Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPowerPoint Presentation-Affiliated Computer Services IncAffiliated Computer Services, Inc. ("ACS") Bid Protest City of Miami City Commission Meeting April 22, 2010 CITY OF MIAMi, FLORIDA INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM To: Pedro G. Hemandez DATE; April 23, 2009 FILE: Chief Administrator/City Manager SUBJECT: Recommendation of Evaluation Committee for RFP 119057' Traffic Safety Camera Program FROM Jose R. Gonzalez, P.E. REFERENCES': Chairperson Evaluation Committee ENCLCSURE6: As Chairperson of the Evaluation Committee ("Committee") for the above services for the City of Miami, it is my responsibility to offer the findings and recommendation of the Committee. The City Issued RFP 119057 for the provision of Traffic Safety Camera Program, and the five (5) Proposals received were deemed responsive. .The Evaluation Committee ("Committee°), appointed by the City Manager, was comprised of the following individueis: 1. Dr. Joan Shen Ph.D., P.E., P.T.O.E., Miami -bade County Public Works 2. Pete Mann, IT System Manager, Miami -Dade Expressway Authority 3. Daniel Fleitas, Toil Operations, Miami -Dade Expressway Authority 4. Derrick Arias, Assistant Director, City of Miami Information Technology 5. Jose R. Gonzalez, P.E. — Assistant Transportation Coordinator, Clty of Miami The Evaluation/Selection Committee ranked the firms as follows: 1. ACS State & Local Solutions, inc. 2. Redtlex Traffic Systems, Inc. 3. American Traffic Solutions (ATS) 4. Traffipax, inc. 5. Nestor Traffic Solutions The Evaluation/Selection Committee ranked all the five (5) firms responsive and recommended that the City negotiate with the top ranked firm, ACS State &.Local Solutions, Inc., and further recommend that should negotiations fail with the top firm that the Clty then negotiate with the second ranked flrm, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc. Upon successful contract negotiations, the recommendation from the City Manager to the City Commission seeking permission to authorize and Qxedute the professional services agreement wilt be presented at the next available meeting. Your signature below ►'i Approved by: Pedro G. Hemandez, P.E. Chief Administrator/City.Manager ants your. approval of the Committee's recommendation. Date: aq Fxbihit "D" Request for Proposals (RFP) 119057,1 City Commission may also reject any or all response. (10) If the City Commission approves the recommendations, the City will enter into negotiations with the selected Proposer(s) for a contract for the required services. Such negotiations may result in contracts, as deemed appropriate by the City Manager. (11) The City Commission shall review and approve the negotiated Contract with the selected Proposer(s). 2.22. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Services not specifically identified in this request may be added to any resultant contract upon successful negotiation and mutual consent of the contracting parties. 2.23. RECORDS During the contract period, and for a least five (5) subsequent years thereafter, Successful Proposer shall provide City access to all files and records maintained on the City's behalf. 2.24. TRUTH IN NEGOTIATION CERTIFICATE Execution of the resulting agreement by the Successful Proposer shall act as the execution of truth -in -negotiation certificate stating that wage rates and other factual unit costs supporting the compensation of the resulting Agreement are accurate, complete, and current at the time of contracting. The original contract price and any additions thereto shall be adjusted to exclude any significant sums by which City determines the contract price was increased due to inaccurate, incomplete, or non -current wage rates and other factual unit costs. All such contract adjustments shall be made within one (1) year following the end of the Agreement. 2.25. PROPOSER'S MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS Proposals will be considered only from firms that are regularly engaged in the business of providing goods and/or services as described in this Request for Proposal; that have a record of performance for a minimum period of three (3) years; and that have sufficient financial support, equipment and organization to insure that they can satisfactorily provide the goods and/or services if awarded a Contract under the terms and conditions herein stated. Proposer shall: (1) Be fully licensed to perform the work described herein. (2) Not have any member, officer, or stockholder that is in arrears or is in default of any debt or contract involving the City, is a defaulter surety otherwise, upon any obligation to the City, and/or has failed to perform faithfully on any previous contract with the City. (3) Have no record of pending lawsuits or criminal activities, and have never been declared bankrupt. Page 31 of 44 • Page l oft Front Fabian ga5pach Sent Monday, February 15,101D MOO AM To: Christopher Benitez Sue= RERed Light Camera 0n page 43 of 45 of the RFP: 41 Submission Requirements Proposer shaR carefully follow the format and Instruction outlined below, observing format requirementswhere Indicated. Proposals should contain the Information itemized below and tithe order Indicated. This Information should be provided for the Proposer and urysubmnsultantsto be utilised fort awork contemplated by this Solicitation. Proposals submitted which do not indudethe following items maybe deemed nonresponsive and may not beoonsideredfor contract award. 4.14.c) Provide complete list of clients for which Proposer has provided a similar servIce(s) as requited la this RFP. This Fat should Include those entities of a sknllar site to the City) PertiodbrFygouemmentnl endtks,for whom services have been performed during the past three (3)years. 4.1a.e1 Provide, at minimum, three references that haw utilised 'beset*. proposed in thus respome,to include name, address, and telephone number, must be include name, address, and telephone number, must be included in the response. Problems Is that some of the vendors provided references that do not support item 4.1.a.c) and 4S4.e(. Sate question is la Proposer does not provide a reference that supports these Item; are they non•responsiveand therefore should not be considered for contract award? Rom Christopher Benitez Seat Monday, February I5, 2010 9:45 AM To; Moo Iakpath Subject Red Light Camera Is there anywhere in the RFP where It says that the vendors must have cameras in places: time of proposal submittal If so where? Chdsmpler gender, E7 HUTS Ccrpoiation 87C0 KestFlagler Street Sub.200 Mimrq FL33174 Toi(305)551.8100 Direct (305)222-1484 Fab(305) 551.2800 ErettallbSREEI 51d/C\Daclmeots and SettiogskWezounlLocai SettingslTetmp\Tesstpmmy Directory45L 4120.2010 Problems is that some of the vendors provided references that do not support item 4.1.4.c) and 4.1.4.e). So, the question is if a Proposer does not provide a reference that supports these items, are they non -responsive and therefore should not be considered for contract award? Is there anywhere in the REP where it says that the vendors must have cameras in place at time of proposal submittal? if so where? approves said recommendation, the Purchasing Department, not the Evaluation/Selection Committee, conducts the due diligence process to determine responsibility. Even though certain criteria pertain to responsibility, the City has a duty to further examine the validity of the responses and statements submitted by the respective firms, Accordingly, HNTB's assessment (due diligence review) concluded ACS failed to submit documentation or references supporting similar services performed in the past "at the time" ACS responded to the RFP and concluded the exact opposite with the ATS submittal substantiating their documentation and references supporting similar services performed in the past "at the time" the firm responded to the RFP (See Attachment B). As for your remarks that the City's irrational and myopic analysis appears to completely ignore portions of its own Code criteria cited in Section 18-95(c) is unwarranted. A firm's ability ° to obtain personnel resources --and expertise - (i.e. -subcontractor or ..... subprovider) to perform the work is not similar to having acquired the experience by performing the work already. Moreover, ACS can't claim the City, has not fully complied with the requirements of Section 18-95(d). ACS was contacted by HNTB to provide evidence to prove that it has been regularly engaged in the business of providing the equipment required by the formal solicitation. The formal solicitation, in this case the RFP, allows for competition. A disqualification of a firm in a competitive process does not stifle competition. Instead it may prevent a firm from obtaining an unfair advantage or unjust reward. ACS was not deemed non - responsible for introducing a new and highly improved technological solution over the provided ....and ....previously .... ins..tall.e.d.. by ATS, it was deemed non -responsive for not having been engaged in the business of providing a free-standing, self- sustaining, non -intrusive, and non-invasive red light photo enforcement equipment. as required by the formal solicitation, pursuant to the specifications, Section3, of the RFP. While I do believe and have previously stated on the record (see Attachment C) that this a narrow ruling and interpretation, my handswere tied because as you stated in your formal protest that the non-invasive, free-standing, self-sustaining system was a very new innovation for the photo enforcement industry "at the time" of issuance of the RFP in December 2008; and developed primarily for the State of Florida due to the lack of legislation and program cooperation from the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT). Therefore, the state of Florida was not like your other typical municipal clients located outside the state of Florida because it is not similarly situated under the same predicament. Thus, this distinction of a free-standing, self-sustaining, non -intrusive, and. non=invasive—red—light—photo—enforcement equipment —is = not --a preference-, but —a requirement. ATS Collier County Proposed vs. Installed gxtract from ATS Pr000lialIn Coflior County °Am.,. 4001Istr, ATe proposes to inotnI1 newmtt, next commute^ ...monenIxel st"Cte- cement system. The /boat, TO-161,1P Is the world, most ads, mod and hlehost reselotbn onforcernent oarnere system twelleble In Inc Inth,Stry. 1110 Mapped-Int) 10-enegephtal oamore offers 25 percent more teachCon then our prevbus 12.4 epIxeI camera off wino end Hee le three limos more resolution then any,Other phOto ontereetnent Camera In the Market. ATS !natation 12ANIP In Coiner Proposed TC-16IV1P System Installed Old Legacy System on Feb 2010 IATS Hillsborough County Proposed vs. Installed Proposed TC-16 MP Installed 12.4 Old Legacy System 2009 ACS vs ATS Camera Installation ACS (Bradenton) ATS (Aventura) TS City o ilP512711.11Fi223 11.221121422.44..517;2•M 127/2C1a, .12.12 1,13,..3 .P.11 12 0.1 2. 'A 5C.21-2/.2 •LLO1/221IIPAI2t...q2 C 1410 2Nli -;.• • Iv ami TC16»P Solution Proposed '..=121It.'211'32, 211-112, D2.1`12 MI al IR -1., .9 :2 F.F.,,t .,, ....z,t/,73 e•t., ttf.co .tttomstit'll -2 .i -It .14-rni ..,:t t •-• •,':...•:„.'.;..*.'..-- ......1.1.-;;ti-221,'.,,.t'''... ' • , .tt'tt t-s,:. • .• 9 • 7,z7fM4. , • THI•181: 325t12 2,4201:1 211.012: are= -,-.2';',...2001 .Z0;22147;2 21,1 :121 114. tl 21214-7,,f2 _11212 .72/5.1.221 1111.1} 1210.{ :111;:e '9 2008 Violation Images Submitted From Old Legacy Solution TC-16MP Solution not "Released" Until 1Q 2009 Has Miami seen images from ATS' propos d TC-1 • MP system? t`tO•h• .0 are trademarks of Xerox Corporation to the 'United States andlor 'other countries. .• Technology Co parison Summary Processor Video Max Mega Pixels Real Time Signal Detection? Smallest Footprint? Requires Large Box on Bottom of Poe? Proposed System Violation Images in Bid? Issuing Live Citations in Florida RLCS-1 clearly more dvanced and than proposed ATS TC16MP solution ACS Wh See is What Y u Get Stide 6 hACS 2010. ACS art the ACS design are tradeinarks of ACS tuterketing LP in the LIS endlor ether countries, XEROX) and YaRox and Designt are tradernarirS 01 Xerox Corpraticn rifthe Lined'Sts andfor elt:terirrountrieS..' Request for Proposals (RFP) 119057,1 No additional terms and conditions included with the bid response shall be evaluated or considered, and any and all such additional terms and conditions shall have no force or effect and are inapplicable to this bid. If submitted either purposely, through intent or design, or inadvertently, appearing separately in transmittal letters, specifications, literature, price lists or warranties, it is understood and agreed that the General and Special Conditions in this bid solicitation are the only conditions applicable to this bid and that the bidder's authorized signature affixed to the bidder's acknowledgment form attests to this. 2.18. PRIMARY CLIENT (FIRST PRIORITY) The successful bidder(s) agree upon award of this contract that the City of Miami shall be its primary client and shall be serviced first during a schedule conflict arising between this contract and any other contract successful bidder(s) may have with any other cities and/or counties to perform similar services as a result of any catastrophic events such as tornadoes, hurricanes, severe storms or any other public emergency impacting various areas during or approximately the same time. 2.19. UNAUTHORIZED WORK The Successful Proposer(s) shall not begin -work until a Notice to Proceed is received. 2.20. CHANGES/ALTERATIONS Proposer may change or withdraw a Proposal at any time prior to Proposal submission deadline; however, no oral modifications will be allowed. Written modifications shall not be allowed following the proposal deadline. 2.21. EVALUATION/SELECTION PROCESS AND CONTRACT AWARD The procedure for response evaluation, selection and award is as follows: (1) Solicitation issued. (2) Receipt of responses (3) Opening and listing of all responses received (4) Purchasing staff will review each submission for compliance with the submission requirements of the Solicitation, including verifying that each submission includes all documents required. (5) An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, comprised of appropriate City Staff and members of the community, as deemed necessary, with the appropriate technical expertise and/or knowledge, shall meet to evaluate each response in accordance with the requirements of this Solicitation and based upon the evaluation criteria as specified herein. (6) The Evaluation Committee reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to request Proposers to make oral presentations before the Committee as part of the evaluation process. The presentation may be scheduled at the convenience of the Evaluation Committee and shall be recorded. (7) The Evaluation Committee reserves the right to rank the Proposals and shall submit its recommendation to the City Manager for acceptance. If the City Manager accepts the Committee's recommendation, a Notice of the City Manager's recommendation for award of contract will be sent to all proposers by the Chief Procurement Officer notifying proposers of the City Manager's recommendation to the City Commission. The City Manager shall make his recommendation to the City Commission requesting the authorization to negotiate and/or execute an agreement with the reommended Proposer(s). No Proposer(s) shall have any rights against the City arising from such negotiations or termination thereof. (8) The City Manager reserves the right to reject the Committee's recommendation, and instruct the Committee to re-evaluate and make another recommendation, reject all proposals, or recommend that the City Commission reject all proposals. (9) The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's and Evaluation Committees' recommendation(s) and, if appropriate and required, approve the City Manager's recommendation(s). The Page 30 of 44 Red Light Camera Technical Evaluation HNTB Vendor Responses Each of the three vendors were called and emailed the following questions: 1. Does the red light camera system proposed in the RFP require dedicated loops to operate? 2. Does the red light camera system proposed require any pavement sensor installation? 3. Does the red-iigh ainera system-pToprosed-require-any-connection-to-th-e-intersection-signal system that would require access to signal system infrastructure? 4. Is the proposed red light camera system installed and being used to issuing violations for payment? if sQ, which cities and how many? All of the vendors claimed to not require dedicated loops to operate, pavement sensor installation, and connection to the intersection signal system That would require access to signal system infrastructure. They also claimed that they currently have proposed red light camera systems installed and issuing violations for payment with a list of references. The detailed responses from each vendor can be seen below. March 2010 Page 15 of 16