Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMemoCITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: Honorable Mayor and City Commission Pedro G. City Manager andez, P.E. DATE: SUBJECT: REFERENCES: ENCLOSURES: August 20, 2007 FILE: Approval of Emergency Finding & Recommendation for Award Wagner Creek & Seybold Canal Assessment & Dredging Recommendation: It is recommended that the City enter into an Agreement with a contractor, CH2MHill, for assessment and dredging services of Seybold Canal and Wagner Creek in two phases: Phase 1 — Assessment, Characterization, design and permitting; and Phase 2 — Dredging activities. Award to be made for Phase 1 with the option for Phase 2. Due to emergency conditions, the Department of Capital Improvements Program ("CIP") utilized the principles of a procurement methodology, the Competitive Negotiations Method, governed by Section 18-86 of the Procurement Code ("Code"). This method is used when it is advantageous to consider a range of competing proposals and to award a contract based not solely on price but also on other factors. In this instance, environmental methodologies and approaches were strongly considered. Section 18-89 of the Code permits waiving a competitive sealed procurement method and utilizing other methods as deemed appropriate. A four -fifths affirmative vote of the City Commission following an advertised public hearing is required to use this methodology. Background: Contracting Methodology Wagner Creek and the Seybold Canal are both contaminated with dioxins and may contain additional contaminates. The existence of such contaminates poses a risk to the property owners along these waterways as well as to others who navigate or fish in these waters. Based on the potential public health threat of not quickly and effectively addressing the environmental conditions found within the Wagner Creek and Seybold Canal waterways, combined with the complexity of the issues, it was determined that the competitive negotiation process contained in Section 18-86 of the Code offered the best procurement methodology. The Competitive Negotiation process allows the City to determine the most qualified firm to perform the work. This method permits the City and the firm's participating in the process to clarify their proposal submissions and make adjustments in coordination with the City's requests. The goal for all parties is to fine tune the firms' submittals to offer their best plans to the City. Price becomes only one of the factors in determining the firm who is offering the best possible proposal to the City. Wagner Creek & Seybold Canal Assessment & Dredging Page2 Competitive Negotiations The Competitive Negotiation process consisted of the following: • 57 firms were notified of this project. Three (3) firms responded: Mario J. Faz, P.G., CH2MHiII Contractors, Inc. and Subaqueous Services, Inc. (SSI) • Three (3) responding firms were requested to submit detailed plan and additional information after CIP staff review. • One (1) negotiation meeting was held with each firm to complete details and provide final submittal requirements. Project Plan Mario J. Faz, P.G. voluntarily withdrew from negotiations CH2MHiII provided a detailed, professional and comprehensive plan and organization that was responsive to CIP staff requests. All components and project requirements to complete the project were included in their submittals. SSI failed to comply with submittal requirements throughout the process and the submittals exhibited minimal effort. Organization of their project team was vague, cost controls and reporting not addressed, contaminant management was not included and the project schedule offered no detail for tasks or activities. The maintenance of traffic for vessels as well as the protection of marine life or vegetation were not addressed.No alternative disposal sites were identified for potentially contaminated sediments, subcontractors were proposed without qualifications and resumes, they did not provide a fixed price proposal as requested, and principal staff were not present for the negotiation meeting. Price Proposal The price proposal offered by CH2MHi11 was detailed and comprehensive. The fee included all components of the scope requested by CIP staff. The CH2MHill proposal included all work and legal fees for negotiations of easement agreements. SSI failed to provide a fixed price for Phase 1 work. The fee proposal offered by SSI was lower but did not include major components of the work, i.e. permitting, incomplete topographic surveying, and easement agreements. In addition, a number of submittal requirements for completion of the work were not indicated as deliverables by SSI. The submittals not included in the SSI price proposal include: Contamination Assessment Plan, Project Health and Safety Plan, review of property ownership records, general access agreements for private property, vessel relocation requirements, co -application with property owners, lease agreement for interim staging areas, endangered species protection plan, permitting fees, responses to additional information from permitting agencies, and a detailed public relations plan. Conclusion: CIP and I recommend that it is in the best interest of the City to award Phase 1, with an option for Phase 2, to CH2MHilI Constructors, Inc. This firm demonstrated superior understanding of this project and their proposal is fixed price and comprehensive. The competing firms did not adequately comply with submittal requirements and ultimately failed to provide a fixed price. The choice of either other firm would leave the City exposed to potential substantial increases resulting from change orders. OOA/GF/mjr os'N