HomeMy WebLinkAboutR-81-0001RESOLUTION NO. 81 _ 1
A RESOLUTION ACCEPTING THE REPORT OF
THE DPM EVALUATION AND NEGOTIATION
COMMITTEE; APPROVTN(, THE, RIECOMMIENDATION
i v it OF THE CO�1'61TTTE1: TO AWARD THE DP"I CONTRACT
44- 1 r POR-1-
TO THE WESTINGHOUSE' l:i,EC'I'RIC CORPORATION;
U, _CUM D.M' AUTHORIZING SUBMISSION OF A REVISED GRANT
APPLICATTON TOT IIE URBAN MASS TR,INSPORTA-
OL Lard'. TION ADMTNTSTRATTON; AND AUTHORIZING THE
SUBMISSION OF ALL DPM NEGON 'I'IA'I'IG COIM1IITTEE
RECORDS AND DOCUMENTS TO THE URBAN 11ASS
TRANSPORTATION AD`IINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, the City Commission desires to accomplish
the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum from the
County Manager of Dade County, Florida, a copy of which is
incorporated tic -rein by reference;
NOW, THERL•'FORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The report of the DPM Evaluation and
Negotiation Committee is hereby accepted with approval.
Section 2. The recommendation of the DPM Evaluation
and Negotiation Committee to award the DPM contract to the.
Westinghouse Electric Corporation, upon concurrence in the
contract by the Urban Mass Transportation Administration and
award of sufficient grant funds, is hereby expressly approved.
Section 3. Submission of a revised grant application
to the Urban Mass 'Transportation Administration in the
amount of $92,464,289 is hereby authorized.
Section 4. Submission of the DPM Evaluation and Nego-
tiation Committee records of negotiation and contract docu-
ments to the Urban Mass Transportation Administration for
approval and concurrence is hereby authorized.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of January, 1981.
89DOCUMENT INDEX
ITEM N0, Y1 �r _ r'IAURICE A. FERRE
-� °1 A Y 0 R
J �
R LPfI O�(,i1, Cl'1'1' C1,1:I:KZ�
APPROVED AS TO 1:0101 AND CORRE-C NESS:
GEORGI F. KNOK, JI:., CIf Al'0RNEY
v,
CITY OF h11A`11. '=L.ORIUA
INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE January 5, 1981 TILE
Members of the City Commission
sua,E
Theodore R. Gibson
Vice Mayor ENCLOSURES
In the absence of Mayor Ferre and in my capacity as Vice Mayor, at the
request of Dade County, I am calling a Special Commission Meeting at
4:00 p.m. Tuesday, January 6, 1981 in the offices of the Downtown Devel-
opment Authority, 20th Floor, One Biscayne Tower.
The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the recommendations of the
committee who has been negotiating for the DPM system and to adopt the
findings of this committee.
cc: George F. Knox, Jr.
City Attorney
Ralph G. Ongie
City Clerk
"SU PP0PTIVE
QQCU I- LI'-4 I
FOLLOW"
'e1J'iiuE1w 10 43
L
U A130 8
A MEMORANDUM or
107.07-17 A
To Honorable Mayor and Members
Board of County Commissioners
FROM M. klthierr-el r ,•�',ti
C)AtF- Janupzy 6, 1081
suo scfi Doclritown People '-4over System -
Approval of DPM Committee
Actions and Authorization to
File Amended DPM Grant Application
It is recorrnended that the Board approve the actions and recommendatkns of
the Doantot:n People Mover Evaluation and Negotiation Coirmlttee, accept the
report of the DPP Committee, authorize submission of an amended DPI: Grant
application, and approve the delivery of all DPP4 contract documents to the
Urban Mass Transportation Aau.nistration for their review and approval,
BACKGROUND:
On September 2L, 1980, Dade County sent out invitations for proposals for the
iiamiMetro Do nto;:n People Mover System. his Invitation for Proposal had
the formal a_rpreval of the Urban 11-1-ass Transportation Adr;inistration and was
based upon the prior approvals of the Board of Counter Co.—.7issioners, the City
of t,—Aa,-,ni Co-,"IisSlon, ud the Doorntoitin People hover Policy Ccnriittee in terms
of its re.-u=.re:nents for a double loon system. of 1.9 miles in 'lent,th r.ith 10
stations alone anrroved alirrment. On October 10, 1980, Dade Count; con-
ducted a nre-rrcu.nsal conference for all interested partiee,. 71,e rroposal
conference resulted in a rTunter of otiestions r;hich r:ere raised b,,• proposers,
and as a resul,:;, Lade Count, is::u,�d a total of three addenda to the orir~inal
Invitation _ z�reresals. '-.:e la,;t addenda Extended the t. mme for submission of
-. proposal- fom I�ov�ber 24 , 1 0 to I?o ,•cTnber 26, 1980.
On i;cven::,,r 2L , 19�0, the Cc ntly 1,.,raMer appointed a D:,.- town pecrle "over
Cc"rnittee connoSed of re--e ,:�,rtativc-. iron,, the City of '-:iand, Flor;da DDT,
the Urban I'Kac ": r. pertavior_ Adn?i:ii,traticn, and the Dade County Cffice of
Tnr,.nsportaticn irinistraticn. On 26, 1980, proposals ;•:ere received
b ► Lade Ccu.t ., . A total c^ Five rrcresa1 c were received, and their initial
price offers vere as foilot?;s :
(1) Matra -Otis $116546,000
(2) ?Jest inrrhouse 08:399,270
(3) Llrb ,i '11raj �spertation
Develop^:ert Corporat�on(Li?rC) 91,687,221El
(4) MIX Alter!vitr• 73,380,567
(5) Titan,-?77 Systems 6019000,000
The DPM, Evaluatlion and H.erotiati.on Committee began its meetings on November 25.
1980. In excL s of 25 separate meetincrs were held of that Comrittee between
November 25, 1980,and the close o`' negotiations on January 5, 1981. The
Committee proceedu tr:.rourh its reouired functions bee•iruiin- with an evaluat_ -
of the proposals aU received on November 26, 1980. After considerable discus_ F
the proposal of Titan-PRTI Systems, inc. was found to be not re^nonsive to th-
s�;
Invitation for Pi,onolc and that fit- r. was so advised in ;:ritinr- by the Chaim-
t
BeginnirZ on December 3, 1980, the DPr' Evaluation and ; errotiation Connnittee
held teci-nical discussicn-0 with the rronosers submittin7, the remainin7 four
proposals. Ti:o;.F. re-cYuzical discussions continued trrour-h December 12, 1980.
On December 11-�, 198T), the County issued two I�1atra-Otis, l"_TC, and ?Jestingbour-
letters levities- r, best and final offer from each of those proposers. Best .-•
final. offers ;rere received or. December 22, 1980, :is follor;n :
(1) 1' 93,99: ,000
(2) umc 85,500,000
(3) Westinpp-jouse 74,598,744
The DP"' Evaluation Paid fle[retiation Committee spent the week of December 22, 1980,
thrc�ug,;i Decemb �r � 0, 1980, rendinrr and evaluati g- each of these proposals. Or.
Decer;ner• � , 1980, the DM Committee voted to exclude from further consideration
tree 1`'or^jai:; of I °�I'c ��1C'1,^� and t!ecaus-? there was no hope in the judgement
"SUPPORTIVE t
DOCUMENTS
FOLLOW"
of the Committee members that either of these proposers could possibly reduce
prices sufficiently to be considered for award of the PP!,' contract. Thus it
was concluded that it was in the best interest cf Dade County to exclude these
proposers and attempt to negotiate substantial reductions in price with the
llestinrTiouse team based upon the best and final offer number $14,5a8,744•
DeF;inning on December ?0; 1980, throuEli J�u-ivary 5, 1981, the Negotiation COM-
mittee sr.•ent in excesa of 50 hours in direct negotiations with the Westinrehouse
team revie%-dnr7 the basis for all pricing, the exact scope of all work to be
undertaken, and the detailed contract conditions. On January 2, 1931, the
Corc,A—Utee received a revised best and final offer of 469,8115,819. The Neeotiati47
Committee proceeded to advise Westinghouse that Dade County was prepared to
accept this as a final offer subject to the satisfactory negotiations of the
contract and to recommend award by the Board of Count; C=-issi'oner~,subject to
concurrence by the Urban 110ass ',ransportation Administration in the contract and
the availability of Federal grant funds to provide the Federal share of the
total project. Final neCotiations were held bexi nnin� on January 2 , 1981, and
proceeded on January 3, January 4, and January 5, 1981. The result on January
5, 1981, was a set of satisfactory contract terms k1nich are hereby recommended
to the Board.
Specifically, the Board is requested to: (1) Accept the report of the DP:Vi
Evaluation and Negotiation Co--nittee to include all of the gaol•^;r records of
nerrotiaticn and detailed loci nentation; (2) Arprove the reco:rrnendation of the
Ner tia-tin" " Co:^ :ittee to a;•rard the contract to the Westing'r;ouse� Electric Cor-
poration at a contract ceiliTr of Wc;9"I55,819; (3) Authorize the subri.ssion
of a revised fr nt application to the ?rbar. "fil s Transportation Adndnistration
to include the additional pro?ect cot • required to ccmr..lete this, project; and
(4) Authorize the sub-missinn of the cn tire record of ner-otiationn 3Tid NcE7c-
ti.ation CcnnittCee rec=. Tndationt to the Ur:,'?.n "-lass 7'-ansr•crtatlont ,id!-inistration
for concurrence and approval.
A senarate attacined I'lei1'cr nClvm from, the r.7r nsportation C'onrdinator to the County
1321a er is attached t0 Cet ail �! e e::ti"e project costs of t le ITI.T! ;'stem rased
upon the ; ostingiiouse Electric C"crporatlori contract of $69,855,819. In su-early,
the contract plus the escalation ad ustment, the acquisition cost,
the utilit;' relocation coot, the Dade County staff cost, and insurance and
consultant cost brie:- the total project, cost to $92,464,289. This represents
an increase of $14,464.289 over the previously approved ;_-rant a.nniication of
$78 million t.iiich i?.as forwarded to the Turban Mass Transr_ortation Administration
after hearinc_ by the 1"oard on ','ctober 21, 1980. 'l'he increase of �14,4641289
would requ:1re the Feccieral ^overnment to increase its costs by 49,642,666 from
$54 million: to ',Jj,E42,p66. Dade County under thin proposal v.ould be required
i, t n �r Fr''? fro'?I $1� 91f_, 000 to .'117 �31 G�'3. in addit_7n.
to Zcrea:.: its :,ii,re b, �:c,��_�, _ , , ,���,
the Florida Department of Transportation w uld be reouired to increase their
participation, by $2,546,000 from $6,700,000 to ti9,246,000. Funds are availabl:
from the Decade ofPr'^�^?'es:' Bond !--sue to increase the Count,, sha,�'e by $?,3=•�
We have been acsured that the Florida Department of 71ranspertation is willing
increase their share tc. $9,246,000 if Dade County will arpr'ee to Licrease its
share in order to fun, the overall nror'am and enable Dade County to secure t::
additional Cn"TA fundin4 of $9,c�4-,�66•
§
Rl
t 71 )I
1y iF' tat 3
�V1Y
I w,,.r,....,..R...�.,,«w.. M�.......mw.,,
p 4
31,
�"���
�bit'TIb� A�JC PPJ` 0.
Y
3rVALLIATIOr3
At`iI) Ti%,GOTI.ATIOTS COATI;,:
A''ROVIIJ^ THE Rf,"T. DAI IOPI OF THE Cu
h'dh D t
°
.
Drill
TO AWARD TtiE COIF PACT TO,"'HE 'v tf,STII�iGi i0E
f '
$
j t , :.:
ELECTRIC GORPO'ZAlION; AUMO.IMIG 8iTLSTON
f
Or A R�,rj,= GPJA*r 4n. PLICATm I�� I TO T1 t BAN
MASS TRMSPORI TATIOAI A .UNIS'_RATIM AND
"
t
AUTfiOFtiII11 THE SU�'t�USION OR ALL DPi�!
iSRCO'I'I�':^_fi1uC Cg,.77. ' T� COhhD, aI�TD
TO TfiE UPF1�?SI'7RTATIOi,j ADt�TjTe T.RE'1TZ��1
,e
ICEPEAS, this Board desires to accomplish the ptLrposes outlined in the
accompan,Vb-g memorandum from the County Manager, a copy of which is
incorporated
herein by reference,
I3a,,, T-1EFZR)1-v , BE ITS FrSOL%tFD BYE BOARD OF COLZ I. CV'-USIO i8
OF DADE C012JTY,-,-101',IDA that this Board;
Section 1. Accepts the report of the DI'I`i Evauuation and 'Nerotation
Co-amittee .
Secticn r- Approves the recommendation of the D' Evaluation and T ego
t ation Ca�ittee to at,Iard the MM, contract to the ldestinq-house Electric
Corn-oraticn ur_on concurrence in the contract by the urban Viass Transportation
Administration and ati:.a'd of sufficient grant funds.
Section ?. Authorizes subTi ssion of a revised 'ant application to the
Urban Mass l�ansportaticn Administration in the amount of y92,464,289; and
Section 4. Authorizes sub!riission of the DF.1 Evaluation and Negotiation
Co:rmittee records of ne�ot:iation and contract documents to the urban T`Iass
Transportation Administration for approval and concurrence.
`
The foregoing resolution was offered by Comisstoner m
3,
who moved its adoption. The motdon t::as seconded by Commissioner 4
F
x ;
and upon being^ put to a vote, the vote was as follows;
Barbara M . Carey
W.
Clara Oesterle
, F
I'Iilliam c. Oliver
Beverly B. Phillipssq s 1io Redford, f ord, Jr,.!
t Jame: 1' . s i.rr 5Y '_F z
Barr Trl, nC�12'ih
Barry .,e2'
putty Shack
95i�¢ /v
ep y�ei? r Cllm-10
�:
�t"SUPPORTIVE
4
yg
DOCUMENT.-
u3i t "fa u`i �'. • t5 .t y "?t. Sv'�*.,r. L ,.. 'F3e" . ,5 tul r r.
3;ith^' °stfiSY'SS J€ a FOLLOW
��i �3�F� �t�i� V '�y�' '��ti y' a�(. Yt 'a '•
-2-
Tl-,e 7.,:kvor thereupon declared the Resolution duly cassed and ador)ts--J
t 11 i s
Aprroved by County Attorney as
to fom and legal sufficiency. 1.
DfTE MPIT-,
BY 177 i'•��ti 07
CMIM'
PLT C'FA By:
"SUPPORTIVE
D 0 C U IMI E III �,' T"S
FOLLOW
107.07- 17 A
3
MEMORANDUM
M. R. Stierheim
County Manager
John A. Dyer
Transport, ti,
Summary
r
bAtF-
?arn2.::-Y 5; 19$1
DPM Project Costs
Considering a Westinghouse contract of 969,859.819, I have estimated the bare
minimum costs which Dade County must add to this amount in order to arrive at
an adequately funded program level for the DPM. In summary form, the DPM
Program would include.,
1. Westinghouse Contract in 81981 $69,859.819
2. Escalation Adjustment @ 7% annual 10.200.000
3. Right -of -Way Acquistion 5,078,700
4. Utility Relocation Estimate 2,282,670
5. MDC Staff Costs at Current Levels 3.543,100
6, MDC Insurance and Consultants 11500.000
Totals �$92,464.289
Supporting information for this presentation is provided on each item in the."::,:
following paragraphs.
2. E•SCALATION ADJUSTMENTS AT 77, ANNUAL - $30,200,000
Because we specified in Lhe procurement documents and in the negotiations
a contract which states costs in .lanuary 1981 dollars, a reserve must he estab-
lished which sets aside, additional capital dollars to fund inflation from the
N.T.P. date to the midpoint of construction fabrication. An analysis of the
schedule provided by Westinghouse by taking the various fabricatic♦n/construction
periods identified and :eighing them according to their dollar value: resulted in
the conclusion that the midpoint of construction should he taken as 23.7 months.
This is slightly more than the program period of 21 months because the design/bid
periods are generally longer than the system test periods.
Weshould expect to sign a funding agreement with ITMTA which is based only on the
1981 cost plus 72' inflation to the midpoint of construction. 17eITA would adjust fc:-
actual inflation rates above the 7 according to an escalation formula. We cannot
reduce this reserve by shortening the time to midpoint of construction. The Wes—
inghouse schedule is already optimistic, and the interplay of many complicated
factors cannot be readily adjusted further.
3. $1GAt-OP=WAY ACQUISITION COSTS - $5,0184700
A real estate estimate in January, 1980, established a total cost tot tight -of -way
at $44616,901. These estimates were escalated at 7% for a period of 18 months to
arrive at a total of $5,078.700. Tiiesp estimates were made on a parcel by parcel
basis utilizing maps prepared by the DPM staff, and include appraisal, relocation
and settlement costs. These costs are summarized below in unescalated numbers.
Area A - Fifth Street between N.E. 1st Avenue and N.W. 1st Avenue;
$494,250 is required in this area primarily for the emplacement of
stations, but also because some of the older buildings were con-
structed over sidewalks into public right-of-way necessary for the
guideway.
Area B - The "alleyway" east of N.E. 2nd Avenue; 83,858,201 is estimated
to acquire approximately 70,000 square feet of property in about 15
parcels. Relocation costs included in this amount are also substantial
because of the need to take apartment hotels.
Area C - Dupont Plaza; no costs were estimated for this area because
it is publicly owned.
Area D - Maintenance Facility and Property Adjacent to I-95 Off Ramps;
$264,450 had been included for acquisition of land for the maintenance
facility which was not included in the rapid transit program, for ac-
quisition of land from the former Coodwill property, and from two parcels
between Miami Avenue and S.E. lst Avenue (Federated Department Stores and
one other).
4. UTTLITY RELOCATION COST ESTIMATE - 52,282,670
These costs were taken directly from the estimate provided by Gannett Fleming
and have not been modified.
5. MC STAFF COSTS AT CURRENT LEVELS - $3,543,100
An estimate has been prepared which provides for minimum expansion of the DPM
staff. This estimate includes provisions for other OTA staff (e.g. TSD and F&A),
at the same levels which were provided in Preliminary Engineering. An allowance
has been made for five additional DPM professionals. Over a three year period
each addition to the Countv staff.to account for this 'basis for our estimating,
will amount to$200,000 including salary, overhead and direct expenses.
6. MDC INSURANCE AND CONSULTANTS - $1 , 500, 000
Recognizing that more turnkey responsibility has been given to Westinghouse
for production of a working system, OTA will still require some consulting
services over the life of the contract and for assistance in managing the
verification and acceptance test program at the end of the contract. For
purposes of this analysis, I have: arbitrarily cut my previous estimate approx-
imately in half to $350,000. In addition, we estimate the wrap-up insurance cc_ -
to be approximately $1,150,000.
3
7. In order to fund this total DFM progtam it will be necessary to increase our
current grant application to L'`1TA from its present level of S78.000,000 to a
total of $92.464.289 as follows:
TNITIAL GRANT APPLICATim
1. Federal Share 0.54,000.non
2. :Von -Federal Share `24.000.000
State DOT 6,700,000
Dade County 14,910,000
Cite of I•tiami Z, 340, 000
REVISED GRANT APPLI CA' 1014
$63.642,666
23- j2j , fi2-3_
9,246,000
17,235,623
2,340,000
Funds are available from The Decide of Progress bond issue to increase the
County share by $2,325,623 form $14,910,000 to S17,235,623. We have been
assured that the State D01' is willing to increase their share to $9,246,000
if Dade County also will increase its share in order to fund the overall
program and enable us to secure the additional U?iTA funding; on a 2/3 - 1/3
basis.
TME
CLOG U [,vII
FOLLOW
U
MEMORANDUM
107.07- 17 A
To Honorable Mayor and I.lembers DATE 7a mart' 5, 1981
Board of Cownty Cc - Ynissinners
SUBJECT F?erort of DFF F,valuation and
NeF-otiation Cc=, ittee
FROM jol'21 A. Dyer
Chairperson
Cn November 24, 19`30, the Coiuity !^.anarer appointed a Doi..ntovrn People !!over
Committee composed of representatives from the City of Pr'aami, Florida DOT,
the Urban ',nss Tr.Tusportation Administration, and the Dade County Office of
Transportation Administration. Attached 3_s a memorandum showin,7 the list
of the members and a schedule of their meetinr,,s.
On November 26, 1980, proposals were received by Dade County. A total of
five proposals were received, acid their initial price offers were as follows:
(1) llatra-Ctis $116,546,000
(2) ?-Iestindiouse 985399,270
(3) Urban Transportation
IYti*elopment Corporation NTUDC) 91,687,221
(4) 71D. Alternate 730805567
(5) Titan-P_t'T c stems 69,000,000
The DPz i D;aluation and Nerotiat.ion Co;T'rnittee berasn its meetin -s on I bvember 25,
1980, In excess of 25 senarate reet4 airs were held ofthat Co-mittee between
November "25,
1980, and t'he Close of nerrotiations on January 5, 1981. he
Committee -1-cceeded throu7h its renuired functions berinnii-Lr rrith an evaluation
of the proposal: as rece!_,ec: on :cvenber 2C, 2980. After conC iderable discussion
the :
pra_.c �:.� c1_, __„�x�-... �.c:n_ , In,,-. was .oat,,.. to ti. e now resne.i:�iv to the
Invitation fo_ F i .::nor alp at c ,.hat , is , . was so a' visc-c3 1. z the Ct;a iiTzan .
- F✓e,cr.innir.r on -Lir.-.'C?,^it,e" j, 10, , tn:=' DT:�'`. Evaluaiicn and L,ipr+.C`..1at10':: (;C"i!Ti17T.P.C'
1'le1Q -IeCh•:"1iCc.i t::'e t='r000sers sutmitt-it; r the re, rafninr" four
proposals. ose technical discussions con"•inued th?-ouF h, December 12, 1930.
r -er ' c 19q. `h ry-' --t v, sued to !Matra-Ctis r. and Westirf-house
!�7 Dece? iL. _�, i , the l:va:. iS.:u..,. , i_'iU.,,
letters in,ri`..in^: a b zt- and final offer front each of those proposers. Best and
final offers were received on December 22, 1980, as follotoas:
(1) `1 tra-Otis $93,993,000
(2) L71DC 85,500,000
(3) !'!estinrhouse 74,598,744
The DP!? Evalua`ion and Negotiation Committee spent the week of December 22, 19c'
through December 29, 1980, readin!^ and evaluating each of these proposals. On
December 29, 1980, the DPPi Co:ndt-tee voted to exclude from further consideratic�
the proposals of !.'atra-OtiC ax,d -71DC because there eras no hope in thF ,iud�eme:.-
of the Committee members that either of these nroposers could po.sibl;r reducc-
prices sufficiently to be considered for a.,ard of the DP!" conrract . It ...,as
concluded that it tras in the **rest interest of Dade CCluity t:o exclude these
proposers and att. �,mni; to nerotiate substantial reduction: in ;price with the
11estinF.j�ouse team nased upon the best and final offer numbor y474,59P,744.
Hondf%bie %kV& tLhd PIEtberd
Board 611" Count,V Co itsiof;ef"a Jativai v 5, .
.
On becember 30, °O, through J u 5 .1981! the Ne�btiatidh Coi�3ttee Otf�t
o�
in excess of 50 hours in direct negotiations Vrith the Westing-hoUte te6m
reVieming the basis for all pricin;7� the ekact scope of all work to be und6t-
taken and the detailed contract conditions. On January 2. 1981, the Coin-
t-nittee received a revised best and final offer of M938555819. The 14e-otlatif'
n, i Cottee proceeded to advise Westinr-house that Dade Count*,: eras prepared to
accept this as a final offer sutiect to the satisfactory nerrotiations of the
c;;n'wac` and to recc mmemd al','ralyd by the hoard of County CoTmissioners , subject
to concurrence by the T)r:�an Mass 'I"ransportation rdministrution in the contract
and the availability of Federal Fxant fluids to provide the Federal share of
the total proicct. i'i.nal ne otiations were held berinnine: cn January 2, 1981,
and proceeded on J nuary J, january 4, and January 5, 19`31. 'ire ?'e-ult. on
January 5, 1981, eras a set of sati factory contract terns which herebv
recommended to the 'Hoard of Count, Coumssioners as the basis for an award of
the DPI-4 Contract to the Westinghouse Electric Corporation in the amount of
`69,855,R19•
W
M MORANDUM
%"
Lva,luat inn and Nei�otlat icon Ceiht^ittee
i
P 11. R. S c
bAtt: Noven•l-cr _14, lciiin
Si nitct AppointmMit o' N-1 '.tY]10t lob
and !:vp6tiat16ti tef�`littokl
In acrordance with the ?1rx procurement specifications in(! the tedvral Prorurr,-
merit Regulations a well a:: the Dade Cc,unt%• Provisions fo!- c:cantrect neQotiytionn.
tl,c: followirlti persons are appointed to the PI'*i Evnludtinn and Negotiation COM-
tnittoe:
(1) Simon 7.weigilaft, Darie County
(2) Jnhn Pichesc)n, Djdo Count`
(3) hill Bio-., ircn., Vade County
(4) Don Catl,er, Cite of Miami
(5) Armando Vidal, l'•lorida Popartnent of Trahgi r,rt;ntlori
(6 Ko;' Kenzie, 1ievelopincnt Authority
(7) Murrnv, 1':1TA
(8) lohn A. Pver, Ch.:iruerson
(9) 11;l.,n CinSbnrg, Assistant County AttortIe;,
In addition, the fnl to inc: pur,;ons are apl,ointed a.; technicRi advisors t0 tlit
Tv,'i' Evaluation. an(! `:Qpotintlion Committeo for purposes of renderit:q IaItt.t
assistance:
(]) Sylvia "orris King, Equal npportitnity
(2) Andret! Vazr;uo Audit
(�) Son rashdollnir, Flcr ida Department of Tran!-liortnt"rion, Ci'.-,LVh,t
a ld :structures
(4) Harr- '.inde] 1 , I a1c, County, Svstems
(5) ?in "orenc, 7arIC• Uountti, En.,irontrental, Fl.annini, and Structitrc:a
Ilar,e County, Structures and Svstcns
The SecrPtariat to the Cor•Jnittee will he Ms. 1anct Goodman.
In order that the e^aluat iO ,.t and negotiation process can he acconpl is.hec'. withit:
the time period, it is aF-;olutely necessary}• thit the Co!nmittev plat, to mf-olk on
a daily ha.is. All meetings :ill he at the call of the Chairperson. The first
;.eetinh is set for 9:nn a.m, un 'November 25, 1980 in tht- llth !'loot l:or.fert.nr.
Room at Flap.ler 44 P,uildinp.
Please kecp ine ndvised of any prot,lenlS you mat' encounter that: :•01JUire -T.; as-t-t-
ance, Alsc, please ensure that you are in a position to neet the scher',lle of
presentin£ a contract for approval to the T:oard of County Con►r:issioner dluri-,:
the first week of January, 1981 and to present all of the informatior.•required
I),,- the Urban Mass Transportatirni Adr,inistration for their concurrence it the
same time.
s
PI.ELD111:ARY SCHT'DULE OF N EFTIN(S, DTIM. SU}'Pl,l.l'VSELEC'iI)`;
PATE TP, E 1, N ATIOK AT T FNIiF i:S SO PIT EC'C
i
i
i
1 :00
P.M.
I Courthouse
Al
1 1 ; 1(/(';I
3:00
P.M.
I 901 Ft. ,
/44
h.
P 1ngIc t
Al t Prc i,
icrs
�!3/310
00
A.M.
i .17th
rl.,
44
W.
Flagler 1
Proposcr
41
12/3/,)0
1:00
R.M
� 17th
F1.,
44
W.
Fl.,);ler '
I
Propusc'r
:!2
12/4/8o
8:00
A.M.
17th
Fl.,
44
W.
Flader I
Prcposer
#3
.:,,,/80 j
1:00
P.1•t.
! 17th
F1.,
44
W.
rIngler (
Proposer
04
- '/9/50
! 8:00
A.M.
I 17th
F1..,
44
W.
Fla,,ler I
Proposer
01
10";0 I 8:00 A.M. 17th F1., 44 W. Flag 1cr 1 Proposer ;`2
I �
!11r50 i 8:00 A.M. � 17th Fl., 44 W. Flagler � Proposer #3
2112/SO ' 3:00 A.M. i 17th F1., 44 W. ViigIt-T Proposer a
County Wi I1 Issue Best S viral Co: 0i ti.on
Proposal Opening
Prc,pr,::;;1 Lvnluation
Pro(,(,,;,. 1, Scho,.;uie
'icchnical Discussion
Technical Discussion
I
Technical I: 1 scussion
Technical. Discussion
Technical Discus;:;ion
FO1 I ow -IT p
Te: imica1 1)iscu:;sion
ow- t p
Tr: i:i; �;cJ. 1�iscur ;ior.
! Fo11nw-U1,
,
ivr:ii .ic;.l liisc.:ssiun
Lj 2/80
i:00
P.M. I
17th
Fl.,
44
W.
Fi.n£le:
All P-roposer! !
Subnit
Lc: t & Final 0:': .
—
t :00
A.M. �
17th
F1.,
44
W.
rlr,gier i
Supplies I
i
Start
Fin-i] N,t;otiati,r, r
�i3(i!SU
_ I
8:00
A.1:.
17th
Fl.,
44
11.1.
Ftap,lc:
Supplier
Pinrtl
''c ,oLi.,tlons
/2'/81
8:00
A.M. I
17th
Fi.,
44
W.
Nagler
Supplier
Finn!
N;Igotiations
/3/81 i
i
8:00
A.M.
17th
Fl.,
44
W.
Flagler
Supplier
Final
Negotiations
/5/1i1
8:00
A.M.
17th
Fl.,
44
W.
Flr.gler
Supplier
Ccmpl.ete
Final Fegotiat