Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutSubmittal-Edward Martos-Email Packet Re PH.4 and PH.5 - RollKallWk_LAN%OSEROTA September 13, 2023 VIA EMAIL Honorable Arthur Noriega City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 anoriega@miamigov.com Mitchell A. Bierman, Partner mbierman©a wsh-law.com Submitted into the public record f?Qr itggmp) on R I l 4 1 1 .City Clerk Re: Resolution 14309 — September 14, 2023 Agenda Items PH-4 and/or PH-5 Waiving Competitive Bidding Methods for RollKall Dear Mr. Noriega, Resolution 14039 (Commission agenda items PH-4/PH-5) proposes to waive competitive sealed bidding methods for extra -duty detail scheduling and management services for the City's Police Department. The resolution would award a contract for said services to RollKall Technologies, LLC ("RollKall"). City Code Section 18-85A allows you and the City Commission to waive competitive bidding where competitive bidding "is not practicable or is not advantageous to the city." (Emphasis added). I write on behalf Hart Halsey, LLC d/b/a Extra Duty Solutions ("EDS")—a leading provider of police extra duty management services. EDS is willing, ready, and able to offer the City better than what RollKall is offering. EDS asks that the proposed resolution be withdrawn for two simple reasons: I. RollKall is offering the City a bad deal. Competitive bidding is both perfectly practicable (Miami and Miami Beach have held such RFPs before). Competitive bidding will lead to a more advantageous deal for the City. 2. EDS offers better prices and better services. For example, EDS will charge City businesses and residents between 3% and 7% less than RollKall per extra duty job, EDS will charge business and residents 7% less for workers compensation insurance, and EDS will pay officers on the next business day for no additional fee. Rollkall will Miami business and residents more and will charge your police officers for the expedited pay. Rollkall's offer simply is not "advantageous to the City." More details on how EDS's service are superior to Rollkall's are provided in the table below. 2800 PONCE DE LEON BOULEVARD, 12th FLOOR, CORAL GABLES, FLORIDA 33134 M01-,5\,6\,\\t\\-Caka,d V1m\-t-,-Lik6A\oat\ -(M0,\\ Mr. Noriega September 13, 2023 Submitted into the publ' record fqr it m(s) V�, on 9 114�'1) . City Clerk 3. The City has considered RollKall's offers before and declined them for good reason. In 2021, the City published RFP 1204387, received multiple bids, and ranked them. The City ultimately abandoned that RFP process after it was brought to the City's attention that the top -ranked bidders were non -responsive. That history, and RollKall's role in it, need not be rehashed here —it is captured in the enclosed correspondence from the time. The City, its police force, its businesses, and its residents deserve better than RollKall's proposed offer. EDS asks that the City give it a fair opportunity to present its superior offer and to have it objectively considered. To that end, we ask that Resolution 14309 (Agenda item PH-4) be withdrawn and EDS be given an opportunity to bid. Sincerely, AAAA"4 t°2'.."-- Mitch Bierman and Edward Martos Enclosures cc: Honorable City Commissioners and their Chiefs of Staff Victoria Mendez, Esq. (vmendez@miamigov.com) Ms. Annie Perez (annieperez@miamigov.com) City Clerk (clerks@miamigov.com) 2 of 4 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I GAINSEVILLE I WSH-LAW.COM Mr. Noriega September 13, 2023 Submitted into the public record fqr ite(s) 40. on City Clerk EXTRA DUTY SOLUTIONS (EDS) vs. ROLLKALL 1. EDS Will Cost Miami Businesses and Residents Less. EDS's service fee (raid by those hiring Miami's police officers is 7% less for Fees Rollkall EDS Minimum Officer Rate $45/ hour $45/ hour Admin Fee Paid to the City $4.50/ hour $4.50/ hour Vendor's Admin Fee for Permitted Jobs 5.89% 5.5% Vendor's Admin Fee for Non -Permitted Jobs 81 8.0% Fee for Optional Workers Comp. S.OY 4.65% Credit Card Fee 2.99% 2.99% 2. EDS Offers Police Officers and Customers More — and No Hidden Fees Rollkall's proposed contract (pages 24-25) states: "Officers and/or clients may agree individually to purchase additional services through the RollKall platform at their own expense. These services may include, but will not be limited to: • Expedited payment for services • Insurance • Banking & Treasury Services • Workers Compensation" With EDS, Miami officers will be paid the very next business day after they work their extra duty detail. EDS will do so for no additional fee. EDS offers the same or better insurance coverage for police officers' conduct without any additional fees. EDS charges 7% less for Worker's Compensation insurance than Rollkall. 3. EDS Offers Miami Flexibility and Promises Accountability 4. EDS typically offers its clients real flexibility and the ability to hold us accountable by offering month -to -month contracts. Rollkall's proposed contract would lock in the City for either 3 or 5 years. What if Miami doesn't like RollKall's service? RollKall Will Keep Customers Waiting On Hold RollKall's proposal promises that, "[o]nce your request has been received via the [online form] or by calling (855) 765-5525, RollKall will contact you within 15 minutes to confirm the job request." 3 of 4 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I GAINSEVILLE I WSH-LAW.COM Mr. Noriega September 13, 2023 Submitted into the pub1 c record for item(s) VH. 5 on 9 I1' 11`i . City Clcrk EDS prides itself on its 24/7/365 service. 95% of our calls are answer by the end of the third ring. 5. No Conflicts of Interest Rol 1Kall's proposal (at Exhibit F) acknowledges that it is owned and controlled by Athos Group. Athos —through its affiliate company "Summit" —signs supplier agreements with large private companies that hire extra duty officer (like big box retailers, restaurant chains, or banks). Those supplier agreements obligate Summit and by extension Athos to prioritize those clients potentially at the expense of municipalities. EDS avoids all such conflicts by exclusively serving government police forces. 6. EDS Can Offer All The Same Services RollKall's scope of services is laid out in two lists with a total of 33 points. EDS provides these same services to its customers and will do the same for the City of Miami. 4 of 4 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I GAINSEVILLE I WSH-LAW.COM 1 HELFMAN COLE + BIERMAN April 5, 2021 VIA E-MAIL Honorable City Commissioners City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, Florida 33133 Mitch A. Bierman, Member mbierman©a wsh-law.com Submitted into the pub i record fir item(s) , 4) on g� �� 2 3 . City Clerk RE: Non -Responsiveness of Bids by Off Duty Management, Inc., RollKall Technologies, LLC, and PowerDetails, LLC in RFP 1204387 for Police Extra - Duty Detail Scheduling and Management Services Honorable City Commissioners, I am writing on behalf of my client, Hart Halsey LLC d/b/a "Extra Duty Solutions." Extra Duty Solutions is a leader in the management of extra duty officer needs for public sector law enforcement agencies in 16 states across the country (102 public agencies total). In 2019, the City Commission directed City Staff to prepare an RFP for the management of the City's extra duty program. The Commission emphasized that the winning bidder must be free from conflicts of interest —including those that arise when program managers represent private sector companies in addition to public sector agencies. With that in mind, please review the enclosed correspondence which highlights serious concerns regarding some of the proposals received in response to the City's RFP. Sincerely ZP�-„-PM�r�- for Mitch Bierman Recipients List cc: City Clerk (clerks@miamigov.com) Pablo Velez, Esq. Eduardo Falcon, CPPB Rich Milliman Edward Martos >v WEISS SEROTA VIA E-MAIL Victoria Mendez, Esq. City Attorney City of Miami 444 SW 2 Avenue, 9th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 vmendez@miamigov.com HELFMAN COLE + BIERMAN Mitch A. Bierman, Member mbierman©a wsh-law com March 2, 2021 Annie Perez, CPPO Director of Procurement / Chief Procurement Officer City of Miami 444 SW 2 Avenue, 6th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 AnniePerez@miamigov.com Submitted into the pubic record f r item(s). on t • City Clerk RE: Non -Responsiveness of Bids by Off Duty Management, Inc., RollKall Technologies, LLC, and PowerDetails, LLC in RFP 1204387 for Police Extra - Duty Detail Scheduling and Management Services Dear Ms. Mendez and Ms. Perez, 1 am writing on behalf of my client, Hart Halsey LLC d/b/a "Extra Duty Solutions." Extra Duty Solutions is a leader in the management of extra duty officer needs for public sector law enforcement agencies in 16 states across the country (102 public agencies total). Extra Duty is one of four companies to have submitted bids in response to Request for Proposals No. 12004387 (the "RFP"). The other three bidders are: 1. RollKall Technologies, LLC ("Rollkall"); 2. Off Duty Management, Inc. ("ODM"); and 3. PowerDetails, LLC ("PowerDetails"). I write to bring to your attention and to the attention of the City's Procurement department that the proposals of three of the four vendors are nonresponsive. In short, RollKall and ODM fail to satisfy Section 2.7(G) of the RFP, which is a critical conflict of interest requirement, and PowerDetails fails to satisfy Section 2.7(A) of the RFP, which requires a minimum of three years' experience. For the reasons detailed below, RollKall, ODM, and PowerDetails should be disqualified. This matter is extremely time sensitive. We learned yesterday, March 1' that a Selection Committee will be meeting to review proposals tomorrow, March 3. We ask that you carefully review this matter now and cull the non -responsive proposals prior to the committee meeting or, at a minimum, postpone the meeting to allow your offices to further investigate the information highlighted here. Victoria Mendez, Esq. March 2, 2021 I. RollKall's and ODM's Conflicts of Interest Submitted into the pub 'c record fo it m(s) N, on cl ii y� 13 . City Clerk RoliKall and ODM provide services to private sector clients in violation of RFP section 2.7(G). The City Commission went to great lengths to ensure that the RFP was structured to eliminate potential undue bias in the City's extra duty program. In fact, the current RFP is actually the second iteration of the City's solicitation. The City Commission expressly rejected the earlier iteration because it did not sufficiently ensure that the selected proposer would be free from undue influence.' Accordingly, Section 2.7(G) of the RFP includes the following requirement: 2.7. Proposers Minimum Qualification For a Proposer to be deemed responsive the following minimum qualification requirements cited below shall be satisfied. In determination said responsiveness, each of the following minimum qualification requirements shall be addressed in detail in the Proposal submittal. Failure to meet each of the following minimum qualification requirements and/or failure to provide sufficient detailed documentation concerning the same, shall result in the Proposal being deemed non -responsive. * * * G. Not provide the services requested in this solicitation to private sector clients. Participation in this solicitation is restricted to firms that provide police extra -duty scheduling and management services to government/law enforcement agencies only. (Emphasis added) Section 2.7(G)'s plain meaning was further detailed by City Staff in its response to a question formally presented by a potential bidder. The question posed by the potential bidder and City Staffs response were: Q2. Can you clarify the intent behind (Section 2.7, pg 36, G) and how it may pertain to any Successful Proposer that is bidding that may or may not have relationships with private organizations? A2. The intent is to prevent a potential conflict of interests where a private sector client could receive preferential access to police services or improperly influence the selection of personnel for extra -duty services. See RFP Addendum #1 (Emphasis added). See Resolution R-20-0024 adopted January 23, 2020. The resolution directs City Staff to cancel the previously issued RFP No. 1178386 and replace it with a new RFP, the current RFP No. 1204387. 2 of 7 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Victoria Mendez, Esq. March 2, 2021 A. RollKall's Non -Compliance Submitted into the publkc� record f r i m(s) V' on City Clerk RollKall's proposal at page 8, asserts that it does "[n]ot provide the services requested in this solicitation to private sector clients." To the members of extra duty services industry, this claim is stunning in its audacity. RollKall is well known in the industry for its work with private sector clients. One need not possess insider industry knowledge to be aware of this, as RollKall's website loudly announces that private sector clientele are huge part of its business. RollKall's website boasts that it powers "37,500+ Business & Organizations Across the U.S." and then lists "Brinker International, Exxon, The Weather Channel, Chick-fil-A, and AT&T" as examples. ROLLKALL'S WEBSITE ADMITS IT SERVES 37,500+ PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESSES IgRnl4KaLL Mrs we Bern 3M0141 Yam.w Camping. Cayst Safer Businesses, Safer Communities RollKall Connects You witn 59,000. Officers & Deputies friar 1,400. Law Enforcement Agencies (or Of( -Dory Security, Traffic Control & Event Security �♦ PoMbe97000. n.n....a o.aeeraeow Avawde U.S. sq,w l see i 1 Ill See https://www.rollkall.com/business. See Exhibit 1 of a larger version of the above. RollKall's marketing even promotes its simultaneous representation of both public sector and private sector clients as a benefit to each. ROLLKALL SPINS ITS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AS A MARKETING POINT Creating Safer Communities Darin& Is the five enforcement Indu[7y's only comprehensive extra - duty management soludon, bringing transparency to extra -duty security by connecting every stakeholder In the process We rep connect our eommunnies by fostering positive rrel(onaMoe among businesses, local pollee officers, and law enforcement agencies We streamline off -duty management antcmake it easier for businesses' to find am w off -duty officers for seend traffic control needs through our Industry -leading platform making it simple for them to address client needs, communicate details with officers, and to ensure department regulations and guidelines are folowed- 'mCi Moving forward, RotlKalh goal If to get every off -duty ice, on the Rental ptatfomn and rmtlnte to make our 00mm*WNes safer by connecting people and business with everydly heroes - See https://www.rollkall.com/about-us. See Exhibit 1 of a larger version of the above. 3 of 7 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Victoria Mendez, Esq. March 2, 2021 Submitted into the publ'c. record fo ite (s) ' H , 5 on 1tj. City Clerk Additionally, page 9 of RollKall's proposal acknowledges that its "parent company" is Athos Group. Athos Group is a prominent provider of extra duty services to private sector clients.2 Rollkall thus openly violates the RFP's conflict of interest provision by serving private sector clients. Nor can RollKall dance around this violation by claiming that the services it provides to private businesses is somehow different from the services it provides to government. The RFP requirements are clear and clearly intended to prevent exactly this kind of divided loyalty. This clear violation of RFP, Section 2.7(G) requires that you disqualify RollKall as non -responsive. B. ODM's Non-compliance ODM's proposal similarly violates Section 2.7(G). ODM is an extension of a larger company that is the largest off -duty service provider for private sector companies in all of North America, "Off Duty Services" ("ODS"). ODM's proposal suggests that it is a "standalone" company distinct from ODS. See, ODM's bid at pages 49, 54, 60 and 86. All evidence indicates, however, that the separation between ODS and ODM exists only in theory. In practice, ODM and ODS are the same company for the following reasons. 1. ODS, the private sector provider, is ODM's "parent company." At page 49 of its proposal, ODM writes that it was "[f]orm[ed] under the parent company, Off Duty Services (the largest law enforcement off -duty service provider in North America)..." (Emphasis added) Similarly, at page 127, ODM's bid states that it was "formed as a standalone corporation from our parent company." (Emphasis added) 2. ODS owns ODM. At page 60 of its proposal, ODM's bid acknowledges that it is "100% owned by Off Duty Services, Inc." 3. ODS and ODM's financial health appear fully intertwined. At Appendices 3a, and 4a, ODM's proposal includes letters from JPMorgan Chase Bank and RapidRatings International, a corporate analytics firm. JPMorgan and RapidRatings are notably unable to present information about ODM's financial health as a "standalone" company. Instead, they report on the companies' combined health. They refer throughout their letters to "Off Duty Service/Off Duty Management" and the "Companies" rather than to just ODM. For easy reference, copies of Appendices 3a and 4a are attached to this letter as Exhibit 2. 4. ODS and ODM are operated by the same principals. At page 3, ODM's proposal lists Sherry Rowley, Brett Rowley, and Erneso Daza as ODM's President, Vice President, and Chief Financial Officer. According to ODS's website, these same individuals play these same roles for ODS. 2 At page 9, RoliKall's bid indicates that its Managing Member is Chris White who, in turn, is "the CEO of Athos Group, the parent company of RoliKall." 4of7 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM e Victoria Mendez, Esq. March 2, 2021 Submitted into the public record f r it m(s) �Vii "n q itti n . City Clerk FROM ODM'S PROPOSAL FROM ODS'S WEBSITE i dip Oleo. Appendb J,. L fifer Personnel Ocean In IDb fectlen include: Skirl 117rM!^heWeet ined Pao*- V ieeP1eYerx 00reoebas Fiemdm Teen: Geoff Perinea -M ome nt Obector Hneca Deft -OW forMrJ Officer Janke Darts- Director of Opredors Gnu Doren- Director of Wilma Development cfpiOPP DUTY SWIM See http://offdutyservices.com/about-us/key-executives ra.w taw t,ea.aw.w u.a. t,au.a caaa I e rem leabr- At least two additional "Key Personnel" listed in ODM's bid also work for ODS in serving private sector clients. Their resumes —submitted as part of ODM's bid —expressly state that they work for ODS even today. For easy reference, copies of the resumes are attached as Exhibit 3. In short, ODM is ODS's alter ego. The City Commission was right to be worried about conflicts of interest and undue influence in the City's program. In Extra Duty Solutions 'experience, it is impossible to independently serve a police agency while also working with corporate clients to book extra duty services. That's why Extra Duty Solutions has no private sector clients whatsoever. RollKall and ODM cannot say the same. As noted above, they have deep ties to private sector clientele. These ties make them non -responsive to the RFP's minimum requirements. II. PowerDetails Lacks the Experience Required by the RFP When the City Commission rejected the earlier iteration of the RFP, the Commission expressed a concern that the former solicitation welcomed bids from companies that offered only software applications and not actual live management of extra duty services. Chief Colina shared the Commission's goal. He stated that "[t]his is not for software, where we then have control over who, what, when, and where, no. This is specifically for a third party to handle every element of this process...which is what we need; a completely independent third party to handle every last element of this process."3 The RFP's text makes this requirement clear. Section 3.1 of the RFP requires that proposers be "entirely and wholly responsible for the operation, supervision, direction, management including, without limitation, securing extra -duty assignments, billing, collections, scheduling and guaranteeing payments for the Extra -Duty Program." The RFP goes on to say that the City "will no longer have or share in such duties, which will be solely of the Successful Proposer." To ensure that the City receives full service —not just software —Section 2.7(A) requires that proposers "[p]ossess a minimum of three (3) years of continuous experience providing services to 3 See Meeting Minutes for City Commission Planning and Zoning Meeting on January 23, 2020, p. 235. 5 of 7 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Victoria Mendez, Esq. Submitted into the publ'c March 2, 2021 record f i em(s). on City Clerk governmental enforcement agencies similar to those requested in this RFP " Furthermore, Section 4.1(B)(4) requires that proposers describe their experience and illustrate it with "comparable contracts." PowerDetails is a software company —not a full service provider. Accordingly, PowerDetails' proposal describes only the provision of software for agencies' use. At page 9, for example, its proposal describes 14 years "working in the automation of extra -duty processes." (Emphasis added). It then explains PowerDetails' belief that "clients, officers, and agencies can effectively interact in platform to achieve the desired business outcomes" (Emphasis in original) In other words, PowerDetails believes that software is all that Miami or any of its clients need. Thus, it is no surprise that their proposal fails to identify a single "comparable contract." Rather, PowerDetails lists three contracts whose scope involved merely provision of software. • Tampa Police Department — Platform used to manage extra duty. Payroll integration to Oracle. • New Orleans Police Department — Platform used to manage extra duty. • City of Ocala Police Department — Platform used for extra duty and Kronos Integration. For each of these "comparable" contracts, PowerDetails states that "[T]hese agencies do not outsource the customer service, accounts receivable, or payments." But rather, "their staff uses the automation platform to accomplish those tasks. See PowerDetails' Bid at page 10. (Emphasis added) In other words, PowerDetails' three most "comparable" contracts do not compare at all in scope with the with RFP's requirements. The City Commission was unambiguous in its instruction on January 23, 2020. It expects all bidders to assume full responsibility of the program, not just provide software. The RFP's text matches the Commission's instruction. And the RFP is clear: proposers must have at least three years' experience in delivering more than just software. PowerDetails does not meet this requirement and its proposal should therefore be discounted. If this does not render PowerDetails' proposal non -responsive, then City must at least weigh whether it wants to seriously consider a proposal from a vendor with such woefully inadequate experience. III. CONCLUSION We understand that procurement staff, with your office's assistances, conducts an initial review of all bids to confirm responsiveness. In light of the foregoing, we ask that you conduct that review or revisit the bids prior to the Selection Committee meeting scheduled for Wednesday, March 3. For the reasons stated above, we submit that the RFP's plain requirements and evidence presented here compel the rejection of RollKall's and ODM's proposals, and, if not the outright rejection, then the significant discounting of PowerDetails 'proposal. 6 of 7 MIAMI 1 FT. LAUDERDALE 1 BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Victoria Mendez, Esq. March 2, 2021 Submitted into the publ}i, record f9r it (s) Yi, '1 on 9 114 3 . City Clerk Thank you for your time and careful consideration of this letter. cc: City Clerk (clerks@miamigov.com) Pablo Velez, Esq. Eduardo Falcon, CPPB Rich Milliman Edward Martos 7of7 Sincerely, ZPIA-44,%-ue Mwr�- for Mitch Bierman MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM 2 SEROTA HELFMAN COLE + BIERMAN July 13, 2021 VIA EMAIL Honorable Arthur Noriega City Manager City of Miami 444 SW 2nd Avenue, 10th Floor Miami, Florida 33130 anoriega@miamigov.com Mitchell A. Bierman, Partner mbierman®a wsh-law.com Submitted into the pub 'c record f r i em(s) on 9 / I i, City Clerk Re: Non -Responsiveness of Bid by RollKa11 Technologies, LLC in RFP 1204387 for Police Extra -Duty Detail Scheduling and Management Services (the "RFP") Dear Mr. Noriega, I am writing on behalf of Hart Halsey, LLC d/b/a Extra Duty Solutions ("Extra Duty Solutions"). Extra Duty Solutions submitted a bid in response to the RFP referenced above. Extra Duty Solutions' bid would be top -ranked by the City's evaluation committee had the RFP's very clear instructions been followed. But because the RFP's instructions were ignored, a competing bidder, RollKall Technologies, LLC ("RoIIKaII"), was improperly evaluated and ranked by the evaluation committee. I am writing before you have issued your recommendation to the City Commission to bring to your attention a serious error in the procurement process. That error is so grave that a recommendation in favor of RollKall would be one of the most flagrant violations of RFP requirements that I have seen in my 31 years of municipal procurement practice. Your prudent judgement is needed now to avoid what could be one of the most embarrassing administrative episodes in City history.' The issue is simple. At Section 2.7(g), the RFP explains that, "[f]or a Proposer to be deemed responsive" it must: "Not provide the services requested in this solicitation to private sector clients. Participation in this solicitation is restricted to firms that provide police extra -duty scheduling and management service to government/law enforcement agencies only." This letter is not a bid protest and is not intended to provide an exhaustive list of errors in the procurement process. Extra Duty Solutions reserves all of its rights to challenge the procurement process and any award recommendation in accordance with the City's procedures. Mr. Noriega July 13, 2021 Submitted into the public record ggr��gm �s) QH on 1 City Clerk (emphasis added). To eliminate any potential doubt about what the above means, an addendum to the RFP reads: Q2. Can you clarify the intent behind (Section 2.7, pg 36, G) and how it may pertain to any Successful Proposer that is bidding that may or may not have relationships with private organizations? A2. The intent is to prevent a potential conflict of interests where a private sector client could receive preferential access to police services or improperly influence the selection of personnel for extra -duty services. See RFP Addendum #1 (emphasis added). Despite the clear -as -day instruction above (the *mad of Interest Ru1etEM1]'°). City staff have accepted a bid by Rollkall, one of the nation's largest providers of off -duty scheduling and management services to the private sector. RoliKall's conflict of interest was no secret. At the time that RollKall submitted its bid to the City and continuing until Extra Duty Solutions called RollKall out for its conflict of interest, RoliKall's website loudly announced that private sector clientele are huge part of its business. RoliKall's website boasted that it powers "37,500+ Business & Organizations Across the U.S." It went on to list "Brinker International, Exxon, The Weather Channel, Chick-fil-A, and AT&T" as examples of its clientele. ROLLKALL'S WEBSITE ADMITS IT SERVES 37,500+ PRIVATE SECTOR BUSINESSES Safer Businesses, Safer Communities Rol8ea C00,ects You wim 59,000. Of00ere 6 Depotlm6 from t,a00. taw Enforcement AyenUes for Off -Duty Seouriry, Traffic Comm 6 Event Securmy Excerpted on March 2, 2021 from https://www.rollkall.com/business. RoliKall has since attempted to hide this information online. As noted below, it remains available on a third -party internet archive. 2 of 6 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM 'enforcement agencies' Mr. Noriega July 13, 2021 Submitted into the publ,�q, record fritms , on ti City Clerk Rol1Kall's marketing even promoted its simultaneous representation of both public sector and private sector clients as a benefit to each. They were proud of their split loyalties. ROLLKALL SPINS ITS CONFLICTS OF INTEREST AS A MARKETING POINT Creating Safer Communities MOM le the tow enforcement IMWty% any canprehonsble extra - duly management soration, twinging trenperercy to More -duty amity by connecting every etasahok sr b tom prods- We help inmate our communities DV fostering pothive cetetlawunps among burMn s$el Meg poke offices, and br enfuramwn pinches. We streamline off -duly management inteake it easier for businesses' to laid off -duty cancers for acorn and %relic control needs through our iwMustry-teading ptatformev^.� �:;d wr�aecsv eons my making it cove for them to address client needs, communicate details min officers, and to ensure department regulation end guidelines am followed Moving forward, Ro1kmt goal b to OM may off-IMy fob on the *dna platform and continuo id Mate Our woos atlfsi Safer by connecting gad* and bwvless rah mkerpdayhelbas. Excerpted on March 2, 2021 from https://www.rollkall.com/about-us. RollKall has since attempted to hide this information online. As noted below, it remains available on a third -party internet archive. After we first informed City staff of RollKall's violation of the Conflict of Interest Rule, Rollkall scrambled. Knowing that it should rightly be disqualified from participating in the RFP, RoliKall scrubbed its website. But, as further proof that nothing on the internet ever truly disappers, archived versions of Rol1Kall's website from December 2020, January 24, 2021, February 4, 2021 and March 1, 2021 can still be viewed online at the following third -party platform: December 4, 2020: https://web.archive.org/web/20201204211147/https://www.rollkal l.com/business January 24, 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210124092425/https://www.rollkall.com/about-us February 4, 2021: https://web.archive.org/web/20210204083 645/https://www.rollkall.com/about-us March 1, 2021: https://web.archive.org}/web/20210301032131 /https://www.rollkall.com/business Each of the links above show the same information excerpted above. They make clear that for many years prior and at the time they submitted their bid to the City, Rol1Kall violated the RFP's conflict of interest provision. Compounding matters, at page 9 of its bid, RoliKall acknowledges that its "parent company" is Athos Group. Athos Group is a prominent provider of extra duty services to private sector clients. There appears to be little material separation between Athos and RollKall that would 3 of 6 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Mr. Noriega July 13, 2021 Submitted into the putt record fpr item(s) , on . 114 [7.1) . City Clerk keep one entity from creating a conflict for the other. Indeed, RollKall's bid indicates that its Managing Member is Chris White who, in turn, is "the CEO of Athos Group, the parent company of RoliKall." As you prepare to issue your recommendation, we ask that you keep three critical considerations in mind: (1) Florida procurement law; (2) the policy reasons for the Conflict of Interest Rule; and (3) past and future precedent. 1. Florida Procurement Law A City's discretion to select a bidder in an RFP is limited by the rules that it establishes for itself. See Marriott Corp. v. Metro. Dade County, 383 So.2d 662, 666-667 (Fla. 3d DCA 1990) (County could not disregard its own prior resolutions governing the procurement process). These include not just code provisions but also the terms of an RFP. City of Sweetwater v. Solo Const. Corp., 823 So.2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002). Once an RFP is out and bids are received and opened, a government must live by the rules it established in the RFP. It cannot change the rules after bids have been issued. Harry Pepper & Associates v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2d 1 190 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977). The RFP's Conflict of Interest Rule is plain. It provides that any bidder shall be deemed "nonresponsive" if they offer "the services requested in this solicitation to private sector clients." Ro1lKa11 does so. Therefore, they are nonresponsive and must be disqualified. See Solo Cont. Corp., 823 So. 2d at 803. City staff has tried to put aside our objections by relying on an affidavit provided by RollKall in which the company states that it does not represent private companies. As a matter of law (and common sense), this reliance is misplaced. Governments are prohibited from acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner and making "a contract award based on known misrepresentations by a vendor" is the height of arbitrary and capricious conduct. See Academy Express LLC v. Broward County, 50 So.3d 1 188 (Fla. 4th DCA 2011). As a matter of law, City staff cannot use a self-serving affidavit to blindfold itself from webpage after webpage of contrary information supplied by the affiant. 2. Policy Reasons for the Conflict of Interest Rule The City Commission had sound policy in mind when they threw out the old RFP and required the current RFP to include the Conflict of Interest Rule. It is impossible to independently and unbiasedly serve a police agency ("extra duty management") while also working with corporate clients to book extra duty services ("extra duty services" )2. Offering extra duty scheduling and management services contracts to both public agencies and corporate clients (i.e., retailers, banks, theaters, etc.) presents myriad conflicts of interest including: 2 The industry commonly distinguishes between "management" offered to public agencies and the "service" of booking extra duty police officers on behalf of corporate clients. 4 of 6 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Submitted into the public Mr. Noriega record f r it m s) „ 5 July 13, 2021 on City Clerk • Direct Contractual Conflicts. Supplier agreements with private entities grant them rights of selection, rights of personnel termination, non -disparagement clauses, one-way indemnifications, insurance clauses, and other provisions. In the case of major national retailers and event organizers, extra duty service providers operate under standard form contracts (i.e., adhesion contracts) that are very one-sided, practically non-negotiable, and offer services at the state, regional or national level. Florida affords local governments a very little protection in the operation of their off -duty program (see e.g., § 30.2905, F.S.). For the most part the private entities contractual rights reflect their huge buying power. In some circumstances, one-way indemnifications, hold harmless provisions, and waivers offered to private entities could extend to individual police officers. By way of example, national retailer' standard adhesion contracts often require that both the service provider and the officers working for them fully indemnify the retailer in the broadest terms possible. If a City's extra duty manager also provides such a retailer extra duty services, then arguably, individual police officers have also granted such waivers. An officer who — on their true spare time —has an accident at a national retailer may have previously waived his or her potential claims against that retailer. • Preferential Conflicts. A corporate client's preferences for specific officers ("Officer Brown," or "Officer Martinez"), or certain kinds of officer (e.g., officers that are "good with kids") can undermine the public agency's own preferences for assigning details (e.g., according to tenure, a points system, or some other fair method). The public agency's "independent" third party manager will be tempted to bend or violate the agency rules to keep their higher -paying corporate client happy. • Scope of Work Conflicts. Corporate clients often seek to the expand scope of work for officers on extra duty (for example, monitoring bank employees who leave early, checking IDs at a bar entrance, taking event tickets, etc.). Eager to please their higher -paying corporate clients at the expense of lower -paying public agencies, vendors serving both are likely to encourage police officers to take on such additional tasks even though they are beyond the scope of authorized security detail. • Conflicts vis-a-vis Non -Client Users. Conflicts also arise in how a program manager serves the community. A program manager who serves both its own corporate clients and a public agency is likely to assign extra duty details to its own corporate clients before serving other private entities in the community that have not retained it. This is unfair to the community and ultimately reflects poorly on public agency as well as the program administrator. • Double Billing. Program managers serving both a public agency and a corporate customer can charge an administration fee on both the law enforcement side and the corporate side. In doing so, they unfairly profit from the government and the taxpayers. At the same time, corporate members of the community grow dissatisfied with government as the vendor pushes down the cost of public agency management contracts to manage the companies are forced to pay their own service fee and also the passed -though fee for management of the public program. 5 of 6 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Mr. Noriega July 13, 2021 3. Past and Future Precedent Submitted into the public record for it�jms) V\\, oilI L . City Clerk The City Commission's vote to throw out the old RFP and adopt the current one happened on January 23, 2020, just a month before you assumed the office of City Manager on February 24, 2020. The City Commission's discussion was a lively one led by Commissioner Carollo. Following his lead, the Commission unanimously voted to throw out the old RFP and to instruct the then City Manager "to prepare a revised RFP developed in consultation with and subject to the review and approval of the City Commission prior to issuance." See Resolution R-20-0024 and related Meeting Minutes enclosed with this letter. After consulting with Commissioners, City staff prepared a new RFP with two principal differences from the prior RFP. The first difference is that the new RFP flatly rejects any bids that offer purely software -based solutions. This measure addresses City Commissioners' concerns that software operated by the same individuals would do little to address past abuses of the City's extra duty detail program.3 The second difference is the Conflict of Interest Rule. City staffs acceptance of RollKa11's bid despite RoliKall's obvious violation of the Conflict of Interest Rule flies in the face of the City Commission's direct instructions. In doing, staff brings to light the City Commission's frequent complaints that the former administration disregarded their instruction. Your administration has worked hard to make that form precedent a thing of the past. We trust that it will continue to do so by following the City Commission's plain instructions. Based on RoliKall's violation of the Conflict of Interest Rule, we trust that will recommend that the City Commission award the contract under the RFP to the highest ranked responsive and responsible bidder, Extra Duty Solutions. Sincerely, Mitchell A. Bierman Enclosures cc: City Clerk (clerks@miamigov.com) Ms. Annie Perez (annieperez@miamigov.com) Mr. Eduardo Falcon (efalcon@miamigov.com) Victoria Mendez, Esq. (vmendez(&,,miamigov.com) Pablo Velez, Esq. (pvelez(7a,miamigov.com) Honorable City Commissioners and their Chiefs of Staff 3 Former Chief Colina shared the Commission's goal. He stated that "[tjhis is not for software, where we then have control over who, what, when, and where, no. This is specifically for a third party to handle every element of this process...which is what we need; a completely independent third party to handle every last element of this process." 6 of 6 MIAMI I FT. LAUDERDALE I BOCA RATON I TAMPA I WSH-LAW.COM Submitted into the pub} record f�� ite s) , on `� y� V'\ 5 City Clerk Meeting Minutes Showing Commission's Priorities City of Miami City Hall 3500 Pan American Drive Miami, FL 33133 www.miamigov.com Meeting Minutes Thursday, January 23, 2020 9:00 AM Planning and Zoning City Hall City Commission Submitted into the pub 'c record fpr it m(s) V11. 5 on 114 n . City Clerk Francis X. Suarez, Mayor Keon Hardemon, Chair, District Five Ken Russell, Vice Chair, District Two Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Commissioner, District One Joe Carollo, Commissioner, District Three Manolo Reyes, Commissioner, District Four Emilio T. Gonzalez, City Manager Victoria Mendez, City Attorney Todd B. Hannon, City Clerk City Commission Meeting Minutes Submitted into the pub i� record f r ite y (s) , on � 9 413 . City Cleric 23, 2020 NA.10 7145 Office of the City Clerk NA.11 7129 City Commission RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION APPOINTING A CERTAIN INDIVIDUAL AS A MEMBER OF THE COMMERCIAL SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A TERM AS DESIGNATED HEREIN. APPOINTEE: NOMINATED BY: Alex Diaz de Ia Portilla Commission -At -Large ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-20-0030 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Alex Diaz de Ia Portilla, Commissioner SECONDER: Manolo Reyes, Commissioner AYES: Diaz de la Portilla, Carollo, Reyes NAYS: Hardemon, Russell Note for the Record: For minutes referencing Item NA.10, please see Item SI.5 on the supplemental agenda. RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CANCEL POLICE EXTRA -DUTY DETAIL SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO. 1178386, ISSUED ON JANUARY 13, 2020; AND, FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE A REVISED RFP DEVELOPED IN CONSULTATION WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE. ENACTMENT NUMBER: R-20-0024 MOTION TO: Adopt RESULT: ADOPTED MOVER: Joe Carollo, Commissioner SECONDER: Manolo Reyes, Commissioner AYES: Hardemon, Russell, Diaz de la Portilla, Carollo, Reyes Commissioner Carollo: We have passed out earlier this pocket item. Madam City Attorney -- well, I'll read it. Victoria Mender (City Attorney): It — okay. Chair Hardemon: I'll read it, I'll read it for you. Commissioner Carollo: Okay, thank you. Chair Hardemon: It's a resolution of the Miami City Commission directing the City Manager to cancel police extra duty detail scheduling and management services Request for Proposals Number 1178386, issued on January 13, 2020; and further directing the City Manager to prepare a revised RFP (Request for Proposals), developed in consultation with and subject to the review and cpproval of the City Commission prior to issuance. Is this another one? No, I have this. Okay. So the City of Miami Page 23I Printed on 5/20/2020 City Commission Meeting Minutes Submitted into the pub i record fo it (s) %) k,'5 on q/ ILI, 13 City Clittitary 23, 2020 title of it was read into the record. Is there anyone from the public that'd like to speak on this item? Seeing no person from the public that wants to speak on this item -- Commissioner Carollo: A motion. Chair Hardemon: -- I will close the public hearing, because it was opened and closed. Commissioner Carollo: Okay. Is there a second to my motion from anyone? Commissioner Reyes: Second. Commissioner Carollo: A second. Chair Hardemon: It's been properly moved and seconded to approve this resolution. Commissioner Carollo: Can we get a full body here of the board, please? Commissioner Reyes: (INA UDIBLE) through the glass. Commissioner Carollo: Everyone is hungry and everyone's tired. Vice Chair Russell: So there's a problem with the current RFP, and you'd like to revise it. Commissioner Reyes: That's right. Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely. Commissioner Dia: de la Portilla, this is the resolution of a pocket item that I passed, with an RFP that went out that we were not consulted on, and it's been properly -- a motion has been properly made and seconded. If you need any more information on it, I'd be happy to address it; if not, if we could gel a vote on it. Commissioner Dial, de la Portilla: What is it? Chair Hardemon: You're recognifed, Vice Chairman; then I'll recogni2e you, Commissioner. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. So my understanding is that they are -- the Police Department is seeking a third party to manage the Off -Duty Policing Program, and - Commissioner Carollo: No, no. Vice Chair Russell: -- as it's done in other cities. Commissioner Carollo: Not quite. Vice Chair Russell: That's not what this is about? Commissioner Carollo: Not quite what they're doing. This is what I'm asking; that we -- Vice Chair Russell: But they --? Commissioner Carollo: -- are consulted to do that. City of Miami Page 232 Printed on 5/20/2020 City Commission Meeting Minutes January 23, 2020 Vice Chair Russell: Yes, but they're already in the process of an RFP. My question is, is there a part of that RFP specifically that you disagree with that's not going -- Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- it's going away -- Commissioner Carollo: Yes. Vice Chair Russell: -- or find the right provider' Submitted into the public record fir it m(s) 6 on , q 4 14_ f/6 , City Clerk Commissioner Carollo: Yes. First of all, this RFP, they took off running when they knew that I was looking to put one. In fact, you even met with some of the people, because we put them available to meet with anyone from the Commission, so we could get a real third party to handle qff-drity. What they're really asking for is not that. They're asking for a process — going to take a year or more — so they could gel — instead of giving it to a third party -- it's got nothing to do with anybody -- they want to include software in here so that the fox could still keep keeping track of the hens. And what I'm saying is that this is something that this Administration knew; that it should have come to us, so we could have discussed it before anything went out, The department knew that I was working on this, and instead, this has been put out in a very different fashion than it should be put out. And, of course, 20 days RFP. The Administration, before they leave, will want to see how they could make a decision on this since it's supposed to come back on February 5, I believe. It went out on January 13. It closes February 5. So what I'm saying here is that we .squash this; they meet with us, so we could go over on a process that would truly resolve the problems that we've had, and truly put out an RFP for a real independent third party to handle this; not software, not anything else similar. Chair Hardemon: So 1 acknowledged the Vice Chairman. He posed a question to Commissioner Carollo, and he answered. Do you have anything further you want to add? Seeing none, 1 want to go to Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla for -- Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla: I think the Commissioner explained it. He wants the Commission input into any RFP -- Commissioner Reyes: Yes. Commissioner Diaz de la Portilla: -- moving forward, and to reverse the decision of the RFP that was already issued. Correct? Correct? Commissioner Carollo: Absolutely. Chair Hardemon: So I'll recognize the Chief of Police, Chief Colina. Commissioner Reyes: Excuse me. 1 have a question, and 1 think that you asked me. This is to get us -- get the Commissioners involved in the -- Commissioner Carollo: Sure; to squash this that they put out that is an extremely watered-down version that's going to still keep the problem going because they're basically asking for software so that the same people that have been keeping this problem going on could then keep their hands on it. Commissioner Reyes: But this RFP that is going to be out, it will not preclude anybody -- any company from -- 1 mean, applying? Everybody should comply -- 1 mean, should apply. City of Miami Page 233 Printed on 5/20/2020 City Commission Meeting Minutes Submitted into the publiF record for itgm(s) y . on 11 N I Z 1: City Clei�Canuary 23, 2020 Commissioner Carollo: Well, it's an RFP, of course; that's what an RFP -- Commissioner Reyes: So -- Commissioner Carollo: -- people can apply, but it's not asking for all we need. This is to try to get around what's happening, and then the implementation is going to be - - you know -- a long time down the road. What I'm trying to do is truly resolve the problem that we're having by getting a third party that's got nothing to do with us, nothing with the people that hire off -duty officers, and they could handle paying everybody; they can handle rotating officers, so you don't have the same officers working in the same place all the time. Commissioner Reyes: But when you say, "a third party," you don't have -- I mean, there's nobody in mind; it's a party that is going to participate in the RFP -- Commissioner Carollo: What -- yeah. Commissioner Reyes: -- and based on the qualifications -- Commissioner Carollo: Exactly. Commissioner Reyes: -- it will be --? Commissioner Carollo: Exactly. What I'm asking is that they meet with us; we discuss it at a meeting, so we could put the right RFP that we need to with the right criteria; we put it out to bid, and whatever comes there that provide the service -- you know -- whoever gives the best proposal can win. Commissioner Reyes: I got you. Chair Hardemon: All right. 1 want to acknowledge the Chief Jorge Colina (Chief of Police): Mr. Chair, this RFP was discussed at length. Procurement is here, and they can answer any questions. This RFP is for a third party to handle every aspect and element of the off -duty process. This is not for software, where we then have control over who, what, when, and where, no. This is specifically for a third party to handle every element of this process, like 1 discussed with you about six months ago, which is what we need; a completely independent third party to handle every last element of this process. That is what we're asking for. Commissioner Carollo: And Chief -- Chief Colina: And Procurement is here, and they can answer the specific questions about the scope. Commissioner Carollo: -- this is not ivhat we have understood from this RFP at all. Why, if you knew that I was working at it, and I've been --? Chief Colina: Sir, we've been working on this for a very long time. Commissioner Carollo: You just stated that you spoke to Chair Hardemon. Why didn't you speak to me? Why didn't you speak to some of the others who are here? Chief Colina: 1 spoke with Commissioner Hardemon. Commissioner Hardemon asked to speak with me, because he saw a police officer that was asleep in Overtown City of Miami Page 234 Printed on 5/20/2020 City Commission Meeting Minutes Submitted into the pub}}}}'c record f s) YNitgm , 5 on 114 1Z3 . City Clerx nuary 23, 2020 in the daytime; and so, he brought that to my attention. I asked him, "Commissioner, did you get the car number or the name of the officer?" He said, "This isn't about disciplining an officer. This is about" -- and I will bet you he told me, "This is about an officer who probably worked more hours than he should have, and now he's sleeping in the daytime when he should be keeping Overtown safe, number one; and number hvo, while he, himself is putting himself in jeopardy by being asleep." And he asked me then, "Are we finally going to be able to fix this issue?" And I assured him then, "Yes, sir; we are working on it." We tried to find an internal solution. We gave it our best effort. It was not possible. We dealt with Mr. Burns in IT (information Technology) at the time; then we moved on to think, well, maybe we can get software, like you had mentioned, and that would help us. And we deemed that that wasn't going to work, either. And then, really, the last straw for me was that conversation with Commissioner Hardemon, where I thought, we need to find a completely third -party independent that handles every element. And for about six months, we started to bring companies in to demo the products they had. Then we started to meet with Procurement, so we can put the scope together for a company that can handle every element of this -- Commissioner Carollo: Chief, if then -- Chief Colina: -- so we don't have to have this problem any longer. Commissioner Carollo: -- then if you're being so above board like this, then you shouldn't have any problem if we put a stop to this now. You could meet with each one of us. If you've met with Commissioner Hardemon, and he's satisfied, you won't have to meet with him. Chair Hardemon: Well, I'll say this -- Commissioner Carollo: You meet with each one of us so that we are assured, truly, what's going to go out there, and you are -- Chief Colina: It's in the package, sir. If it's -- Listen. And by the way, if you guys want to not vote for this to go forward, that's okay with me. I mean, these are your decisions. What we did here was put on paper, "This is what we need, " which is an independent -- and like l said, Procurement is here, and they can answer the questions germane to the actual RFP, because that's their level of expertise. But if you gentlemen decide that you don't want to do that, that's okay with me. 1 mean, that's your decision. Chair Hardemon: So I'll say this to this board: What the Chief reflected in his recollection is true. Not only did 1 see that officer sleep; 1 did circles in the middle of the street, on 14th Street, and the officer didn't know. 1-- he was facing the direction --1 believe he was facing eastbound. I pulled in the eastbound lane in the -- and was next to him, traveling on the westbound, so as if 1 was talking to him, window -to - window that the officer did not see me, did not respond to me. 1 know that he was asleep. I saw that he was asleep. But when 1 speak to -- spoke to Chief Colina about it, it is true, I said, "It's not about the discipline of that officer. I'm not here to rat out on an officer for what he's done. I've seen many officers do many things that I know are against their regulations, and that's not my intention." I felt like it was reflective of a bigger problem, which is -- you know -- my mother was a police officer. She was also in off -duty, so 1 was vaguely aware of some of the ways that officers get off - duty jobs, work more hours than they should, and then rest during their time of service, when they should actually be working. And in fact, 1 -- you know -- was privy to a lot of the tricks of the trade, if you will -- you know -- officers cancelling at the last minute, officers work an off -duty job or an officer booking a off -duty job and then another officer showing up instead. You know, the off -duty -- the person that City of Miami Page 235 Printed on 5/20/2020 City Commission Meeting Minutes Submitted into the public, record foritei??(s) on goy/ t3 . City Clerk January 23, 2020 needs -- the officer doesn't say, "Hey, you're not the officer I asked for." They say, "We need an officer," and there you go. And so, on the books, one officer was there, but in fact -- and you get paid in cash -- another officer showed up. These are not -- when I talked about these issues with Chief Colina, he was receptive, and I remember him being receptive. And so, you know, 1 would agree with him that this conversation started since then. And I would also tell you, though, that the RFP that event out, 1 have not seen it, so I haven't read it. Commissioner Carollo: Well -- Chair Hardemon: So even the statements that you're making about it, I can't vouch for them. Commissioner Carollo: -- I haven't seen it personally, like you think 1 did, too. So 1 called the question. Procurement knew we were working on this. The City Attorney knew through Procurement that -- what we were doing, and nobody bothered to call us, to sit with us. What they did was they rushed to get this done before we could put -- or give any input on it. So for all these years, certainly since Chief Colina has come onboard, he's known about what's been happening with the off -duty, and only now they're going to take action. And I'm supposed to accept what they're giving me without any input from myself or any of us. This is why 1 want to put a stop to this. I want to be able to meet, give input, and then we bring it back and put it out the right way. Chair Hardemon: Commissioner -- Vice Chairman. Vice Chair Russell: Thank you. The fact that we weren't consulted, I don't think is underhanded; it's more systemic with regard to our RFP process, which does need reform. I believe their quickness to get this going ivas the fire that ivas lit and making this happen. But we do have a problem with our RFP system, because there is no requirement for any major RFP, as big as it may be, to be consulted with each of us before it's issued. Commissioner Carollo: Well, that could be changed, also. Vice Chair Russell: Agreed, agreed. Where we -- Commissioner Carollo: But then there's -- Vice Chair Russell: -- are asked to step in is a rubber stamp at the very end, either "yes" or "no," and that does not -- the chance that they get it right is pretty slim in terms of ivhat we may have in mind from a policy perspective, so I think we do need an overhaul there. But in this case, I do believe they were simply acting quickly, and they're doing exactly what we asked. So 1 -- Commissioner Carollo: Then there shouldn't be any problem -- Vice Chair Russell: -- am in favor of it. Commissioner Carollo: -- that we stop this RFP process and meet with us, and then we bring it back, and this Commission takes action on it. So I call the question. Chair Hardemon: 1 want to say something before -- you know -- this -- 1 hear what you're saying, calling the question. I want to remind everyone, according to Mason's Rules of Order, we can't necessarily just call the question before everyone has had an opportunity to debate. We can't use it in a rvay that is intentionally used to keep meaningful discussion from happening. We want to ensure that we at least have City of Miami Page 236 Printed on 5/20/2020 City Commission ADJOURNMENT Meeting Minutes Submitted into the pub record f r1N it m s) , On at" Clarkuary 23, 2020 some meaningful discussion. And I believe that it comes -- at the end of that meaningful discussion, if it becomes belaboring, then we -- you know -- we use the call of the question. I'm saying that as a blanket thing to everyone to understand the whole Mason's Rules of Order in calling the question. I don't see any further discussion that we need to have unless you want to be recognifed from the Procurement Office. This went out 10 days ago. I can understand frustrations from all sides. 10 days is not a big deal; we could pull it back. I think that's something that's agreeable. So -- Joseph Napoli (Deputy City Manager): Mr. Chairman, we'll pull it back. Chair Hardemon: Yeah. Mr. Napoli: And then we'll -- we will brief you all on the contents of that RFP, get your input, and then we'll come back to the Commission. Chair Hardemon: Thank you very much. Mr. Napoli: And just -- Chair Hardemon: There's a motion, there's a second, and there's no further discussion about it, so I'm going to call the vote on this issue. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Chair Hardemon: All in favor, say "aye." The Commission (Collectively): Aye. Chair Hardemon: All against? Motion carries. Commissioner Carollo: Thank you. Todd B. Hannon (City Clerk): I have that as 5-0, sir. Chair Hardemon: You're recogni_ed. I want to recognce you, sir. 1 knoiv you had something to say, Deputy? Mr. Napoli: No. I just wanted to say that -- and I understand the issue of not being informed, but we did send out the RFP to all the Commission offices on the day it was released, asking -- advising that it had gone out, and 1 just wanted to put that on the record The meeting adjourned at 10:10 p. m. City of Miami Page 237 Printed on 5/20/2020 7/13/2021 R-20-0024 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CANCEL POLICE EXTRA -DU... w Mow Print This Page \*(.IIC111 111711 u Miami FL Resolution R-20-0024 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CANCEL POLICE EXTRA -DUTY DETAIL SCHEDULING AND MANAGEMENT SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS ("RFP") NO. 1178386 PRECIOUSLY ISSUED ON JANUARY 13, 2020; FURTHER DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE A REVISED RFP DEVELOPED IN CONSULTATION WITH AND SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE CITY COMMISSION PRIOR TO ISSUANCE. Information Department: City Commission Category: Non -Agenda Item Body/Legislation Sponsors: q n o ire record WHEREAS, concerns were raised by the residents of the City of Miami ("City") regarding the management and payment of off -duty work for Miami Police officers; and WHEREAS, an ongoing effort of the City is the achievement of transparency and accountability for its residents; and WHEREAS, on January 13, 2020, the City's Administration issued Police Extra -Duty Detail Scheduling and Management Services Request for Proposals ("RFP") No. 1178386 for the procurement of third -party administrative services for the management and payment of Police off -duty work ("Services"); and WHEREAS, the City Commission should be consulted in the preparation of a formal sealed competitive solicitation for said Services and should approve the final version of the same prior to issuance; and WHEREAS, the City Commission desires that the City Manager cancel RFP No. 1178386 and issue a revised RFP developed in consultation with and subject to the review and approval of the City Commission prior to issuance; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2-33(f) of the Code of the City of Miami, Florida, as amended, the City Commission unanimously deems this Resolution to be of an emergency nature in order to immediately protect the public health, welfare, and safety of the City's residents; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA: Section 1. The recitals and findings contained in the Preamble to this Resolution are adopted by reference and incorporated as if fully set forth in this Section. Section 2. The City Manager is hereby directed to cancel Police Extra -Duty Detail Scheduling and Management Services RFP No. 1178386. Section 3. The City Manager is hereby further directed to issue a revised RFP developed in consultation with and subject to the review and approval by the City Commission prior to issuance. Section 4. This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. Meeting History Jan 23, 2020 9:00 AM City Commission Planning and Zoning RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS] MOVER: Manolo Reyes, Commissioner, District Four SECONDER: Joe Carollo, Commissioner, District Three AYES: Keon Hardemon, Ken Russell, Alex Diaz de la Portilla, Joe Carollo, Manolo Reyes miamifl.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=7129&highlightTerms=POLICE EXTRa Duty 1/2 7/13/2021 R-20-0024 A RESOLUTION OF THE MIAMI CITY COMMISSION DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO CANCEL POLICE EXTRA -DU... Select Language Powered by C-2 9'° Translate Submitted into the public record for m it �s) ? on `� I �{ �Z City Clerk miamifl.igm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?ID=7129&highlightTerms=POLICE EXTRa Duty 2/2