CAO 98-11
~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
MEMORANDUM
TO:
Sergio Rodriguez
City Manager V
Murray H. DUbbin~
City Attorney J1\
Raul 1. Aguila 12.C\ ~
First Assistant CitY t.\ttorney
C.A.O. NO. 98-11
C.M.O. NO. 4-3/98
FROM:
DATE:
March 18, 1998
RE:
RFP EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATION OF THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER AND THE
JACKIE GLEASON THEATER OF THE PERFORMING ARTS
On December 5,1997, the City issued Request for Proposals No. 5-97/02 for Management
and Operation of the Miami Beach Convention Center (Convention Center) and the Jackie Gleason
Theater of the Performing Arts (TOP A) for a Three- Year Period with Option for Two Additional
One-Year Periods at the City's discretion (RFP). Pursuant to the RFP's submission deadline on
February 6, 19~,two proposals were received from, respectively, Spectacor Management Group
(SMG), the City's current management firm at the Convention Center and TOP A, and Globe
Facilities Services (GFS). An Evaluation Committee appointed by the City Manager to consider
said proposals met on March 13, 1998, and requested that the Administration request a legal opinion
from this office on the following issues:
1. Is GFS's Statement of Combined Income and Expenses and bank reference
letter responsive to the City's request in the RFP for a Certified Financial
Statement for the last year?
2. In lieu of the Certified Financial Statement, would the City accept a personal
guaranty of l'mancial commitment?
3. Additionally, is GFS responsive to the City's RFP in the area of "management
of facilities of similar size?"
Section 3 of the RFP, entitled "Proposal Format," sets forth required documentation to be
included in the submitted proposals. Among those requirements are "a summary of [the] past
experience of proposer which includes management of facilities of similar size, and a Certified
Financial Statement for the last year." (See Section III(A)(2) on page 4 of the RFP). Section 3 also
states as follows:
Proposals which do not include all required documentation or are not
submitted in the required format, or which do not have the
appropriate signatures on each document, may be deemed to be non-
responsive. Non-responsive proposals will receive no further
consideration. (See Section III on page 14 of the RFP)
On page 8 of its response to the RFP, entitled "The GFS Family of Facilities," GFS states,
"Admittedly, none of the convention centers that we manage are of the size of the Miami Beach
Convention Center." Therefore, by its own admission, GFS failed to comply with the required
criteria under Section 3 of the RFP, requiring proposers to summarize their past experience,
includin~ management of facilities of similar size. It should be noted further that, pursuant to
Section 4 of the RFP, entitled "Evaluation/Selection Process; Criteria for Evaluation," one of the six
factors upon which the Evaluation Committee shall base its recommendations to the City Manager
of the proposal or proposals acceptance of which it believes to be in the best interest of the City
includes "professional experience in managing similar facilities, performance and national stature
of the firm and its higher level management." (See Section 1V(5)(c) on page 16 of the RFP). Thus,
although a response was given, it is clear on its face that the proposer has no experience with a
facility of similar size (Question 3).
Similarly, with regard to the required submission of a Certified Financial Statement for the
last year, GFS submitted a Statement of Combined Income and Expenses, attached as Exhibit A to
its proposal, along with a letter of reference from South Trust Bank of Florida. Neither submission
complies with the RFP's Certified Financial Statement requirement. Additionally, pursuant to
Section 4 of the RFP, another one of the six factors upon which the Evaluation Committee shall base
its recommendation of a successful proposer to the City Manager includes "demonstration of
fmancial stability of the firm." (See Section IV(5)(d) on page 16 of the RFP). Accordingly, GFS
has failed to respond to the request for a Certified Financial Statement and the answer to Question
1 is negative.
With regard to GFS's failure to submit a Certified Financial Statement for the last year, the
afore stated request for legal opinion also asks whether the City can accept a personal guaranty of
financial commitment from GFS (Question 2). Essentially, to allow GFS to supplement its proposal
in this manner, after the submission deadline, would give it an undue advantage over the other
proposer, therefore undermining the necessary common standard of competition. See Robinson
Electrical Company. Inc. v. Dade County, 417 So.2d 1032 (Fla. 3d DCA 1982). Thus the answer
to Question 2 is negative.
2
The language in the RFP expressly states that "Proposals which do not include all required
documentation or are not submitted in the required format or which do not have the appropriate
signatures on each document, ~ be deemed to be non-responsive." (See Section III on page 14
of the RFP) [Emphasis Supplied]. Although the effect of GFS's failure to comply with the
requirements in the RFP as above stated is ultimately a discretionary decision, the facts indicate that
the discretion has been substantially limited.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the foregoing, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
RJA\kw(FoIAITOIAGURICAOI9ll-II.CAO)
3