HomeMy WebLinkAboutLetter 2Glenn Marcos
Chief Procurement Officer
City of Miami
444 S.W. 2nd Ave.
Miami, FL. 33130
Re:
Miami River Lobster & Stone Crab
135 S.W. South River Dr.
Miami, FL. 33 130
Combined Notice of Protest & Written Protest of Miami River Lobster &
Stone Crab — City of Miami Request for Letter of Interest ("RFLI") re 236
S.W. North River Drive, City of Miami, Miami -Dade County, Florida
Dear Mr. Marcos:
The purpose for this letter is to provide the City of Miami (the "City") with
formal notice of the intent to file a protest by my company, Miami River Lobster & Stone
Crab ("Miami River Lobster"), of the City manager's recommendation for award of
contract on the above -referenced RFLI to Garcia Brothers Wholesale ("Garcia Brothers")
pursuant to City Code Section 18-104. This letter also includes the full written protest
setting forth the grounds and bases for setting aside such RFLI.
Miami River Lobster was one of four respondents to the City of Miami's RFLI
regarding the property located at 236 S.W. North River Dr. On Friday, July 8, 2005, I
received a faxed confirmation from the City containing notification of the City manager's
formal recommendation to the City Commission awarding the contract that was the
subject of the RFLI to Garcia Brothers.
This letter serves as a combined notice of protest and formal written protest
pursuant to Section 18-104. The grounds for the written protest pursuant to which Miami
River Lobster believes it has been aggrieved by the bid protest process resulting in the
manager's recommendation in favor of Garcia Brothers are set forth below.
The basis for the manager's recommendation in favor of the Garcia Brothers was
based solely on the recommendation of the three -person panel that held an oral hearing
on June 6, 2005. Immediately following the oral presentations on June 6, 2005, the
three -person panel evaluated and graded each bidder's proposal to the City. This
recommendation by the panel in favor of Garcia Brothers was based wholly on points
awarded by each of the panelists to the individual bidders.
There are three issues that make the panel's recommendation of Garcia Brothers
inherently flawed. As a result of these flaws, it is in the best interest of the City to
suspend any further negotiations with Garcia Bros. and issue a new RFLI for this project.
The first and most obvious ground for suspending the RFLI is the flawed scoring
of my firm, Miami River Lobster, by Panel Member Captain Stuart relative to his scoring
r
of Garcia Brothers. (Please attachment A). Criteria "C" of the evaluation form is the
proposed monthly fee to be paid to the City by the proposer. The maximum number of
points that any given company could have received for this monthly fee criterion was 35
points. Garcia Brothers in its written proposal proposed to pay $ 5,000.00 per month to
the City. My firm, Miami River Lobster, proposed to pay $ 7,000.00 per month to the
City. Capt. Stuart awarded Garcia Brothers 35 points for the monthly fee criterion,
the same number of points he had awarded to my company even though my
company's bid exceeded the Garcia Brothers' bid by $ 2,000.00. This scoring was
inherently flawed in that my company should have received a higher point total on the
monthly fee criterion since I offered an objectively and substantially higher amount of
money per month to the City. The sole point of evaluation of this monthly fee criterion
was the amount of the bid. A bid in an amount approximately 30% lower per month
should have received a score similarly lower than the score awarded to the higher bid
amount. If the score had been properly calculated on this monthly fee criterion, Garcia
Brothers would have received substantially fewer points.
The second ground for suspending the RFLI pertains to false information that was
presented to the panel by each of the proposers, Garcia Brothers Wholesale and
Casablanca Fish Market. (Please see attachment B). In each of their oral presentations,
these proposers argued that if Miami River Lobster were awarded the 236 S.W. North
River Dr. project, such award would create a monopoly by our firm on business in the
area. Specifically, in the Casablanca oral presentation, Casablanca attorney Daniel Vega
stated " that there is one proposer who already controls three of the four vacant lands for
traps is stored in Miami and if that party receives the fourth one then the fishermen that
have traps will have no where to go. I think that by providing for somebody else,
whether is Casablanca or somebody else to have that property, it will in essence allow
some competition to be had between the folks that control the land for storage rates that
are charged so that the fishermen are not choked and simply have no where else to go."
There are more than four vacant pieces of property on the Miami River where fishing
traps can be stored. There is absolutely nothing preventing any of the current companies
or any other company from purchasing the many vacant pieces of property on the river to
utilize them for the storage of fishing traps. The representations that such a monopoly
would be created by these proposers are objectively untrue, patently false and
deliberately misleading. The misrepresentations, however, were accepted as true
and relied upon by the panel members in reaching a final recommendation.
One of the panel members, Andy Parrish, in his commentary after the
recommendation was made, stated that it is (Please see attachment B) "not good to have
this one provider on the river, it is not good to have two, I'd like to have three or four for
the fishermen to be able to take their produce to. That is just my thought." Mr. Parrish
awarded 95 cumulative points to Garcia Wholesale and 90 cumulative points to Miami
River Lobster. It is clear that Mr. Parish awarded points based, not on what was in the
best interest of the City, but based at least partially on his inaccurate belief that a
monopoly would be created if Miami River Lobster were chosen.
2
i , r
Furthermore, the City has absolutely no regulatory authority over the commercial
lobster industry and the consideration of market competition factors was an inappropriate,
unauthorized and an illegal consideration by the panel. The panel's responsibility is to
determine what is in the best interest of the City and should ONLY apply the evaluative
criteria identified by the City, By inserting its judgment as to what is best for a few
fishermen or for a given wholesale fish market or not as a criterion for evaluation of the
RFLI, the panel exceeded its authority and based its recotnmendation upon unauthorized
objective standards. Because Mr. Parish decided to control de facto the amount of lobster
buyers operating on the Miami River, he neglected his responsibilities of getting the best
deal possible for the City of Miami using the criteria established by the City for
evaluating such a deal.
Finally, it has been brought to my attention that the City has been levied an
unexpected debt due to its ownership of 236 S.W. North River Dr. No one knew of this
debt prior to, or even shortly after, the panel's recommendation in favor of Garcia
Brothers. When I tried to find out through a public records request how much money
was owed by the City and why the City had been levied such amount, I was told by a City
official that this additional City debt had now become part of the contract negotiations
with Garcia Brothers and was, therefore, subject to the cone of silence. On behalf of
Miami River Lobster, I protest emphatically that a City debt that was not part of the
original RFLI and was unknown to all of the proposers should now be utilized in
negotiations with Garcia Brothers. This is particularly true because Garcia Brothers has
been the tenant at 236 S.W. North River Dr. for many, many years and is presumptively
responsible for this debt. The issue of this debt should have been taken up separately and
apart from the negotiations that were subject to the competitive bidding process as
defined by the RFLI. Now Garcia Brothers can use this debt as leverage against the City
in its negotiations for ultimate award of control of 236 S.W. North River Dr. and the
City's best interests are forever jeopardized as a result of this Leverage.
For the reasons stated herein, it is in the best interest of the City to suspend the
current RFLI and re -issue it with new panel members. It is critical that the re -issuance be
effected immediately because the recommendation to the administration is inherently
flawed and predicated on falsehoods. To continue negotiations with Garcia Brothers
based on the panel's recommendation is not only a waste of time but ultimately in bad
faith and subject to reversal.
CC Lori Billbery-Economic Development
CC Joe Arriola- Chief Administrator
CC Rafael Suarez -Rivas- City Atty's Office
CC ,' :< 1 511-0_- e;� /s's, d 11'4Y
Sincerely,
MIAMI RIVER LOBSTER
rieguez'
Vice -President
3