HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC 1981-06-08 Discussion Item6,
CITY OF I'IANII, FLORIDA
INTER•OFFIC' MEPIORANDUM0
I
Honorable Members of
e- liami Commis i:611
rROM Geo ge F. Knox, Jr.
Cil.t Attorney
i
VA1E
June 3, 1981
5UUJL ..l
40 Enl.l:�-ES
N�,LI SU HI
t"".E
On play 26, 1981, the Third District Court of Appeal
filed an opinion in GlaLstein et al. v. The City of 141ami,
in which Judge Nesbitt, writing for the three-jtidye panel,
found that a "management contract" and not a contract for
"professional services" was entered into between the City of
Miami and Diplomat World Enterprises. The court }Meld that
the contract did not comply with Section 53 of the city charter
(contracts for public works or improveruents) which requires
detailed plans and estimates to be submitted to the City Con-l-
mission by the City Manager before a contract can be entered
into by the City of Miami.
The Court'S opinion favorably cited `%'ester ISC'lot ,
103 Fla. 976, 138 So. 721 (1931) and City of a: t_I e��cft
Klinl_ter, 179 So.2d 864 (Fla. 3d DCA 1563) in support of its
opinion. The court found that the ". . . proposal not only
altered the design plan for the theme park but also embodic.-
a management contract as its primary element".
While the court recognized th'It the city is not re-
quired to seek cornpetititve bids for desic{n plans, feasi-
bility studies and other "professional studies", it was
the court's opinion that the "management aspects" of
the contract should have been subjected to competitive
bidding requirements.
This decision on the face of it, is a material ueparture
from prior Florida decisions pertaining to professional
services. The appellate court has made a "f.indincg of fact"
that the agreement between the city and Diplomat ;,.orld
Enterprises is not a professional. services contract, but
instead is essentially to be typified as a public works
contract. As you are aware, under the city's charter and
code, a public works contract has to be competitively bid,
while a professional services contract does not.
.r
ti
A A
t�
City Corrnnission -2- June 3, 1981
In my opinion, the city should not allow the District
Court's opinion to remain unchallenged, for the following
reasons:
1. Competitive biddinq requirements do not apply
to professional services contracts.
2. Management agreements require peculiar and special
skills which, per se, are exempted from bidding
requirements by the charter and code.
3. The 3d DCA Opinion directly conflicts with that
of the Florida Supreine Court in Parker v. Panama
City, 151 So.2d 469, (Fla. 1963).
4. The appellate court appears to erroneously have
made a factfinding determination that the questioned
contract was not a professional services contract.
5. The appellate court has improperly usurped the
legislative function of the city co.r�, fission.
6. The appellate court was collaterally estoppel by
the prior bond validation proceeding.
GFF/t,iSCJwpc/ 1
CC: City 11anager