission Location:
Submission identification:
�I
City Manager
January 23. 1909
February 21, 1989
1
No later than 11:00AM
City Clerk's Office,
(Firstf'Joor CounLer)
—
City Ilall.
City of Miami,
3500 pan American Drive
Miami, Fl.a. 33133
"City Administration 13uilding
Phase 11 Project" must appear
on the package in Which the
�
proposals are submitted
yur.
zf i s.
F!
S>—
_k
-
TA131,E OF I ONTENTS
L
3
z
PUBLIC NOTICE
First PublicaLion
Revised Public NoLice
5
m
II
SCOPE OF SIRVICES
-
itI
SUBMISSION REQUIRI7,.MENTS
g
SELECTION PROCEDURES
IV
V
TENTATIVE SCIIls'UU(,1's FOR CONSULTANT SEI,RC'I'ioN
In
RCQU IItEMENTS foil SELEC C1.1) TEAM
15
—
VI
AUUITIONAL
VI I
UOCUMCNTS AVAILABLE uVoN Itl:QUI.s,r
15
EOj, i. swing page
15
Vil
CITY OF MIAMI FORMS
��
Team IdenLificaLloll Form - 3 F g cs s
_
Prev. Professional. Services - I 1 e
Previous RelevanL Experience - 3 pages
—
Personnel Form - 1 page
F:
r
Hzf
}
0
li
t
-2-t
f1:
�4
F q
1z -
:
"Ww
S
Y t�i l
M.
The City of Miami, is seeking the professional services of a
qualified and experienced Consulting 'Team, with an Architectural
Piro an the Prime Consultant, for the planning, design and
construction administration of the City Administration Building -
Phase 11, located i.n the Downtown Government Center at
approximately 275 Northwest 2nd Street., Miami, Florida, 33128,
adjacent to the existing City Administration (Hickman) Building.
The Consulting Team must have the abil.it.y to provide Professional
Architectural, Landscape Architectural, Interior Design and
Engineering Services. The professional services agreement for
this project is currently anticipated to include a Needs
Assessment and Programming, Schematic Design, Design Development,
Construction Documents, ilidding and Construction Administration _
Phases.
interested firms must
contact
•7uanitn D. Shearer, ASLA, Dept. of
Development,
City of
Miami,
300 Biscaytir_ Boulevard Way, Suite
400, Miami,
Florida,
33131,
Telephone (305)579--3366, for the _—
Request for
Proposals
Document
(RFP) which will be issued January
13, 1989.
The RFP contains
detailed and specific information
about the
scope of
services, submission requirements and
selection procedures.
Minority participation is required, pursuant to the City of
Miami's Minority Procurement Program, Ordinance No. 10062, as ,
amended. In addition, qualified submissions will only be
accepted from Teams (the prime and subconsulting firms) which
Include at .least two of the three types, (hispanic, Black and
Female), of minority owned firms recognized by the City.
Compliance with these minority participation requirements must be
. met through the ownership of the Architectural, Landscape
Architectural, Interior Design and Engineering firms prov1ding
the required expertise as prime and subconsul.tants.
Submission packages must be delivered to the City Clerk's
Office, first floor counter, City Hall, City of Miami, 3500 Pan
.American Drive, Miami, Florida, 33131 not• later than 11:00 AM on
February 6, 1989.
The City of Miami reserves the right to accept any proposal
deemed to be in the best interest of the City, to waive any
irregularities in any proposal, and/ or to reject any and/or all
proposals and to re -advertise for new proposals.
ADV. NO: 978 Cesar 11. Odio
City Manager
..3
a
F
MA
a
I PUBLIC NOTICE: Second Publication
Revised Public Notice
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
RPSQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL, SERVICES
CITY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING PIIASH; II PROJECT
This is the second Public Notice for this project and it includes
a revised issuance anti submission schedule.
The City of Miami, is seeking the professional services of n
qualified and experienced Consulting 'Team, with an Architectural.
Firm as the Prime Consultant, for the Manning, design and
construction administration of the City Administration Building
Phase 11, located in the Downtown Government Center at
approximately 275 Northwest 211d Street, Miami, Florida, 33120,
adjacent to the existing City Administration Wickman) Building.
The Consulting Team must have Lhe ability to provide Professional
Arc.•hitectural, Landscape Architectural, Interior Design and
Engineering Services. The professitn►al services agreement for
this project is currently anLicipiL-ed to include a Needs
Assessment and Programmin(l, Schematic 1)esign, Design Development,
Construction Documents, Ili(l(iing and Construction Administration
Phases.
10 eresLed
firms must_
Conl act
.)uaij i la I). Shearer, ASI.A, DepL . of
Development,
City of
Miami,
300 lliscayiie 11oul.evard Way, Suite
400, Miami,
Florida,
33131,
Tel.epho:ie (305)579-3366, for the
Request for
Proposals
Document
(RFP) which will be issued January
23, 1989.
The RFP contains
detailed arm specific information
about the
scope of
services,
submission requirements and
selection procedures.
Minority participation is require(], pursuant to the City of
Miami's Minority Procurement Program, ordinance No. 10062, as
amended. In addition, qual.ified submissions will only be
accepted from Teams ( the prime and subconsul tang firms) which
include at least two of the Lhree types, (Hispanic, Black and
Female), of minority owned firms recognized by the City.
Compliance with these minority participation re(luirements must be
met through the ownership of the Architectural, landscape
Architectural, Interior Design and Engineering firms providing
the required expertise as prime and subconsultants.
Submission packages must be delivered to the City Clerk's
Office, first floor counter, City Hall, City of Miami, 3500 Pan
American Drive, Miami, Florida, 33131 not later than 11:00 AM on
February 21, 1989.
ADV. NO: 979
-4-
Cesar. H. Odio
City Manager
T
_.
II. SCOPt OF SERVICES!
The City of Miami, is seeking the professional services of a
qualified and experienced Connuiting Teats, with an Architectural.
Firm as the Prime Consultant, for the planning, design and
construction adminisL•raLiot of tine ClLy Administration Building
Phase II, located in the Iowntown Government Center at
approximately 275 NorLhwesL 2nd Street, Miami, Ftor.ida, 3312110
adjadent to the existing City AdmiriisLraLion (Ilickman) nailding.
The Consulting Tenn mnsL provide Proressionat Architectural,
Landscape Architectural, Interior Design and Engineering
Services. The professional services agreement for this project
is currently anticipated to include a Needs Assessment and
Programming, Schematic. Design, Design Development, Construction
Documents, Bidding and CoiistrucLion Administration phases.
Based on a preliminary analysis of the CiLy's anticipated needs,
a 150,000 square foot facility is required, which may include
offices, meeLing rooms, ant] related clerical, support, storage
and tt.tility areas; the CiLy Commission Chambers; a cafeteria and
daycare center. The proposed ficiliLy is to be linked to the
existing 70,000 square foot administration building to
accomplish a unified operational capahility. The addition of two
levels to Parking Garaqe No. 5., located south of tine current
administration building, may also be a part of this project.
Tile Phase I1 City Administration Building must be designed in
accordance with the Development Order (and related documents)
approving the Downtown Government Center DRI, granted and issued
by City Commission Resolution 81-343 on April. 23, 1981. It must -
al.so to cotnform Lo the guidelines established for structures —
fronting onto the Government Center Openspace, as defined in tine
Development Plan esLablished for the Downtown Government Center, _
and be acceptably responsive to the Openspace Plan itself.
Funding for the entire project, including planning, design and
development and construction costs is currently estimated at $20
million.
-5-
y
Ill. SU M1S5l0N 111Ri?iIIRPARNTS;
The selection procedures will. follow the Competitive Negotiations
Act as defined in Florida Statutes 207.055, Section 18.52.3 of
the Code of the City of Miami and Ordinance No. 9572.
Minority participation is required, ptir.suant to the City (i[
Miami's Minority procurement program, Ordinance No. 10062. In
addition, qualified submissions will only he accepted from Terlmn
(prime and subconsulting firms) which include at least two of the
three types 011spanic, Black and Female), of minority owned firths
recognized by the City. Compliance with these Minority
participation requirements must• be met through the ownership of
the Architectural, I.Andseape Ar.chitecture%]., Interior Design and
Ktagineering firms providing the required expertise as prime and
subconsultants.
Minority -owned and female -owned firms mast preregi.ster with the
City of Miami, office of. Minority/Women Business Affairs
Coordinator, at (305) 579-3366 prior to the submission date for _
this project. Written proof of pre -qualification in the form of
a Minority/Women nosiness Affidavit wi I I be provided by the City
to each individual firm upon successbil review. Copies of these
documents must be included in the submissit-3n. —'
Firms which are corporations, limited partnerships and joint
venture proposers must be currently recorded with the State of
Florida, at the time of submission. Copies of Certificates of
Incorporation, Limited Partnership, Joinl-Venture, etc. from the
State of Florida, Secretary of State, must- accompany the -
submission.
Professional registration is required by the State of Florida in '
accordance with FS Chapter. 401 Part I Architecture, Chapter 461
Part It Landscape Architecture and FS Chapter 471 Engineering.
Firms practicing as corporations or similar entities must provide
proof of registration as such in the form a legible copy of their
license or a letter from the appropriate Board of the Florida
Department of Professional Regulation. Sole proprietors, members
of partnerships or similar entities must provide individual
licenses.
Materials other than those requested in this document will not be
considered and must not be submitted at any time during the
Selection Process. Additional materials may be solicited from
teams selected to make presentations.
No additions or modifications may be made to the proposals find
the Teams they represent, subsequent to the submission deadline.
Respondents must notify the City in writing immediately of any _
14
- c s,
first or individual presented in their original submission who is -
unavailable to continue on Lice Team. Any such change may result -
in the removal of the entire Team from consideration. New and/or
'. current personnel who --ire not identified in the proposal. may rnat
be introduced as part of the proposed Tteam subsequent to the
submission deadline.
Sub -consultants may submit on more than one Team, however prime
consultants or those firms which may joint -venture or associate
to forty the prime consul Cant may only submit one proposal. and m' y
not be a sub -consultant on ether Teams.
Proposers are encouraged to ensure that all. forms and documents
are correctly prepared, completed, signed and/or updated
specifically for this Project. Please check all copies of the
submissions to ensure the inclusion of. all. documents.
Conflict of Interest-
If you or a member of your immediate family are a member of any
Board, Commission, or Agency of Lite City of Miami, you are
t subject to the Conflict of Interest provisions of the City Code.
Section 2-302 of Lite Code states that no City of Miami. Officer,
Official, Employee or Board, Commission or Agency member, or a
spouse, son, daughter, parent, brother or sister of such person,
shall enter into any contract, transact any business with the
t City, or appear in representation of a third party, before the
City Commission. This prohibition may be waived in certain
1' instances by the affirmative vote of 4/5 of the City Commission,
s after a Public Hearing, but is otherwise strictly enforced and _
remains effective for two years subsequent a persons departure
tfrom City Employment or Hoard, Commission or Agency Membership.
t f
This prohibition does not preclude any person to whom it. applies from participating in the Bidding or Submission of Proposal
Process. However there is no guarantee or assurance that such
person will be able to obtain the necessary waiver set forth
above, in order for a contract to be effected with the City, even =
if such person were successful in the Bidding or Request for
Proposal Process.
Some of the Boards, etc. to which this prohibition
include but are not limited to the heritage Conservation
Offstreet Parking Board, Zoning Board, Code Rnforcement
Private Industry Council, Bayfront Park Management
Downtown Development Board.
s
applies
Board,
a :
Board,
Trust,
Questions which may arise must be directed to Juanita D. Shearer.,
ASI,A, Department of Development, City of Miami, 300 Biscayne
Boulevard Way, Suite 400. Miami, Florida, 33131. (305)579-3366
-7-
a. ConLenls of SuDmissiLon:
Interested trams im:sl sutsmit one (1) oriclinnl. and ten In
compleLe copies of their Proposal, wltich trust con Lain the
following documents, in the manner in which they are outlined —
below. Failure to do this may result in the elimination of
the entire Leam from consideration.
A Letter of 1nLeresL, addrasned ko Ilerbert J. Bnil.ey,
—
AsssisLant City Manager, De1jartment: of Development,
City of Miami, 30C> Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400,
—
Miami, i'loirda, 33131, clearly describing the
—
consulting team and its interest in performing the
required professional services.
—
Standard Dorm 255 for the entire consulting team.
Stawlard Porm 254 for each f i.riii.
The Team Identification Form which is attached.
Proof of 1ncorhoraLion, LimiLed Partnership, Joint -
Venture, etc. for each firm as applicable, as
_
provided by the State of Florida, Secretary of
State.
Proof of current professional. registration to
practice Architecture, Landscape Architecture and
Engineering in the State of Florida, in the form of
legible copies of current licenses, as issued by the
State of Florida, Dept. of Professional Regulation.
(A current letter from the Dept. of Professional
-
Regulation may be used if other documents are
unavailable.) Firms practicing as corporations or
partnerships must provide proof of registration as
-
such.
The Previous Professional Agreements/Services Fora
which is attached. (separate form for each firm):
—
The Personnel Form which is attached.
The Previous Relevant: Experience Form which is,.
a=
attached.
—
[Minority/Women ilasiness Certi fication'Aff.idavit as
proof of Mi.iiority Firm prer.eyistration with the City
of Miami, Office of Minority/Women Business Affairs,
(separate affidavit for each firm)
-
- t3-
a
1, 7XF
-
D. Schedule for Submission:
aequeet for Proposals Issued: January 23, 1989
submissions Due bate! February 21., 1909
Submisslcon timet No later than 1A.-O0AM
Submission vocation: City Clerk's Office
first floor counter,
City Hall,
City of Miami.
-
3500 Pan American Drive
Miami, Fl.ti. 33133
(305)579-6065
Submissions will notthe acrepLed after the submission time and
they will not be accepted at any other location.
IV. SELECTION PROCEDURES:
-
In accordance with Florida Statutes 287.055, City of Miami Code,
Section 18.52.3 and Ordinance No. 10062 , as amended and No.
—
9572, the Consultant: Selection Process will be carried out in
three sequential phases:
-
A) Certification
13) Initial Evaluation
C) Presentation and Interview
'
A. Certification Phase
During this process a Certification Committee consisting of a
registered architect, registered landscape architect,. and a
registered engineer on. the City of Miami's staff will be joined
by a registered architect and an interior designer in private
4
practice, to. review each submission for _compliance with the
`_Sx
submissmion requirements of the Request f_or Proposals llocument;.
#g'
and the requirements of: the applicable legislation.
r
Certification Committee Members are prohibited from d1scues1ng.
r. 3
the proposals or the Committee's activities with anyone wi;tl, or
related to the proposing Teams, or with other Committee, members.
until the City Commission awards the contract. Certification:
Committee members must have no vested interest and/or other
-�`.-
s,
-9-
-f
m�
s
r.
y
f {
Alf. f
f
inancialiy remunerative r e I a t I nslii with an of tl1e p ti'm
y t s or
individuals being considered for selection. Members of proposing
firms and Teams shall not contact Certification Committee
Members about this selection process.
The members of the Certification Committee will verity that each
submission includes all of the documents required in Section III
Submission Requirements and that those documents are complete,
current and provide the required information.
Submissions failing to meet any of the Submission Requirements =
trill be eliminated from the selection process at this point, -
Ordinance No. 9572 also requires that the Certification Committee
determine that Lite Teams presented in each proposal favorably _
demonstrate the following:
(1) Capability and Adequacy of personnel for this project.
(ii) Good past performance in administration and in cooperation
with former clients.
(iii) Performance in meeting time schedsiles and budgets.
(iv) Past record and experience.
Prior to review by the Certification Committee, staff from the
Department of Development may contact at least one of the Contact _
Persons indicated on the Previous Relevant Experience Forms for a —
brief interview on the Team's past performance. The results of
that interview, and the Contact Person's response to the issues
included above will be ltravided to the Certification Committee as —
input in addition to that provided in the proposal. _
Teams which do not meet one or more of these criteria will be
eliminated from the selection process at this point. Teams which
meet these and the previous requirements will be certified for
this project. The names of the certified Teams will be provided
to the Consultant Selection Committee, along with the
corresponding proposals.
B. Initial Evaluation Phase:
The Consultant Selection Committee, established in accordance
with Ordinance No. 9572 will receive the submission packages;gf
the certified Teams in preparation for making their Initial
Evaluation, and Ito tdinq the Presentations and Interviews..
Selection Committee Members are prohibited from discussing the
proposals or the Committee's activities with anyone with, or
related to the proposing firms, or with other Committee members
-10-
in.
Until. the City Commission awards L-he contract. Selection
Committee members must have no vested interest and/or other
—
financially remunerative reiat•ionship with any of the firms or
individuals being considered for selection. Members of proponifig
—
firms and Teems shall. not contact Seleci.ion Committee Membern
—
about this selection profess.
— Prior to discussions related to the proposals and voting the
—
Selection Committee will establish a maximum number of Teams
3 which may be "shor.t-listed" for the next phase of the selection
-
process. The actual. number, which must be at leastthree, may he
less than the maximccm if a substantial disparity occurs between
the ranked scores of the 'Teams Lhat fall within the maximum,
after scoring.
The criteria used for evaluation at this stage fall into four
general areas:
a Maximum Value
_ Topic
Previous professional experience, related to
=
successful completion of projects of similar
— complexity and scope ............................. 30
Size and capability of Team and its range of
expertise ............................................. 30
Locations of offices of the prime and subconsu.ltants
with points awarded in decreasing value for
locations in Lite City of Miami, Dade County,
State of Florida . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 . 0 . 10
'
=' Minority participation, related to the minority
ownership of each of the firms, and the number of key
professional staff members who are minorities working
-
- on the project.... ...... ............................ 30
=
= TOTAL 100
—
Each Selection Committee Member will. score each Team based on a
=' maximum 'of 100 points and then rank them, giving the Team with
_
the highest score the rank of one
All the Selection Committee Members ranked scores are then`
s:
compiled and at least the top three Teams will be invited 'to°make
a presentation and be interviewed. Ranking and scores °do not
carry over into the next phase of the process. Those Teams
selected to make presentations will be contacted by City's`Staff
five (5) calendar days prior to the presentation -and interview.
-11-
r
—
+ Presentation and Interview phase:
All Presentations and Interviews wilt he held in the t,arye
-
Conference Roost of the Department of Development, City of Miami,
—
300 Biscayne Boulevard Way, Suite 400, Miami, Clor.ida, 3313i,
—
(305)579-3366. Presentations and Interviews are scheduled for
—
March 9 and 10, 1989, The specific time and date of each
presentation and interview will be indicated upon notification of
selection.
_
It is strongly recommended that. the project manager and a
representative of each firm and/or are.-: of expertise indicated
in the te.im's prupostril. he present. and part-icipate actively in the
-
presentation and interview. unless apec:ificall.y re:iitesgLed by Lilt!
t
City, no material may be provided to the Selection Committee by,
or on behalf of Live Team.
s
The total time allocated to each Team willhe limited to 45
minutes, allowing 30 minutes for the presentation and 15 minutes
for the interview. Each Team is responsible for bringing its own
equipment including slide projector(s), stands and easels if so
-
'
desired. Wall surfaces are not tackable. The north wall of the
conference room is used as a screen.
—
The Team's presentation must cover the following areas within the
—
t
time limit:
(i) Method of Approach
Based on the scope of servics-R described herein, the
presentation should be a factuai dissertation of the
-
'•
Team's organization, including any joint venture or
professional associations; the identification and
qualifications of all professional and support'. staff
including those of the sub -consultants, that will be
assigned to this project; support capabilities; and an
outline of activities that will be undertaken by the
-
professional and support staff; conceptual time -schedules
for accomplishing the activities; a summary of procedures
-
=
and methods developed and used by the Team to coordinate
-
and control projects and assure delivery of the finished
work product on time and within the budget.
It is not intended nor acceptable that the Team solve any
specific problems, provide consulting services, discuss or
display any type of design ideas or drawings, slides or
-
photographs of this specific project at this time, but
rather that the Selection Committee be presented with
information about how the entire team would function on
this City project.
-
-12-
tkylt{�1
a
r
previous, experience
At leash three recent projects which the members of the
Team have completed should be presented, preferably in -
stide form. The examples shoiil.d he projects which Include
the Consulting 'ream's involvement in design services for
appropriately related projects. Each project's
objectives, users, operational. c.oi:straints, design and
construction schedules, budgets and maintenance issues
should be clearly described. -
(iii) Minority/Women lliiainess Participaf:ion
Describe all levels of minoril:y/female ownership and/car =
participation in your team. -
(iv) Distribution of tees
Discuss the approximate percentage of fees
be received by the prime and subcousultants.
(v) Method of Compensation
The purpose of the presentation and interview does not
Include negotiating fees. The City's policy is to
contract for desiyn and construction administration
services on a lump sum, flat fee basis. You are requested
_
to comment on this method of payment.
The Consultant Selection Committee may use the information
provided in the submission, during the "shortlisting". meeting,
—
presentation, interview and references from past clients, to
evaluate each team in four general areas:
,
Topic Maximum Value
-
Demonstration of Creativity and Skill..... .............. 15
—
Professional experience, in greater detail than
before including previous collaboration with
public agencies, other members of the team.
Preference will be given to those teams with -
no previous agreements with the City by
proportionately deducting a maximum of 10 points for
professional fees contracted for with the City
of Miami as a prime or sub -consultant .................. 25
"
Firm organization and Assigned Staff. including
submission and "shor. t l i st i ng" documeni:s, Lite
information provided at the presentation and interview 20
-13-
_-
t
}
Capability of Pirm, in greater detail than
before, related to the act.uat. individuats
assigned to the projects, their expertise, -
work load, and related professional skills ............. 25
Minority participation, related to the minority
ownership of the prime and subconsulting firms and the
professionals who are minorities working on the project 15
Total.: 100
After the presentations, interviews and committee discussions, each
Selection Committee Member will score each Team based on a maximum of _
100 points and then rank them, giving the Team with the highest score
the rank of 1. Prior to the presentations and interviews, the
Selection 'Committee will have established a method of breaking ties
and reevaluating firms when the ranked scores of the ton three Teams
are less than three points apart. The final. top three Teams will be
recommended to the City Manager for submissions to the City —
Commission, for authorization to negotiate an agreement, beginning —
with the Teams ranked first.
V. TENTATIVE SCHEDULE FOR CONSULTANT SELECTION PROCESS:
January 12, 1989
January 23, 1989
February 21, 1989
February 23/24, 1989
March 1/2, 1989
March 9/10, 1989
S
First Request for Proposal Notices
advertised
Second advertisement for Request for
Proposals, (with change in submission
schedule)
r
Submittals received at the City Clerk's
—
office no later than 11:OOAM
=
Certification: Certification Committee
Convenes
s y<
Initial Evaluation: Competitive
Selection Committee Convenes to create
5a�
"short list" of Teams for presentation
and interview phase
'4
Presentation and Interview: Competitive
y}3
Selection Committee convenes for
presentations and interviews
-14-
:..
=v=
March 23, 1989
April 10, 1909
April 27, 1989
May 22, 1989
City Commissions considers the City
Manager's recommendations of the most
qualified Teams
Negotiations on Agreement completed
City Commission considers City Manager's
recommendation to execute negotiated
agreement
Target date for completion of contract
execution process
VI. ADDITIONAL REQUIREWNTS FOR TNf: SrLECTED CONSULTING TEAMt
Negotiations with the Team ranked first by the City Commission will
commence as soon as possible after the City Commission makes their
decision. A minimum of: $5,000,000, (depending on the final scope of
services), in professional liability insurance will be required
through an acceptable carrier for the duration of the project. In the
event project specific insurance is used a minimum of $2,000 is
required. For their own protection consultants are also encouraged to =
maintain this coverage for a minimum of five years after completion of `■
construction. A breakdown of tasks associated with the project,
estimated staff time involved in each task and the resultant
percentages of principal./professional./.technical. support time and their
respective hourly rates will also be required during these
negotiations. Principals of the Teams being considered are encouraged
to review a standard City of Miami Professional Services Agreement
prior to the City Commission action proposed for April 23, 1989.
VII. DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST:
Please contact Juanita D. Shearer ASLA at (305)579-3366 for any of .
the documents listed below. They will be mailed as soon as possible
after a request is received, however firms interested in acquiring
these documents are encouraged to collect them in person.
A.
R-
C.
Ordinance No. 10062 passed December 19, 1985, and as amended: `
The Minority and Women Business Affairs Procurement Ordinance'
Ordinance No. 9572 passed February 10, 1983; Article IV, �£
Purchasing and contracts generally, Section 18-52.3
Professional Services
^X
Section 18.52.3 City Code of Miami (this is,the same as B.)
g
s
M
AWL
S v
L-opies of Standard Forms 255 an 25 .
S
131ai►it
services Agreeme
l • of Miami
standard city
professional
Filet Lbr3 cad> r fp
(Revised
schedule)
January 190 1909
TrtY
=f�
-16-
W-10-nT ...
TelePhones'
Contact Persons
_
Specialty:
-
Sub --consultant s
=
Name:
Address:
Telephone:
Contact Person:
Specialty:
Sub -consultant:
Name:
_.
y-'
Address:
is
Telephone:
x a
Contact- Person:
Specialty:,
7 _
yl
t�
Y F
l
1.'
_
...
FA v■y ]�-�y��p��p�y- f wry T
J
Z G.4
k,
S-onsultahtt
•
Navies
Address:
Telephones {
_
Contact persons
Address:
Telephone: {
Contact Person:
_
Specialty:
Sub -consultant:
Name:
Address:
Telephones { �t
Contact Person:
�.
Specialty:
S gnature of Principa
of Prime Consultant
4rtp>
3 of 3
+� 1
t" ,l,•f t, ,'
1
5
A separate copy of this form must be correctly completed for each firm
.'
on the team. List all contracts as indicated below, that are or have
been active within the last five years, wether as a prime or sub -
consultant with any entity of the City of Miami, including the
offstreet Parking Department. Fees mast include both received ante
anticipated.
Name of Firma
Has your Firm participated in any City of Miami projects within the
last five years? Yes No
(please circle one. If the answer is no, please sign the form and
include it in your submission. If the answer is yes, please fill out
-
the form, sign, date and include it in your submission.)
Name of Project Administering Dept. Dates Fees
Ik
e'S
The foregoing is a statement of facts.
s
Signature of Corporate Officer Typed name -and title date
or Principal of Firm
,
<r fp>
of 1
i
♦ ., ct r
YA R rr
a
t
CITY OF MIAMI
C6NSUj6TANT SF.LISCTIbN PROMS
PERSONNEL FORM
This form must be completed for the entire team listing All members of
r.
-
Staff an to work on the proposed project.
-�
Name/Firm Professional Expertise Gender 8thninity�
_
u
alie foregoing is a statement of facts.
Signature of Corporate officer or Typed name an title date
-
s
Principal of Prime Consultant
t=
cr fp>
1 of 1
rug
Vj t>r+
n�
CITY OF MIA"I
CIiNSUt,TA"T SBLSCTIoN PROCESS
pRXVIOUS RELEVANT EXPERIENCE
leted
for
it be
ropriatelYrelatedpprojects:
PP
the entire team listing at
leant three
project Name:
Owner/User a
}:f
Telephones(
Contact Persons
Schedule:
Budget:
Scope:
Members)
involved:
Name of Team
Project Name:
,
Owner/user:
Telephone:
Contact Person:
Schedule:
-G`
Budget:
Scope:
Member(s)
involved:
Name of Team
l of
3
f
i�
s
_ y
�
b
a
fi;K
ite At
A'-
of taut t
RECEIVED
CRY manit".
t' 14A T
1tCiTY
1 1'
i1\ t �.
_
"IT (rNIA�111. PLA.
February 23, 1989
Mr. Roney Mateu
Mateu, Rizzo Associates
SEE
2424 South Dixie Highway
Miami. Florida 33133
'
Re: Consultant Selection Procedures
City Administration Building Phase II
Dear Mr. Mateua
The following letter is in reply to your telegram of February 21,
_=
1989 related to your team's proposed submission in response to the
_
City's Request for Proposals (RFP) for professional services
related to the City Administration Building Phase II Project. -
It is my understanding from reading your telegram, and speaking -
-
with Assistant City Attorney Linda Kearson and Juanita D. Shearer, -
ASLA, of my staff, that you believe that the "rejection" of your
_—
proposal was "unjust, capricious and arbitrary". (I have also been
advised that while your telegram further states that you were
_
"denied" access to the City Clerk's Office by Ms. Shearer, you have
conceded that she did not in fact prevent you from entering City
Hall or any of the offices.)
The RFP for this project, which was issued on January 23
—
clearly established the time of 11:00 AM on February; 21,-19891:4t
the City Clerk's Office, First Floor Counter, City of Miami' City ,t:
—
Hall, as the time, date and location for submission. Based on the ;
sequence of events, of which you could not have been aware, because ,
they occurred prior to your arrival at City Hall, the inforiaation 2:
given to you outside of the building was accurate.
It is the practice of the City Clerk's Office to stamp only. those 5;
documents which arrive by the deadline and to reject all others• r,,
Your proposal could not have been accepted at the City Clerk'
Office based on the fact that the deadline had passed prior. to'your
arrival at the submission location. This determination was
-
made on a questionable technicality, it was action taken on
basis of facts and submission requirements established by the City
and reflected in the RFP. f:
MrARTM'NT Of DEMOPMM/Dt"NT KAYA CEMTEW/300 Biscayne Blvd. Way. Suite 4W
i
r s
Miami, tt 33131/1305) 579-3366
TRECOMER: (305) 37/-9710
d
r_
7
tr�
x .
1
r
g
ii
t�lr • RoneY 23.
Mat1909
two
deadline is
Team proposalstube andenot su'bje0t to
submit Your rt material in na
}ti pailure to which is 1uk
error
considered an the City` We
_ being corrected. working wits seta• 71'
in future pr3
k You for Y interest
firm
on
our from Your
Than to receiving p
forward.
i
Sincere
ey
'Herbert J•City Manager Committee
Assistant Consultant Selection
Chairman.
HJB/��br
w _J11,
t
�
N
i
�(
�
-
- i
g,17
K
r
4.
{
5�
pr
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
IN?ER=OFFICE MEMORANDUM
R E Q E ir
File ontE: Feb ruarf,3J3VjRlqp9ri'i
— City Admi44Af fA't M- Ml.dg *
suEVEr.T : Phase its �rA��lttifi►g
=i IT e OP IIt
aRom : Juanita D. Shearer, IWERENCES :
_ Landscape Architec
ENCLOSURES.
In accordance with Resolution 88-326, passed April 14, 1988 and:
directions provided at the City Commission Meeting of December 16,
1988, the procurement of professional planning and design services
for the City Administration Building, Phase II has been proceeding.
Advertisements were placed in 3 newspapers and direct mailings were
sent to the over 1,000 registered architects and architectural firms
in Davie County announcing the issuance of the Request for Proposals
Document (RFP) on January 23, 1989.
In response to inquiries from approximately 150 architects,
Landscape architects, engineers and interior designers, packages
containing RFPs and related documents were sent out, as well as an
addendum with additional information. Information was also provided
on an as needed basis to individuals who called or came to the
Department of Development with questions about various aspects of
the project and submission requirements.
The deadline for submission, as established in the RFP was.11:00 AM,'
Tuesday February 21, 1989, City Clerk's Office, City Hall, first
floor counter. Sabrina Bouie and I arrived at the City-_Clerk'.s.
-
Office at about 10:15 AM to provide Silvia Mendoza, Deputy City
Clerk with assistance in receiving the proposals.
As proposers arrived at the window Ms. Mendoza accepted their stacks-
;
of folders, envelopes and/or boxes, and stamped them (or affixed '_a-
piece of paper to them) indicating the time, date and location.
Among those making deliveries, while I was standing near, to "Ho
i=
Mendoza, was a young man who identified himself as being'',,from
"Arquitectonica" and provided us with a stack of black <folders, with
no markings on the outside. This submission was 'received.:at 10:54`
AM.
At about 10:55 AM I walked out of the Clerk's office to. see if`
anyone was on their way in with submissions. While standing on the:
!
front steps of the building, a gentleman (Maurice Pierson) parked
{
i_
a
Y
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
his vehicle, and began walking towards City'Hall with what appeared
to be a stack of booklets. He said he was making a submission on
the City Administration Building project, I suggested that he hurry
because the 11:00 AM deadline was approaching. He did so and his
submission was stamped in at 10:59 AM. A few minutes later No.
Mendoza advised me that the gentleman (Mr. Pierson) had told her
that his submission was missing some of the required copies and we
concluded that it was incomplete. Subsequently, after verifying the
time by stamping a piece of paper at 11:02 AM, I went out to the
front of the building.
After speaking briefly with Mr. Pierson, a car drove up and the
passenger carrying a box proceeded to get out. I asked him if he
was submitting on the City Administration Building and when he said
yes, I advised him that it was past 11:00 AM and that submissions
were not accepted after the deadline. At that point the driver of
the car, Mr. Ron Mateu, joined in the conversation and I repeated
the information and suggested that it was unfortunate that they had
missed the deadline, understandable that they would be angry and
upset but there was nothing that I could do.
Mr. Mateu suggested that his watch did not indicate that they were
late, and questioned the basis on which I had determined the time.
I explained that we used the clock in the City Clerk's office, and
that I had verified that the time was 11:02 AM before they had
arrived. Mr. Mateu stated that he wanted to check to see that the
City Clerk's time was accurate. I returned to the City Clerk's
office and provided him with a piece of paper on which I stamped the
date and time. He said that he was going to use the public phone to
=_
verify the time, and returned a few minutes later from the direction
of the public phones, placed the piece of paper on the counter and
—
left.
While still at the City Clerk's office, I received a telephone call
from Mr. Ted Baker, ASLA who identified himself as a consultant, on
=
Mr. Mateu's Team. Mr. Baker felt that the decision to, not accept
Mr. Mateu's proposal was arbitrary and unfair on_ my part, ,_and that
since this was not a bid, proposals should not be rejected, because
-_
of failing to meet the specified time deadline. I advised Mr., Baker
that the RFP had clearly established the deadline and the 6
-City-
intention to adhere to the deadline.
During the time that Sabrina Bouie and I were assisting Silvia
Mendoza in making a .fist of the respondents, packing up the
documents that had been submitted, and placing them in my car in the
parking lot, the same young man who had delivered the proposals from
Arquitectonica returned to the window with three black folders. He
explained that he found them on the back seat of his car as he.was
returning from making his firm's submission and he wanted to add
them to those he had already submitted. He was advised that :'the
deadline had passed, that no additional material was being accepted
and that we were in the process of loading the submissions into the
car. During a subsequent trip to my car, I noticed that additional
folders from Arquitectonica had been placed beside the ones that we,
had already loaded into the trunk.
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
Later that aft,,
-.noon
at my office Silvi"Lowman from the
City -
R Clerk's office
advised
me that the City had received a
telegram
fro*
Mr. Eton Mateu.
After
receiving a copy of the telegram
2 spoke
with
Assistant City
Attorney
Linda Kearson about the issues
which I
have
described.
Related to the proposals from Mr. Pierson, she indicated that she
would recommend to the City Manager that the initial submission that
Mr. Pierson had made was sufficient to meet the intent of the RFP
deadline, and that we should accept the remaining documents and —
consider the submission to have met the deadline, under the
provision in the RFP by which the City reserves the right to waive —
irregularities. It was her further opinion that the incident with
the submission from Arquitectonica should be handled in the same
way. _
Mr. Pierson was telephone and subsequently delivered his proposals _
to the Department of Development. No contact was made with
Arquitectonica. Both teams were included in the list of
respondents.
Related to the conversation and subsequent telegram from Mr. Mateu,
Ms. Kearson, Mr. Mateu, his partner and I had a conference call to
discuss his concerns. In summary Mr. Mateu felt that if he had been
allowed to submit his Team's response to the City's RFP, and have it
stamped, he would have been satisfied, even if it was late. He also
felt that because of the information I gave him in front of City
Hall, he was in fact prevented from submitting his proposal and
might have been on time if I had not told him otherwise outside City
Hall.
Ms. Kearson advised Mr. Mateu that the City Clerk's office does not
accept or stamp documents after., the deadline and that given the
sequence of events that occurred prior to his arrival, my
conversation with him `must have taken place after 11:00 AM. While _
Mr. Mateu conceded that I did not actually deny him access to the
City Clerk's Office, as indicated in the telegram, but he stated
that he still was not 'satisfied and wished to lodge a complaint. _
Ms. Kearson advised him that he could do so by writing to the City
Manager. Mr. Mateu concluded that he would like his telegram to be .,
considered as a complaint and Ms. Kearson and I agreed to respond. —
I advised Mr. Herbert Bailey, Assistant City Manager, of thesie
incidents prior to and after the telephone conversation with Mr.
Mateu. He asked me to prepare the appropriate responses, etc.
JDS/br
<ad>irreg/submit ,�
copy: Herbert J. Bailey �C?I I'' _
City Clerk's Office n _
-rn
r tv
Of 4atanl"
�SY F
F
� +cea+ o•nro 4
May 5, 1989
Catlin, Saxon, Tuttle and Evans, P.A.
1700 Alfred I. Dupont Building
169 East Flagler Street --
Miami, Florida 33131
Att: Mr. William M. Tuttle, II
Re: Protest of Charles Harrison Pawley, et al.
City Administration Building, Phase II -
Consultant Selection Process
Gentlemen:
I, as Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, have read :.
your bid protest, talked with the employees involved in the issue
and reviewed the pertinent documents. Pursuant to my duties under
Section 18-56.2, City of Miami Code, I have determined -that your
bid protest has merit. The City Manager and the City Attgrney have
approved my determination and will submit it to the City
Commission on May 11, 1989, whose decision will be final.
It is your 'client's determination that they are the prime
consulting architectural firm of the proposal and therefore, will
be responsible for sealing all plans for this project, including- =tip
those prepared by the other two architectural firms. The RFP
documents do not. specifically prohibit this and the architectural
Taws of the 'state allow it.
_Therefore, in, the absence of a clear reason for denial, I have
decided to uphold your protest and allow your firm to be -7
considered'in the consultant selection process
�erj .truly yours, s.-
i:
RonE. Wilkliams
Director of General Services Administration
-
and Chief Procurement officer
z
a
CENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT/1390 N.W. 20 Street/Miami, EI 33142/(305) 579-6740
■
CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
�¢ > DATE: May 5 ► 1989 FILE
To. Cesar H. Odio
City Manager SU9dECT : Resolution of Bid
y J
Protest Ree City Admin-
istration Bldg Phase II
z• �•� � . � REFERENCES
FROM i
: r
Ron•.E. liams
Chief Procurement Officer ENCLOSURES:
General Services Administration
CONCLUSION
or the City Of
In my capacity as Chief Procurees served byOfficer fCharles Harrison
Miami, I have reviewed the bid pro
Pawley, Inc. (CHP), and am hereby upholding the protest for the
reasons summarized below. I have decided that this protest is
the City
meritorious and subject to your concur rlierrence� decision OfMiami
Mlthe
will reverse and rescind the
Certification Committee disqualifying CHP from the competitive
selection process for this project.
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
In arriving at this decision, I have examined the following
documents: —
1=
i 1. Bid protest letter of March 14, 1989 from William
_i M. Tuttle, II, attorney with Catlin, Saxon, Tuttle
and Evans, P.A., served on behalf of CHP.
2. City of Miami RFP for Professional Services for j-
City Administration Building Phase II Project,
including addendum and revised submission schedule. }_
. CHPp
's response to the RFP for City Administration
® 3 Building,Phase II architectural and engineering
services.
4. March 6, 1989 letter to CHPfromHerbert J. Bailey
advising of failure to be certified. G'
. i
5. Florida Statutes 481, Part I, and Board of
Architecture Rules 21B which `regulate architectural k
services in Florida.
0
FINDINGS
The proposal document submitted February 21► 1989 the or the teamof
T p p et all was found y
Charles Harrison Pawley, practice license
committee, toinethenSta eo ofvFloridaswas osubmitted tfor either
Architecture Rath & Sons International Corporation.
Wilfredo Borrotto or 8mery
I have reviewed the protest and materials carefully and have
found that it is permissible under Florida law that Charles
tects be the principal firm allowing
the
Harrison Pawley Archi
Borroto and Roth firms to consult, as long as the plans are
sealed under the license of Charles Harrison
Pawleyrohib t eCthe
do not specifically p
The proposal documents Therefore, in the
consultant/architect arrangement of CHP.
r denial, it is found that the
absence of a clear reason fo-
protest is being upheld.
Approved:
A�(4�e -
Cesar H. Odio
City Manager
CESAR Fi b
RbN E. WILLIAMS
City Malha" -
-
Director -too 010
May 5 i 1989
-
1
Mr. John T. Prahl
,
Carlos Abbott and Ferro, P.A.
:•j
Suite 1150
999 Ponce de Leon Blvd.
_
Coral Gables, F1. 33134
Att: Mr. John T. Prahl
Re: Protest of Bosco, Kirkland Architects
=
Selection Process for City Adminis-
tration Bldg., Phase II
{
Dear Mr. Prahl:
'
I, as Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami,
have read
your bid protest, talked with the employees involved in
the issue -
and reviewed the pertinent documents. Pursuant to
my duties
under Section 18-56.2, City of Miami Code, I have determined that
your bid protest is without merit because your protest
was not !-
received on a timely basis. The .City Manager
the City.
.and
Attorney have approved my determination and will submit
it to the
:.
City Commission on May 11, 1989, whose decision shall be final..
On the basis of the aforementioned, I am rejecting your
protest.
Very truly yours,
e
,
Ron'E. Williams
}
Director of General ServicesAdministration. #;
and Chief Procurement Officer
r%=
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT/1390 N.W. 20 Street/Miami,1`133142/1305) S79-6740
w 3h2
�,ryy•f �
to
SfiiP
Riji
1
t 1
t-
1 a
,
a R
1
'F iiAARRf��i�••''�ihf�Y rt-t. r .i1 :!:
%pS�� t
May 5, 1989
Mr. John T. Prahl
Carlos Abbott and
Suite 1150
999 Ponce de Leon
Coral Gables, Fli
Ferro, P.A.
Blvd.
33134
Att: Mr. John T. Prahl
Re: Protest of Bosco, Kirkland Architects
Selection Process for City Adminis-
tration Bldg., Phase II
Dear Mr. Prahl:
I, as Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, have read
your bid protest, talked with the employees involved in the issue
and reviewed the pertinent documents. Pursuant to my duties
under Section 18-56.2, City of Miami Code, I have determined that
your bid protest is without merit because your protest was not
received on a- timely basis. The City Manager and the City
a
Attorney have approved my determination and will submit it to the.
City Commission on May 11, 1989, whose:deeision shall'be'final.
On the basis of the aforementioned, I am rejecting your protest.
Very truly yours,
;•
CIL
z
Ron E. Williams
Director of General Services'Administrat-ion-
and Chief Procurement Officer
f,
,2 is
GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT/1390 N.W. 20 Street/Miami, Ft 33142/(305) 579-6740
v
t
r 4
v x
'
c
Al
..._'"-` .�3
�.. �.v.• r� • ..11LiQ14� .... a_ncnvc•.
Chief Procurement Officer
General Services Administration ENCLOSURES
CONCLUSION
In my capacity as Chief Procurement Officer for the City of
Miami, I have reviewed the bid protest served by Bosco, Kirkland
Architects (BKA), and am hereby rejecting the protest for the
reasons summarized below.
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
In arriving at this decision, I have examined the following
documents:
1. Bid protest letter of April 5, 1989 from John T
Prahl, attorney with Carlos Abbott & Ferro, P.A.,
served on behalf of
BKA.
2. City of Miami RFP
City Administration
for Professional Services for
including addendum
Building Phase II Project,
and
revised submission schedule.
3. Section 18-56.1. of
the Code of the City of Miami.
J
FINDINGS
The date that BKA was notified of their disqualification by the
Certification Committee
#;
was
Substantially more time than
by letter of March 6, 1989.
the 14 days had
protest letter was submitted
Development April
passed. The bid
to the City of Miami Department of
10, 1989
Management Division of the
and received by the Procurement
Yt
Department on April 12, 1989.
General Services Administration
Section 18-56.1
bid protest be submitted to
writing within fourteen
requires that the
the Chief Procurement Officer in
(14)
knows or should have known of
days after such aggrieved party
the facts
complained of.
giving rise to the action
tr' �
?0) -
Cesar H. Odio
May 5, 1989
r Cage 2
First, the written protest was not submitted to the Chief
Procurement Officer, it was addressed to Mr. Herbert J. Baileys,
Assistant City Manager. Second, the bid protest was not received-
on a timely basis, within the fourteen day time period permitted.
i I have reviewed the protest and materials carefully and have -
found that the protest was not submitted in accord with Section
18--56.1. of the City Code. Therefore, it is found that the
protest is rejected.
Approved: Approved:
Cesar H. Odio rg L. ernandez`
City Manager City Atto ney
I t c
fit^
t
Y rti k
� F
se
k y
d
yt'{� A
♦ S� q
—
01=111
Bermello, Kurki & Vera, Inc.
55 Almeria Avenue
Coral Gables, Fl, 33134
Att: Mr. Willy A. Bermello
Re: Protest of BKV Team of Consultant
Selection Process for City Adminis-
tration Bldg., Phase II
Gentlemen:
I, as Chief Procurement Officer of the City of Miami, have read -
your bid protest, talked with the employees involved in the issue
and reviewed the pertinent documents. Pursuant to my duties under
Section 18-56.2, City of Miami Code, I have determined that your
bid protest is without merit because proof of current licensing as
Yoa .,nAor Qo�t;nn A Nul of the RFP documents was not met at
��, 9
May 5t 1989
Bermello, Kurki & Vera, inc.
• venue
55 Almeria A F1,
Att. 33134
coral Gables.
Mr. Willy A. Bermello
'
Team of Consultant
Re: protest of rCity Rdminis-
Selection Process forProcess
*ration Bldg•, Phase
CESAR H. 0010
City Managet
of Miami, have read
Gentlemen: the City the issue
as Chief Procurement Officer of involved in
under
1, talked with the employees to mY
bid protest, Pursuant
your pertinent documents. I have determines that Your
ing as
and reviewed the City of Miami Code,
cen
Secti
on 18-56.2, it because proof of cis enwasinotsmet at
bid protest is without melt' of the RFP documents
was an
required under section Ae•licensing of ,the profession Manager and the City
submission. The City
time of requirement of the RFP.
essential determination and wit shall submit
roved my
have approve 11. 1989, whose decision rotest.
City
Commission on May I am reaecting'your P
On the bases of the aforementioned,
Very truly ypurs,
Ro ••11 s services Administration y,
ctor oj.General Se •cer
Dire procurement offs
and Chief
4.
cc: George F• Knox, Esq.
ATION DEPARTMENT/1390 NO- 20 Street/Miami. fl 3314L(305) 579-67�
GENERAL SERVICES ADMIt�ISTR }
k
_ 3
ff A
y
k
,uz'�r"L�} .Y':• > V..,: t: i ...,, .'. 1 ..+... `.., 1 i1:. ;�µ a .. :^Ay..
' CITY OF MIAMI, FLOAIDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
FILE
�$ai' H. Odio GATE : May 5, 1999
Lty Manager SUBJECT : ResolutiOr, of Bid
Protest Re: City Armin-
istration 91dg Phase iT
REFERENCES
FROM Ron`` H . Williams
Chief Procurement Officer ENCLOSURES:
General Services Administration
CONCLUSION`.
In my capacity as Chief Procurement Officer for the City of £2�
Miami, I have reviewed the bid protest served by Bermello, Kurki
& Vera, Inc. (BKV), and am hereby rejecting the protest for,
reasons summarized below. f
DOCUMENTS EXAMINED
In arriving at this decision, I have examined tho following
i
documents:
1.
Bid protest letter of March 9, 1989 from BKV,
including attachments.
X`
2.
Letter of March 23, 1989, sent by BKV's attorney,,
George F. Knox.
3.
City of Miami RFP for Professional Services for
IS
City Administration Building Phase II Pro.,ect,
:
addendum and revised submission schedule.
.including
4.
BKV's response to the RFP for City Administration
and engineFring
Building, Phase II architectural
services.
5.
March 3, 1989 letter to BKV from Herbert `J. BF iley
advising of failure to be certified.
l
6.
March 1, 1989 letter from the State of Florida
Department of Professional Regulation, Board ofy
listing
Architecture and Interior Design
firms which had not renewed their
architectural
V�
license.
7.
March 2, 1989 letter from the State of Florida
K;
Department of Professional Regulation, Board of
Professional Engineers regarding expired license of
Williams -Russell & Johnson, Inc.
sCii
s 1
LYE
P?S
C S�:
F
I�
B. Florida Statutes 481, Part I which regulates
architectural services in the State of Florida.
FINB� S °
xr�=
The proposal document submitted February
21, 1989 for the team of
Bermello, Kurki & Vera was found to be non -responsive because the
�y
Architectural License (AA) submitted for Bermello, Kurki & Vera
License (EB) submitted for Williams -Russell & sY
and the Engineering
Inc. had both expired January 31, 1989• This was
Johnson, the State of Florida Department ofb
confirmed in writing by 4t
Professional Regulation. The City's RFP, Addendum
of current
lII. Submission Requirements, A. (vi), required p
Engineeringre or
professional registration to pracStatutesce tuwhi h govern the
in the State of Florida. Florida prohibition
practice of architecture and engineering establish a
against the use or an attempt to use an inactivelicensed license.
Clearly, the requirement that a firm be currently
essential to the selection of a firm which is able to render the
required services according to law.
and have
test
I have reviewed carefully the ei f cts thato inactivetheolicenses were
determined that none alters th
submitted and are not acceptable.;
{
Approved:
Approved: N�
4
Jo ge
ernandez
Cesar H. O io
f City Manager Ci y Atto ney
A
4
F:
jE.
4'
I
y 4
a
-+ - 1 < 1,
+ - t +e 'tW''
nej
is t s�
s, rx ,
,,.s x• w rs ,, r t c
,of"'� Y
f S a ct�
—
33
J-89-431
5f3f89
RESOLUTION NO. S9---4' 5
A RESOLUTION ,APPROVING THE CHIEF PROCUREMENT
OFFICER'S DECISION TO REJECT THE PROTESTS
RECEIVED FROM BERMELLO, KURKI, 6, VERA, INC.
AND FROM BOSCO, KIRKLAND ARCHITECTS AND TO
UPHOLD THE PROTEST RECEIVED FROM CHARLES
HARRISON PAWLEY, ET AL, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR THE PROCUREMENT
OF PROFESSIONAL ARCHITECTURAL AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR THE CITY ADMINISTRATION
BUILDING, PHASE II.
WHEREAS, in connection with the request for proposals for
the Procurement of Professional, Architectural and Engineering
services for the City Administration Building, Phase II it was
determined by the Chief Procurement Officer in his role as the
arbiter of bid protests pursuant to Section 18-56.1 of the City
Code that the firm of Bermello, Kurki, & Vera, Inc. had submitted
expired Architectural and Engineering licenses; and
WHEREAS, it was also determined by the Chief Procurement
Officer in his role as the arbiter of bid protests pursuant to
Section 18-56.1 that the firm of Charles Harrison Pawley, et al.
had provided proof of an architectural license for this firm and
'his firm is the prime consulting architect and it having appeared
on the response of said protesting entity that two additional
architect firms were designated therein as consultant. architects
and as such are not required to have separate Florida
architectural licenses; and
WHEREAS, it was further determined by the Chief Procurement
Officer in his role as the arbiter of bid protests pursuant to
Section 18-56.1 that the bid protest filed by Bosco, Kirkland
Architects be rejected as untimely because it was not made within
fourteen (14) days of the decision to disqualify that firm as
required by Section 18-56.1 of the City Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: =' t
Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the R
1 Preamble to this Resolution are hereby adopted b e e y-
P Y f .zen�e
thereto and incorporated herein as if fully set forth in this;
Iv
'- Section. _
CITY .ISS-VON
Jl-
c n
r ����'�a-tea .��,� w�.rz - ; " �"a�'` m ,: ai � T yt�f'' '� � � R`ir'af-�•�z�,�
�: Section . tl the approval and, r#b6ffixre aEl6n of 10he City
`manager and the approval and recommendation of -ne City Attorney,
..
the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject the protest
filed by Bermello, Xurki, Vera, Inc, is hereby approved.
Section 3. (a) upon the approval and recommendation of the
_
City Manager and the approval and recommendation of the City
Attorney, the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to uphold the
protest filed by Charles Harrison Pawley, et al. is hereby
approved.
(b) Based upon the foregoing, the firm of
Charles Harrison Pawley, et al. is authorized to participate in
the competitive negotiation process, and the Chief Procurement
Officer is hereby directed to transmit said firm's response to
the competitive selection committee for its consideration as
established by Resolution No. 88-326.
Section 4. Upon the approval and recommendation of the City
Manager and the approval and recommendation of the City Attorney,
the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject the protest
filed by Bosco, Kirkland Architects is hereby approved.
Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption
p pursuant to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of Mav 1989.
=:
-A,
ATTES .. AVIER L. UAREZ, MAYOR
TTY HIRAI , CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
J;-
ROBERT.F. CLARK
CHIEF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND CORRECTNESS;
rr
,�
/ "
�RGE
<
I Ty ATTORNE
%f F
i
b
page 2 of 2
R9--445
�
t
u
,t�wj+p
. section 2. Upp�► the approval at�d'recomther�gti0h.of 'the City
• T l �
k `manager and the approval and recommendation of -ne City Attorney,
the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject the protest
-
filed by Bermello, Kurki, 6 'sera, Inc. is hereby approved.
*j Section 3. (a) Upon the approval and recommendation of the
r
a City Manager and the approval and recommendation of the City 4
1_ Attorney, the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to uphold the
protest filed by Charles Harrison Pawley, et al. is hereby -
s
s approved.
(b) Based upon the foregoing, the firm of
Charles Harrison Pawley, et al. is authorized to participate in
? the competitive negotiation process, and the Chief Procurement
Officer is hereby directed to transmit said firm's response to
the competitive selection committee for its consideration as
established by Resolution No. 88-326.
Section 4. Upon the approval and recommendation of the City
Manager and the approval and recommendation of the City Attorney,
the Chief Procurement Officer's decision to reject the protest
filed by Bosco, Kirkland Architects is hereby approved.
Section 5. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption pursuant to law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this llth day of _ Mav 1989.
_ CAVIER L. UAREZ, MAYOR }ram
ATTES1
r.
MATT HIRAI, CITY CLERK
PREPARED AND APPROVED BY:
ROBERT F. CLERK
Cli I EF DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
r;.
APPROVED AS TO FORM'AND'CORRECTNESS:_}
F: %ORv£v,RN DEZ x —
z a
C I TY A
fi r as
i
r
Page 2 _qf 2 Q
4.1 ;j.. iz ii x fkryM'4Y..
�F a ``''• "r�rGr �, �
.,• t.. .3 r is 1 s YL a,, F's„p 7b�`sa -��}
a-09 WEb 1 s i Z6 iGOA
C117 OF MIAW FLQAiDA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO; The Honorable Mayor and Members
OAtE � ,
MAY 2 1989r
of the City Commission Resolution Concerning
Three Protests for the,
Gonsultsnt Selection
_ REMR of of the CityEwces `
Cesar H. Dd Administration Building
phase II
City Manager ErKxosuRea .
_ FtF,COMMENDATiON s
ef
It is respectfully recommended that the decision id protests hibe
Procurement officer relative ttaChetb esoiution confirming ana
approved by adopting
the. findings of the ` Chief Prthers Professionair'
ratifying pro received for
- concerning these pSO
Architectural, Interior Design, and Engine rotits ro c eermeii '
City Administration Building, PhaseP denied
Kurki &`Vera, Inc.` and Bosco, xirkiand, Architects beingup held.
and the protest of Charles Harrison Pawley, et al., being
BACKGROUND
The Chief Procurement Officer, General Services 1'�ds+fnistration
Department, hests relative to the,
as reviewed three bdC3 rOAdninistr tion Building Y'3
consultant selection process for theY -
Phase It. Ott January 23, 1989, the Department of Development.
issued a request for proposals for Professional, Areh3tectural,:.
interior Design, and Engineering Services for_Phase It o the
City Administration Building project•
Kurki f iled
On March 9, 1989, the firm oc procurement The rDepartment of
a protest with the Chief Pr s f
Development had rejected tbi architectural and engineering osal clicenses. VProof
submitted expired arc
uired by the RFP documents, Page
of current licensing was req8
section A(iv).
A written confirmation received from the. State t;
of Florida revealed tin fact, expired.,
as licenses hat the ional( ) was naessential requirement
The licensing of the profes
of the RPP •
on,March 14,. 1989,;a protest was received from Charism Harrison
Paw, et al. The Department Qf Development had rejected thi
proposal because, although ` a copy of the architectur►1 license
f Eat, the licenses for kW. �
was received for t'he proposing h� ��
additional' s rhitectuVal. firms listed-. in .the proposal. _docu"n 'I
were `not sub®fitted: The protesting,�:vendor maintains .tl}et :D�4
architeotu#a t11i.�s prajnt including and ;'ts
the prime'. consulting
responsible for sealing alb plans
X t�f .
hi
Y 1 r�-q. ik� ,x �'SS 4'•p SF"3 eY
i•
AS} Sa i YY {1� YG iP_
t24
i4K-, •1 ::8: --v ,.l. .....,.. - - - _ _ .. ..� - .. _ ,.., ."._. F.: �:.r_.. Act��;a�2„ � ,; :�»-1a�� -
at r e 9
iw e n 1 s 8 3 1!'s
G 0 A
O Y oP MIAW. FLOPADA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO;
The honorable Mayor and Members °A MAY - 2 1989 �xt
of the City Commission
Ste: Resolution Concerning
- Three Protests for the
Consultant Selection
FFKWCesar
Process of the City
l
H. Od
"Om"�Administration Building
City Manager ENCLOSUMphase II
X8C0MHZNDATIObt i -
It is respectfully recommended that the decision of the Chief _
_.
Procurement officer relative to three (3) bid protests be -
approved by adopting the attached resolution confirming and =
ratifying the findings of the Chief Procurement Officer
_=
concerning these protests received for the Professional,":
s
Architectural, Interior Design, and Engineering Services of -the"
City Administration Building, Phase III protests of Bermello'
Kurki i Vera, Inc. and Bosco, Kirkland, Architects being denied
and the protest of Charles Harrison Pawleys at al., being upheld.
BACKGROUND:
The Chief Procurement officer, 'General Services Administration
=
Department, has reviewed three bid protests relative to the *_
consultant selection process for the City Administration Building *_
Phase II. on January 23, 1989, the Department of Development _f
Issued a request for proposals for Professional, Architectural',
Interior Design, and Engineering Services for Phase It of the
City Administration Building project.
On March 9, 1989s the firm of. Bermeilo, Kurki i Vera, Inc. filed
.a protest with the Chief Procurement Officer. The Department:.,of -
Development had rejected this firm's proposal because the vendor,
submitted expired architectural and engineering licenses. proof -
of current licensing was required by the RFP doeumentar, Page .8
section A(iv). A written confirmation received from the States
of Florida revealed that these licenses had, in fact, expired, -_
The licensing of the professionals) was an essential requirement
of the RrP.
on March 140 1989, a protest was received fro& Charles'Harriaon
Pawleys at al. The Department of Development bad r� jected this f `�T'
proposal because, although a copy of the architectural 1,iQerlse L _
-
was received for the proposing fir®, the licensers.; for twa �t,
additional architectural firms listed in the proposal 'doceamanta,
were not `.subuttted. The protesting vendor, maintains
the prime consulting architectural firs and therafora` is`
-
responsible for sealing all plans -for this project, including and.gi
. .
ON
The Honorable Mayor and Member*
Of the City Commission
Page 2
BACKGROUND: (CONT.)
prepared by the other two firms. The proposal documents do not
specifically prohibit this and in the proposal response from
this firm, the fact that these two architectural companies were
consultants or principal architects was not clear. The
architectural love of the State of Florida allow consulting
architects to give architectural advice to the architect who,
being licensed in Florida, is the only one who can sign and seal
drawings and give direct architectural services. Therefore, in
the absence of a clear reason for denial, it is recommended that
the Chief Procurement officer's decision upholding the protest be
approved,
-i
A protest was also received from Bosco• Kirkland, Architects.
However, it was rejected as being untimely because the City •Code
requires, that such protest be made within 14 days after the s
a ri d t k ld h
— gg eve par y now$ or ahou ave known of the facts giving e
rise to the action
complained of. The protest was made 32`days
after receiving the
city's notification.
;a
_
s_
i�.
1
d
,\
"
ROM
h+•