LTC 126-2016 Solicitation of Alternative Proposals for Public Private Partnership for an Off-Wire or Wireless Light Rail/Modern Streetcar System MIAMI BEA H
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # 126-2016 LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members • the City ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager APIP
DATE: March 18, 2016
SUBJECT: SOLICITATION OF ALTERNA IVE PROPOSALS FOR A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 287.05712,
FOR AN OFF-WIRE OR "WIRELESS" LIGHT RAIL/MODERN STREETCAR
SYSTEM.
The purpose of this LTC is to provide the Commission with the Amended and Restated
Proposal Requirements Document incorporating the direction received at the March 9, 2016
Commission meeting with respect to the City's solicitation of alternative proposals for a public-
private partnership, in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712, for an off-wire or "wireless"
light rail/modern streetcar system.
BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2015, the Mayor and Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-29247,
accepting receipt of an unsolicited proposal from Greater Miami Tramlink Partners for a Light
Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach, and authorizing the Administration to solicit
alternative proposals for a public/private partnership ("P3") for an off-wire or "wireless" light
rail/modern streetcar system from 5th Street, via Washington Avenue to the Miami Beach
Convention Center(the "Project").
On January 11, 2016, the Administration issued LTC #009-2016, informing the Mayor and City
Commission of the issuance of the public notice and Proposal Requirements Document ("PRD")
outlining the City's submission and other requirements for the Project.
On February 10, 2016, the Mayor and City Commission approved Resolution 2016-29304,
authorizing the Administration to conduct voluntary one-on-one meetings with prospective
proposers for fact-finding purposes, to permit consideration of the best available information
from the industry, in an effort to ensure the successful implementation for the Project.
On February 19, 2016, the City conducted a mandatory pre-proposal conference for the Project,
and on February 19, 2016 and February 26, 2016, representatives of Kimley-Horn, Parsons
Brinkerhoff, HDR, Clary Consulting and LTK Engineering (collectively, "City's Consultants") and
representatives of the City conducted one-on-one meetings with prospective proposers and
industry participants.
As a result of the one-on-one meetings, and in an effort to maximize competition for the benefit
of the City, the City's Consultants recommended certain modifications to the solicitation of the
ADDENUM 5 FOR SOLICITAION OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR A PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 287.05712,
FOR AN OFF-WIRE OR "WIRELESS" LIGHT RAIL/MODERN STREETCAR SYSTEM
March 18, 2016
Page 2
Project that required policy direction from the City Commission, including modifications to the
anticipated timeline for completion of the procurement process and modifications to the
minimum requirements set forth in the PRD.
AMENDED AND RESTATED PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT
At the March 9, 2016 Commission meeting, the Commission directed that following the receipt
of proposals for the Project (within 120 days after the public notice thereof), an independent
Evaluation Committee shall make recommendations to the City Manager relating to the ranking
of proposals (with final ranking determined by the City Commission). Following the
Commission's ranking of proposals, the Administration would move directly to negotiation of an
interim agreement with the top ranked proposer, with such negotiation to be accomplished
within 60 days following the Commission's ranking of proposals. Should the City be unable to
reach agreement with the top ranked proposer for an interim agreement, the City would enter
into negotiations with the second ranked proposer. Further, the Commission directed that the
proposer be responsible, to the extent possible, for project development activities (based on the
draft environmental review report) for elements such as detailed project alignment, surveys,
engineering, permits, schedules, etc. Finally, the Commission supported a number of policy
item updates to the solicitation, each of which are incorporated in the Amended and Restated
Proposal Requirements Document attached hereto as Exhibit 1 consistent with the Commission
direction.
F:\TRAN\$ALL\LTC\LTC-Addendum 5 Amended and Restated PRD Based on March 9 2016 Commission Direction.docx
EXHIBIT 1
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1755 Meridian Avenue, 3'd Floor,Miami Beach,Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4002
ADDENDUM NO. 5
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT (PRD)2016-071-KB
Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal and
Request for Alternative Proposals for
Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach
March 17, 2016
1. The purpose of this Addendum 5 to the above-referenced PRD is to supersede all prior
versions of the PRD, as well as any addenda issued to prior PRD versions, with the
attached Amended and Restated PRD 2016-071-KB, dated March 17, 2016.
Interested parties shall rely solely on the Amended and Restated PRD 2016-071-KB. No
information, other than as stated in the Amended and Restated PRD 2016-071-KB, shall be
binding on the City.
Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement
Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office
at RafaelGranado( miamibeachfl.gov.
Procurement Contact: Telephone: Email:
Kristy Bada 305-673-7000, ext. 6218 KristyBada @miamibeachfl.gov
Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your PRD
submission.
Sin rely,
,/
'-x Denis
P ocurement Director
M I AM I BEACH
AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
DOCUMENT (PRD
PRD 2016-071 -KB
Notice of Receipt
of U n sol ' 't e Proposal and R e ues t for
Alternative Proposals
for
Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project
in
Miami Beach
Original PRD Issuance Date: January 12, 2016.
Amended and Restated PRD: March 17, 2016
Proposals Due: May 10, 2016 @ 3:00 p.m.
Issued By:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Procurement Department
Attention: Kristy Bada, Contracting Officer
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
305.673.7490 I KristyBada @MiamiBeachFL.gov I www.miamibeachfl.gov
PRD 2016-071-KB 1
M I Al V 1 I BEACH Procurement Department
1755 Meridian Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami
Beach, Florida 33139
PUBLIC NOTICE
Proposal Requirements Document(PRD)2016-071-KB
Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal for Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Miami Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, has received
an unsolicited proposal for a qualifying public-private partnership project in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712 for an
off-wire or "wireless" light rail/modern streetcar system (the "Project").The City requests, and in accordance with Florida
Statute 287.05712,will accept alternative proposals for the Project until 3:00 p.m.on May 10, 2016.
Persons or entities wishing to submit alternative proposals for the Project ("Proposers") may do so by delivering sealed
proposals to: City of Miami Beach, Procurement Department,Attn: Alex Denis, 1755 Meridian Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami Beach,
Florida 33139. Each sealed proposal submitted should be clearly marked on the outside: "Sealed Proposal- Light Rail/Modern
Streetcar System and Related Services."
All proposals must be timely submitted no later than 3:00 p.m. on May 10, 2016, and must contain the information and
materials required under Fla. Stat. 287.05712(5), the additional proposal submission requirements required by the City as
provided below, and a$100,000 application fee payable to the City of Miami Beach, Florida. Any proposal received after 3:00
p.m. on May 10, 2016 will be returned unopened, and will not be considered. Responsibility for submitting timely proposals
rests solely with Proposers; City will not be responsible for any delays caused by mail,courier service or other occurrence.
Proposals will be ranked in order of preference by the City. In ranking the proposals, the City will consider factors in
accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712 that include, but are not limited to, professional qualifications, general business
terms, innovative design techniques or cost-reduction terms, and finance plans. A more complete listing of factors that the City
will consider in ranking proposals, associated Project and proposal submission requirements("Proposal Requirements")can be
obtained through the City's proposal notification system, PublicPurchase (www.PublicPurchase.com). Interested parties must
register with PublicPurchase for access to the Proposal Requirements. Registration will allow Proposers to receive any
additional information that may be issued with respect to this procurement.
The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or as provided under Section 287.05712, Florida Statutes, to award
and negotiate an interim agreement and/or comprehensive agreement with the firm whose proposal best serves the interests of
the City. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as an obligation or binding agreement by the City regarding the Project.
The City's Cone of Silence shall be in effect during the procurement process in accordance with Section 2-486 of the City
Code. A link to certain applicable City of Miami Beach procurement-related provisions is available at
www.miamibeachfl.qov/procurement.All communications regarding the Project and/or Proposal Requirements shall be directed
in writing to: City of Miami Beach Procurement Department, Attn: Kristy Bada, email: kristybada(a�miamibeachfl.gov, with a
copy to the City Clerk, Rafael Granado, at rafaelgranado a(�miamibeachfl.gov. The City will provide notice of a decision or
proposed decision regarding contract award.Any person who is, or claims to be, adversely affected by the City's decision or
proposed decision shall file a written protest in accordance with Section 2-371 of the City Code.
All proposals received in response to this Notice will become the property of the City of Miami Beach and will not be
returned. Such proposals and related information shall be subject to applicable provisions of the Florida Public Records Law.
PRD 2016-071-KB 2
MIAMIBEACH
SECTION 0200 INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS&GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL. This Proposal Requirements Document (PRD) is issued by the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the
"City"), pursuant to Section 287.05712(4), Florida Statutes, notifying interested parties that it has received an
unsolicited proposal for the development of an off-wire or "wireless" light rail/modern streetcar system in Miami
Beach as a public-private partnership (the "Project"). The City of Miami Beach will accept other Proposals from
qualified firms to deliver the Project and design, build, finance, operate and maintain the Project in accordance with
the specifications set forth in this PRD ("Proposals"). The City, at its sole discretion, will also consider alternative
proposals that may include, as part of the Project, additional routes along Alton Road, 17th Street, Dade Boulevard,
Meridian Avenue, or Convention Center Drive.
The City utilizes PublicPurchase (www.publicpurchase.com) for automatic notification of competitive solicitation
opportunities and document fulfillment, including the issuance of any addendum to this PRD. Any prospective
Proposer who has received this PRD by any means other than through PublicPurchase must register immediately
with PublicPurchase to assure it receives any addendum issued to this PRD. Failure to receive an addendum
and to comply with the requirements of this PRD, including, without limitation, payment of the requisite
$100,000 application fee,shall result in disqualification of a Proposal.
2. BACKGROUND.As early as 1969, a rail connection between the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach was
identified as a priority in Miami-Dade County's Long Range Transportation Plan. Over 10 years ago, the Miami-
Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a
light rail transit/modern streetcar system to connect the cities of Miami Beach and Miami via dedicated right-of-way
along the MacArthur Causeway(the Baylink Project). More recently, the MPO conducted a planning-level study that
refreshed and updated the decade-old Baylink study in June 2015 and reaffirmed the MacArthur Causeway as the
preferred alignment to connect Miami Beach and Miami and recommended an off-wire or "wireless" light rail
transit/modern streetcar system for the portion within each urban area as the preferred vehicle technology as well as
the use of exclusive lanes for the transit vehicles. Phase 1 of the recommended route alignment is from downtown
via MacArthur Causeway, 5th Street, and Washington Avenue directly to the Miami Beach Convention Center
referred to as the Direct Connect Project. The portion of the Direct Connect Project located within Miami Beach
and consisting of a 2-way connection on 5th Street and Washington Avenue, is referred to as the "South Beach
Component." This PRD, and the request for other Proposals for the Project, relates solely to the South Beach
Component of the Direct Connect Project. For additional background on the local and regional efforts with respect to
the Direct Connect Project, see City Commission Resolution No. 2015-29247.
The City has engaged Kimley-Horn for preparation of an environmental analysis for the South Beach Component of
the Direct Connect Project, to be completed in parallel with this solicitation. Kimley-Horn estimates that the
environmental review for the South Beach Component can be accomplished in 10 to 12 months. As of the date of
issuance of this PRD, the City's planning efforts for the Project are intended to preserve eligibility for state funding.
At this time, the City does not anticipate that it will pursue any federal funding or financing for the Project. Based on
the above schedule, it is intended that this solicitation and the pre-development period following execution of an
interim agreement will overlap the environmental review and analysis for the Project.
PRD 2016-071-KB 3
MIAMI BEACH
3. SCOPE. The scope of the Project contemplates a full "turn-key" delivery approach that consists of and includes
the design, construction, financing, operation, and maintenance of the Project, including vehicles and associated
power, communications, signalization, and other systems required for the functionality of the Project
("Vehicle/Systems Technology"); operation and maintenance facilities, related civil infrastructure, including "curb-to-
curb" road reconstruction, permitting, and related services pertaining to the Project, including all surveys, relocation
of all utilities, replacement of pipes more than 50 years old and other related infrastructure work, unless otherwise
specified by the City. The City will make a site available for a maintenance facility, with such site to be
managed/operated by the successful Proposer as part of the Project. The City's initial assessment of potential sites
for the maintenance facility is attached as Appendix B hereto.
Further, the City, as part of its resiliency program for sea level rise, intends to raise the level of many streets, install
pumps,etc. As part of the Project, the successful Proposer shall be responsible for all resiliency-related work at
specified geographical areas impacted by the alignment, with such areas to be determined by the City during the
interim agreement negotiations. The resiliency-related scope of work shall be funded separately by the City. The
City's current resiliency standards are set forth in Appendix C hereto.
The City anticipates a performance-based availability payment structure over the operating period. The City will
consider negotiating with the successful Proposer an option for milestone payments during the construction phase of
the Project, if funds are available and appropriated for such purposes.
The lead team participants include the following firms: (i) the firm that will be responsible for the construction of the
Project and is licensed as a general contractor in Florida ("Lead Contractor"), (ii) the firm responsible for operation of the
proposed vehicle/streetcar system ("Lead Operator"), (iii)the firm primarily responsible for coordinating the development
and completion of all Project-related engineering ("Lead Engineer"), (iv) the firm responsible for maintenance of the
Project, including the proposed streetcar system ("Lead Maintenance Entity"), (v) the entity primarily responsible for
providing equity for the Project ("Lead Investor"), and (vi) the streetcar vehicle or systems technology suppliers
("Vehicle/Systems Suppliers") (entities(i)through (vi)above collectively referred to as"Lead Team Participants").
Proposer teams may identify more than one (1) proposed Vehicle/System Supplier as part of their proposals, provided
that each Vehicle/System Supplier must meet the Minimum Requirements, with the final Vehicle/System Supplier to be
identified during the interim agreement negotiations. The Vehicle/Systems Suppliers may participate on more than one
(1) Proposer team. Except as to the Vehicle/System Suppliers, all other Lead Team Participants shall not participate on
more than one(1) Proposer team.
During the interim agreement negotiations, City will provide additional reference information, including a Level 1
contamination screening evaluation, projected ridership estimates, loading and related information, transit service
and operating plan information, and City's draft funding plan.
The City Commission intends to pursue a State level environmental clearance and will provide a draft funding plan
as part of the Interim Agreement. Proposers need to be knowledgeable of applicable local City, County and State
requirements, and have the ability to meet and comply with those requirements. For purposes of the Proposals,
Proposers must assume that the Project will be State and local-funded and that the Project shall incorporate all
applicable requirements.
Following the ranking of proposals by the City Commission, the City intends to negotiate and enter into an
interim agreement with the successful Proposer, with the intent of commencing development activities and
establishing the process and timeline for negotiation of a comprehensive agreement. The City shall have
no obligation to enter into an interim or comprehensive agreement. Any comprehensive agreement entered
into with a successful Proposer shall be subject to and contingent upon environmental clearance/approval
;V\I ,AA I BEAC H
of Project components by applicable governmental entities.
4. MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. The minimum requirements for the Project and this PRD ("Minimum
Requirements") are listed below. Proposer shall submit documentation of compliance with each Minimum
Requirement. Any Proposer that fails to include the required submittals with its Proposal, or fails to comply with the
Minimum Requirements, shall be deemed non-responsive and shall not have its Proposal considered.
A. Project and Proposer Minimum Requirements.
1. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology shall have demonstrated capacity of fully catenaryless for
revenue operations in Miami Beach while in operation between stops along the Project route, following
an alignment on a dedicated right of way. For purposes of satisfying the Minimum Requirements, the
Vehicle/System Technology may use catenary within the maintenance facility depot, and may allow for
charging of the vehicle batteries or supercapacitors at passenger stops along the route.
2. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology shall have demonstrated full performance capabilities,
including maintaining air conditioning in all vehicles in a climate similar to the climate in the City of Miami
Beach.
3. For purposes of the Minimum Requirements, demonstrated capacity may be satisfied if the proposed
Vehicle/Systems Technology is in revenue operation as part of any portion or segment of track within
any project anywhere in the world.
4. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology must include low floor, low step design throughout each
vehicle to maximize and facilitate accessibility and more timely passenger loading and unloading.
5. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology shall be able to operate in a typical centenary system in
the United States(750V DC).
6. The Proposer's Vehicle/SystemsTechnology shall have demonstrated capacity to address minimum
ridership of 20,075 people on a daily basis, should it be extended across the MacArthur Causeway as
part of the Direct Connect Project.
7. The Proposer's Lead Contractor shall demonstrate a bonding capacity of not less than $300 million by
submitting a letter stating its bonding capacity from an A-rated, Financial Class V, Surety Company.
The statement of bonding capacity shall be directly from the Surety firm on its official letterhead and
signed by an authorized agent of the firm.
8. The Proposer's Lead Contractor must have successfully delivered, as a general contractor under a
design/build or other form of construction contract, at least (1) public or public/private infrastructure
project with minimum hard construction costs of$250 million in the last five (5) years.
9. The Lead Investor must have successfully delivered financing for a project under a public-private
partnership (P3) approach within the last five years by Lead Investor for a P3 project of at least $400
million.
For purposes of the Minimum Requirements, "Buy America" provisions of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
set forth in 49 C.F.R. 661 and other provisions of federal law, shall not apply to the Project.
B. Application Fee. Proposals must be accompanied by a Proposal application fee in the amount of$100,000,
payable to the City of Miami Beach, payable by wire transfer, prior to the due date for proposals, pursuant to
the wire instructions below, as follows:
Bank: SunTrust
ABA: 061000104
SWIFT#: SNTRUS3A(foreign wires)
Account#: 0360002236568
Account Name: City of Miami Beach General Depository Account
ea MIAMI BEACH
The wire transfer receipt number must be included in the Proposal submitted. Failure to submit the
application fee in accordance with this provision shall render a Proposal non-responsive and City
shall disqualify Proposer from any further consideration.
Except as provided herein, if the a pp lication fees collected ultimately exceed the City's costs for fully evaluating
proposals, including the City's consultant and legal fees, the City will refund to Proposers the difference between the
application fee and the per proposal review cost, on a pro rata basis, within 90 days following the City Commission's
ranking of proposals. City shall retain the application fees for the top three (3) ranked proposers until an Interim
Agreement is executed, with refunds of any pro rata remaining amounts to be made within ninety (90) days of the
City Commission's approval of an interim agreement.
5. SOLICITATION TIMETABLE
Revision of the Project solicitation approach and timetable
The Addendum includes the revised timetable as follows:
Proposal submittals: May 10, 2016
Evaluation Committee June, 2016
City Commission Ranking of Proposals: • July, 2016
City Commission Approval of Negotiated Interim Agreement: September, 2016
Project Development and Price Negotiation: TBD
Commercial Close of Comprehensive Agreement: TBD
Financial Close: TBD*
*The financial close assumes the environmental approvals have been achieved at or before this time.
6. PROPOSAL DUE DATE. Proposals are to be received on or before 3:00 p.m. on May 10, 2016. Any
Proposal received after the deadline established for receipt of Proposals will be considered late and not be
accepted or will be returned to Proposer unopened. The City does not accept responsibility for any delays
caused by mail, courier service or other occurrence.
7. PROCUREMENT CONTACT. Any questions or clarifications concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the
Procurement Contact noted below:
Procurement Contact: Telephone: Email:
Kristy Bada 305-673-7490 KristyBada @MiamiBeachFL.gov
Additionally, the City Clerk is to be copied on all communications via e-mail at: RafaelGranado @miamibeachfl.gov;
or via facsimile: 786-394-4188.
The PRD title/number shall be referenced on all correspondence. All questions or requests for clarification must be
received no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date Proposals are due. All responses to
questions/clarifications will be sent to all prospective Proposers in the form of an addendum.
8. DETERMINATION OF AWARD. Proposals will be ranked in order of preference by the City. In ranking the
proposals, the City will consider factors in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712, as further outlined in (1)to (5)
below, and any other considerations identified in this PRD. The final ranking results outlined in Section 0400,
Evaluation of Proposals, will be considered by the City Manager who may recommend to the City Commission the
Proposer(s) s/he deems to be in the best interest of the City, or may recommend rejection of all Proposals. The City
MIAMI BEACH
Manager's recommendation need not be consistent with the ranking identified herein and takes into consideration
Miami Beach City Code Section 2-369, including the following considerations:
(1)The ability, capacity and skill of the Proposer to perform the contract.
(2)Whether the Proposer can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or
interference.
(3)The character, integrity, reputation,judgment, experience and efficiency of the Proposer.
(4)The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5)The previous and existing compliance by the Proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the
contract.
The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation and may approve such
recommendation. The City Commission may also, at its option, reject the City Manager's recommendation and
select another Proposal or Proposals which it deems to be in the best interest of the City, or it may also reject all
Proposals. Upon approval of selection by the City Commission, negotiations between the City and the selected
Proposer(s)will take place to arrive at a mutually acceptable interim agreement for the Project or any portion thereof,
in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712. If the City and selected Proposer cannot agree on contractual terms,
the City will terminate negotiations and may begin negotiations with the next ranked Proposer, continuing this
process with each Proposer in rank order until agreeable terms can be met or this solicitation process is terminated,
unless otherwise specified by the City Commission. Contract negotiations for an interim agreement will take place
within the sixty (60) day period following the City Commission's ranking of proposals, and the City Commission's
consideration of the final interim agreement will take place as quickly as possible thereafter. Following execution of
the interim agreement, if the City and the selected Proposer cannot agree on contractual terms for a comprehensive
agreement, the City will terminate negotiations and may begin negotiations for an interim agreement with the next
ranked Proposer, continuing this process with each Proposer in rank order until agreeable terms can be met or this
solicitation process is terminated, unless otherwise specified by the City Commission.
9. NEGOTIATIONS. The City reserves the right to enter into further negotiations with the selected Proposer for an
interim agreement agreement for delivery of the Project or any portion thereof, and which agreement shall, at a
minimum, comply with Florida Statute 287.05712 and the Minimum Requirements set forth herein. Notwithstanding
the preceding, the City is in no way obligated to enter into an interim agreement or, ultimately, a comprehensive
agreement with the selected Proposer, in the event the parties are unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. It is also understood and acknowledged by Proposers that no property, contract or binding rights of any
kind shall be created at any time until and unless a final comprehensive agreement has been fully negotiated,
approved by the City Commission, and executed by the parties. Any comprehensive agreement ultimately entered
into with a successful Proposer shall be subject to and contingent upon environmental clearance/approval of Project
components by applicable governmental entities.
10. PRE-PROPOSAL INTERPRETATIONS. Oral information or responses to questions received by prospective
Proposers are not binding on the City and will be without legal effect, including any information received at pre-
submittal meeting or site visit(s). The City by means of Addenda will issue interpretations or written addenda
clarifications considered necessary by the City in response to questions. Only questions answered by written
addenda will be binding and may supersede terms noted in this solicitation. Addendum will be released through
PublicPurchase. Any prospective Proposer who has received this PRD by any means other than through
PublicPurchace must register immediately with PublicPurchase to assure it receives any addendum issued to this
PRD. Failure to receive an addendum may result in disqualification of Proposal. Written questions should be
received no later than April 9, 2016. This Amended and Restated PRD supersedes the original PRD issued on
January 12, 2016, and all prior addenda thereto. All provisions in the January 12, 2016 PRD and Addendums 1
through 4 not incorporated in this PRD, as amended and restated, shall have no force and effect and shall not be
binding on the City or proposers.
MIAMI BEACH
11. CONE OF SILENCE. In Resolution No. 2015-29247, the City Commission elected, at its discretion, to apply the
City's Cone of Silence to this solicitation. Except as may be otherwise specified by the City Commission, this PRD is
subject to the Cone of Silence requirements as set forth in Section 2-486 of the City Code. All Proposers are
expected to be or become familiar with the above requirements. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring
that all applicable provisions of the City's Cone of Silence are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all
sanctions, as prescribed therein, including rendering their Proposal response voidable, in the event of such non-
compliance. Communications regarding this PRD solicitation are to be submitted in writing to the Procurement
Contact named herein with a copy to the City Clerk at rafaelgranado @a..miamibeachfl.gov.
The City Commission, in Resolution 2016-29304, authorized a process for one-on-one meetings with Proposers for
fact-finding purposes. The City will not schedule any further one-on-one meetings, and all questions should be in
writing, in accordance with this Section.
12. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a
conviction for public entity crimes may not submit a Proposal on a contract to provide any goods or services to a
public entity, may not submit a Proposal on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public
building or public work, may not submit Proposals on leases of real property to public entity, may not be awarded or
perform work as a contractor, supplier, sub-contractor, or consultant under a contract with a public entity, and may
not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Sec. 287.017, for
CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list.
13. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LOBBYIST LAWS. This PRD is subject to, and all Proposers are expected to
be or become familiar with, all City lobbyist laws. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all City
lobbyist laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein, including,
without limitation, disqualification of their responses, in the event of such non-compliance.
14. DEBARMENT ORDINANCE: This PRD is subject to, and all Proposers are expected to be or become familiar
with, the City's Debarment Ordinance as codified in Sections 2-397 through 2-406 of the City Code.
15. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LAWS. This PRD is subject to, and all Proposers are expected to be or
become familiar with, the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the
City Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's Campaign
Finance Reform laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein,
p subject Y p
including disqualification of their responses, in the event of such non-compliance.
16. CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS. Pursuant to City Resolution No.2000-23879, the Proposer shall adopt a Code of
Business Ethics ("Code") and submit that Code to the Procurement Division with its response or within five (5) days
upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a minimum, require the Proposer, to comply with all applicable
governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of
the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County.
17. POSTPONEMENT OF DUE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. The City reserves the right to postpone
the deadline for submittal of Proposals and will make a reasonable effort to give at least three (3) calendar days
written notice of any such postponement to all prospective Proposers through PublicPurchase.
18. PROTESTS. Proposers that are not selected may protest any recommendation for selection of award in
accordance with the proceedings established pursuant to the City's bid protest procedures, as codified in Sections 2-
370 and 2-371 of the City Code (the City's Bid Protest Ordinance). A protest not timely made pursuant to the
requirements of the City's Bid Protest Ordinance shall be barred.
IV,I AAA I BEACH
19. POSTPONEMENT/CANCELLATION/ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION. The City may, at its sole and absolute
discretion, reject any and all, or parts of any and all, Proposals; re-advertise this PRD; postpone or cancel, at any
time, this PRD process; or waive any irregularities in this PRD, or in any Proposal responses received as a result of
this PRD, in accordance with Florida law.
20. PROPOSER'S RESPONSIBILITY. Before submitting a response, each Proposer shall be solely responsible for
making any and all investigations, evaluations, and examinations, as it deems necessary, to ascertain all conditions
and requirements affecting the full performance of the contract. Ignorance of such conditions and requirements,
and/or failure to make such evaluations, investigations, and examinations, will not relieve the Proposer from any
obligation to comply with every detail and with all provisions and requirements of the contract, and will not be
accepted as a basis for any subsequent claim whatsoever for any monetary consideration on the part of the
Proposer.
21. COSTS INCURRED BY PROPOSERS.All expenses involved with the preparation and submission of Proposals
and negotiation of interim agreement, or any work performed in connection therewith, shall be the sole responsibility
(and shall be at the sole cost and expense)of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed by the City.
22. RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY. It is the intent of the City, and Proposers hereby acknowledge and agree, that
the successful Proposer is considered to be an independent contractor, and that neither the Proposer, nor the
Proposer's employees, agents, and/or contractors, shall, under any circumstances, be considered employees or
agents of the City.
23. MISTAKES. Proposers are expected to examine the terms, conditions, specifications, delivery schedules,
proposed pricing, and all instructions pertaining to the goods and services relative to this PRD. Failure to do so will
be at the Proposer's risk and may result in the Proposal being non-responsive.
24. DEFAULT: Failure or refusal of the selected Proposer to execute a contract following approval of such contract
by the City Commission, or untimely withdrawal of a response before such award is made and approved, may result
in a claim for damages by the City and may be grounds for removing the Proposer from the City's vendor list.
25. MANNER OF PERFORMANCE. Proposer agrees to perform its duties and obligations in a professional manner
and in accordance with all applicable Local, State, County, and Federal laws, rules, regulations and codes. Lack of
knowledge or ignorance by the Proposer with/of applicable laws will in no way be a cause for relief from
responsibility. Proposer agrees that the services provided shall be provided by employees that are educated,trained,
experienced, certified, and licensed in all areas encompassed within their designated duties. Proposer agrees to
furnish to the City any and all documentation, certification, authorization, license, permit, or registration currently
required by applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Proposer further certifies that it and its employees will keep all
licenses, permits, registrations, authorizations, or certifications required by applicable laws or regulations in full force
and effect during the term of this contract. Failure of Proposer to comply with this paragraph shall constitute a
material breach of this contract.
26. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Terms and
Conditions shall have p recedence.
27. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The Proposer certifies that it is in compliance with the non-discrimination clause
contained in Section 202, Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, relative to equal
employment opportunity for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In accordance
with the City's Human Rights Ordinance, codified in Chapter 62 of the City Code, Proposer shall prohibit(and cause
hotel operator to prohibit) discrimination by reason of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, intersexuality, gender
MIAM1BEACH
identity, sexual orientation, marital and familial status, and age or disability in the sale, lease, use or occupancy of
the Hotel Project or any portion thereof.
28. DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCY. The City may consider any evidence available regarding the financial,
technical, and other qualifications and abilities of a Proposer, including past performance (experience) in making an
award that is in the best interest of the City, including:
A. Pre-award inspection of the Proposer's facility may be made prior to the award of contract.
B. Proposals will only be considered from firms which are regularly engaged in the business of providing the
goods and/or services as described in this solicitation.
C. Proposers must be able to demonstrate a good record of performance for a reasonable period of time, and
have sufficient financial capacity, equipment, and organization to ensure that they can satisfactorily perform the
services if awarded a contract under the terms and conditions of this solicitation.
D. The terms "equipment and organization", as used herein shall, be construed to mean a fully equipped and
well established company in line with the best business practices in the industry, and as determined by the City
of Miami Beach.
E. The City may consider any evidence available regarding the financial, technical, and other qualifications and
abilities of a Proposer, including past performance (experience), in making an award that is in the best interest of
the City.
F. The City may require Proposers to show proof that they have been designated as authorized representatives
of a manufacturer or supplier, which is the actual source of supply. In these instances, the City may also require
material information from the source of supply regarding the quality, packaging, and characteristics of the
products to be supply to the City.
29. ASSIGNMENT. The successful Proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey, sublet or otherwise dispose of the
contract, including any or all of its right, title or interest therein, or his/her or its power to execute such contract, to
any person, company or corporation, without the prior written consent of the City.
30. LAWS, PERMITS AND REGULATIONS. The Proposer shall obtain and pay for all licenses, permits, and
inspection fees required to complete the work and shall comply with all applicable laws.
31. FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS LAW. Proposers are hereby notified that all Proposal including, without limitation,
any and all information and documentation submitted therewith, are exempt from public records requirements under
Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes, and s. 24(a), Art. 1 of the State Constitution until such time as the City provides
notice of an intended decision or until thirty (30) days after opening of the Proposals, whichever is earlier.
Additionally, the successful Proposer agrees to be in full compliance with Florida Statute 119.0701 including, but not
limited to, agreement to (a) keep and maintain public records that ordinarily and necessarily would be required by
the public agency in order to perform the services; (b) provide the public with access to public records on the same
terms and conditions that the public agency would provide the records and at a cost that does not exceed the cost
provided in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law; (c) ensure that public records that are exempt or
confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law;
(d) meet all requirements for retaining public records and transfer, at no cost, to the City all public records in its
possession upon termination of the interim agreement or comprehensive agreement and destroy any duplicate
public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All records
stored electronically must be provided to the City in a format that is compatible with the information technology
systems of the City.
MIAMI BEACH
32.CONFLICT OF INTEREST.All Proposers must disclose, in their Proposal, the name(s)of any officer, director,
agent, or immediate family member(spouse, parent, sibling, and child)who is also an employee of the City of Miami
Beach. Further, all Proposers must disclose the name of any City employee who owns, either directly or indirectly,
an interest of ten (10%) percent or more in the Proposer entity or any of its affiliates.
33. MODIFICATION/WITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSALS.A Proposer may submit a modified Proposal to replace all
or any portion of a previously submitted Proposal up until the Proposal due date and time. Modifications received
after the Proposal due date and time will not be considered. Letters of withdrawal received after the Proposal due
date and before said expiration date, and letters of withdrawal received after contract award will not be considered.
Proposer and Lead Team Participants, through the certification set forth in Appendix A hereto, shall commit
to serving as part of a Proposer team for a period of[360] calendar days from the Commission's ranking of
proposals. If the City is unable to successfully negotiate an interim agreement (or subsequently, a comprehensive
agreement), with the successful Proposer, the purpose of this certification is to permit negotiations for an interim
agreement with the next-ranked Proposer
34. EXCEPTIONS TO PRD. Proposers must clearly indicate any exceptions they wish to take to any of the terms in
this PRD, and outline what, if any, alternative is being offered. All exceptions and alternatives shall be included and
clearly delineated, in writing, in the Proposal. The City, at its sole and absolute discretion, may accept or reject any
or all exceptions and alternatives. In cases in which exceptions and alternatives are rejected, the City shall require
the Proposer to comply with the particular term and/or condition of the PRD to which Proposer took exception to (as
said term and/or condition was originally set forth on the PRD).
35.ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS, FAVORS, SERVICES.Proposers shall not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of
monetary value to any official, employee, or agent of the City, for the purpose of influencing consideration of this
Proposal. Pursuant to Sec. 2-449 of the City Code, no officer or employee of the City shall accept any gift, favor or
service that might reasonably tend improperly to influence him in the discharge of his official duties.
36. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION. City reserves the right to request supplemental information from Proposers
at any time during the PRD solicitation process, unless otherwise noted herein.
37. NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS BY CITY. Any information provided by City under this PRD is
solely to provide background information for the convenience of the Proposers. City makes no representations
or warranties, express or implied, of any kind whatsoever with respect to any of the matters identified in this
PRD.
Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank
MIAMI BEACH
SECTION 0300 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAT
1. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.The City Manager shall appoint an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the information
submitted by Proposers in response to this PRD, and the qualifications of the Proposer and the Lead Team
Participants. The City reserves the right to engage the advice of its consultant or other technical experts in assisting
the Evaluation Committee in the review of Proposals received. Following the Evaluation Committee's ranking of
proposers, the determination of award shall be made in accordance with Paragraph 8 of Section 0200 of the PRD.
2. SEALED RESPONSES. Proposers shall submit one (1) original Proposal (preferably in 3-ring binder) in an
opaque, sealed envelope or container on or before the due date established for the receipt of Proposals, ten (10)
bound copies and one (1) electronic format(CD or USB format)to be submitted. The following information should be
clearly marked on the face of the envelope or container in which the Proposal is submitted: solicitation number,
solicitation title, Proposer name, Proposer return address. Proposals received electronically, either through email or
facsimile, are not acceptable and will be rejected.
3. PROPOSAL FORMAT. In order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process and assist the Evaluation
Committee in review of Proposals, it is strongly recommended that Proposals be organized and tabbed in
accordance with the sections and manner specified below. Hard copy submittal should be tabbed as enumerated
below and contain a table of contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed and contain a
table of contents with page references. Proposals that do not include the required information will be deemed non-
responsive and will not be considered.
4. PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS. In order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process, and
assist the Evaluation Committee in review of responses, it is recommended that responses be organized and tabbed
in accordance with the sections and manner specified below. Hard copy submittals should be bound and tabbed as
enumerated below and contain a table of contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed
and contain a table of contents with page references. Proposers should prepare their submittal on 8.5 x 11 paper.
Please feel free to include other materials, such as covers, appendices, brochures, etc. at your discretion. The
recommended number of pages the City desires for each submittal item is indicated below. These are
recommendations only and actual pages may exceed the recommendation. The City reserves the right to require
additional information to determine financial capability. Proposer shall have ten (10) calendar days respond to such
a request.
TAB'1 Executive Summary, Forms&Compliance with Minimum Requirements
(4 page limit)
1. Cover Page, Letter, and Table of Contents. The cover letter must indicate Prime Proposer and be signed by
same.
2. Required Forms. Provide Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit(Appendix A). Attach Appendix
A fully completed and executed. The Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit (Appendix A) must
be signed by the Prime Respondent.
3. Minimum Requirements. Submit verifiable information documenting compliance with each of the Minimum
Requirements in Section 0200, Pages 3-4.
TAB 2 Experience and Qualifications of Proposing Team
(15 page limit, not counting resumes limited to two pages each)
1. Qualifications of Proposer and Lead Team Participants. Submit detailed information regarding the Proposer's
and each Lead Team Participant's experience in the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance
which documents expertise, competence, capability, and capacity in, and record of producing quality work on
projects similar to the Project. Include, at a minimum, the following information:
PRD 2016-071-KB 12
f MIAMI BEACH
a. Company Information. Provide background information, including company history/organizational°
structure, years in business for Proposer and each Lead Team Participant, number of employees, and any
other information communicating capabilities and experience.
b. Experience and Qualifications on Other Infrastructure Projects. Provide a list of the Proposer's and
each Lead Team Participant's experience with comparable design-build, design-build-operate-maintain, or
other public or public-private infrastructure projects of size and scope similar to or larger than the Project.
Include additional information, as well as a table that includes the project name, type of project, scope of
project, years the Project was constructed, hard construction costs for the project or operating/maintenance
budget for the project (as applicable), and delivery approach or method. For Lead Investor and Contractor,
provide record of projects completed within the contract time and contract price.
c. Experience and Qualifications on Rail or Transit Projects With Emphasis on Streetcars in Urban
Settings. Summarize the Proposer's and each Lead Team Participant's experience with similar rail or
transit projects with emphasis on streetcar projects in urban or sensitive environmental areas and
community areas of comparable size and scope. Include the project name, type of project, scope of project,
years constructed, hard costs, and delivery approach or method, and names of key personnel. Highlight any
key personnel who will also work on this Project. Identify experience in managing the maintenance of traffic,
roadway (or bridge) design and construction, environmental and other permitting, and implementing
community relations and outreach programs on projects of similar size and complexity to this Project. For
Lead Engineer, provide information demonstrating completion of at least one or more transit facility
comparable to the Project.
d. Capacity to Manage and Implement the Project. Provide additional information sufficient to identify
Proposer's and each Lead Team Participant's demonstrated capacity to manage and implement projects of
$250 million or larger.
e. Prior Working Relationships Between and Among Team Members. Provide information identifying
prior working relationships between or among Proposer or Lead Team Participants. Include the project
name, type of project, scope of project, years constructed, hard costs, and delivery approach or method, and
names of key personnel. Highlight any key personnel who will also work on this Project.
f. Key Personnel and Level of Commitment. Identify and provide job descriptions, resumes and
references for the qualified personnel for key positions on the Project, including number of years of
experience and areas of expertise for each individual, and list of prior projects comparable in size and scope
(or greater)of this Project. Key Personnel (at a minimum)shall include:
• Project Manager
• Construction Manager
• Construction Superintendent
• Design Manager
• Lead Design Engineer
• Independent Quality Manager
• Design Quality Manager
Affirm that all key personnel will be required to be on-site 100%of the time during activities that involve their
areas of responsibility. Substitution of Key Personnel will be subject to review and acceptance by the City.
g. Prime Constructor Safety Record . For Prime Constructor, provide its Experience Modification Rate
(EMR)and OSHA forms 300 and 300A for the past three (3)years.
+� iv\IANIIBEACH
TAB 3 Financial Capacity -
(4 page limit, not counting financial statements and related information)
Submit detailed information sufficient to demonstrate the financial capacity of Proposer and Lead Team Participants
and financial guarantors. Include Proposer's, Lead Investor's, financial guarantors, Lead Contractor, Lead Operator
and Lead Maintenance most recent annual reviewed/audited financial statement with the auditors' notes. Such
statements should include, at a minimum, balance sheets (statements of financial position), and statements of
profits and loss statement of net income). City reserves the right to request additional information from any
Proposer to determine financial capacity. Proposer shall have no more than ten (10) days to respond to such
request. Proposers may provide only one (1) hard copy of the most recent financial statements and one (1)
electronic copy in lieu of the request for 11 hard copies and one(1)electronic version.
TAB 4 Approach and Methodology
(20 page limit)
1. Management and Organization: Proposer shall describe the approach and methodology in accomplishing the
following goals of this Project i) an understanding of and approach to the management, technical aspects,
maintenance of traffic (and related access to residential and business areas), and risks associated with the Project;
ii) an understanding of and approach to how the public-private partnership, or "P3", process and the Proposer's
organization will contribute to the success of the Project and meet the City of Miami Beach's Project goals; and iii)
an understanding of the risk sharing and the teaming relationship between the Proposer and the City of Miami
Beach.
a. Methodology for integrating the Proposer and Lead Team Participants and their respective areas of
expertise: The narrative should describe the methodology for integrating the Proposer and the different areas
•
of expertise of Lead Team Participants into an efficient and effective organization.
b. Management Approach: The management approach must reflect an understanding of the use of the P3
project delivery methodology for transportation projects.
c. Organization Chart: Provide an organizational chart(s) showing the "chain of command," with lines
identifying participants who are responsible for major functions to be performed, and their reporting
relationships, in managing, designing, and building the Project. The organizational chart may be submitted on
an 11 x 17 sheet(which shall count as a single page toward the twenty(20) page limit. The chart(s) must show
the functional structure of the organization down to the design discipline leader or construction superintendent
level and must identify Key Personnel by name. Key Personnel will be committed to the Project. Identify all
Lead Team Participants in the chart(s). Identify the critical support elements and relationships of Project
management, Project administration, construction management, quality control, safety, environmental
compliance, and subcontractor administration.
d. Organizational Chart Functional Relationships: For each organizational chart, provide a brief, written
description of significant functional relationships among participants and how the proposed organization will
function as an integrated team.
2. Approach to P3/Design-Build-Operate-Maintain-Finance. Provide information on a sample approach to
finance the Project assuming an availability payment approach that is supported by annual payments during the
operation period subject to annual appropriation. Provide information demonstrating the Lead Investor has financial
capacity to guarantee an equity contribution of at least $50 million for the Project. Identify potential financing
options/sources of funding to finance the Project over a long-term availability payment period.
3. Approach to Design and Construction. Provide information demonstrating an understanding of and sound
approach to the development, design and construction of the Project.
a. Provide information identifying how Proposer will incorporate innovative design and other techniques in
the Project through the lifecycle of the Project.
b. Describe approach to plan, organize, and execute the design and construction of, and assure the quality
and safety of the Project.
c. Describe approach to effectively manage all aspects of the Contract in a quality, timely, and effective
manner and integrate the different parts of its organization with the City of Miami Beach in a cohesive and
seamless manner.
d. Describe approach to implementing the Project and other potential additional routes (i.e. 17th Street,
Alton Road, Dade Boulevard, Meridian Avenue or Convention Center Drive), in terms of schedule(including
timeframes for developing a comprehensive agreement following execution of interim agreement, and
timeframes for commencement of revenue operations following execution of comprehensive agreement),
maintenance of traffic, design, and construction, and how Proposer would approach the Project if both
phases were to proceed simultaneously.
4.Approach to Implementation in Complex Urban Environments.
a. Describe Proposer's general approach to integrating the City and identified stakeholders in the various
phases of the Project.
2e Proposer's general approach to traffic management, utility identification and relocation, access during
construction, pedestrian and parking accommodation, and community outreach.
c. Describe, in general terms, Proposer's anticipated operating approach for the Project.
5.Approach to Vehicle Systems Technology.
a. Provide a detailed description of Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology, including but not limited to
detailed descriptions and depictions of the proposed vehicles.
b. Provide description of operations and maintenance for the Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology,
including site requirements;
c. Provide service history for the Vehicle/Systems Technology, including vehicles; and
d.
e. Explain how the Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology will be interoperable with the Direct Connect
Project.
f. Provide a sample schedule with timeframes for delivery of the Vehicles/Systems Technology for the
Project, including timeframes for the delivery of the vehicles. Provide information demonstrating delivery of
comparable vehicles within the timeframes proposed in the sample schedule. Provide information
identifying, for the Vehicle/Systems Supplier's projects in the last five years that meet the Minimum
Requirements, the actual vehicle delivery time periods for each such project, with the time periods
measured from execution of the project agreement to delivery to each project site.
g. Provide description of how the Vehicle/Systems Technology will function or operate continuously, in
areas prone to flooding and if not under what conditions must the service be suspended such as specific
"level of water', water type (fresh water from rain compared to salt water) how long the water will be in
place, etc.
h. Describe how the Vehicle/Systems will be charged, including, if applicable, how vehicle batteries or
supercapacitors will be charged at passenger stops along the project route. Describe Proposer's approach
to ensuring that the application of the power supply is unobtrusive and incorporated within the architectural
features of the design for the passenger stops.
�► MI At \!BEACH
6. Approach to Process for Developing Comprehensive Agreement.
a. Provide an estimated schedule for pre-development activities pursuant to an interim agreement,
including a schedule for providing a final, firm price and for negotiation of a comprehensive
agreement or the Project. Identify the specific information and commitments you will require from
the City in order to meet the proposed schedule.
b. Provide a schedule and proposed approach for achieving financial close after execution of the
comprehensive agreement.
c. Identify any financial commitments or obligations you will require from the City as part of the Interim
Agreement and/or prior to execution of the comprehensive agreement and financial close for your
team to move forward on the Project. These are commitments required prior to financial close and
should include items required by the proposer should the City decide to terminate the process and
not •roceed to a comprehensive agreement.
•
Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank
MIAMIBEACH
SECTION 0400 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
1. Evaluation Committee.An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate and rank each
Proposal in accordance with the requirements set forth in this PRD. If the City desires further information, Proposers may be
requested to make additional written submissions of a clarifying nature or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee. The
evaluation of Proposals will proceed as specified in Section 0300(1). The Evaluation Committee is advisory only. Evaluation
Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Manager who will utilize the results to make a recommendation to
the City Commission. The City Manager will make the final recommendation concerning the ranking of Proposers, and such
final recommendation may or may not be consistent with the Evaluation Committee's ranking, and will consider the following:
(1)The ability, capacity and skill of the Proposer to perform the contract.
(2)Whether the Proposer can perform the contract within the time specified,without delay or interference.
(3)The character, integrity, reputation,judgment,experience and efficiency of the Proposer.
(4)The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5)The previous and existing compliance by the Proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the contract.
1. Evaluation Process. The Evaluation Committee shall meet to evaluate each response and rank Proposers in order of
preference, as provided in Florida Statute 287.05712, and based on consideration of the professional qualifications of the
Proposers(including Lead Team Participants), and the following factors:, in no particular order:
• Compliance with the Minimum Requirements;
• Experience and Qualifications of Proposer and each of the Lead Team Participants, including consideration of the
information requested in Tab 2 of Section 0300 of the PRD;
• Financial capability of the Proposer; and
• Proposer's Approach and Methodology, including consideration of the information requested in Tab 4 of Section 0300.
APPENDIX A
CA MI AM] BEACH
Proposal
Questionnaire
Requirements
PRD 2016-071-KB
Notice of Receipt
of Unsolicited Proposal and Request for Alternative Proposals
for
Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project
in
Miami Beach
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
1755 Meridian Avenue, 3rd Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Solicitation No: Solicitation Title:
PRD 2016-071-KB Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal and Request for
Alternative Proposals for Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in
Miami Beach
Procurement Contact: Tel: Email:
Kristy Bada 305-673-7490 KristyBada @MiamiBeachFL.gov
PROPOSAL CERTIFICATION, QUESTIONNAIRE&REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT
Purpose: The purpose of this Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit
Form is to inform prospective Proposers of certain solicitation and contractual requirements, and to
collect necessary information from Proposers in order that certain portions of responsiveness,
responsibility and other determining factors and compliance with requirements may be evaluated.
This Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is a REQUIRED
FORM that must be submitted fully completed and executed.
1. General Proposer Information.
FIRM NAME:
No of Years in Business: No of Years in Business Locally:
OTHER NAME(S)PROPOSER HAS OPERATED UNDER IN THE LAST 10 YEARS:
FIRM PRIMARY ADDRESS(HEADQUARTERS):
CITY:
STATE: ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE NO.:
TOLL FREE NO.:
FAX NO.:
FIRM LOCAL ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE: ZIP CODE:
PRIMARY ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT:
ACCOUNT REP TELEPHONE NO.:
ACCOUNT REP TOLL FREE NO.:
ACCOUNT REP EMAIL:
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.:
The City reserves the right to seek additional information from Proposer or other source(s), including but not limited to:
any firm or principal information, applicable licensure, resumes of relevant individuals, client information, financial
information, or any information the City deems necessary to evaluate the capacity of the Proposer to perform in
accordance with contract requirements.
1. Veteran Owned Business. Is Proposer claiming a veteran owned business status?
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers claiming veteran owned business status shall submit a
documentation proving that firm is certified as a veteran-owned business or a service-disabled
veteran owned business by the State of Florida or United States federal government, as required
pursuant to ordinance 2011-3748.
2. Conflict Of Interest. All Proposers must disclose, in their Proposal, the name(s) of any officer,
director, agent, or immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an
employee of the City of Miami Beach. Further, all Proposers must disclose the name of any City
employee who owns, either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten (10%) percent or more in the
Proposer entity or any of its affiliates.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers must disclose the name(s)of any officer, director, agent,
or immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an employee of the
City of Miami Beach. Proposers must also disclose the name of any City employee who owns,
either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten (10%) percent or more in the Proposer entity or any of
its affiliates
3. Suspension, Debarment or Contract Cancellation. The Proposer and each Lead Team
Participant must not have been indicted, disqualified, debarred, or suspended from the
performance of any work for any federal, state or local government in the United States in the last
seven (7) years, or removed via contract cancellation due to non-performance of work for any
federal,state or local government in the United States in the last seven (7)years. Has Proposer or
Lead Team Participant ever been indicted,disqualified, removed, debarred or suspended,or had a
contract cancelled due to non- erformance b an public sector agency?
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If answer to above is "YES," Proposer shall submit a statement
detailing the reasons that led to action(s).
4. Vendor Campaign Contributions. Proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the
City's Campaign Finance Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the City
Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's
Campaign Finance Reform laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions,
as prescribed therein, including disqualification of their Proposals, in the event of such non-
compliance.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Submit the names of all individuals or entities (including your sub-
consultants) with a controlling financial interest as defined in solicitation. For each individual or
entity with a controlling financial interest indicate whether or not each individual or entity has
contributed to the campaign either directly or indirectly, of a candidate who has been elected to the
office of Mayor or City Commissioner for the City of Miami Beach.
5. Code of Business Ethics. Pursuant to City Resolution No.2000-23879, each person or entity that
seeks to do business with the City shall adopt a Code of Business Ethics ("Code")and submit that
Code to the Department of Procurement Management with its Proposal/response or within five (5)
days upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a minimum, require the Proposer, to comply with
all applicable governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest,
lobbying and ethics provision of the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit firm's Code of Business Ethics. In lieu of
submitting Code of Business Ethics, Proposer may submit a statement indicating that it will adopt,
as required in the ordinance, the City of Miami Beach Code of Ethics, available at
www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/.
6. Public Entity Crimes. Section 287.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes, as currently enacted or as
amended from time to time, states that a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted
vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a Proposal, Proposal, or
reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a Proposal,
Proposal,or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building
or public work; may not submit Proposals, Proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a
public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or
consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public
entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period
of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this
affidavit document, Proposer agrees with the requirements of Section 287.133, Florida Statutes,
and certifies it has not been placed on convicted vendor list.
7. Litigation History. Has Proposer or any of its Lead Team Participants or principal or employee of
the Proposer(relating to professional endeavors only) been the subject of any claims, arbitrations,
administrative hearings and lawsuits brought by or against the Proposer (including Lead Team
Participants)or its predecessor organization(s)during the last five(5)years.
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If yes, list all case names; case, arbitration or hearing
identification numbers; the name of the project over which the dispute arose; a description of the
subject matter of the dispute;and the final outcome of the claim.
8. Bankruptcy. Has the Proposer or any of its Lead Team Participants filed any bankruptcy petitions
(voluntary or involuntary) which have been filed by or against the Proposer, its parent or
subsidiaries or predecessor organizations during the past five (5) years. Include in the description
the disposition of each such etition.
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If yes, list and describe all bankruptcy petitions (voluntary or
involuntary) which have been filed by or against the Proposer, its parent or subsidiaries or
predecessor organizations during the past five (5) years. Include in the description the disposition
of each such petition.
9. Principals. Provide the names of all individuals or entities with a controlling financial interest in
Proposer.The term"controlling financial interest"shall mean the ownership, directly or indirectly,of
10% or more of the outstanding capital stock in any corporation or a direct or indirect interest of
10% or more in a firm. The term "firm" shall mean any corporation, partnership, business trust or
any legal entity other than a natural person.
10. Surety Companies. Has a surety company ever intervened to assist a governmental agency or
other client of the Proposer or Lead Contractor in completing work that the Proposer or Lead
Contractor failed to complete?
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If yes, submit owner names, addresses and telephone numbers,
and surety and project names, for all projects for which you have performed work, where your
surety has intervened to assist in completion of the project,whether or not a claim was made.
11. Has Proposer or Lead Team Participants ever failed to complete performance of a contract? If so,
where and why?
YES NO
12. Acknowledgement of Addendum. After issuance of solicitation, the City may release one or
more addendum to the solicitation which may provide additional information to Proposers or alter
solicitation requirements. The City will strive to reach every Proposer having received solicitation
through the City's e-procurement system, PublicPurchase.com. However, Proposers are solely
responsible for assuring they have received any and all addendum issued pursuant to solicitation.
This Acknowledgement of Addendum section certifies that the Proposer has received all
addendum released by the City pursuant to this solicitation. Failure to obtain and acknowledge
receipt of all addendum may result in Proposal disqualification.
Initial to Initial to Initial to
Confirm Confirm Confirm
Receipt Receipt Receipt
Addendum 1 Addendum 6 Addendum 11
Addendum 2 Addendum 7 Addendum 12
Addendum 3 Addendum 8 Addendum 13
Addendum 4 Addendum 9 Addendum 14
Addendum 5 Addendum 10 , Addendum 15
If additional confirmation of addendum is required,submit under separate cover.
DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER SECTION
The solicitation referenced herein is being furnished to the recipient by the City of Miami Beach (the "City") for the recipient's
convenience.Any action taken by the City in response to Proposals made pursuant to this solicitation,or in making any award,or in
failing or refusing to make any award pursuant to such Proposals, or in cancelling awards, or in withdrawing or cancelling this
solicitation,either before or after issuance of an award,shall be without any liability or obligation on the part of the City.
In its sole discretion, the City may withdraw the solicitation either before or after receiving Proposals, may accept or reject
Proposals,and may accept Proposals which deviate from the solicitation,as it deems appropriate and in its best interest.In its sole
discretion,the City may determine the qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting Proposals in response to this
solicitation.
Following submission of a Proposal or Proposal, the applicant agrees to deliver such further details, information and assurances,
including financial and disclosure data, relating to the Proposal and the applicant including, without limitation, the applicant's
affiliates,officers,directors,shareholders,partners and employees,as requested by the City in its discretion.
The information contained herein is provided solely for the convenience of prospective Proposers. It is the responsibility of the
recipient to assure itself that information contained herein is accurate and complete.The City does not provide any assurances as to
the accuracy of any information in this solicitation.
Any reliance on these contents, or on any permitted communications with City officials, shall be at the recipient's own risk.
Proposers should rely exclusively on their own investigations,interpretations,and analyses.The solicitation is being provided by the
City without any warranty or representation,express or implied,as to its content,its accuracy,or its completeness. No warranty or
representation is made by the City or its agents that any Proposal conforming to these requirements will be selected for
consideration,negotiation,or approval.
The City shall have no obligation or liability with respect to this solicitation, the selection and the award process, or whether any
award will be made.Any recipient of this solicitation who responds hereto fully acknowledges all the provisions of this Disclosure
and Disclaimer, is totally relying on this Disclosure and Disclaimer, and agrees to be bound by the terms hereof. Any Proposals
submitted to the City pursuant to this solicitation are submitted at the sole risk and responsibility of the party submitting such
Proposal.
This solicitation is made subject to correction of errors,omissions,or withdrawal from the market without notice. Information is for
guidance only,and does not constitute all or any part of an agreement.
The City and all Proposers will be bound only as, if and when a Proposal (or Proposals), as same may be modified, and the
applicable definitive agreements pertaining thereto,are approved and executed by the parties,and then only pursuant to the terms
of the definitive agreements executed among the parties.Any response to this solicitation may be accepted or rejected by the City
for any reason,or for no reason,without any resultant liability to the City.
The City is governed by the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, and all Proposals and supporting documents shall be subject to
disclosure as required by such law. All Proposals shall be submitted in sealed Proposal form and shall remain confidential to the
extent permitted by Florida Statutes,until the date and time selected for opening the responses.At that time,all documents received
by the City shall become public records.
Proposers are expected to make all disclosures and declarations as requested in this solicitation.By submission of a Proposal,the
Proposer acknowledges and agrees that the City has the right to make any inquiry or investigation it deems appropriate to
substantiate or supplement information contained in the Proposal,and authorizes the release to the City of any and all information
sought in such inquiry or investigation. Each Proposer certifies that the information contained in the Proposal is true,accurate and
complete,to the best of its knowledge,information,and belief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything contained in the solicitation,all Proposers agree that in the event of a final unappealable
judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes on the City any liability arising out of this solicitation,or any response
thereto,or any action or inaction by the City with respect thereto, such liability shall be limited to$10,000.00 as agreed-upon and
liquidated damages. The previous sentence, however, shall not be construed to circumvent any of the other provisions of this
Disclosure and Disclaimer which imposes no liability on the City.
In the event of any differences in language between this Disclosure and Disclaimer and the balance of the solicitation, it is
understood that the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer shall always govern.The solicitation and any disputes arising from
the solicitation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
PROPOSER CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that: I, as an authorized agent of the Proposer, am submitting the following information as my firm's
Proposal; Proposer agrees to complete and unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of this document,
inclusive of this solicitation, all attachments, exhibits and appendices and the contents of any Addenda released hereto,
and the Disclosure and Disclaimer Statement; Proposer agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and
conditions contained in the solicitation, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements
of this solicitation and failure to comply will result in disqualification of Proposal submitted; Proposer has not divulged,
discussed, or compared the Proposal with other Proposers and has not colluded with any other Proposer or party to any
other Proposal; Proposer acknowledges that all information contained herein is part of the public domain as defined by
the State of Florida Sunshine and Public Records Laws; all responses, data and information contained in this Proposal,
inclusive of the Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit are true and accurate. Proposer
further certifies that Proposer(and Lead Team Participants)commit to serving as part of a Proposer team for a period of
[360] calendar days from the Commission's ranking of proposals, to participate in interim agreement negotiations with
the next-ranked Proposer should the City be unable to successfully negotiate an interim agreement, or subsequently, a
comprehensive agreement,with the successful Proposer.
Name of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Title of Proposer's Authorized Representative:
Signature of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Date:
State of FLORIDA ) On this day of ,20_,personally
appeared before me _ who
County of ) stated that (s)he is the
of , a corporation, and that the instrument was signed in behalf of
the said corporation by authority of its board of directors and acknowledged said
instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Before me:
Notary Public for the State of Florida
My Commission Expires:
•
APPENDIX B
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # 126-2016 LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members • the City ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager ,Air
DATE: March 18, 2016
SUBJECT: SOLICITATION OF ALTERNA IVE PROPOSALS FOR A PUBLIC PRIVATE
PARTNERSHIP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 287.05712,
FOR AN OFF-WIRE OR "WIRELESS" LIGHT RAIL/MODERN STREETCAR
SYSTEM.
The purpose of this LTC is to provide the Commission with the Amended and Restated
Proposal Requirements Document incorporating the direction received at the March 9, 2016
Commission meeting with respect to the City's solicitation of alternative proposals for a public-
private partnership, in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712, for an off-wire or "wireless"
light rail/modern streetcar system.
BACKGROUND
On December 16, 2015, the Mayor and Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-29247,
accepting receipt of an unsolicited proposal from Greater Miami Tramlink Partners for a Light
Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach, and authorizing the Administration to solicit
alternative proposals for a public/private partnership ("P3") for an off-wire or "wireless" light
rail/modern streetcar system from 5th Street, via Washington Avenue to the Miami Beach
Convention Center (the "Project").
On January 11, 2016, the Administration issued LTC #009-2016, informing the Mayor and City
Commission of the issuance of the public notice and Proposal Requirements Document ("PRD")
outlining the City's submission and other requirements for the Project.
On February 10, 2016, the Mayor and City Commission approved Resolution 2016-29304,
authorizing the Administration to conduct voluntary one-on-one meetings with prospective
proposers for fact-finding purposes, to permit consideration of the best available information
from the industry, in an effort to ensure the successful implementation for the Project.
On February 19, 2016, the City conducted a mandatory pre-proposal conference for the Project,
and on February 19, 2016 and February 26, 2016, representatives of Kimley-Horn, Parsons
Brinkerhoff, HDR, Clary Consulting and LTK Engineering (collectively, "City's Consultants") and
representatives of the City conducted one-on-one meetings with prospective proposers and
industry participants.
As a result of the one-on-one meetings, and in an effort to maximize competition for the benefit
of the City, the City's Consultants recommended certain modifications to the solicitation of the
ADDENUM 5 FOR SOLICITAION OF ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS FOR A PUBLIC
PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 287.05712,
FOR AN OFF-WIRE OR "WIRELESS" LIGHT RAIL/MODERN STREETCAR SYSTEM
March 18, 2016
Page 2
Project that required policy direction from the City Commission, including modifications to the
anticipated timeline for completion of the procurement process and modifications to the
minimum requirements set forth in the PRD.
AMENDED AND RESTATED PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT
At the March 9, 2016 Commission meeting, the Commission directed that following the receipt
of proposals for the Project (within 120 days after the public notice thereof), an independent
Evaluation Committee shall make recommendations to the City Manager relating to the ranking
of proposals (with final ranking determined by the City Commission). Following the
Commission's ranking of proposals, the Administration would move directly to negotiation of an
interim agreement with the top ranked proposer, with such negotiation to be accomplished
within 60 days following the Commission's ranking of proposals. Should the City be unable to
reach agreement with the top ranked proposer for an interim agreement, the City would enter
into negotiations with the second ranked proposer. Further, the Commission directed that the
proposer be responsible, to the extent possible, for project development activities (based on the
draft environmental review report) for elements such as detailed project alignment, surveys,
engineering, permits, schedules, etc. Finally, the Commission supported a number of policy
item updates to the solicitation, each of which are incorporated in the Amended and Restated
Proposal Requirements Document attached hereto as Exhibit 1 consistent with the Commission
direction.
F:\TRAN\$ALL\LTC\LTC-Addendum 5 Amended and Restated PRD Based on March 9 2016 Commission Direction.docx
EXHIBIT 1
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1755 Meridian Avenue, 3`d Floor,Miami Beach,Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
Tel: 305-673-7490 Fax: 786-394-4002
ADDENDUM NO. 5
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS DOCUMENT (PRD)2016-071-KB
Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal and
Request for Alternative Proposals for
Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach
March 17, 2016
1. The purpose of this Addendum 5 to the above-referenced PRD is to supersede all prior
versions of the PRD, as well as any addenda issued to prior PRD versions, with the
attached Amended and Restated PRD 2016-071-KB, dated March 17, 2016.
Interested parties shall rely solely on the Amended and Restated PRD 2016-071-KB. No
information, other than as stated in the Amended and Restated PRD 2016-071-KB, shall be
binding on the City.
Any questions regarding this Addendum should be submitted in writing to the Procurement
Department to the attention of the individual named below, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office
at RafaelGranado( miamibeachfl.aov.
Procurement Contact: Telephone: Email:
Kristy Bada 305-673-7000, ext. 6218 KristyBada @miamibeachfl.gov
Proposers are reminded to acknowledge receipt of this addendum as part of your PRD
submission.
Sin A-rely,
tow
'-x Denis
P ocurement Director
M I AM I BEACH
AMENDED AND RESTATED
PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
DOCUMENT (PRD
PRD 2016-071 -KB
Notice of Receipt
of Unsolicited and Request for
Alternative P
for
Light R Streetcar Project
in
Miami Beach
Original PRD Issuance Date: January 12, 2016.
Amended and Restated PRD: March 17, 2016
Proposals Due: May 10, 2016 @ 3:00 p.m.
Issued By:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Procurement Department
Attention: Kristy Bada, Contracting Officer
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
305.673.7490 I KristyBada @MiamiBeachFL.gov I www.miamibeachfl.gov
PRD 2016-071-KB 1
/V\I Procurement Department
A11 B EACH
1755 Meridian Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami
Beach, Florida 33139
PUBLIC NOTICE
Proposal Requirements Document(PRD)2016.071-KB
Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal for Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in Miami Beach
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Miami Beach, Florida,a municipal corporation of the State of Florida, has received
an unsolicited proposal for a qualifying public-private partnership project in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712 for an
off-wire or "wireless" light rail/modern streetcar system (the "Project").The City requests, and in accordance with Florida
Statute 287.05712,will accept alternative proposals for the Project until 3:00 p.m.on May 10, 2016.
Persons or entities wishing to submit alternative proposals for the Project ("Proposers") may do so by delivering sealed
proposals to: City of Miami Beach, Procurement Department,Attn: Alex Denis, 1755 Meridian Avenue, 3rd Floor, Miami Beach,
Florida 33139. Each sealed proposal submitted should be clearly marked on the outside: "Sealed Proposal- Light Rail/Modern
Streetcar System and Related Services."
All proposals must be timely submitted no later than 3:00 p.m. on May 10, 2016, and must contain the information and
materials required under Fla. Stat. 287.05712(5), the additional proposal submission requirements required by the City as
provided below, and a$100,000 application fee payable to the City of Miami Beach, Florida. Any proposal received after 3:00
p.m. on May 10, 2016 will be returned unopened, and will not be considered. Responsibility for submitting timely proposals
rests solely with Proposers; City will not be responsible for any delays caused by mail,courier service or other occurrence.
Proposals will be ranked in order of preference by the City. In ranking the proposals, the City will consider factors in
accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712 that include, but are not limited to, professional qualifications, general business
terms, innovative design techniques or cost-reduction terms,and finance plans. A more complete listing of factors that the City
will consider in ranking proposals, associated Project and proposal submission requirements("Proposal Requirements")can be
obtained through the City's proposal notification system, PublicPurchase (www.PublicPurchase.com). Interested parties must
register with PublicPurchase for access to the Proposal Requirements. Registration will allow Proposers to receive any
additional information that may be issued with respect to this procurement.
The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals, or as provided under Section 287.05712, Florida Statutes, to award
and negotiate an interim agreement and/or comprehensive agreement with the firm whose proposal best serves the interests of
the City. Nothing contained herein shall be interpreted as an obligation or binding agreement by the City regarding the Project.
The City's Cone of Silence shall be in effect during the procurement process in accordance with Section 2-486 of the City
Code. A link to certain applicable City of Miami Beach procurement-related provisions is available at
www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement.All communications regarding the Project and/or Proposal Requirements shall be directed
in writing to: City of Miami Beach Procurement Department, Attn: Kristy Bada, email: kristvbada(�miamibeachfl.gov, with a
copy to the City Clerk, Rafael Granado, at rafaelgranado a(�miamibeachfl.gov. The City will provide notice of a decision or
proposed decision regarding contract award.Any person who is, or claims to be, adversely affected by the City's decision or
proposed decision shall file a written protest in accordance with Section 2-371 of the City Code.
All proposals received in response to this Notice will become the property of the City of Miami Beach and will not be
returned. Such proposals and related information shall be subject to applicable provisions of the Florida Public Records Law.
PRD 2016-071-KB 2
IS1 MIAMI BEACH
SECTION 0200 INSTRUCTIONS TO RESPONDENTS&GENERAL CONDITIONS
1. GENERAL. This Proposal Requirements Document (PRD) is issued by the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the
"City"), pursuant to Section 287.05712(4), Florida Statutes, notifying interested parties that it has received an
unsolicited proposal for the development of an off-wire or "wireless" light rail/modern streetcar system in Miami
Beach as a public-private partnership (the "Project"). The City of Miami Beach will accept other Proposals from
qualified firms to deliver the Project and design, build, finance, operate and maintain the Project in accordance with
the specifications set forth in this PRD ("Proposals"). The City, at its sole discretion, will also consider alternative
proposals that may include, as part of the Project, additional routes along Alton Road, 17th Street, Dade Boulevard,
Meridian Avenue, or Convention Center Drive.
The City utilizes PublicPurchase (www.publicpurchase.com) for automatic notification of competitive solicitation
opportunities and document fulfillment, including the issuance of any addendum to this PRD. Any prospective
Proposer who has received this PRD by any means other than through PublicPurchase must register immediately
with PublicPurchase to assure it receives any addendum issued to this PRD. Failure to receive an addendum
and to comply with the requirements of this PRD, including, without limitation, payment of the requisite
$100,000 application fee,shall result in disqualification of a Proposal.
2. BACKGROUND.As early as 1969, a rail connection between the City of Miami and the City of Miami Beach was
identified as a priority in Miami-Dade County's Long Range Transportation Plan. Over 10 years ago, the Miami-
Dade Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) prepared the Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for a
light rail transit/modern streetcar system to connect the cities of Miami Beach and Miami via dedicated right-of-way
along the MacArthur Causeway(the Baylink Project). More recently, the MPO conducted a planning-level study that
refreshed and updated the decade-old Baylink study in June 2015 and reaffirmed the MacArthur Causeway as the
preferred alignment to connect Miami Beach and Miami and recommended an off-wire or "wireless" light rail
transit/modern streetcar system for the portion within each urban area as the preferred vehicle technology as well as
the use of exclusive lanes for the transit vehicles. Phase 1 of the recommended route alignment is from downtown
via MacArthur Causeway, 5th Street, and Washington Avenue directly to the Miami Beach Convention Center
referred to as the Direct Connect Project. The portion of the Direct Connect Project located within Miami Beach
and consisting of a 2-way connection on 5th Street and Washington Avenue, is referred to as the "South Beach
Component." This PRD, and the request for other Proposals for the Project, relates solely to the South Beach
Component of the Direct Connect Project. For additional background on the local and regional efforts with respect to
the Direct Connect Project, see City Commission Resolution No. 2015-29247.
The City has engaged Kimley-Horn for preparation of an environmental analysis for the South Beach Component of
the Direct Connect Project, to be completed in parallel with this solicitation. Kimley-Horn estimates that the
environmental review for the South Beach Component can be accomplished in 10 to 12 months. As of the date of
issuance of this PRD, the City's planning efforts for the Project are intended to preserve eligibility for state funding.
At this time, the City does not anticipate that it will pursue any federal funding or financing for the Project. Based on
the above schedule, it is intended that this solicitation and the pre-development period following execution of an
interim agreement will overlap the environmental review and analysis for the Project.
'PRD 2016-071-KB 3
m MIAMIBEACH
s
3. SCOPE. The scope of the Project contemplates a full "turn-key" delivery approach that consists of and includes
the design, construction, financing, operation, and maintenance of the Project, including vehicles and associated
power, communications, signalization, and other systems required for the functionality of the Project
("Vehicle/Systems Technology"); operation and maintenance facilities, related civil infrastructure, including "curb-to-
curb" road reconstruction, permitting, and related services pertaining to the Project, including all surveys, relocation
of all utilities, replacement of pipes more than 50 years old and other related infrastructure work, unless otherwise
specified by the City. The City will make a site available for a maintenance facility, with such site to be
managed/operated by the successful Proposer as part of the Project. The City's initial assessment of potential sites
for the maintenance facility is attached as Appendix B hereto.
Further, the City, as part of its resiliency program for sea level rise, intends to raise the level of many streets, install
pumps, etc. As part of the Project, the successful Proposer shall be responsible for all resiliency-related work at
specified geographical areas impacted by the alignment, with such areas to be determined by the City during the
interim agreement negotiations. The resiliency-related scope of work shall be funded separately by the City. The
City's current resiliency standards are set forth in Appendix C hereto.
The City anticipates a performance-based availability payment structure over the operating period. The City will
consider negotiating with the successful Proposer an option for milestone payments during the construction phase of
the Project, if funds are available and appropriated for such purposes.
The lead team participants include the following firms: (i) the firm that will be responsible for the construction of the
Project and is licensed as a general contractor in Florida ("Lead Contractor"), (ii) the firm responsible for operation of the
proposed vehicle/streetcar system ("Lead Operator"), (iii) the firm primarily responsible for coordinating the development
and completion of all Project-related engineering ("Lead Engineer"), (iv) the firm responsible for maintenance of the
Project, including the proposed streetcar system ("Lead Maintenance Entity"), (v) the entity primarily responsible for
providing equity for the Project ("Lead Investor"), and (vi) the streetcar vehicle or systems technology suppliers
("Vehicle/Systems Suppliers") (entities(i)through (vi) above collectively referred to as"Lead Team Participants").
Proposer teams may identify more than one (1) proposed Vehicle/System Supplier as part of their proposals, provided
that each Vehicle/System Supplier must meet the Minimum Requirements, with the final Vehicle/System Supplier to be
identified during the interim agreement negotiations. The Vehicle/Systems Suppliers may participate on more than one
(1) Proposer team. Except as to the Vehicle/System Suppliers, all other Lead Team Participants shall not participate on
more than one(1) Proposer team.
During the interim agreement negotiations, City will provide additional reference information, including a Level 1
contamination screening evaluation, projected ridership estimates, loading and related information, transit service
and operating plan information, and City's draft funding plan.
The City Commission intends to pursue a State level environmental clearance and will provide a draft funding plan
as part of the Interim Agreement. Proposers need to be knowledgeable of applicable local City, County and State
requirements, and have the ability to meet and comply with those requirements. For purposes of the Proposals,
Proposers must assume that the Project will be State and local-funded and that the Project shall incorporate all
applicable requirements.
Following the ranking of proposals by the City Commission, the City intends to negotiate and enter into an
interim agreement with the successful Proposer, with the intent of commencing development activities and
establishing the process and timeline for negotiation of a comprehensive agreement. The City shall have
no obligation to enter into an interim or comprehensive agreement. Any comprehensive agreement entered
into with a successful Proposer shall be subject to and contingent upon environmental clearance/approval
MIAMI BEACH
of Project components by applicable governmental entities.
4. MINIMUM ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS. The minimum requirements for the Project and this PRD ("Minimum
Requirements") are listed below. Proposer shall submit documentation of compliance with each Minimum
Requirement. Any Proposer that fails to include the required submittals with its Proposal, or fails to comply with the
Minimum Requirements, shall be deemed non-responsive and shall not have its Proposal considered.
A. Project and Proposer Minimum Requirements.
1. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology shall have demonstrated capacity of fully catenaryless for
revenue operations in Miami Beach while in operation between stops along the Project route, following
an alignment on a dedicated right of way. For purposes of satisfying the Minimum Requirements, the
Vehicle/System Technology may use catenary within the maintenance facility depot, and may allow for
charging of the vehicle batteries or supercapacitors at passenger stops along the route.
2. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology shall have demonstrated full performance capabilities,
including maintaining air conditioning in all vehicles in a climate similar to the climate in the City of Miami
Beach.
3. For purposes of the Minimum Requirements, demonstrated capacity may be satisfied if the proposed
Vehicle/Systems Technology is in revenue operation as part of any portion or segment of track within
any project anywhere in the world.
4. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology must include low floor, low step design throughout each
vehicle to maximize and facilitate accessibility and more timely passenger loading and unloading.
5. The Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology shall be able to operate in a typical centenary system in
the United States(750V DC).
6. The Proposer's Vehicle/SystemsTechnology shall have demonstrated capacity to address minimum
ridership of 20,075 people on a daily basis, should it be extended across the MacArthur Causeway as
part of the Direct Connect Project.
7. The Proposer's Lead Contractor shall demonstrate a bonding capacity of not less than $300 million by
submitting a letter stating its bonding capacity from an A-rated, Financial Class V, Surety Company.
The statement of bonding capacity shall be directly from the Surety firm on its official letterhead and
signed by an authorized agent of the firm.
8. The Proposer's Lead Contractor must have successfully delivered, as a general contractor under a
design/build or other form of construction contract, at least (1) public or public/private infrastructure
project with minimum hard construction costs of$250 million in the last five (5) years.
9. The Lead Investor must have successfully delivered financing for a project under a public-private
partnership (P3) approach within the last five years by Lead Investor for a P3 project of at least $400
million.
For purposes of the Minimum Requirements, "Buy America" provisions of the U.S. Department of Transportation,
set forth in 49 C.F.R. 661 and other provisions of federal law, shall not apply to the Project.
B. Application Fee. Proposals must be accompanied by a Proposal application fee in the amount of$100,000,
payable to the City of Miami Beach, payable by wire transfer, prior to the due date for proposals, pursuant to
the wire instructions below, as follows:
Bank: SunTrust
ABA: 061000104
SWIFT#: SNTRUS3A(foreign wires)
Account#: 0360002236568
Account Name: City of Miami Beach General Depository Account
MINI BEACH
The wire transfer receipt number must be included in the Proposal submitted. Failure to submit the
application fee in accordance with this provision shall render a Proposal non-responsive and City
shall disqualify Proposer from any further consideration.
Except as provided herein, if the application fees collected ultimately exceed the City's costs for fully evaluating
proposals, including the City's consultant and legal fees, the City will refund to Proposers the difference between the
application fee and the per proposal review cost, on a pro rata basis, within 90 days following the City Commission's
ranking of proposals. City shall retain the application fees for the top three (3) ranked proposers until an Interim
Agreement is executed, with refunds of any pro rata remaining amounts to be made within ninety (90) days of the
City Commission's approval of an interim agreement.
5. SOLICITATION TIMETABLE
Revision of the Project solicitation approach and timetable
The Addendum includes the revised timetable as follows:
Proposal submittals: May 10, 2016
Evaluation Committee June, 2016
City Commission Ranking of Proposals: July, 2016
City Commission Approval of Negotiated Interim Agreement: September, 2016
Project Development and Price Negotiation: TBD
Commercial Close of Comprehensive Agreement: TBD
Financial Close: TBD*
*The financial close assumes the environmental approvals have been achieved at or before this time.
6. PROPOSAL DUE DATE. Proposals are to be received on or before 3:00 p.m. on May 10, 2016. Any
Proposal received after the deadline established for receipt of Proposals will be considered late and not be
accepted or will be returned to Proposer unopened. The City does not accept responsibility for any delays
caused by mail, courier service or other occurrence.
7. PROCUREMENT CONTACT. Any questions or clarifications concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the
Procurement Contact noted below:
Procurement Contact: Telephone: Email:
Kristy Bada 305-673-7490 KristyBada@MiamiBeachFL.gov
Additionally, the City Clerk is to be copied on all communications via e-mail at: RafaelGranado @miamibeachfl.gov;
or via facsimile: 786-394-4188.
The PRD title/number shall be referenced on all correspondence. All questions or requests for clarification must be
received no later than thirty (30) calendar days prior to the date Proposals are due. All responses to
questions/clarifications will be sent to all prospective Proposers in the form of an addendum.
8. DETERMINATION OF AWARD. Proposals will be ranked in order of preference by the City. In ranking the
proposals, the City will consider factors in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712, as further outlined in (1)to (5)
below, and any other considerations identified in this PRD. The final ranking results outlined in Section 0400,
Evaluation of Proposals, will be considered by the City Manager who may recommend to the City Commission the
Proposer(s) s/he deems to be in the best interest of the City, or may recommend rejection of all Proposals. The City
MIAMI BEACH
Manager's recommendation need not be consistent with the ranking identified herein and takes into consideration
Miami Beach City Code Section 2-369, including the following considerations:
(1)The ability, capacity and skill of the Proposer to perform the contract.
(2)Whether the Proposer can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or
interference.
(3)The character, integrity, reputation,judgment, experience and efficiency of the Proposer.
(4)The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5)The previous and existing compliance by the Proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the
contract.
The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation and may approve such
recommendation. The City Commission may also, at its option, reject the City Manager's recommendation and
select another Proposal or Proposals which it deems to be in the best interest of the City, or it may also reject all
Proposals. Upon approval of selection by the City Commission, negotiations between the City and the selected
Proposer(s)will take place to arrive at a mutually acceptable interim agreement for the Project or any portion thereof,
in accordance with Florida Statute 287.05712. If the City and selected Proposer cannot agree on contractual terms,
the City will terminate negotiations and may begin negotiations with the next ranked Proposer, continuing this
process with each Proposer in rank order until agreeable terms can be met or this solicitation process is terminated,
unless otherwise specified by the City Commission. Contract negotiations for an interim agreement will take place
within the sixty (60) day period following the City Commission's ranking of proposals, and the City Commission's
consideration of the final interim agreement will take place as quickly as possible thereafter. Following execution of
the interim agreement, if the City and the selected Proposer cannot agree on contractual terms for a comprehensive
agreement, the City will terminate negotiations and may begin negotiations for an interim agreement with the next
ranked Proposer, continuing this process with each Proposer in rank order until agreeable terms can be met or this
solicitation process is terminated, unless otherwise specified by the City Commission.
9. NEGOTIATIONS. The City reserves the right to enter into further negotiations with the selected Proposer for an
interim agreement agreement for delivery of the Project or any portion thereof, and which agreement shall, at a
minimum, comply with Florida Statute 287.05712 and the Minimum Requirements set forth herein. Notwithstanding
the preceding, the City is in no way obligated to enter into an interim agreement or, ultimately, a comprehensive
agreement with the selected Proposer, in the event the parties are unable to negotiate a mutually acceptable
agreement. It is also understood and acknowledged by Proposers that no property, contract or binding rights of any
kind shall be created at any time until and unless a final comprehensive agreement has been fully negotiated,
approved by the City Commission, and executed by the parties. Any comprehensive agreement ultimately entered
into with a successful Proposer shall be subject to and contingent upon environmental clearance/approval of Project
components by applicable governmental entities.
10. PRE-PROPOSAL INTERPRETATIONS. Oral information or responses to questions received by prospective
Proposers are not binding on the City and will be without legal effect, including any information received at pre-
submittal meeting or site visit(s). The City by means of Addenda will issue interpretations or written addenda
clarifications considered necessary by the City in response to questions. Only questions answered by written
addenda will be binding and may supersede terms noted in this solicitation. Addendum will be released through
PublicPurchase. Any prospective Proposer who has received this PRD by any means other than through
PublicPurchace must register immediately with PublicPurchase to assure it receives any addendum issued to this
PRD. Failure to receive an addendum may result in disqualification of Proposal. Written questions should be
received no later than April 9, 2016. This Amended and Restated PRD supersedes the original PRD issued on
January 12, 2016, and all prior addenda thereto. All provisions in the January 12, 2016 PRD and Addendums 1
through 4 not incorporated in this PRD, as amended and restated, shall have no force and effect and shall not be
binding on the City or proposers.
MIAMI BEACH
11. CONE OF SILENCE. In Resolution No. 2015-29247, the City Commission elected, at its discretion, to apply the
City's Cone of Silence to this solicitation. Except as may be otherwise specified by the City Commission, this PRD is
subject to the Cone of Silence requirements as set forth in Section 2-486 of the City Code. All Proposers are
expected to be or become familiar with the above requirements. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring
that all applicable provisions of the City's Cone of Silence are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all
sanctions, as prescribed therein, including rendering their Proposal response voidable, in the event of such non-
compliance. Communications regarding this PRD solicitation are to be submitted in writing to the Procurement
Contact named herein with a copy to the City Clerk at rafaelgranado(@.miamibeachfl.gov.
The City Commission, in Resolution 2016-29304, authorized a process for one-on-one meetings with Proposers for
fact-finding purposes. The City will not schedule any further one-on-one meetings, and all questions should be in
writing, in accordance with this Section.
12. PUBLIC ENTITY CRIME. A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a
conviction for public entity crimes may not submit a Proposal on a contract to provide any goods or services to a
public entity, may not submit a Proposal on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public
building or public work, may not submit Proposals on leases of real property to public entity, may not be awarded or
perform work as a contractor, supplier, sub-contractor, or consultant under a contract with a public entity, and may
not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in Sec. 287.017, for
CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list.
13. COMPLIANCE WITH THE CITY'S LOBBYIST LAWS. This PRD is subject to, and all Proposers are expected to
be or become familiar with, all City lobbyist laws. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all City
lobbyist laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein, including,
without limitation, disqualification of their responses, in the event of such non-compliance.
14. DEBARMENT ORDINANCE: This PRD is subject to, and all Proposers are expected to be or become familiar
with, the City's Debarment Ordinance as codified in Sections 2-397 through 2-406 of the City Code.
15. CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM LAWS. This PRD is subject to, and all Proposers are expected to be or
become familiar with, the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the
City Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's Campaign -
Finance Reform laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein,
including disqualification of their responses, in the event of such non-compliance.
16. CODE OF BUSINESS ETHICS. Pursuant to City Resolution No.2000-23879, the Proposer shall adopt a Code of
Business Ethics ("Code") and submit that Code to the Procurement Division with its response or within five (5) days
upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a minimum, require the Proposer, to comply with all applicable
governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of
the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County.
17. POSTPONEMENT OF DUE DATE FOR RECEIPT OF PROPOSALS. The City reserves the right to postpone
the deadline for submittal of Proposals and will make a reasonable effort to give at least three (3) calendar days
written notice of any such postponement to all prospective Proposers through PublicPurchase.
18. PROTESTS. Proposers that are not selected may protest any recommendation for selection of award in
accordance with the proceedings established pursuant to the City's bid protest procedures, as codified in Sections 2-
370 and 2-371 of the City Code (the City's Bid Protest Ordinance). A protest not timely made pursuant to the
requirements of the City's Bid Protest Ordinance shall be barred.
MIAl1I BEACH
19. POSTPONEMENT/CANCELLATION/ACCEPTANCE/REJECTION. The City may, at its sole and absolute
discretion, reject any and all, or parts of any and all, Proposals; re-advertise this PRD; postpone or cancel, at any
time, this PRD process; or waive any irregularities in this PRD, or in any Proposal responses received as a result of
this PRD, in accordance with Florida law.
20. PROPOSER'S RESPONSIBILITY. Before submitting a response, each Proposer shall be solely responsible for
making any and all investigations, evaluations, and examinations, as it deems necessary, to ascertain all conditions
and requirements affecting the full performance of the contract. Ignorance of such conditions and requirements,
and/or failure to make such evaluations, investigations, and examinations, will not relieve the Proposer from any
obligation to comply with every detail and with all provisions and requirements of the contract, and will not be
accepted as a basis for any subsequent claim whatsoever for any monetary consideration on the part of the
Proposer.
21. COSTS INCURRED BY PROPOSERS.All expenses involved with the preparation and submission of Proposals
and negotiation of interim agreement, or any work performed in connection therewith, shall be the sole responsibility
(and shall be at the sole cost and expense)of the Proposer, and shall not be reimbursed by the City.
22. RELATIONSHIP TO THE CITY. It is the intent of the City, and Proposers hereby acknowledge and agree, that
the successful Proposer is considered to be an independent contractor, and that neither the Proposer, nor the
Proposer's employees, agents, and/or contractors, shall, under any circumstances, be considered employees or
agents of the City.
23. MISTAKES. Proposers are expected to examine the terms, conditions, specifications, delivery schedules,
proposed pricing, and all instructions pertaining to the goods and services relative to this PRD. Failure to do so will
be at the Proposer's risk and may result in the Proposal being non-responsive.
24. DEFAULT: Failure or refusal of the selected Proposer to execute a contract following approval of such contract
by the City Commission, or untimely withdrawal of a response before such award is made and approved, may result
in a claim for damages by the City and may be grounds for removing the Proposer from the City's vendor list.
25. MANNER OF PERFORMANCE. Proposer agrees to perform its duties and obligations in a professional manner
and in accordance with all applicable Local, State, County, and Federal laws, rules, regulations and codes. Lack of
knowledge or ignorance by the Proposer with/of applicable laws will in no way be a cause for relief from
responsibility. Proposer agrees that the services provided shall be provided by employees that are educated,trained,
experienced, certified, and licensed in all areas encompassed within their designated duties. Proposer agrees to
furnish to the City any and all documentation, certification, authorization, license, permit, or registration currently
required by applicable laws, rules, and regulations. Proposer further certifies that it and its employees will keep all
licenses, permits, registrations, authorizations, or certifications required by applicable laws or regulations in full force
and effect during the term of this contract. Failure of Proposer to comply with this paragraph shall constitute a
material breach of this contract.
26. SPECIAL CONDITIONS. Any and all Special Conditions that may vary from these General Terms and
Conditions shall have precedence.
27. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The Proposer certifies that it is in compliance with the non-discrimination clause
contained in Section 202, Executive Order 11246, as amended by Executive Order 11375, relative to equal
employment opportunity for all persons without regard to race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In accordance
with the City's Human Rights Ordinance, codified in Chapter 62 of the City Code, Proposer shall prohibit(and cause
hotel operator to prohibit) discrimination by reason of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, intersexuality, gender
m MIAMI BEACH
identity, sexual orientation, marital and familial status, and age or disability in the sale, lease, use or occupancy of
the Hotel Project or any portion thereof.
28. DEMONSTRATION OF COMPETENCY. The City may consider any evidence available regarding the financial,
technical, and other qualifications and abilities of a Proposer, including past performance (experience) in making an
award that is in the best interest of the City, including:
A. Pre-award inspection of the Proposer's facility may be made prior to the award of contract.
B. Proposals will only be considered from firms which are regularly engaged in the business of providing the
goods and/or services as described in this solicitation.
C. Proposers must be able to demonstrate a good record of performance for a reasonable period of time, and
have sufficient financial capacity, equipment, and organization to ensure that they can satisfactorily perform the
services if awarded a contract under the terms and conditions of this solicitation.
D. The terms "equipment and organization", as used herein shall, be construed to mean a fully equipped and
well established company in line with the best business practices in the industry, and as determined by the City
of Miami Beach.
E. The City may consider any evidence available regarding the financial, technical, and other qualifications and
abilities of a Proposer, including past performance(experience), in making an award that is in the best interest of
the City.
F. The City may require Proposers to show proof that they have been designated as authorized representatives
of a manufacturer or supplier, which is the actual source of supply. In these instances, the City may also require
material information from the source of supply regarding the quality, packaging, and characteristics of the
products to be supply to the City.
29. ASSIGNMENT. The successful Proposer shall not assign, transfer, convey, sublet or otherwise dispose of the
contract, including any or all of its right, title or interest therein, or his/her or its power to execute such contract, to
any person, company or corporation,without the prior written consent of the City.
30. LAWS, PERMITS AND REGULATIONS. The Proposer shall obtain and pay for all licenses, permits, and
inspection fees required to complete the work and shall comply with all applicable laws.
31. FLORIDA PUBLIC RECORDS LAW. Proposers are hereby notified that all Proposal including, without limitation,
any and all information and documentation submitted therewith, are exempt from public records requirements under
Section 119.07(1), Florida Statutes, and s. 24(a), Art. 1 of the State Constitution until such time as the City provides
notice of an intended decision or until thirty (30) days after opening of the Proposals, whichever is earlier.
Additionally, the successful Proposer agrees to be in full compliance with Florida Statute 119.0701 including, but not
limited to, agreement to (a) keep and maintain public records that ordinarily and necessarily would be required by
the public agency in order to perform the services; (b) provide the public with access to public records on the same
terms and conditions that the public agency would provide the records and at a cost that does not exceed the cost
provided in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law; (c) ensure that public records that are exempt or
confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed except as authorized by law;
(d) meet all requirements for retaining public records and transfer, at no cost, to the City all public records in its
possession upon termination of the interim agreement or comprehensive agreement and destroy any duplicate
public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All records
stored electronically must be provided to the City in a format that is compatible with the information technology
systems of the City.
MIAMI BEACH
32. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.All Proposers must disclose, in their Proposal, the name(s)of any officer, director,
agent, or immediate family member(spouse, parent, sibling, and child)who is also an employee of the City of Miami
Beach. Further, all Proposers must disclose the name of any City employee who owns, either directly or indirectly,
an interest of ten (10%) percent or more in the Proposer entity or any of its affiliates.
33. MODIFICATION/WITHDRAWALS OF PROPOSALS.A Proposer may submit a modified Proposal to replace all
or any portion of a previously submitted Proposal up until the Proposal due date and time. Modifications received
after the Proposal due date and time will not be considered. Letters of withdrawal received after the Proposal due
date and before said expiration date, and letters of withdrawal received after contract award will not be considered.
Proposer and Lead Team Participants, through the certification set forth in Appendix A hereto, shall commit
to serving as part of a Proposer team for a period of[360] calendar days from the Commission's ranking of
proposals. If the City is unable to successfully negotiate an interim agreement (or subsequently, a comprehensive
agreement), with the successful Proposer, the purpose of this certification is to permit negotiations for an interim
agreement with the next-ranked Proposer
34. EXCEPTIONS TO PRD. Proposers must clearly indicate any exceptions they wish to take to any of the terms in
this PRD, and outline what, if any, alternative is being offered. All exceptions and alternatives shall be included and
clearly delineated, in writing, in the Proposal. The City, at its sole and absolute discretion, may accept or reject any
or all exceptions and alternatives. In cases in which exceptions and alternatives are rejected, the City shall require
the Proposer to comply with the particular term and/or condition of the PRD to which Proposer took exception to (as
said term and/or condition was originally set forth on the PRD).
35.ACCEPTANCE OF GIFTS, FAVORS, SERVICES. Proposers shall not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of
monetary value to any official, employee, or agent of the City, for the purpose of influencing consideration of this
Proposal. Pursuant to Sec. 2-449 of the City Code, no officer or employee of the City shall accept any gift, favor or
service that might reasonably tend improperly to influence him in the discharge of his official duties.
36. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION. City reserves the right to request supplemental information from Proposers
at any time during the PRD solicitation process, unless otherwise noted herein.
37. NO WARRANTIES OR REPRESENTATIONS BY CITY. Any information provided by City under this PRD is
solely to provide background information for the convenience of the Proposers. City makes no representations
or warranties, express or implied, of any kind whatsoever with respect to any of the matters identified in this
PRD.
Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank
MIAMI BEACH
SECTION 0300 PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL INSTRUCTIONS AND FORMAT
1. PROPOSAL EVALUATION.The City Manager shall appoint an Evaluation Committee to evaluate the information
submitted by Proposers in response to this PRD, and the qualifications of the Proposer and the Lead Team
Participants. The City reserves the right to engage the advice of its consultant or other technical experts in assisting
the Evaluation Committee in the review of Proposals received. Following the Evaluation Committee's ranking of
proposers, the determination of award shall be made in accordance with Paragraph 8 of Section 0200 of the PRD.
2. SEALED RESPONSES. Proposers shall submit one (1) original Proposal (preferably in 3-ring binder) in an
opaque, sealed envelope or container on or before the due date established for the receipt of Proposals, ten (10)
bound copies and one (1)electronic format(CD or USB format)to be submitted. The following information should be
clearly marked on the face of the envelope or container in which the Proposal is submitted: solicitation number,
solicitation title, Proposer name, Proposer return address. Proposals received electronically, either through email or
facsimile, are not acceptable and will be rejected.
3. PROPOSAL FORMAT. In order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process and assist the Evaluation
Committee in review of Proposals, it is strongly recommended that Proposals be organized and tabbed in
accordance with the sections and manner specified below. Hard copy submittal should be tabbed as enumerated
below and contain a table of contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed and contain a
table of contents with page references. Proposals that do not include the required information will be deemed non-
responsive and will not be considered.
4. PROPOSAL FORMAT REQUIREMENTS. In order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process, and
assist the Evaluation Committee in review of responses, it is recommended that responses be organized and tabbed
in accordance with the sections and manner specified below. Hard copy submittals should be bound and tabbed as
enumerated below and contain a table of contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed
and contain a table of contents with page references. Proposers should prepare their submittal on 8.5 x 11 paper.
Please feel free to include other materials, such as covers, appendices, brochures, etc. at your discretion. The
recommended number of pages the City desires for each submittal item is indicated below. These are
recommendations only and actual pages may exceed the recommendation. The City reserves the right to require
additional information to determine financial capability. Proposer shall have ten (10) calendar days respond to such
a request.
TAB 1 Executive Summary, Forms&Compliance with Minimum Requirements
(4 page limit)
1. Cover Page, Letter, and Table of Contents. The cover letter must indicate Prime Proposer and be signed by
same.
2. Required Forms. Provide Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit(Appendix A). Attach Appendix
A fully completed and executed. The Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit (Appendix A) must
be signed by the Prime Respondent.
3. Minimum Requirements. Submit verifiable information documenting compliance with each of the Minimum
Requirements in Section 0200, Pages 3-4.
TAB 2 Experience and Qualifications of Proposing Team
(15 page limit, not counting resumes limited to two pages each)
1. Qualifications of Proposer and Lead Team Participants. Submit detailed information regarding the Proposer's
and each Lead Team Participant's experience in the design, construction, financing, operation and maintenance
which documents expertise, competence, capability, and capacity in, and record of producing quality work on
projects similar to the Project. Include, at a minimum, the following information:
PRD 2016-071-KB 12
MIAMI BEACH
a. Company Information. Provide background information, including company history/organizational
structure, years in business for Proposer and each Lead Team Participant, number of employees, and any
other information communicating capabilities and experience.
b. Experience and Qualifications on Other Infrastructure Projects. Provide a list of the Proposer's and
each Lead Team Participant's experience with comparable design-build, design-build-operate-maintain, or
other public or public-private infrastructure projects of size and scope similar to or larger than the Project.
Include additional information, as well as a table that includes the project name, type of project, scope of
project, years the Project was constructed, hard construction costs for the project or operating/maintenance
budget for the project(as applicable), and delivery approach or method. For Lead Investor and Contractor,
provide record of projects completed within the contract time and contract price.
c. Experience and Qualifications on Rail or Transit Projects With Emphasis on Streetcars in Urban
Settings. Summarize the Proposer's and each Lead Team Participant's experience with similar rail or
transit projects with emphasis on streetcar projects in urban or sensitive environmental areas and
community areas of comparable size and scope. Include the project name, type of project, scope of project,
years constructed, hard costs, and delivery approach or method, and names of key personnel. Highlight any
key personnel who will also work on this Project. Identify experience in managing the maintenance of traffic,
roadway (or bridge) design and construction, environmental and other permitting, and implementing
community relations and outreach programs on projects of similar size and complexity to this Project. For
Lead Engineer, provide information demonstrating completion of at least one or more transit facility
comparable to the Project.
d. Capacity to Manage and Implement the Project. Provide additional information sufficient to identify
Proposer's and each Lead Team Participant's demonstrated capacity to manage and implement projects of
$250 million or larger.
e. Prior Working Relationships Between and Among Team Members. Provide information identifying
prior working relationships between or among Proposer or Lead Team Participants. Include the project
name, type of project, scope of project, years constructed, hard costs, and delivery approach or method, and
names of key personnel. Highlight any key personnel who will also work on this Project.
f. Key Personnel and Level of Commitment. Identify and provide job descriptions, resumes and
references for the qualified personnel for key positions on the Project, including number of years of
experience and areas of expertise for each individual, and list of prior projects comparable in size and scope
(or greater)of this Project. Key Personnel (at a minimum)shall include:
• Project Manager
• Construction Manager
• Construction Superintendent
• Design Manager
• Lead Design Engineer
• Independent Quality Manager
• Design Quality Manager
Affirm that all key personnel will be required to be on-site 100%of the time during activities that involve their
areas of responsibility. Substitution of Key Personnel will be subject to review and acceptance by the City.
g. Prime Constructor Safety Record . For Prime Constructor, provide its Experience Modification Rate
(EMR)and OSHA forms 300 and 300A for the past three(3)years.
�► MIAMI BEACH
TAB 3 Financial Capacity -
(4 page limit, not counting financial statements and related information)
Submit detailed information sufficient to demonstrate the financial capacity of Proposer and Lead Team Participants
and financial guarantors. Include Proposer's, Lead Investor's, financial guarantors, Lead Contractor, Lead Operator
and Lead Maintenance most recent annual reviewed/audited financial statement with the auditors' notes. Such
statements should include, at a minimum, balance sheets (statements of financial position), and statements of
profits and loss statement of net income). City reserves the right to request additional information from any
Proposer to determine financial capacity. Proposer shall have no more than ten (10) days to respond to such
request. Proposers may provide only one (1) hard copy of the most recent financial statements and one (1)
electronic copy in lieu of the request for 11 hard copies and one(1)electronic version.
TAB 4 Approach and Methodology
(20 page limit)
1. Management and Organization: Proposer shall describe the approach and methodology in accomplishing the
following goals of this Project i) an understanding of and approach to the management, technical aspects,
maintenance of traffic (and related access to residential and business areas), and risks associated with the Project;
ii) an understanding of and approach to how the public-private partnership, or "P3", process and the Proposer's
organization will contribute to the success of the Project and meet the City of Miami Beach's Project goals; and iii)
an understanding of the risk sharing and the teaming relationship between the Proposer and the City of Miami
Beach.
a. Methodology for integrating the Proposer and Lead Team Participants and their respective areas of
expertise: The narrative should describe the methodology for integrating the Proposer and the different areas
of expertise of Lead Team Participants into an efficient and effective organization.
b. Management Approach: The management approach must reflect an understanding of the use of the P3
project delivery methodology for transportation projects.
c. Organization Chart: Provide an organizational chart(s) showing the "chain of command," with lines
identifying participants who are responsible for major functions to be performed, and their reporting
relationships, in managing, designing, and building the Project. The organizational chart may be submitted on
an 11 x 17 sheet(which shall count as a single page toward the twenty(20) page limit. The chart(s) must show
the functional structure of the organization down to the design discipline leader or construction superintendent
level and must identify Key Personnel by name. Key Personnel will be committed to the Project. Identify all
Lead Team Participants in the chart(s). Identify the critical support elements and relationships of Project
management, Project administration, construction management, quality control, safety, environmental
compliance, and subcontractor administration.
d. Organizational Chart Functional Relationships: For each organizational chart, provide a brief, written
description of significant functional relationships among participants and how the proposed organization will
function as an integrated team.
2. Approach to P3/Design-Build-Operate-Maintain-Finance. Provide information on a sample approach to
finance the Project assuming an availability payment approach that is supported by annual payments during the
operation period subject to annual appropriation. Provide information demonstrating the Lead Investor has financial
capacity to guarantee an equity contribution of at least $50 million for the Project. Identify potential financing
options/sources of funding to finance the Project over a long-term availability payment period.
3. Approach to Design and Construction. Provide information demonstrating an understanding of and sound
approach to the development, design and construction of the Project.
C.1- MIAMI BEACH
a. Provide information identifying how Proposer will incorporate innovative design and other techniques in
the Project through the lifecycle of the Project.
b. Describe approach to plan, organize, and execute the design and construction of, and assure the quality
and safety of the Project.
c. Describe approach to effectively manage all aspects of the Contract in a quality, timely, and effective
manner and integrate the different parts of its organization with the City of Miami Beach in a cohesive and
seamless manner.
d. Describe approach to implementing the Project and other potential additional routes (i.e. 17th Street
Pp p 9 Project P ( Street,
Alton Road, Dade Boulevard, Meridian Avenue or Convention Center Drive), in terms of schedule(including
timeframes for developing a comprehensive agreement following execution of interim agreement, and
timeframes for commencement of revenue operations following execution of comprehensive agreement),
maintenance of traffic, design, and construction, and how Proposer would approach the Project if both
phases were to proceed simultaneously.
4.Approach to Implementation in Complex Urban Environments.
a. Describe Proposer's general approach to integrating the City and identified stakeholders in the various
phases of the Project.
2e Proposer's general approach to traffic management, utility identification and relocation, access during
construction, pedestrian and parking accommodation, and community outreach.
c. Describe, in general terms, Proposer's anticipated operating approach for the Project.
5.Approach to Vehicle Systems Technology.
a. Provide a detailed description of Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology, including but not limited to
detailed descriptions and depictions of the proposed vehicles.
b. Provide description of operations and maintenance for the Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology,
including site requirements;
c. Provide service history for the Vehicle/Systems Technology, including vehicles; and
d.
e. Explain how the Proposer's Vehicle/Systems Technology will be interoperable with the Direct Connect
Project.
f. Provide a sample schedule with timeframes for delivery of the Vehicles/Systems Technology for the
Project, including timeframes for the delivery of the vehicles. Provide information demonstrating delivery of
comparable vehicles within the timeframes proposed in the sample schedule. Provide information
identifying, for the Vehicle/Systems Supplier's projects in the last five years that meet the Minimum
Requirements, the actual vehicle delivery time periods for each such project, with the time periods
measured from execution of the project agreement to delivery to each project site.
g. Provide description of how the Vehicle/Systems Technology will function or operate continuously, in
areas prone to flooding and if not under what conditions must the service be suspended such as specific
"level of water", water type (fresh water from rain compared to salt water) how long the water will be in
place, etc.
h. Describe how the Vehicle/Systems will be charged, including, if applicable, how vehicle batteries or
supercapacitors will be charged at passenger stops along the project route. Describe Proposer's approach
to ensuring that the application of the power supply is unobtrusive and incorporated within the architectural
features of the design for the passenger stops.
•
MIAIM BEACH
6. Approach to Process for Developing Comprehensive Agreement.
, a. Provide an estimated schedule for pre-development activities pursuant to an interim agreement,
including a schedule for providing a final, firm price and for negotiation of a comprehensive
agreement or the Project. Identify the specific information and commitments you will require from
the City in order to meet the proposed schedule.
b. Provide a schedule and proposed approach for achieving financial close after execution of the
comprehensive agreement.
c. Identify any financial commitments or obligations you will require from the City as part of the Interim
Agreement and/or prior to execution of the comprehensive agreement and financial close for your
team to move forward on the Project. These are commitments required prior to financial close and
should include items required by the proposer should the City decide to terminate the process and
not proceed to a comprehensive agreement.
•
•
•
Balance of Page Intentionally Left Blank
•
•
1.0 MIAMIBEACH
SECTION 0400 PROPOSAL EVALUATION
1. Evaluation Committee.An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate and rank each
Proposal in accordance with the requirements set forth in this PRD. If the City desires further information, Proposers may be
requested to make additional written submissions of a clarifying nature or oral presentations to the Evaluation Committee. The
evaluation of Proposals will proceed as specified in Section 0300(1). The Evaluation Committee is advisory only. Evaluation
Committee's recommendations will be forwarded to the City Manager who will utilize the results to make a recommendation to
the City Commission. The City Manager will make the final recommendation concerning the ranking of Proposers, and such
final recommendation may or may not be consistent with the Evaluation Committee's ranking, and will consider the following:
(1)The ability,capacity and skill of the Proposer to perform the contract.
(2)Whether the Proposer can perform the contract within the time specified,without delay or interference.
(3)The character, integrity, reputation,judgment,experience and efficiency of the Proposer.
(4)The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5)The previous and existing compliance by the Proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the contract.
1. Evaluation Process. The Evaluation Committee shall meet to evaluate each response and rank Proposers in order of
preference, as provided in Florida Statute 287.05712, and based on consideration of the professional qualifications of the
Proposers(including Lead Team Participants), and the following factors:, in no particular order:
• Compliance with the Minimum Requirements;
• Experience and Qualifications of Proposer and each of the Lead Team Participants, including consideration of the
information requested in Tab 2 of Section 0300 of the PRD;
• Financial capability of the Proposer;and
• Proposer's Approach and Methodology, including consideration of the information requested in Tab 4 of Section 0300.
APPENDIX
ro osa Certification ,A tBi f
Questionnaire
Requirements Affidavit
PRD 2016-071-KB
Notice of Receipt
of Unsolicited Proposal and Request for Alternative Proposals
for
Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project
in
Miami Beach
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
1755 Meridian Avenue, 3rd Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Solicitation No: Solicitation Title:
PRD 2016-071-KB Notice of Receipt of Unsolicited Proposal and Request for
Alternative Proposals for Light Rail/Modern Streetcar Project in
Miami Beach
Procurement Contact: Tel: Email:
Kristy Bada 305-673-7490 KristyBada @MiamiBeachFL.gov
PROPOSAL CERTIFICATION, QUESTIONNAIRE&REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT
Purpose: The purpose of this Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit
Form is to inform prospective Proposers of certain solicitation and contractual requirements, and to
collect necessary information from Proposers in order that certain portions of responsiveness,
responsibility and other determining factors and compliance with requirements may be evaluated.
This Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is a REQUIRED
FORM that must be submitted fully completed and executed.
1. General Proposer Information.
FIRM NAME:
No of Years in Business: No of Years in Business Locally:
OTHER NAME(S)PROPOSER HAS OPERATED UNDER IN THE LAST 10 YEARS:
FIRM PRIMARY ADDRESS(HEADQUARTERS):
CITY:
STATE: ZIP CODE:
TELEPHONE NO.:
TOLL FREE NO.:
FAX NO.:
FIRM LOCAL ADDRESS:
CITY:
STATE: ZIP CODE:
PRIMARY ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT:
ACCOUNT REP TELEPHONE NO.:
ACCOUNT REP TOLL FREE NO.:
ACCOUNT REP EMAIL:
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.:
The City reserves the right to seek additional information from Proposer or other source(s), including but not limited to:
any firm or principal information, applicable licensure, resumes of relevant individuals, client information, financial
information, or any information the City deems necessary to evaluate the capacity of the Proposer to perform in
accordance with contract requirements.
1. Veteran Owned Business. Is Proposer claiming a veteran owned business status?
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers claiming veteran owned business status shall submit a
documentation proving that firm is certified as a veteran-owned business or a service-disabled
veteran owned business by the State of Florida or United States federal government, as required
_ pursuant to ordinance 2011-3748.
2. Conflict Of Interest. All Proposers must disclose, in their Proposal, the name(s) of any officer,
director, agent, or immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an
employee of the City of Miami Beach. Further, all Proposers must disclose the name of any City
employee who owns, either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten (10%) percent or more in the
Proposer entity or any of its affiliates.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers must disclose the name(s)of any officer, director, agent,
or immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an employee of the
City of Miami Beach. Proposers must also disclose the name of any City employee who owns,
either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten(10%)percent or more in the Proposer entity or any of
its affiliates
3. Suspension, Debarment or Contract Cancellation. The Proposer and each Lead Team
Participant must not have been indicted, disqualified, debarred, or suspended from the
performance of any work for any federal, state or local government in the United States in the last
seven (7) years, or removed via contract cancellation due to non-performance of work for any
federal, state or local government in the United States in the last seven (7)years. Has Proposer or
Lead Team Participant ever been indicted,disqualified, removed,debarred or suspended,or had a
contract cancelled due to non- erformance b an public sector agency?
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If answer to above is "YES," Proposer shall submit a statement
detailing the reasons that led to action(s).
4. Vendor Campaign Contributions. Proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the
City's Campaign Finance Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the City
Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's
Campaign Finance Reform laws are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions,
as prescribed therein, including disqualification of their Proposals, in the event of such non-
compliance.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Submit the names of all individuals or entities (including your sub-
consultants) with a controlling financial interest as defined in solicitation. For each individual or
entity with a controlling financial interest indicate whether or not each individual or entity has
contributed to the campaign either directly or indirectly, of a candidate who has been elected to the
office of Mayor or City Commissioner for the City of Miami Beach.
5. Code of Business Ethics. Pursuant to City Resolution No.2000-23879, each person or entity that
seeks to do business with the City shall adopt a Code of Business Ethics ("Code") and submit that
Code to the Department of Procurement Management with its Proposal/response or within five (5)
days upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a minimum, require the Proposer, to comply with
all applicable governmental rules and regulations including, among others, the conflict of interest,
lobbying and ethics provision of the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit firm's Code of Business Ethics. In lieu of
submitting Code of Business Ethics, Proposer may submit a statement indicating that it will adopt,
as required in the ordinance, the City of Miami Beach Code of Ethics, available at
www.miamibeachfl.gov/procurement/.
6. Public Entity Crimes. Section 287.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes, as currently enacted or as
amended from time to time, states that a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted
vendor list following a conviction for a public entity crime may not submit a Proposal, Proposal, or
reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity; may not submit a Proposal,
Proposal,or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building
or public work; may not submit Proposals, Proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a
public entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or
consultant under a contract with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public
entity in excess of the threshold amount provided in s. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period
of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted vendor list.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this
affidavit document, Proposer agrees with the requirements of Section 287.133, Florida Statutes,
and certifies it has not been placed on convicted vendor list.
7. Litigation History. Has Proposer or any of its Lead Team Participants or principal or employee of
the Proposer(relating to professional endeavors only) been the subject of any claims, arbitrations,
administrative hearings and lawsuits brought by or against the Proposer (including Lead Team
Participants)or its predecessor organization(s)during the last five(5)years.
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If yes, list all case names; case, arbitration or hearing
identification numbers; the name of the project over which the dispute arose; a description of the
subject matter of the dispute;and the final outcome of the claim.
8. Bankruptcy. Has the Proposer or any of its Lead Team Participants filed any bankruptcy petitions
(voluntary or involuntary) which have been filed by or against the Proposer, its parent or
subsidiaries or predecessor organizations during the past five(5)years. Include in the description
the disposition of each such etition.
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If yes, list and describe all bankruptcy petitions (voluntary or
involuntary) which have been filed by or against the Proposer, its parent or subsidiaries or
predecessor organizations during the past five (5)years. Include in the description the disposition
of each such petition.
9. Principals. Provide the names of all individuals or entities with a controlling financial interest in
Proposer.The term"controlling financial interest"shall mean the ownership,directly or indirectly,of
10% or more of the outstanding capital stock in any corporation or a direct or indirect interest of
10% or more in a firm. The term "firm" shall mean any corporation, partnership, business trust or
any legal entity other than a natural person.
10. Surety Companies. Has a surety company ever intervened to assist a governmental agency or
other client of the Proposer or Lead Contractor in completing work that the Proposer or Lead
Contractor failed to complete?
YES NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: If yes, submit owner names, addresses and telephone numbers,
and surety and project names, for all projects for which you have performed work, where your
surety has intervened to assist in completion of the project,whether or not a claim was made.
11. Has Proposer or Lead Team Participants ever failed to complete performance of a contract? If so,
where and why?
YES NO
12. Acknowledgement of Addendum. After issuance of solicitation, the City may release one or
more addendum to the solicitation which may provide additional information to Proposers or alter
solicitation requirements. The City will strive to reach every Proposer having received solicitation
through the City's e-procurement system, PublicPurchase.com. However, Proposers are solely
responsible for assuring they have received any and all addendum issued pursuant to solicitation.
This Acknowledgement of Addendum section certifies that the Proposer has received all
addendum released by the City pursuant to this solicitation. Failure to obtain and acknowledge
receipt of all addendum may result in Proposal disqualification.
Initial to Initial to Initial to
Confirm Confirm Confirm
Receipt Receipt Receipt
Addendum 1 Addendum 6 Addendum 11
Addendum 2 Addendum 7 Addendum 12
Addendum 3 Addendum 8 Addendum 13
Addendum 4 Addendum 9 Addendum 14
Addendum 5 Addendum 10 Addendum 15
If additional confirmation of addendum is required, submit under separate cover.
DISCLOSURE AND DISCLAIMER SECTION
The solicitation referenced herein is being furnished to the recipient by the City of Miami Beach (the "City") for the recipients
convenience.Any action taken by the City in response to Proposals made pursuant to this solicitation,or in making any award,or in
failing or refusing to make any award pursuant to such Proposals, or in cancelling awards, or in withdrawing or cancelling this
solicitation,either before or after issuance of an award,shall be without any liability or obligation on the part of the City.
In its sole discretion, the City may withdraw the solicitation either before or after receiving Proposals, may accept or reject
Proposals,and may accept Proposals which deviate from the solicitation,as it deems appropriate and in its best interest.In its sole
discretion,the City may determine the qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting Proposals in response to this
solicitation.
Following submission of a Proposal or Proposal, the applicant agrees to deliver such further details, information and assurances,
including financial and disclosure data, relating to the Proposal and the applicant including, without limitation, the applicant's
affiliates,officers,directors,shareholders,partners and employees,as requested by the City in its discretion.
The information contained herein is provided solely for the convenience of prospective Proposers. It is the responsibility of the
recipient to assure itself that information contained herein is accurate and complete.The City does not provide any assurances as to
the accuracy of any information in this solicitation.
Any reliance on these contents, or on any permitted communications with City officials, shall be at the recipient's own risk.
Proposers should rely exclusively on their own investigations,interpretations,and analyses.The solicitation is being provided by the
City without any warranty or representation,express or implied,as to its content,its accuracy,or its completeness.No warranty or
representation is made by the City or its agents that any Proposal conforming to these requirements will be selected for
consideration,negotiation,or approval.
The City shall have no obligation or liability with respect to this solicitation, the selection and the award process, or whether any
award will be made.Any recipient of this solicitation who responds hereto fully acknowledges all the provisions of this Disclosure
and Disclaimer, is totally relying on this Disclosure and Disclaimer, and agrees to be bound by the terms hereof. Any Proposals
submitted to the City pursuant to this solicitation are submitted at the sole risk and responsibility of the party submitting such
Proposal.
This solicitation is made subject to correction of errors, omissions,or withdrawal from the market without notice. Information is for
guidance only,and does not constitute all or any part of an agreement.
The City and all Proposers will be bound only as, if and when a Proposal (or Proposals), as same may be modified, and the
applicable definitive agreements pertaining thereto,are approved and executed by the parties,and then only pursuant to the terms
of the definitive agreements executed among the parties.Any response to this solicitation may be accepted or rejected by the City
for any reason,or for no reason,without any resultant liability to the City.
The City is governed by the Government-in-the-Sunshine Law, and all Proposals and supporting documents shall be subject to
disclosure as required by such law.All Proposals shall be submitted in sealed Proposal form and shall remain confidential to the
extent permitted by Florida Statutes,until the date and time selected for opening the responses.At that time,all documents received
by the City shall become public records.
Proposers are expected to make all disclosures and declarations as requested in this solicitation.By submission of a Proposal,the
Proposer acknowledges and agrees that the City has the right to make any inquiry or investigation it deems appropriate to
substantiate or supplement information contained in the Proposal,and authorizes the release to the City of any and all information
sought in such inquiry or investigation. Each Proposer certifies that the information contained in the Proposal is true,accurate and
complete,to the best of its knowledge,information,and belief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything contained in the solicitation,all Proposers agree that in the event of a final unappealable
judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes on the City any liability arising out of this solicitation,or any response
thereto,or any action or inaction by the City with respect thereto, such liability shall be limited to$10,000.00 as agreed-upon and
liquidated damages. The previous sentence, however, shall not be construed to circumvent any of the other provisions of this
Disclosure and Disclaimer which imposes no liability on the City.
In the event of any differences in language between this Disclosure and Disclaimer and the balance of the solicitation, it is
understood that the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer shall always govern.The solicitation and any disputes arising from
the solicitation shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
PROPOSER CERTIFICATION •
I hereby certify that: I, as an authorized agent of the Proposer, am submitting the following information as my firm's
Proposal; Proposer agrees to complete and unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of this document,
inclusive of this solicitation, all attachments, exhibits and appendices and the contents of any Addenda released hereto,
and the Disclosure and Disclaimer Statement; Proposer agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and
conditions contained in the solicitation, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements
of this solicitation and failure to comply will result in disqualification of Proposal submitted; Proposer has not divulged,
discussed, or compared the Proposal with other Proposers and has not colluded with any other Proposer or party to any
other Proposal; Proposer acknowledges that all information contained herein is part of the public domain as defined by
the State of Florida Sunshine and Public Records Laws; all responses, data and information contained in this Proposal,
inclusive of the Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit are true and accurate. Proposer
further certifies that Proposer(and Lead Team Participants)commit to serving as part of a Proposer team for a period of
[360] calendar days from the Commission's ranking of proposals, to participate in interim agreement negotiations with
the next-ranked Proposer should the City be unable to successfully negotiate an interim agreement, or subsequently, a
comprehensive agreement,with the successful Proposer.
Name of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Title of Proposer's Authorized Representative:
Signature of Proposer's Authorized Representative: Date:
State of FLORIDA ) On this day of ,20_,personally
appeared before me who
County of ) stated that (s)he is the
of , a corporation, and that the instrument was signed in behalf of
the said corporation by authority of its board of directors and acknowledged said
instrument to be its voluntary act and deed. Before me:
Notary Public for the State of Florida
My Commission Expires:
- ,i- -, . -,-.._,_,-, - .;i,:-.',:'/I,,•-,-.,--..A',,:s,'_'''•.''''''-', '• •, : •-•'.,-. ', :..-',,-•,•,:k.-‘. - . •,, ::._..,-' : - _ ..„, -,; ,, _
,.. ,.. .
Li.
....- • . •,• .,-,, ,....... •..,.- , ,
"..•:,:::••,,,-.-.'.,,--..,,,,,--.:-7!- • , . . .: :.••.r.-, ,.- ,,_ - -:,--•::,,-•,--•., •,,- . ,',)...-•A-•••-•''--- •-';:, `f-‘. '-2-
• '-
, , ,-,:,..2 .;-."•.: '.,,-,,,;; .."-f.:-_-_-_,-1„:•.-1,': „
.•r.:-I •,1,-.' . .A. , , ' .•
• , -., ' .,, r , •,, =
''''. ';,:',..''r',''''.--2,-"''t '-',--'- -•, ' ' ,._ ' ''•.;'-.:r• 7''• ..:-:".':::''-';''.7.'.'•:•-• ''.- -- ' ' . .- ':'''.-' '.0.-'-'-:'-s'...-. ''.•••'' :• . ir''''2• • •''' ..,..; .."i''''':f:•;,4--,.-2
,..,:7',,' ,'-';..,,,-.,,,,...-.4--.,::,:=---":.--, ,"''''. 4';.- ,;; ; ' , ,i;':-..:F.,-.:'''' 3.:_;;.:,(••:•-7: "'. .,-i.•:'-',,-!,R;,-,..•"1:_i.:-.',.- '- , --,----1,''','7;i-•.i'...,,":,‘,.'',!%,‘:. •• ''',.. ''-'-',_'''',.'_''-t.:.1' '''..;1 '-- '''
r--,.;'• ',7,';''';',_% - ''':;,•-.'7'-'3'., 'i.-_,-. _.,:` '7,' •.:f,'J::-.---;-',.,,, ;'''••.7'-..;-::-:
,- ,.:-..'r'":-.,,:::_=4,,.'''-',„';.:.-_-'''-f- • :---;-. •,',, : '-'--' ' "._.,.::,,'.1',_,',-1.-;-:,';':..._,...:,,-
;,_.-:•:::',:::'''''.,.';---c.'-' .''',..';'''r;;;;:,':' - -".''''..;."'-' '',''_.'''',''±-•'_ .',-,- --:..='.'4,,':,).,.,-,,•,": '.
"-- i,..'..';:;-.:--.,"'.',,' '.''''.- - --.. ' '',.:-=-''-1-,...-..]?"',:'-'-'-;<''',:....-.,:-''Y,',.:.•:
, --..;:r.:,:;'!ii:-,....'''',''':,-,.--: ,;„,-,. . •. --,-. '-j--./:::::' .i-''':-='-','`. '
'- -:-'-',.---'.,--..'i.--.7.-'-',,'-','-'..:--<,-.7..!---:,-,?.:.',,-.'--- ''-',''..-P".i, --.------,- -':-, '',,#,.'.---:''-•., '. -
, ';-','' .- . '-' ' .,.--2.-:.--.--: - '-' --.- •=r.'';',14::.''.--,...'=.1'..,',_1:. .
. ,.':.-:.,i,,-_-j J,'_, '''..',.; .1---1 •' ''''''''::''''''','-:`',:-". :'-;'C''''.'-.:';''--_-,:;:...-''.' -, „
''-.7.-:•-, ,:,,,-;',,,,•H"':',1,. ,...., _ ; : , :.,,'.,--,25',-':-•-:(:'•-',,. •
. - i .' ,_'.:'-.!.:.l''';.." ._...;'''....-,;,,:•/::. ':.:•-;•:,-,'„:.,'--..,';..-:',,''' '''- - '''',.''._',.:',1:•:,..:---:.---':''::''-'''7-- C'' '''''•'•'''-' '''''.:''''' 'S'-..:-.-.....-.':`:!-;;:";":l'; ''-
e-1;".•:,..'. ''', . r., _:-.._.,,._,':.,.'-',',. •,' -. ,.-..,- . ....•,, ,_ ,.._... ,...-„,-,, •...5. ,..- :.,,, ,-.,..„ -...,-.,,.- ",-..."' '
. ' -': -,.:.';',"'',:r'.'1 .''' •', '• ' ''''' ''. '.''',,,' ' . L'-',":2 ' - -':'.-1'',.••':'5.,;:',"••,,,'•-• -1', . ."-',.',,,_ .;,;,'...:;'-',•'••._'-'-:,:- ..il,"-,'':.;,:,-, • '., '
,.,,,, •1''.
- ,i1,-, ,,,,..;:-..,.',..;.,.-,-,-, 7.,,,,,.„,:is.-,''':.--, --,-,,,f.': ,',&,.' .'i'-';:.•''''.,.'''.: . :
,, -,.','-',;;';',/,,.:,,;-':',:t-,'-',.'-';'..,,'. '"..'.it'' ".•,c."--.:'..'--,":.-'',',:;:,---:. ::'';').,.,--., :. .
`-',.:7.,•:,-/-.. ',:- - '•- -'1,-.:,';-.i,',.:'''-',-.2' , ' '. '-.'
• .' '.'''"::- ':..".-..;.: :-.'-:4,f '-.. -.=7,`-,_ .-',:::.. /:'''' .:7'.
-,,.: -',.4'.,--,::::':_-,'•.'2.:=',..,..''.'.'...• ._..'' : •..<- : -,-,2--:...,,,-,- .'-7 r.
- .-'''-'.:-.:.-r: ':. -. ,.''''. - . :.:,-- - .---.'..',.;.4-''.4p'- ' . -'''-,-: '''''-',-,•-;,' .,='-- -. ' ..';-' ...,'. '',..--,,,,-,.--,;',,-es.:,.,-.:5',,!,-,:_..-::-:,.; -. .-,, '..._:;, _
•.',',•,-'.. ;/,:i."1 -...!••••' 'i'.., • " --‘,:7.--,-,-' •-•,,.-".•.; i.,:,, -:'"_,,-,••:''',-:-:',-:,•-•,; ..,
, _.; ,, -.,-. , ,. , , -,- . . -- • "J.•,--r.,.,.•-,., -.. -,,,.. . - ;,,f,i'''-, -:.:,.'7.::::: "L•:--!!;-';'"'. .-. .-.''• -f '','-'.'-','--,; •.!..`,..,'''';''''.'::•• -,:-':: '
''''' '''''''"----•k:.....k•-'-'.;.'-' l' .. '-' '. l'_-,';,,-' : ..-",,---,,-;,..:11.',..:.-.„,;'-'?''','-`-' ';'''''•;••• '' '
APPENDIX.' r% ,'•:''.,,:',',';':._::,.f.''E'•';;;., ..-'....,-1.:-''''''''•--':'-'. ':''.-••:,'..5,2"' -.
.-,,. ';',:-.,•,.._•:;,.:7'...";-.-.7.-•'. .,-..:.1.•,-::":_- •,•, •,;:'•_•,:•:'-::-.-,.. , .:',
b
--,::, .,.-..,_?„.'„q:_. ..„-,-, .-, •-.-,,.-,-:-.,:,-_,--., :_:,-.-...:-,,,;_.,:-..' -
-: ,:''',..,'-._.--•.,2 '•',.,:r'..'' :, i"'.- ''..'.. z':'i,.--:::,:;',-••'',:: • ". . ''. .:...,"•;-:'-;..-:::^,.. ',.:',1-:, i'l.',..-''. „.: ,._:,',' ':-:'''-.'-.;::.= ''-',1,',:= •
' ••-••. -.[,•.; ..'''15" -•', ' -. •: :...-c•-•,:--,':.....7,,,',.7:: ',..•
'••` .. ;:...';•••,-,':'•.'.7,-..u.'„: -..:•::-ii,...'-2,,•.:; ..".?:::,'-'3,-.''....:',-'7,;=.7-7'" ', '.:1't:i.';;;:-..'',...'','
,. _,--','''..• ''..••.,,,'..; .f . ' ' "....'"12'' ; • .-.'i r..-'';'::''"2.',..--",:.
`..',,, ::...,:,..:•''',, ii s.;.:.,..,..5:1'',',:..'!,.- ' "'•-c.'''''',..'. :'-: ''''''.:.,..1',',=,'. ' :...,'77----.,. ..-,
.--r.''',•.';.=...,,,'"''..'-;•-,'•:',•.: ' ':)-.'':-.:-"''-• -—, ' .1.":-•--•''''''•.'.'• :'ti'-''''''.-1:.•-'''-.-
`f:'-,-:',:,'•......t:-.•...•.---,',.-,,I.'', y ... ' ...1.";-,-. •',..;f 2';,•'':,,',_.,.."• -
, - -•,',.. ','. ''r'.",...,,..,', ..,. .";1'-:-.1.,',.,,'''',.'1 :.'V ' '"''. ,,'".1::::',..::,' : - ";=.; :
,,,:., , :`,.i•• .:- r. .,i 1,-,,,,, ,,,.• .. .,!--.. ',,,tc, : . .., , '. ',::::,'-=.....,..,.-.....„,,,,....,,,.'.:c±., ! : , ,r,t.,.,„'...'.",'.--'1:ii.,',,;:.:..,_,,Yq,- ..... ' ' .-'-';',. . : ...,,,-,,,;',',,-;,!:"ti' •';,'„;'-''.-..-,'--77:-•,•,:"'n- " :.
::•.'":. _,,'-";:.:7-•". :•-•-";-.:;;-'-',•''..J. ' _ '-.:. , ,,' ' .. •-,::&,,:';',-,._',,, ',1,-•••••''.•...:..,•• — :
-•'':‘.--•"-`,.i -'..-. ,.-- ,: . . ,',.:
'''..,:,:,'-F.•-•;.-- --2-,..- •- - I; • - ._
_,. ..„ .„, s - •.- '-- -.' ,1•:•:`,,....-.%s• --•-'.'' •
•,.-'. .. .: • .•
-,,‘7"1-,.;,:'..,-, ,.-'''','„.,-,. : .•'' , . , '.; „ ...-—•!.-, ,' , .. : ,':, ,-'''....:-'•'-5;'.--i.' •., '. ", ..:,',.:,`:-,' .r- '., :-.;--,---;-..‘,..,'',';'.: ,-- ' -1.-,-,, -".f';: '.-",,:-''.1,.: ,- - .:',, ,'',
' •."' " ' - . —,. . ,, ,.. . - . -
' ' '- ' - "- ' ' • ' • ' ' ' ' ' - ' •• - -' '
, ,-.,'-=:,7',';.,-,--,"5,._,,,-,1';',..'„ -..;',.,.,',....., ' „.' ,',....4. '...;;;'-''''ri,:''',',..",_. . 't,'-, -„.',,',.;,-,• '' ' ',-.:,,.,,, .••'_'-„:':',_',' -_,-,. = --:':,',!i7-_,-',.,.., ,, .;!'.',',',,i,,.,';,•,:','1.,:,-- ,'-=",,-, !'...,,,,:
- . ''...'''',,,;-'--='',,•/...'';•, -..---'-:,?'•-•- 7:' '''';'/..''';' ..''.-','.f-'';''''.:.--'''''....,•,:,.'' ''''. ' ,'"''.:'''''.. ' '„:.-'-''''',,;:''j'''''' .'' _ . -r.„.,?...•-.''''-:'.,(r,'''.......''''..--":',' ,
-,---. - , , , - -,_.,- n., , •• ,
."-.''':,':.'-.'•-''.-,'',''',- ', -'-- -1•,-''''..--. .;:,.:,. -.,.;:''','_.'2.'r!,) ''''' '',_.:••:":,i,,,,:?.;',:,;....<.• ., • ,
, ;--.;',"--,•,'-‘;, . 1-',, --,::".,',-.,3.:,;..'',--,',..• .1.'-- ,',,,,';'''ri.;';',:''...-C'.,' '
' r'''',',';'',''''''',,--''' .,,.'r•-;'',.' ''-:'',--f,"-=:'=,.-"'?:..-'-'''- -',''''',:'',-, •.4',' ,''cii.k,Z--,1,,S,,.',i',,`:"'.';',,,. . -.-,'
". ' , ,'-'„:„,,.--....-..,-..--.,.--. . .,•,.,_- ,.,--,. ,. : ; , •.•,, , ',... .
,...,... _,
'""'.-, --,'.-.-,; •'
, -',., ',T, '-.4,:--,'r_.--,..:•:',,..,r,.--,"_:,:-,r, , ;.-/-:'',-•'-',,',''.,:-." .f-- ','"-' -- ,,,:-. ., .:i-:':',,,,...,,',.::,,
.. i- ,, -., ,,„.., .• ., . , .., : ,-.., _
. _ , , , , . ••
Potential Sites for Miami Beach Streetcar VSMF
tr,� !r i ,t):ilr ;.1L ar.�l .sal '.' "„ ,
ts,,,
t •-...,:. , - _ 'ir31,1"'-1 ,...,: • ;..
' _
'.4-‘-'r ''
e,„ r ,.
n y "� 6 ,3 . • .'s'_� ,., � Q t•1ei��/� E �'. �j�� ::`;:i,'44.f n �•4,v.. '��� y �
�yy� y A •.t�' b l'7..,' Z. Eli .1111111r-:
. . 4, 7 .4, , may4...
"` 9r g •!ire' n �s, i.. - ,ryy�t- �.ay� .t
, ill", -,, ..1?.,9,"\,,,' *s ..„.ik...,. , , - , _ ,,,...-116.47- .N. 4;, ... .. , : ...1
4=`"" w-1.14.',1.11.2 e/✓ �. ° - sI off ' L °"�
ai-a y f
I,1.fai.tilhl ,e _ y� `: ,` r
' ( ili6", - m--1 .
�� 1 -,lea.. 7.r j >� i C F .•rte +� �j.' -di.i
I 1 riftlitt ' ' *Ott ''''—.., -
,'� ..�. • ' —.ITV A...W. .ate ..', (
.• .� *1;104'
r� .r .tee�a`.�'� r t ��� ` j• ���'""44��e 77t�� ���i: =7,!...,../-� � £� ,,-4.1:.,-
• :� , 'k.'r `. .,,s`� : era , O• ,sw . I�d i i, .: .
�1 .. A �'" ,,. "i` j-='17TH'Si 4 .., . ,.._,.;�,.,_. .17TH.ST 4
..rte — ,. `— .-�. - a t� fY�p"_ t-:s; "°'^! .'iy ±i.
i ' 'Lr'''..=4"; ir i - Fiji': lUkt074111P0101 ,1611111! --- , . -:_-_,
YY` ;.,
�°j�� �'$�le*. i. si'�` .,,.,..' ,�' 1C;'1 -; °was;
aa - .° i ] f1{tom
•
. ,-,,i4 ,.... . ,.;_......,...,.„.....,,,,......„._.,....,..Lim*....,./,=,..=. r.10.. :7,-.37„,„„,a, i41-FA0.4---ip..., , . .,. .i.
. , ,I,,t,,,vii, . Ir.,:-.., !,,.,.,„„vir,-..mi:;,:t2 r_._,...ai....-0_,rip.. ..z -. --.',.c*.;:.-2-4,,-, ,,,,i„via.i . f--- ;.,-.
s ns -• .. .#
�' Ts . .. _,
IJ _-r I.' 411. `�.4,... ,,,, 1 D ,,re. �-�s t om]I -7R�t s ?--,1.4 i 4
....,...,:
oa• I, 14.4. 1 `�
,(
- 'I' , .-"._:.,'" _..... -1.-...._ --,,,,.. L-----,i,--, ' ,.. . -.14
no 4.I.V '1...• • .,-". ,U,,,a • 1.••.g 2._,,,,, ...,...t. „._ _.,.
- I aeLZ-....._1, --,..t.. , ,,,4,—,,, .. 4111_ -. .t- - 4,..._ - L*,.. p .
it'- ell 73. ligq-ii."Al *At,' :IsliirlE1 - ' ' 'lit- • •" - 4
- ._ _ ag ,i," ial- .1,21 rwsit,.!-A - 1 :-.,.:_,--
'�`.. �';t!�flit =76 r,,c-....,,
.11` ,4 't _�" t �, 3 .z"i
s. y i a f4aS' r�„'MI � st1,1..,...71..-10.-:IL.� ie. I�k"'�ar 4
3�s A
a•j FY?; - #i;,--:! e� i• r w 51 l'Oeiiir.v1),git
11' 11 DM J -.:-.•=•-•.0m=1-fi- --•..; aw d R [tr -
r ice' tr ,, '..c .� '".` °'
y...e.. . �+
'"a I rE �� 'y�4 ae.1..� � �jj ^
3
. �►= :vim ,.....7.?.- ""t=
1` _ - .�k
imi
04441 .` �� y zit YIr�l�.e t �.�.�_ • t �7:
00'�.•'r' 4 � iii° •• . .� , _ w.-;',
'4, r�,µ. it., � .� . i E '. -4,5THST :a a
`�)-G' _gyp spa ,,.,,•i'
,,•�' ar e -�a
p P r` Legend
-'..ry • u w•'�.iY L`��t�• ` 4 . , .1, 1 .'..ti. r x...
� , 'A $, r }, � �t �` y - VSMF Sites
`G ear \ ,� \ ' \ '' _ -apt a 4111 4 �
*. �} •;,� ,i Y ` t� 0.125 0.25 0.5
\ '', ' -f Pe==I•1=■MMIIIIIIII■M i le-
C
O
r
m
'o
c c a n a c c 0. 0. n
a) 2 2 2 m Co m 2 2
2
Ep p a -a -a ¢ p p p
O
a)
CC ai
.y
c 0 Z o 2 o i c
N v •` U) a v) U <� -p U
o > _ w CO 2 CO w 0
m m 0 w a) w .c N �_ a. 'a O
E N N > C .' 7 c o 7 C .` > `
7 fa rn 3 N O co _ a) C N o a)
_ N w a) e n
a) > aa) m o < a`mi o 1 rn E a m
w ) a a co c 0
CI. CD N co
0 c 0 0 o c C •s CO m o c
o . n .0 a) 8 3 S 2 'o E 2c c
c > 2 0 0 T a) ,- ` o
a tO aai 0. 3 C 8 N g .E 0 m a 0•
° ° x m a) ° ui .0 a) cn a n S o co
!� d w N Qw > _� d a N CO. O
m >
>
• a) E N °' o ° E ,"' . •C -o a`)
c 0 cn o
ma' - `m c o N o -mo m O
cn > 'y O co O a.- (a c) co N o �6 C
CO N X N N c O V 0) o
U O .c a) o w a a) E cn _
O N co
N , C N o O 3 .N O o o UU a) N
7 L .� Y O C C m N m > 3 CO E
H '� m C 0 m C o 'a ° •c U CNn N
m m m O •� 2 Y cri j U N C O co a) Q 0
C w c a) › ca .` = U N • O
O m V c6 c a) o a p a) a) a) in a
:. c .5 o) m N U ,. a) a) 7 >• u .c 0)
V a) .. CO y P c O •2 .N N c a) •c N O vi
O c c co E L c F•- • > a) c as aa) '� CO
J 7 N ~O m U a) O Q N -7 m c cc) N
m 2 E 1° N o c L N 2 m m m
a, N Z Q c c a a) a) N N .E 0• a) .o t ca m :°
a) c Li CO 7 7 c 2 0 s a U O m N
O m 0 N 0 > > T N w C a) a m
a 2 c c > C) > C a) • O) co - N -c o N..
E m C < c Q O 7 77.," r a) m CO ca
"c3 a) O O) CL I-
2 O C N ca ca c 3 ° CO
N a Q N :a m -0 °o w -o o U a 'E N •C •c a a U N �E .o - Z a) ° mO mm 'CO 1 n c) co m
o s w c CO j a m p °C m ° xo N c
'd v) N CO " +r t0-. - c-°o ) _ d T co
N'a a d N .0 N a) in O 0 as _N m- C
CO 7 ui Y cn �_ N �' o 2 a) ai w
It rn fa
x O £ 3 0) 7 c7 N C o ° (0 U C)N
cn t cn c
N Q ° a oi a"
o°a CO 8 E CO i CO t ao c C
0 C m di i )
V >
ca c N o c -p -0 a-O -O m C a O a c C n N
n g co a) a) a) o a) a) > !12 a) ° .N N > - N c
a) CD a) U > U -p 8 J U 8 = 0 .) w N ZN
w C f0 C 0 N N O N U) 'p N 0 J 'O J .N J LL 0 O � o N> N E
O c .0
c V
a) C C • N RI 0 a)) a) Con N E o Y m ca o 0
O > 8 V N 8 'a U U cn a) 0 0 V °) U a) @ y a n
w
CO U C a) 7 C CD C 'C 7 7 C a) .-C > a) 0) .n
V CO X C Ca X m w c c Ca X N ,_ 7 c N
To E •E a) E .E a a) a) E .E > > c c'=o Q
y ` o E o a) m E E o v m `� a) a 7
a; .a) c N E `a) c c E C E ° w c
V 7 Q c > a c v a) > c > a C E o in c m
c c rn rn.m rn c c rn rn ca rn.� N o C .- 2
C ` -0-a ` O O ` ` Z _ I N a) CO
0 — c
11) ,- Ca) ,-ca E m C)) m CO c CO E CO E O 0 O E CO a
CO a`) E c .c) E c c 9 co ° E c E f- w r .c 8` v
o o w ? o :° o o .> .? o ca o aE. O qE C ° c)
D 0) U N U U N U U 0 D O O N O LL -p c 0 CO C
a) C co
a G _c w E- N
+ co) a) 7 Y.0 U
t U a) .9 N .0 U .2 .m., .V .9 Z O m 0 U m Z o
41 7 co l 23 •>co .171 75 ra co 7 7 7 .> •j > O N o 0 uoi c
3 a a s , o_ o_ a a` o_ °- V m E N a��i Z''c-' a
0 Z c 0.c 9.>aE o
Q ` N N ,_.O- v
co m N
cn c O
Ca C .- N co r r r r N r N• U o N m
iLl
_ a ,), o
Za0 2 E N `QCOCO a
Q O
w N 003 o a
41 N L N C w OO E >` ,co
la '~ a) < .N ca o m E 3 g
` r cc') M r r0 r r M N d . ° , CL
3 ld J m U a) a) m U o �
Z 0- Q U) m_a.sma) o
a Z a-°a-°a c z
L.. 0 .m 7 7 3 c 7 co 0
O cu an CO in M N N. 0 N- 11) a — Y
a)7 LL .c L 0
N r 0 N N- N O C) r ` E N N
.C5 09 ci ri in Ni N N c
n W N Scoii)c)V) E
a
o 0 1—
E .- C co
V N o
d C c U a) C c rn
N 0. N co
c N =
O.2 V c ,_ Ln N 5) a) cco O 7 V c
y 0 N- mN O U a)
> E FT-0 C a o ai
H m CO v) 00 cow a } CO �'
U•
m O p W ii O I
•
•
L
APPENDIX C . ...:, . . • .... •-..... .., ... •
. ..
, .
, •,.
. ,
, •.•-.• .• ., . .... .
... • ,..,...., ... .._ ... • , ,
. .
. „ .,.. . .
• .._ . . ..
. .
. .
. , . .
. . . .
. . .
. . , .
,... .. .
.. . . . . .. ..
• . ....
• . . . •
. _ . • . .
, .
• . .
. , . . .
. , , , . ... . . . . . .
. ..
. . •• •._ • . . • . . •
.. . ,
. .
... ._ • , . .. . ..
... . . ..
. .
. • . . .• ........ ... _ _.. . .
. . . .. , .
. . .. _
. ., . _
. _ . ..
. .. ..... . •. , . . .
. . . • .
. , . .
, .
. .
. . .
. . . . ..
, . , . ..... .. . ...
. ,
. . _
. .
. . .•
. . _ „ .... _ . .
. , .
. . , • . .. .• ..•... , . .• ••• .• • ..,..._ ..
. •• . ,....
, . . . . .. . . .. . ,
, .• .
... ..... ,. . ..... •, . . . .: .._
.. .,.. . . . ...
• .
. . . .._...
, . .
. . .. .
. . . ,
...
. , .
• . . .,. •
. ...
. • . • .. .
, . .
. . . .. . . .. , ..
•. .• • . . .
. • , ,
,, . . .
. .
. . .
...,
... .. . • •.,.
• .. .. . .
.,
..
. .
. . .
'..-•,--,. _ ,. , ._• .. . •
_ .
.._.._ .,.. •... . . .
., . . .
. . .. _ .• ..., .. . ... . . , . , ,,..... .. .
. . . . . . ...
. . . .....,.... . :_.
..:•:.:, . .
. .
. .. :. . . . . .
, • . . . . . ..... ..
.._ • ,•_,•..„.• .
. .
,. .... . .
, . .. . .
. . . . ,
. . .
. . „ . . ,
. .
. . ....._ . . ....._ .
. . , . .
. . .
,.. •
. . . .. ,
• . . _. ..... •.. . .
. . ... . ....
. . .. .. . . _ . ,
....
,„ . •.. . •
. . ,
• .. . •
. ._. .
. . . ..
.. .
. .. . . . , . .. .. . . ... .
. • .
••.• . •
. . . .
.. • , •
. ,. .
.. .. , . .,. ..,. .. . • . _ . • . ....• . .. .._ .. . .
. • . .
.... ..
. , .• . _. .
,. . ... ._ .. _ .. ... , ....
. . . . ., .
. . . .
. ..„ ., .... ._ .
• .. .. , . _ .
. .
. .. .
..
.. . •,..... , .. . . . . . .
, .. . .
. . . . ..
. .......
, . . .: .
..
. .. . ..
..
. . .. • .. .., ..... •
,. . ,.
. . , .
. . -. •-,-
. . . . .
.. _ ... . . , ... .,,... . •.... ... ,.. .. :
. .
. . . • .._ . . ,
. . . .,
, _. •. .,
. .
. , .. .• , . ,. ..-. .. .i ..,. .
• . .. , .•. •,_
. .. . . . ...
... .
..
. ,. ..• .
,..... ,- , .. . .
. .
. . . . .. . .
, . .. . ,
, . .
. . .
. . ,_ ..,,.
_,..••. . _
..
. ,
. . .
. , . .
. .
. . .
. .
..„...... .
. ,
_._ ._ ..
,. . . . .
. . .
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach County, Florida, Accepting
The Updated Unified Regional Sea Level Rise Projection Of The Southeast Florida Regional Climate
Change Compact.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
N/A
Supporting Data(Surveys,Environmental Scan,etc.): N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The In 2011, the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (Compact) released the Unified
Regional Sea Level Rise(SLR) Projection for Southeast Florida. The Southeast Florida Regional Climate
Change Compact Technical Ad Hoc Work Group (Work Group) developed the original projection and, at
that time, recommended review and update of the SLR projection following the release of the Fifth
Assessment Report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013), the
Third National Climate Assessment by the United States Global Change Research Program (NCA, 2014)
and consideration of the pertinent climate data supporting these assessments.
In September 2014, the Work Group, which includes expert researchers, senior scientists, and lead
engineers representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Administration, the South Florida Water Management District, the University of Miami, Florida
International University and Florida Atlantic University, was reconvened to review scientific literature
released since 2011 to update the SLR projection. The updated projection and associated guidance
document were finalized in October 2015.
The regional projection highlights three planning horizons:
1. Short term, by 2030, sea level rise is projected to be 6 to 10 inches above 1992 mean sea level.
2. Medium term, by 2060, sea level is project to rise 14 to 34 inches above 1992 mean sea level.
3. Long term, by 2100, sea level is project to rise 31 to 81 inches above 1992 mean sea level.
The purpose of developing a regional unified sea level rise projection is to assist with planning processes
across multiple disciplines regionally and locally. This unified projection provides decision makers with a
better understanding of the potential vulnerabilities and provides a basis for outlining adaptation strategies
regionally and locally. Once the Mayor and Commission have adopted the updated unified regional SLR
Projection, the Environment& Sustainability Department will be hosting a technical training session for all
departments.
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE RESOLUTION.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Information: -
Source of <° : .: Amount Account` `;
Funds:
OBPI ,Total
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Elizabeth Wheaton ext.6121
Sign-Offs:
'Assistant City nager City Manager ..v
SMT JLM
MIAM1BEACH AGENDA ITEM 1 -
DATE 3-7-hi
528
i&v\ ft�! r /\ I B EAC H
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSI•N MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members i the City C mmission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: March 9, 2016
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR •ND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COUN , FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE
UPDATED UNIFIED REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTION OF
THE SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE
COMPACT FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Southeast Florida Climate Change Compact Sea Level Rise Work Group has
released the updated Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida. The
' purpose of developing a regional unified sea level rise projection is to assist with
planning processes across multiple disciplines regionally and locally. This unified
projection provides decision makers with a better understanding of the potential
vulnerabilities and provides a basis for outlining adaptation strategies regionally and
locally. The Administration recommends approving the resolution and using this tool for
planning purposes.
BACKGROUND
The In 2011, the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (Compact)
released the Unified Regional Sea Level Rise (SLR) Projection for Southeast Florida.
The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Technical Ad Hoc Work
Group (Work Group) developed the original projection and, at that time, recommended
review and update of the SLR projection following the release of the Fifth Assessment
Report by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC, 2013),
the Third National Climate Assessment by the United States Global Change Research
Program (NCA, 2014) and consideration of the pertinent climate data supporting these
assessments.
In September 2014, the Work Group, which includes local and regional expert
researchers, senior scientists, and lead engineers representing the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the South
Florida Water Management District, the University of Miami, Florida International
University and Florida Atlantic University, was reconvened to review scientific literature
released since 2011 to update the SLR projection. The updated projection and
associated guidance document were finalized in October 2015.
The guidance document provides a summary of the projections; publications reviewed
and discussed by the Work Group; the methodology for deriving the projection;
description of the recommended unified regional SRL projection; and additional
recommendations from the Work Group.
529
Compact Unified Regional Sea Level Rise Projection Memo
March 9, 2016
Page 2 of 2
The 2015 update presents several adjustments to the 2011 Regional SLR Projection:
•
1. The baseline year has been adjusted to 1992 from 2010 to be consistent with
other published projections;
2. The number of planning horizons has been extended from two (2030 and 2060)
to three (2100) now that the longer-term influence of ice melt on sea level rise
acceleration is better understood;
3. The influence of a slowing Gulf Stream and Florida Current on local sea level
rise has been considered and incorporated; and
4. An upper curve has been added for planning guidance for those projects for high
risk critical infrastructure projects with design lives in excess of 50 years.
The regional projection highlights three planning horizons:
1. Short term, by 2030, sea level rise is projected to be 6 to 10 inches above 1992
mean sea level.
2. Medium term, by 2060, sea level is project to rise 14 to 34 inches above 1992
mean sea level.
3. Long term, by 2100, sea level is project to rise 31 to 81 inches above 1992 mean
sea level.
Since three inches of the projected rise has already occurred since the 1992 base year,
this amount can be subtracted from the projections in estimating additional rise relative
to today.
The guidance document describes the recommended application of the projection as it
relates to both high and low risk projects and short and long-term planning efforts. Once
the Mayor and Commission have adopted the updated unified regional SLR Projection,
the Environment & Sustainability Department will be hosting a technical training session
for all departments.
This is an important planning tool that was not available prior to the first 2011 projection.
These are specifically regional projections for local governments to use. Many local
governments under the four Counties within the Compact Region are adopting this
planning tool.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approving the resolution.
Attached: Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's 2015 Unified
Regional Sea Level Rise Projection Guidance Document
.51■61----
SMT/ESW/FCT
530
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING
THE UPDATED UNIFIED REGIONAL SEA LEVEL RISE
PROJECTION OF THE SOUTHEAST FLORIDA REGIONAL
CLIMATE CHANGE COMPACT FOR PLANNING PURPOSES.
WHEREAS, Florida is one of the areas of the country that is most vulnerable to the
consequences of global climate change; and
WHEREAS, Southeast Florida is experiencing and will continue to experience the
impacts of a changing climate, specifically sea level rise; and
WHEREAS, in 2010, in recognition of the need for immediate, coordinated, and
visionary action to address the impacts of a changing climate, Miami-Dade, Palm Beach,
Broward, and Monroe Counties ("Compact Partners") entered into the Southeast Florida
Regional Climate Change Compact ("Compact") to study, promote, and strengthen the
economic and environmental resilience of communities in the Southeast Florida region; and
WHEREAS, in 2011, the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact
Technical Ad Hoc Work Group ("Work Group") was convened to develop the Unified Regional
Sea Level Rise ("SLR") Projection for Southeast Florida; and
WHEREAS, the Work Group includes expert researchers, senior scientists, and lead
engineers representing the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration, the South Florida Water Management District, the University of
Miami, Florida International University and Florida Atlantic University; and
WHEREAS, in September 2014, the Work Group was reconvened to review scientific
literature released since 2011 to update the SLR projection; and
WHEREAS, the updated SLR projection and associated guidance document were
finalized in October 2015; and
WHEREAS, the updated SLR projection and guidance document provides decision
makers with a better understanding of the region's potential vulnerabilities and a basis for
outlining adaptation strategies on a local and regional basis.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby
adopt the updated Unified Regional Sea Level Rise Projection of the Southeast Florida Regional
Climate Change Compact.
531
{
■
r ;
This.Resolution shall become effective upon adoption
=' PASSED and ADOPTED this ` .. day of 2016
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado i Philip Levine
City Clerk Mayor -
• APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FO XE UTION
•
City Attorney. \ = Date
•
■
•
•
• T:\■GENDA\2016\March\Environmental\RESO-SLR Projection.docx
• 532
• •
. .
, • .
. . •
• .
. .
• • , . . .
, .
. .
... • . •
. ..
• . .
. •
. . ,
. . . .
; . , ... „ . , . , •
,,- , . . •. , , ., ,
..•- ,. . : .,
. . • • , • • . • . .,....,.,•, . — •. • —'' . .' - ,- '
- .. - ., • .,, ,,- .. ,.. • - . .• - '
•
.- . . • • . ,... . , ..
t.-'-:..; ..,. :-.' ' '..-• - -, '• ' : '
..'...,•2,,,s4i-0,,t4'•,,,i0.-t.!'4.,,...".;;,-...-....,„,"b!„",,A 0,-,,-.„7, 1,
, P'.,•. .'.`J•-..,,',,',,!,'..r „-,,,.,, ::0„6-1•'1.t.,,.s....i-;1-...'-..-4,4.-,,,..-.4.0,,,-,,,,,, ..P'
c,. ?..,
. • 4 - , .4'.-,•''' ,-.• _E'',
. ,
.t 71- .' - ."..'• ' - "-. ,, _._.'.', ;
u
,,...........
' '..1,• ,r,,..' ,>:•, it • .,.,.. i'.0t,...,,,',....1.,..--,,,....-,.„--777,7-“.”.;„..k., '',,' . ' - •:' ' n., '1, '''' '. ' • ""' "' .4' •^ ''
e; 4t!,1 t.to•-i67"--Nitt '64544,0Ai_ ..- --4'.-,, •„3 .- .iiikiiient.. .. "4,101'sof.''.
-- '' 7.W7,7'''':'-. -k''' •",' .'''-'''..''."'. ' ..;•- .".. ':!''''.: .' '.
•, ,,,,.„,":„„ ,,,,,.,.„,.,...4.0,, ,,0- 0 t1"4-'40,... .,-•,„.„7„:,,,,x4. ,,,,.--4-,v.•- -,,••...,,•,..• . ,,,,,..• •-, Li,___,I,..„,• -,. . •- ,,, -iv,.„..,I , .,..■ .
"341f-•4:•eit,11V.--'....,' •I'rs'...:,,.,•.-„L.,81,••• .::,, ',>:'.: ....,F`',-.:....4,- ,:,,,•,'.'..•''..:V.....''.., :.):.401',..•ACIM ,,MI.),.0-.'`.",,,,.. '",.:...4,,' ,.,..;-'1::,,■..,.,-,-,. .
71.;•..i.:,I0',,.1.",.1.-1.4...,..1,,-12^-•it",;AI,-,,,..x.,:.-1 ", . , ,-.1,' i ',A..:i• ... , - '.-i ': ii, ' '- v••,...■•-•-•-.-'%.
,,,,,, 41•4,‘i_, ,, i,.''.,, '}-,-iv ' k-,;t's '11 W* '-•. ' ''. 0 - '; '•-''4.'
V
., ■
•,.;c7.7,: fr . ,'•,...,,..*,,T,,k1:1.,721,`:".7 ' . P'i - " •-• -r .,, ,..' ,,:..!•''. ,, • ,
.
. • ,
kit,ji,....,' ..,;'.. ,1,1111 .Mi&l*,.., ,,,.t,,,•,,,,,,,.,'•;.,.,. ,.., .,...,.....,..-:,•-x.., ' .- ,..;,,,i,,..,...,4,,,,,,3-..-..,=c--- - ' ,--$,-,'k- ,• ' , '
''''.."'''-.',;•'-''',,: ''-'‘Le-:.,:ini•11,--,-,•:‘,.:f,.,,.:.,,,,,•‘,/..-,..,,,.:••,t::;k:„.........•-:„::-...1,,,k,,,t4.,.....,1#•,77. ,A1.0-.•,-,,,-...,•••--,,,,,,.,......, ..,...... .,,..,,,.. ,,_,. ..„
:,,,v•-,,4":2-... 4.4.%.',...*•.•• ••••••,. Ir 7'.9..:-A,:.---.■*.-.''.....-,..,j'..,"....:--‘1.: --•;;'...Y.,:'',.-:--2-.'t'''''....-,,445.4,.',..,-- ,q, -- ,-.11t-A44.-z.,-'4:.::•' ''..' •
k.,..... -.5, 6:::..,.: 4.K.,,r-,:,. ... ,.,-.. 1,.-...7, ., ;-.,,, .'.,..:-.....4-51,.. ',-..-.::......i.:,.„.:5,... -•,. ....-:,1.(14PR4.,,,-,14,-:e.-...7...,,,,,...., :.,,.--.,t.....- ,,.-,- _,. ' ,, .
. t' .. • ' ..: .4).4‘
7 7'.... i•-:Cr.. -...:,,....---i--..,',,-' ,•,,,_;- .:".'.9.'-‘''.,-,'.''...".,,..-'.,,10,440kti 9 . D , ••• .,. ---- - .7,y,:- . '. .- -
ii:jklati4:alfil \,' ,:'..F..',2'tI'''•..,r'.....;,..1..-c...;,;'...:4:Ti::''.'').'•'•''''''l.'!•43,.'"•,...'-*I,..'-• . fs,. - -,- .
. ''''''. ''4 ''''''.....1,..,.,...!..7!....',.,:..".'z,,,,..-,•,;-.•..%,.....,,,,,." ._..-. •..•-■..,.:',.,,...;-I..?,,A!'''-'..;:. .., ,''"'7'::-i'''.'''",,4i.:,..,y':''t V-P1,'',;:,:. 's-r,,itx''•?' .
ti''-';'''■''''"2''''..•''4'''.' '''....',..--;',..''....-:.; ''...r.',".-1''..t4...''.- .':,.......,.:"'..,;....."'_:".1,.•,..' ' ---:,.,,41'-nt-''..4', 17,•,',;,...;.,,,''',,-,:•., .,,,;,''•.. ..„'_',,,_:',... '--. ' ,, , ,,,
i''i',.''......1.-...''''''..'..!•-''..‘:e:1,..,.'''':''..:::.'''':t.4i..,L14441#00414460:040.k. :.-...,....•,'.•2.,';''''.;,:;,,-.7"',°:'-''1..7-.. :..:77.,:'.,:liiiV;;Z•''''',Ifi4A.4r'* :'- '`:
flittii**,4.4011**.t410,.t.:"!.'7%;,.:,..4..::...Ts-a:.:.'.....:..-7..;., ..„,.....-..,..,,_.._:.,.....:,....,, ,,.-k- stifildititi,Mitiv,,...-..,i.., ....-, ,',',..-• ---4,-.1-,--.
,.... . '..- '. :-...,.. ,.....,.. -:. •: . .-.;f...•:..-..:....-.0-.104:A-4,43,iviiovilktortrolhautr'7411 .7- .....;:.;*:'''.,f...t:-...,4.5:;;'4'.'-j::,.'-.4, .--".',..*.
4ittitititi.,',ttittiovitkOktr,::. ,Q.:41.1":'Or....:..: '-rt-,..,..•:•;:., ‘-..;; :.-.. - .. .•-• ..,. x„,.- .,,i6,-.•'---, iAtio•ecetZ,4415Attltr,;. ,..-"r.'.., •.•!.:....•,I.,...!'....,-- ,f;,4 ,..„.,,,,_,....„,„.„...........—
,,.,'-,...-. ' .-.... --• • • .... ,,,,,,„,-. 44-;,',4441 ..04..tii.i.707 --',...,-..:--:. '. :'.'-'-'.":;:,.. --,Y,:'.:,:i'.'--.:...'7.-;-.'''''----.;;.-''''''''.•''*''''''','-::.
' .'.•-''-'•'''''''4..4 31.1Arlitft.41f014it'An.T...4".6T .r1., -•••2- -2 '• .' -..
4k!;d CI t,..:.... ' -•.. •• ''''-',.-... .3.:.7....".:,,....,,,... iii.,.,0144*.41,9-0*4-t*tt=.0.4W.777"7.''''' •---.,.".••'i••••ir
':'.r.. ...: -:•*. '-••••••• ''• .... ..tili-.4444+k,s-•.'Of' 'AC/14,r*'•'11.°3*.tM:1•'-0 -.---;':..:..,. .:.,.;.• .':.,...i .: ...•-•-•,- - .."'•• '.-,-Aka -'..* ''',''%
k ,131%144.,_."4!t. T ff...14'?" . li 41 4:4 id ati- •tOr.. roll
T
jts
• •.• .. .. .; ,..:••14,4k,...Al 4.0 i.i.. ..; 1P,A 2 , •... • ••• *4,• .. '...- ....••'•:.... ...--. .., ...D.-,.., A ..,,,,!"..,,,,,,,,,
i,,..:;i4-0400:04:i:Ar41,44!il.,,,...c.4 ...''.',,F. I..),.,0. ..!..:' .1 P.1 IL.; * t, kw•,1 pi •
, 4,",,. 4,44...,..itioiktv,,,,Tiv.4,40‘4434,ft. ::••:,.-.:•••, .. : •• ...• -. ._,-........,,--....44,4 4-10.40441(4,. i•,..!.u•tit!ewt..-..0.. •:•••..•:- ....,........_.... ...._
v."'1,r-7--• '•:-,-,:. .'••; •• '. , •• ' :.•,--• •s,..---- .• -fv-,•ri;44-1:iAtoil...r.mr..r4---s.,•••••'••-.,,....., s,-•-...‘••..:.'• ---•• -,:-• ••-i•,,:=4••••••••••-'
•• • •... ... •.....,•••••• ikiit.„,,i,,,A•4,4,:i44..,:,:-014'7N't.,-00'1'''''''. ' . • . ' :. •-. -: -,-.-,:::.,.._..'''':i.44v-...f,...-•.44J...444.70§tiot*
't vc•fiiec-4,004 ,,t0.0101,A. •• : •••• . ... .. .. . .- - • ,,,i,ig4,1.114,,N1100.';--,..,-.-1,..,.,..‘,.,,,,•-...•• .:-. -....... .,.,.,:,..
,,..,.....,.,4.0,..,,.i....,,,,,,.,..r.t.„..,...„..... .„. ..:;„,....Si•p,.,.t.:,,kt.0.,s30.avtkt.1,1..-,..,i,.., ! , .:::..• : :..... , . . ...„.;-..„,.', ',„ , .."': 117..1111.17111.11011MIN
.t.,45..,'.40Alt...iti..‘.::.,. .,.... ..,.. ,... •,.• ..-• :. .... - • .:.. ..., . -.„.,.,,,,,i.4,4i,W,iii,ti4:-""''''' t. ....;:,,-)44....,•:.,..'."1.“,..4:..4,1°:s..;,',..‘1,.'4...,..,.....r.'...,
• •• •..'.i...":• •, •L.:..:.,....' 4p.401:4t0 .17'-',':..,.....••'•,,•:::.-,
• •• . •• •,'-s',..••fiem,aw..04...,,,,A,Y,1.,,,.--.•,..t■:::.......• ,, ••<,:: •. • •" - 7.' ' .:''-, ., ...,..-•.- •,..,:s. . .? 4-4440.404#04
..... . ... • , . ,..,: . ' '1.. ..:.',W,Lia,:,-li,••.'
-4Y',,s,,,',,i.4..,,4"0.:0,,,:*:,•o:-".t:.o...i..,..r:,-,.-,,.,„1/4•,i.,-,-,4•k.t•,•,,.4,,,,,I•...,.:t il.'•4- 0- .• .1,:i.,..i.-o...i- :"..:.,•0'!til0'.3...:y„'.'',..'.'A.i..i.:.1.-0-....#0•...•1..,4.4.,1..,,,,r,4:.0.,.,.....
arIgInekArieur4.1.441.-4101.,,,V,...9,14414.
,... ..-.....,.v..;,-,.,-,„,,,eg.....44.1,4*,4*,,404..4...-:•#4,-*vi.':,t,
0......, ..,,,i6....„ ...i 1 .,
. . ..
1.11011111■1111•MIM
46.1411k',VM40:..1.:0.','q..■”"•... .' .. ' .. :. . . ,.,..,n,.:,40..S.ii,3■40,..t.',V.,:f.,*.:44,P',Wkii , e'.-• -;.."-*--.A$5.'''k!.4
1 r
• • - •-'••.,.• 14;), 4tv.i.qi..045h...,4qM.,..".'. • .‘1
0V'.0.*!''0",-r• •• '••- . .: ' , ..,
, .. . :F.
''.--...,.44..•-•-..-4,-.INt4.'t,* 5,..: . .--....................
.• ..''. - '-'• .. ''1.4..t!....,..0..t'... * +'.'..:. ...•A-',A'•i.i.'0- 141.41,.. -,...,,T'!. 0...-..'... ..: .. ..•:, •....,•,,,,.„•..-.‘,„.„..,...,,,,...,.,,...,„i,,,,,vo. i-g,,,44t,4,4..t riro.l,.ir.....7 1 A 11,..:.-
A0.
. - . , • .•.. i ..4...,,w.i.p.w.t.:Ativt'tilav - •
..... i
..A.4'ilt?0''':?:'.41'...° ''.•• -•- - '-'''• .' • • •- . . . .4. , 4 , A`l ilo -IPIA' '...1.
.
•.-.1.,,.,,,,,,i,oiti..,?.1-3..,,t•VO-%ii':•'''.',,..• ' '.. '' :) .. . • 7 . i:' . • . 1.kti
00...i i.,ii..*:;.,..15 ,,il.z...-,•^041, .i,.'•`:1, ,,• -.. ,,...,....2.-..b...,"...,„..,441 >,...,.,ki‘■.:.•..PA
- ••• - A
40
..„. ...„. ...„,.ao.,,,,..,. .,,,i,,,,pti,..,,Aio,.-ot,,,,-0. I, 11 .......‘ -: .... •. •
„,:,,.„•t1,4,,,,,,:„...,:el...-4,.. ,••••••. •• •••• • . . .. . , ,.,,,...,..,..4, .5,-4,..30-.. ...--- J.. ' •
. •, .
. •. ,...„....,.,•44i4.hv,4.-i.,4*4:,o,i
,1-.„p •..,410.4.t .t.:',•'. .• '.• '';‘•ci .-.
" r.'it • '-1-'•• ..• ..,.. ..,_„ • • •• • '' to•'•r•A'tt4 N' •.""1:.'- •'t.I" "•••••• .. '. -.- . . . •. '• .......................
••••,-,,,,,P,I.O.r.,....10
•
.. '
. . . .
•
533
CONTENTS
Executive Summary 1
Introduction 2
Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida 4
Projection and Summary 4
Projection Development Methodology 6
Projection Update 6
Guidance for Application 9
Increase in Recurrent Flooding and Reduced Drainage Capacity 9
Storm Surge and Sea Level Rise 10
Natural Resource Degradation 10
Guidance in Applying The Projections 11
Audiences 11
Applying Projection Curves to Infrastructure Siting And Design 11
Available Vulnerability Assessments 13
Summary 13
Literature Cited 15
Appendix A:Stand Alone Guidance Document and Projection 21
Appendix B:State of Science Update 26
Acceleration of Sea Level Rise 26
Factors Influencing Sea Level Rise 26
Global Processes 26
Regional/Local Processes 28
Appendix C:Workgroup Commentary and Recommendations 33
Appendix D:Acknowledgement of Participants 34
Appendix E:Deviation from 2011 Projection 35
Recommended Citation
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Sea Level Rise Work Group(Compact).
October 2015. Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida. A document prepared for
the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Steering Committee. 35 p.
534
.EXECUTIVE•SUMMARY
The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact reconvened the Sea Level Rise Work
Group for the purpose of updating the unified regional projection based on global projections,
guidance documents and scientific literature released since the original regional projection in
2011 (Compact, 2011). The objective of the unified sea level rise projection for the Southeast
Florida region remains consistent that the projection is for use by the Climate Compact Counties
and partners for planning purposes to aid in understanding of potential vulnerabilities and to
provide a basis for developing risk informed adaptation strategies for the region. For the 2015
update, the starting point for all sea level rise projections has been shifted from 2010 to 1992.
This allows for direct use of local tide station information to convert projections into local water
surface elevations for flood vulnerability studies, and is consistent with current guidance from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric
Agency (NOAA). The Unified Sea Level Rise projection for Southeast Florida has also been
extended to 2100 in recognition of the need for longer range guidance for major infrastructure
and other long term investments now being planned.
In the short term, sea level rise is projected to be 6 to 10 inches by 2030 and 14 to 26 inches by
2060 (above the 1992 mean sea level). In the long term,sea level rise is projected to be 31 to 61
inches by 2100. For critical infrastructure projects with design lives in excess of 50 years, use of
the upper curve is recommended with planning values of 34 inches in 2060 and 81 inches in 2100.
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration Jet Propulsion Laboratory (2015) has
reported the average global sea level has risen almost 3 inches between 1992 and 2015 based on
satellite measurements. Sea level rise in South Florida has been of similar magnitude over the
same period (NOAA, 2015) but is anticipated to outpace the global average due to ongoing
variations in the Florida Currents and Gulf Stream.
Projected sea level rise, especially by 2060 and beyond, has a significant range of variation as a
result of uncertainty in future greenhouse gas emissions and their geophysical effects, the
incomplete quantitative understanding of all geophysical processes that might affect the rate of
sea level rise in climate models and the limitations of current climate models to predict the
future. As such, the Work Group recommends that the unified sea level rise projection include
three curves, in descending order, the NOAA High Curve, the USACE High Curve and a curve
corresponding to the median of the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 scenario, with specific guidance as to how
and.when they should be used in planning. This guidance document describes the recommended
application of the projection as it relates to both high and low risk projects and short and long-
term planning efforts. Also, the Work Group recommends that this guidance be updated every
1
535
five to seven years because of the ongoing advances in scientific knowledge related to global
climate change and potential impacts.
INT R QDU CT I ON
WHO SHOULD USE THIS PROJECTION AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENT?
The Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida is intended to be used for planning
purposes by a variety of audiences and disciplines when considering sea level rise in reference
to both short and long-term planning horizons and infrastructure design in the Southeast
Florida area.
HOW SHOULD THE REGIONAL PROJECTION BE APPLIED?
The projection(Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida)contains a graph and table
describing the rise in sea level from 1992 through the turn of the current century.The projection
can be used to estimate future sea level elevations in Southeast Florida and the relative change •
in sea level from today to a point in the future. Guidance for Application contains directions and
specific examples of how the projection can be used by local governments, planners, designers
and engineers and developers. This regional projection is offered to ensure that all major
infrastructure projects throughout the Southeast Florida region have the same basis for design
and construction relative to future sea level.
WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH SEA LEVEL RISE?
The consequences associated with sea level rise include direct physical impacts such as coastal
inundation of inland areas, increased frequency of flooding in vulnerable coastal areas, increased
flooding in interior areas due to impairment of the region's stormwater infrastructure i.e.impacts ,
to gravity drainage systems and features in the regional water management canal system,
saltwater intrusion into the aquifer and local water supply wells, and contamination of the land
and ocean with pollutants and debris and hazardous materials released by flooding.
Consequences also include cascading socio-economic impacts such as displacement, decrease in
property values and tax base, increases in insurance costs, loss of services and impaired access
to infrastructure.The likelihood and extent to which these impacts will occur is dependent upon
the factors influencing the rate of sea level rise such as the amount of greenhouse gases emitted
globally, rate of melting of land-based ice sheets, the decisions and investments made by
communities to increase .their climate resilience and the many interconnected processes
described in the Appendix B: State of Science Update. One of the values of this sea level rise
projection is the ability to perform scenario testing to better understand the potential impacts
and timeline of sea level rise within the Southeast Florida community.
2
•
536
WHO DEVELOPED THE UNIFIED SEA LEVEL RISE PROJECTION FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA?
In 2010,the Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Steering Committee organized
the first Regional Climate Change Compact Technical Ad hoc Work Group (Work Group). Their
objective was to develop a unified sea level rise projection for the Southeast Florida region for
use by the Climate Compact Counties and partners. Its primary use was for planning purposes to
aid in understanding of potential vulnerabilities and to provide a basis for outlining adaptation
strategies for the region. The Work Group reviewed existing projections and scientific literature
and developed a unified regional projection for the period from 2010 to 2060 (Compact, 2011).
The projection highlighted two planning horizons: 1) by 2030, sea level rise was projected to be
3 to 7 inches above the 2010 mean sea level and 2) by 2060, sea level rise was projected to be 9
to 24 inches above the 2010 mean sea level. In anticipation of the release of the United Nations
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report(IPCC, 2013),the Sea Level
Rise Work Group recommended a review of the projection four years after its release in 2011.
In September 2014,the Sea Level Rise Work Group was reconvened for the purpose of updating
the unified regional projection based on projections and scientific literature released since 2011.
This report released in October 2015 contains a summary of the projections and publications
reviewed and discussed,the methodology for deriving the projection,the recommended unified
regional projection and additional recommendations from the Sea Level Rise Work Group.
3
537
UNIFIED SEA,LEVEL RISE PROJECTION FOR SOUTHEAST FLORIDA
PROJECTION AND SUMMARY
This Unified Sea Level Rise projection for Southeast Florida updated in 2015 projects the
anticipated range of sea level rise for the region from 1992 to 2100 (Figure 1). The projection
highlights three planning horizons:
1) short term, by 2030, sea level is projected to rise 6 to 10 inches above 1992 mean sea
level,
2) medium term, by 2060, sea level is projected to rise 14 to 34 inches above 1992 mean
sea level,
3) long term, by 2100, sea level is projected to rise 31 to 81 inches above 1992 mean sea
level.
Projected sea level rise in the medium and long term has a significant range of variation as a
result of uncertainty in future greenhouse gas emissions and their geophysical effects, the
incomplete quantitative understanding of all geophysical processes affecting the rate of sea level
rise in climate models and current limitations of climate models to predict the future. As such,
the Work Group recommends that the unified sea level rise projection include three global mean
sea level rise curves regionally adapted to account for the acceleration of sea level change
observed in South Florida. The titles of the global mean sea level rise curves were retained for
simplicity of referencing source but the curves have been adjusted from the global projections to
reflect observed local change. The projection consists of the NOAA High Curve,the USACE High
Curve (also known as the NOAA Intermediate- High) and the median of the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5
scenario,with specific guidance as to how and when they should be used in planning.
• The lower boundary of the projection (blue dashed line) can be applied in designing
low risk projects that are easily replaceable with short design lives,are adaptable and
have limited interdependencies with other infrastructure or services.
• The shaded zone between the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 median curve and the USACE High is
recommended to be generally applied to most projects within a short-term planning
horizon. It reflects what the Work Group projects will be the most likely range of sea
level rise for the remainder of the 21St Century.
• The upper curve of the projection should be utilized for planning of high risk projects
to be constructed after 2060 or projects which are not easily replaceable or
removable, have a long design life (more than 50 years) or are critically
interdependent with other infrastructure or services.
4
538
.O
O
J or t,D
y� N CU
•• O H`4 t O GJ +,
\ ` _:
vt vl
w: u O to r,1
0 t '0
.a; G) tot H =
`� ` t N " O L >_ �p au
• t :y a t9 CD > "
t cr-
-- y >` L. C
.0 v 7 0
t N O 0r0 fC u 'ut
• t 1 O = " -0 vt
. " Gi
I tQ
t '0 O20 3 O a '0 c
t -c '., C) c Z c c a,
t w -0 O O CU i
t in a,, -0 •� m
• tt U ° G) C `O C7
t3 _ a
tt :7 O y .1- G) t i L
• t Y '. C ' v
It C) G) .y a". CU C vi
I 0 to X •� w O
LD t �n 00•
0 a, 'O
N t C eN > V 13- na O t_ -a
O c
II � � r"+ � _� c0
t M 111 O ate• w
• t tan) < O C
I t O C U -
e.c °a c
... . t n to u ._ >_
.� ° E — u -0 0.
• +�
= N ct r i ` t > a) 0 i H a•
u r� M 00 t C u c 0
a 0 c t �f C to `� v G) to
t i il E 9 .� 12
z , `� y 7 a o
c O • t a) E ++ u L .c
�... ........ t L 3
o U .. �t L r o ' u 0
V �-. t O R ,., _ •O
W a �t m " c vt 0
........ c0 = t O C O G) OA J •"
° .c W = O l0 r•1 ' t O +. C C 'E cu•— w O in I1l Q c 13 co
Cr E j, 0 a `° fa i Si
= .. ......... 1t j vii C +0+
1
• L
{/9 U N u c-1 M t p �p Q Z C
. re U c 1 u O •O ._
d 1 0 '0 C 0 "
•—.
E
:o a a 4' •-
C u _ . _- . .- . - .. G) 'A', 0 u
teo a E -a
i}+ O G) L• E t`
^ > i v ;;L 0 0 0 0 C L 03 M t0 0 . ^
7 O C O
C > 0 0 N 4-)
0.0 >' u TO _ W
7 N C) .0 a) Q C
ccn GI 'NV u c j .No
.. ..... ........._...._.... ... ... ..... ... .
w-- cu v) 0 a) a
c 0 N. 0 0 Ln 0 0 0 c 0 j L C r=-- '=
(lanai eas ueaw olanilelaa sayau!) � " ~ E °o
. Gr -0o ^ r4 13
ld `�sam AaN .1 eau asij lanai easani.eialj = ' i o. - o
ii .c u 0. to 5
•
539
PROJECTION DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY
PROJECTION UPDATE
The key components of the methodology used to develop the unified sea level rise projection are
as follows:
OttN
'4'4'0 Planning Horizon of 2100: In response to the release of climate scenarios extending to
year 2100 from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), projections
through year 2100 by federal agencies including the US Army Corps of Engineers(USACE)
and the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the need
for planning for infrastructure with design lives greater than 50 years,the unified sea level
rise projection time scale has been extended to 2100.
Starting in 1992: The year 1992 has been selected as the initial year of the projection
because it is the center of the current mean sea level National Tidal Datum Epoch of 1983-
' 2001. A tidal datum epoch is a 19 year period adopted by the National Ocean Service as
the official time segment over which tide observations are used to establish tidal datums
such as mean sea level, mean high water etc. The National Tidal Datum Epoch is revised •
every 20-25 years to account for changing sea levels and land elevations.
t4
l ' . Tide gauge selection:The Key West gauge(NOAA Station ID 8724580)was maintained as
the reference gauge for calculation of the regional projection as was used in the original
projection. In addition, appropriate conversion calculations are provided in Section 4:
Guidance for Application in order to reference the projection to the Miami Beach gauge
(NOAA Station ID 8723170)or the Lake Worth Pier gauge(NOAA Station ID 8722670).The
Key West gauge has recorded tidal elevations since 1913.Tidal records from Miami Beach
and Lake Worth Pier are available since 2003 and 1996, respectively.
Review of existing projections:Global projections released since 2011 were reviewed and
considered for interpretation for the unified sea level rise projection including those
developed by USACE (2011; 2013), NOAA(Parris et al., 2012), IPCC (IPCC, 2013), Bamber
and Aspinall (2013), Horton et al. (2014), Jevrejeva et al. (2014), and Kopp et al. (2014).
Review criteria included comprehensiveness of datasets and models used to develop the
projections, standing in the scientific community, and applicability to the Southeast
Florida region.
6
540
Summaries of the existing global projections are included below:
• USACE Guidance: There was no update to the projections since 2011 (USACE,
2011). The range of global mean sea level change projected by USACE was
approximately 0.2 to 0.6 meters(9 to 25 inches)by 2060 and 0.5 to 1.5 meters(20
to 59 inches) by 2100. Existing guidance and the online USACE Sea Level Change
Calculator were used to adapt the global mean sea level change curves for the
unified South Florida projection.
•:' IPCC AR5 Projections: The 5th Assessment Report (AR5) included four scenarios
based on predicted greenhouse gas concentration trajectories (Regional
Concentration Pathways, RCPs). The global mean sea level change projected in
these scenarios ranged from 0.17 to 0.38 meters(7 to 15 inches)by years 2046 to
2065 and 0.26 to 0.82 meters(10 to 32 inches)by 2081 to 2100.
':• NOAA Projections produced for the National Climate Assessment (NCA): For the
2014 NCA, four global mean sea level rise scenarios were defined in a manner
allowing the user to select the appropriate curve based on risk of concern,
uncertainty tolerance and type of application. The global mean sea level rise
projected in these scenarios ranges from 0.2 meters to 2 meters(8 to 80 inches)by
2100.
••• Recent Probabilistic Projections:Recently,several authors have quantitatively and
qualitatively approached determining the likelihood or percent chance that the
global mean sea level rise projections will occur by 2100. For example, based on a
probability density function, levrejeva et al. (2014) concluded that there is only a
5%chance global mean sea level rise will be larger than 1.8 meters(71 inches)by
2100. Using an alternate method, Kopp et al. (2014)concluded there is only a 5%
chance global mean sea level rise will be larger than 1:76 meters(69 inches). These
studies represent examples of possible methods of further explaining applicability
of projections for future use.
+ Science Community Polling: Several polls have been conducted amongst groups
within the scientific community to understand the experts'opinions on the level of
uncertainty associated with existing global mean sea level rise projections. These
surveys have yielded reported likely ranges of global mean sea level rise of 0.4 to
1.2 m(16 to 42 inches)depending on warming scenarios(Horton et al., 2014)and
0.29 m to 0.84 m (11 to 33 inches)(Bomber and Aspinall, 2013)by 2100.
7
541
•
"'iakt.,,: Projection confidence: The understanding of past sea level changes has improved since
the Work Group's last review due to additional observations and analyses of processes
driving thermal expansion, loss of ice from ice sheets and glaciers and terrestrial water
storage by the scientific community. Despite this improved understanding, the
development of complex climate models is evolutionary and many processes and
responses are yet to be incorporated. The numerous ice melt accelerating feedbacks not
in the models are especially of concern as they are speeding up ice melt and sea level rise
well beyond model projections. Models do continue to offer useful approximations of
trends and order of magnitude of rates of change and acceleration based on climate data
input and are suitable for determining projected future ranges for planning and design
efforts. Additionally, as noted in Parris et al. (2012), the quadratic curves comprising the
projection were selected by the some of the scientific community for simplicity. Sea level
will not rise in the smooth manner illustrated by the quadratic curves but, may be
punctuated by faster and slower rates(Parris et al., 2013).
8
542
GUIDANCE FOR APPLICATION
INCREASE IN RECURRENT FLOODING AND REDUCED DRAINAGE CAPACITY
Recent analyses of tide gauge records acquired along the US Atlantic coast indicate a rapid
acceleration in the rate of sea level rise since 2000, which was attributed to possible slowing
down of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) (Ezer et al., 2013; Sallenger et
al.,2012;Yin et al.,2009).The higher sea level resulted in increasing flooding frequency in several
coastal communities, e.g., Boston, Norfolk, and Miami Beach (Ezer et al., 2013; Kirshen et al.,
2008; Kleinosky et al., 2007;Wdowinski et al., 2015).These frequent flood events, often termed
"nuisance flooding", occur mainly due to heavy rain during high tide conditions but sometimes
occur due to high tide alone and are termed"King tides","lunar flooding"or"sunny sky flooding".
Recently, Ezer and Atkinson (2014) used tide gauge data to calculate accumulated flooding time
in twelve locations along the Atlantic coast and showed a significant increase in flooding duration
over the past twenty years. They suggested that flood duration is a reliable indicator for the
accelerating rate of sea level rise,which is often difficult to estimate on a regional-scale.
On the national scale, NOAA (2014) published an assessment of nuisance flooding finding that
the duration and frequency of these events are intensifying around the United States.
Subsequently, Sweet and Park (2014) demonstrated that coastal areas are experiencing an
increased frequency of flood events (an acceleration) over the last few decades, and that this
acceleration in flood occurrence will continue regardless of the specific rate of sea level rise.
A detailed analysis of nuisance flooding occurrence'in Miami Beach was conducted by Wdowinski
et al. (2015),who used a variety of data sources(tide gauge, rain gauge, media reports, insurance
claims, and photo records) from the past 16 years (1998-2013). They found that most flooding
events occur after heavy rain (> 80 mm, 3 inches) during high tide conditions, but also after the
fall equinox tides regardless of rain events. An analysis of flooding frequency over the past 16
years revealed that since 2006, rain-induced events increased by 33% and tide-induced events
quadrupled, from 2 events during 1998-2005 to 8-16 events in 2006-2013. Wdowinski et al.
(2015) also analyzed the nearby Virginia Key tide gauge record and found a significant
acceleration in the rate of sea level rise since 2006. The average rate of regional sea level rise
since 2006 is 9±4 mm/yr, significantly higher than the global average rate of 2.8±0.4 mm/yr
estimated from in-situ data (Church and White, 2011). Although the Work Group notes that
continued analysis of changes in trends over time is necessary to determine long-term
significance of this recently observed uptrend, studies have already begun to correlate the
regional sea level rise to the slowing down of the Gulfstream. A comparison between sea level
variations near Miami with high-resolution global climate model simulations (Kirtman et al.,
2012) revealed a strong correlation between increasing sea level rise in the Miami area and a
9
543
weakening of the Florida Current-Gulf Stream system.This finding confirmed concurs with other
studies that relate sea level rise acceleration along the US Atlantic coast with weakening of the
Gulf Stream (e.g., Ezer et al., 2013; Park and Sweet, 2015).
STORM SURGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE
Storm surge and sea level rise are independent coastal processes that when occurring
simultaneously lead to compounded impacts. Sea level rise will increase the inland areal extent
inundated by surges, the depth of flooding and power of the surge and the extent and intensity
of damage associated with storm surge and waves. As a result, severe storms of the future will
cause more damage than storms of equal intensity occurring at today's sea level. Tebaldi et al.
(2012) estimate a 100-year magnitude surge flooding (by today's standards) will begin to occur
every 20 years at the projected mean sea level in 2050. Regional hazard mapping does not yet
include the combined effects of sea level rise and surge but the impacts are anticipated to be
significant.
Historically, the sea level extremes have increased along with the increase in mean sea level at
locations along the coasts. Using this as the basis,one can relate the sea level extremes to mean
sea level which allows the determination of future extremes and return periods(Obeysekera and
Park, 2013). Another approach is to use the non-tidal residuals (component of storm surge and
waves above the tidal variations), NTR, and determine their probabilistic characteristics.
Assuming future sea level rise scenarios and the tidal variations, one can then superimpose
extreme storm surge of NTR for a given return period to determine total sea level extreme for a
given time epoch in the future. Return period for a given scenario can be determined using
methods outlined in Salas and Obeysekera (2014). Both approaches assume there is no change
in future "storminesss" although with higher sea levels, magnitude of storm surge may change
at some locations along the coasts.
NATURAL RESOURCE DEGRADATION
As sea level rise increasingly inundates coastal areas, there is the potential for degradation of
natural resources and loss of their services to the surrounding environment. Ecosystems will
transition either by retreat and migration, adaptation, or elimination of functions and certain
species. Shallow water habitats may transition to open water, forcing ecological changes in
coastal wetlands and estuaries affecting nesting, spawning and feeding locations and behavior.
Intrusion of saltwater inland, into inland water bodies and within the aquifer is negatively
impacting freshwater resources, and these impacts will worsen or accelerate with further sea
level rise. Inundation of shorelines will increase the extent and severity of beach erosion and
10
544
previously stable coastal areas. In combination, these impacts will cascade throughout the
p g
region's ecosystems even if they are not immediately adjacent to open water areas.
Natural infrastructure is critical to the resilience of the urban environment, in that it provides
many benefits related to storm protection, water and air purification, moderating urban heat
effects, and socio-economics. South Florida's tourist economy is heavily dependent on these
natural resources.The region must prioritize providing space for habitat transitions and focus on
reducing anthropogenic pressures that would compound the degrading effects of sea level rise.
GUIDANCE IN APPLYING THE PROJECTIONS
AUDIENCES
The Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida is intended to be used for planning
purposes by a variety of audiences and disciplines when considering sea level rise in reference to
both short and long-term planning horizons as well as infrastructure siting and design in the
Southeast Florida area. Potential audiences for the projections include, but are not limited to,
elected officials,urban planners,architects,engineers,developers,resource managers and public
works professionals.
One of the key values of the projection is the ability to associate specific sea level rise scenarios
with timelines. When used in conjunction with vulnerability assessments, these projections
inform the user of the potential magnitude and extent of sea level rise impact at a general
timeframe in the future.The blue shaded portion of the projection provides a likely range for sea
level rise values at specific planning horizons. Providing a range instead of a single value may
present a challenge to users such as engineers who are looking to provide a design with precise
specifications. Public works professionals and urban planners need to work with the engineers
and with policy makers to apply the projection to each project based on the nature, value,
interconnectedness, and life cycle of the infrastructure proposed.
Finally, elected officials should use the projections to inform decision making related to issues
such as adaptation policies, budget impacts associated with design features which address
planning for future sea level rise,capital improvement project needs especially those associated
with drainage and shoreline protection,and land use decisions.
APPLYING PROJECTION CURVES TO INFRASTRUCTURE SITING AND DESIGN
When determining how to apply the projection curves, the user needs to consider the nature,
value, interconnectedness, and life cycle of the existing or proposed infrastructure. The blue
11
545
shaded portion of the projection can be applied to most infrastructure projects, especially those
with a design life expectancy of less than 50 years. The designer of a type of infrastructure that
is easily replaced,has a short lifespan,is adaptable,and has limited interdependencies with other
infrastructure or services must weigh the potential benefit of designing for the upper blue line
with the additional costs. Should the designer opt for specifying the lower curve, she/he must
consider the consequences of under-designing for the potential likely sea level condition. Such
consequences may include premature infrastructure failure. Additionally, planning for
adaptation should be initiated in the conceptual phase. A determination must be made on
whether or not threats can be addressed mid-life cycle via incremental adaptation measures,
such as raising the height of a sluice gate on a drainage canal..
Forward thinking risk management is critical to avoiding loss of service, loss of asset value and
most importantly loss of life or irrecoverable resources.An understanding of the risks that critical
infrastructure will be exposed to throughout its life cycle such as sea level rise inundation, storm
surge and nuisance flooding must be established early on in the conceptual phase. If incremental
adaptation is not possible for the infrastructure proposed and inundation is likely, designing to
accommodate the projected sea level rise at conception or selection of an alternate site should
be considered. Projects in need of a greater factor of safety related to potential inundation
should consider designing for the upper limit of the blue-shaded zone. Examples of such projects
may include evacuation routes planned for reconstruction, communications and energy
infrastructure and critical government and financial facilities.
Due to the community's fundamental reliance on major infrastructure, existing and proposed
critical infrastructure should be evaluated using the upper curve of the projection, the orange
curve (Figure 1, NOAA High). Critical projects include those or projects which are not easily
replaceable or removable, have a long design life (more than 50 years), or are interdependent
with other infrastructure or services. If failure of the critical infrastructure would have
catastrophic impacts, it is considered to be high risk. Due of the community's critical reliance on
major infrastructure,existing and proposed high risk infrastructure should be evaluated using the
upper curve of the projection, the orange curve (Figure 1, NOAA High). Examples of high risk
critical infrastructure include nuclear power plants, wastewater treatment facilities, levees or
impoundments, bridges along major evacuation routes, airports, seaports, railroads, and major
highways.
For low risk infrastructure projects, the lowermost curve of the projection (Figure 1, IPCC AR5
RCP8.5 curve) may be applied. Low risk projects include infrastructure expected to be
constructed and then replaced within the next 10 years, projects that are easily replaceable and
12
546
adaptable or projects with limited interdependencies and limited impacts when failure occurs.
An example of such a project may be a small culvert in an isolated area.
Additionally, planning for adaptation should be initiated in the conceptual phase. A
determination must be made on whether or not risk can be addressed mid-life cycle via
incremental. If incremental adaptation is not possible for the type of high risk infrastructure
proposed and inundation is likely, designing to accommodate the projected sea level rise at
conception or selection of an alternate site should be considered. To ensure an appropriately
conservative design approach is used, the upper limit of the projection (Figure 1, NOAA High)
should be used for projects with design lives of more than 50 years.
AVAILABLE VULNERABILITY ASSESSMENTS
The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact and the individual Compact Counties
have developed region-wide and county-wide sea level rise inundation vulnerability assessments
available for public use (Compact, 2012). These assessments spatially delineate areas of
inundation correlating to 1 foot, 2 feet and 3 feet of sea level rise. In addition, the Compact
website hosts a multitude of sources of information,tools and links in support of adaptation and
mitigation planning for use by the Compact communities.
•
SUMMARY
The Work Group recommends the use of the NOAA High Curve, the USACE High Curve (USACE,
2015) and the median of the IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 scenario (IPCC, 2013) as the basis for a Southeast
Florida sea level rise projection for the 2030,2060 and 2100 planning horizons. In the short term,
sea level rise is projected to be 6 to 10 inches by 2030 and 14 to 26 inches by 2060 (above the
1992 mean sea level). Sea level has risen 3 inches from 1992 to 2015. In the long term,sea level
rise is projected to be 31 to 61 inches by 2100. For critical infrastructure projects with design lives
in excess of 50 years, use of the upper curve is recommended with planning values of 34 inches
in 2060 and 81 inches in 2100. Sea level will continue to rise even if global mitigation efforts to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions are successful at stabilizing or reducing atmospheric CO2
concentrations; however,emissions mitigation is essential to moderate the severity of potential
impacts in the future. A substantial increase in sea level rise within this century is likely and may
—occur in rapid pulses rather than gradually.
The recommended projection provides guidance for the Compact Counties and their partners to
initiate planning to address the potential impacts of sea level rise on the region.The shorter term
planning horizons(through 2060)are critical to implementation of the Southeast Florida Regional
13
547
Climate Change Action Plan, to optimize the remaining economic life of existing infrastructure
and to begin to consider adaptation strategies. As scientists develop a better understanding of
the factors and reinforcing feedback mechanisms impacting sea level rise,the Southeast Florida
community will need to adjust the projections accordingly and adapt to the changing conditions.
To ensure public safety and economic viability in the long run, strategic policy decisions will be
needed to develop guidelines to direct future public and private investments to areas less
vulnerable to future sea level rise impacts.
14
548
LITERATURE'CITED '
Bamber J. L.,Aspinall,W. P. 2013.An expert judgement assessment of future sea level rise from
the ice sheets. Nat Clim Change 3:424-427
Bell, R. E., Tinto, K., Das, I., Wolovick, M., Chu, W., Creyts, T. T., ... & Paden, J. D. 2014.
Deformation,warming and softening of Greenland [rsquor] s ice by refreezing meltwater.Nature
Geoscience.
Bintanja, R.,Van Oldenborgh,G.J.,Drijfhout,S.S.,Wouters, B., &Katsman,C.A.2013. Important
role for ocean warming and increased ice-shelf melt in Antarctic sea-ice expansion. Nature
Geoscience, 6(5), 376-379.
Blewitt,G., Kreemer, C., Hammond, W.C., Gazeaux,J. 2015. MIDAS trend estimator for accurate
GPS station velocities without step detection,Journal of Geophysical Research, in review.
Bock,Y., Wdowinski, S., Ferretti, A., Novali, F., and Fumagalli, A. 2012. Recent subsidence of the
Venice Lagoon from continuous GPS and interferometric synthetic aperture radar. Geochem.
Geophys. Geosyst. 13. Q03023. doi:10.1029/2011G0003976.
Calafat, F.M. and Chambers, D.P. 2013. Quantifying recent acceleration in sea level unrelated to
internal climate variability.Geophys. Res. Lett.40. 3661-3666. doi:10.1002/gr1.50731.
Church, J.A. and White, N.J. 2011. Sea-Level Rise from the Late 19th to the Early 21st Century.
Surveys in Geophysics.32(4-5). 585-602.doi:10.1007/s10712-011-9119-1.
Collins, M., Knutti, R., Arblaster, J., Dufresne, J.-L., Fichefet, T., Friedlingstein, P., Gao, X.,
Gutowski,W.J.,Johns,T., Krinner, G.,Shongwe, M.,Tebaldi,C.,Weaver,A.J. &Wehner,M. 2013.
Long-term Climate Change: Projections,Commitments and Irreversibility. In:Stocker T.F.,Qin D.,
Plattner G.-K., Tignor M., Allen S.K., Boschung J., Nauels A., Xia Y., Bex V. & Midgley P.M. (eds.),
Climate change 2013: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,NY, USA.
Ezer, T., Atkinson, L.P., Corlett, W.B., and Blanco, J.L. 2013. Gulf Stream's induced sea level rise
and variability along the U.S. mid-Atlantic coast. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans. 118.
685-697.
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact (Compact). 2012. Analysis of the
Vulnerability of Southeast Florida to Sea Level Rise. 181 p.
http://www.southeastfloridaclimatecompact.org//wp-content/uploads/2014/09/vulnerability-
assessment.pdf
15
549
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Technical Ad hoc Work Group (Compact).
2011. A Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida. A document prepared for the
Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Steering Committee. 27 p.
Ezer,T.and Atkinson, L.P. 2014. Accelerated flooding along the U.S. East Coast: On the impact of
sea-level rise, tides, storms, the Gulf Stream, and the North Atlantic Oscillations. Earth's Future.
2. 362-382. doi:10.1002/2014EF000252.
Flick, R., Knuuti, K., and Gill, S. 2012. Matching mean sea level rise projections to local elevation
datums.Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering. 139(2). 142-146.
Gardner,A.S., Moholdt,G.,Cogley,J.G.,Wouters, B.,Arendt,A.A.,Wahr,J., Berthier,E., Hock, R.,
Pfeffer, W.T., Kaser, G., Ligtenberg, S.R.M., Bolch, T., Sharp, M.J., Hagen, J.O., van den Broeke,
M.R., and Paul,F.2013.A Reconciled Estimate of Glacier Contributions to Sea Level Rise:2003 to
2009, Science. 340 (6134).852-857. doi:10.1126/science.1234532.
Greenbaum, J.S., Blankenship, D.D., Young, D.A., Richter, T.G., Roberts, J.L., Aitken, A.R.A.,
Legresy, B., Schroeder, D.M., Warner, R.C., van Ommen, T.D., and Siegert, M.J. 2015. Ocean
access to a cavity beneath Totten Glacier in East Antarctica, Nature Geosci.,publ.online 16 March
doi:10.1038/NGE02388, 2015.
Hallberg, R., A. Adcroft,J. Dunne,J. Krasting, and R.J. Stouffer. 2013. Sensitivity of 21st century
global-mean steric sea level rise to ocean model formulation.J. Clim. 26. 2947-2956.
Hay, C. C., Morrow, E., Kopp, R. E., & Mitrovica, J. X. 2015. Probabilistic reanalysis of twentieth-
century sea-level rise. Nature, 517(7535),481-484.
Hellmer, H. H., Kauker, F.,Timmermann, R., Determann, J., & Rae,J. 2012. Twenty-first-century
warming of a large Antarctic ice-shelf cavity by a redirected coastal current. Nature, 485(7397),
225-228.
Horton, B.P., Rahmstorf,S., Engelhart,S.E., Kemp,A.C., 2014. Expert assessment of sea-level rise
by AD 2100 and AD 2300. Quaternary Science Reviews. 84. 1-6.
IPCC. 2013. Climate Change 2013.The Physical Science Basis.Contribution of Working Group Ito
the Fifth Assessment. Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S.,
Qin, D., Manning, M., Chen, Z., Marquis, M., Averyt, K.B., Tignor, M., and Miller, H.L. (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York.
Jacob,T.,Wahr,J., Pfeffer,W.T., Swenson,S. 2012. Recent contributions of glaciers and ice caps
to sea level rise. Nature.482. 514-518.
Jacobs, S. S., Jenkins, A., Giulivi, C. F., & Dutrieux, P. 2011. Stronger ocean circulation and
increased melting under Pine Island Glacier ice shelf. Nature Geoscience,4(8), 519-523.
16
550
Jenkins,A., Dutrieux, P.,Jacobs, S.S., McPhail, S. D., Perrett,J. R., Webb,A.T., &White, D. 2010.
Observations beneath Pine Island Glacier in West Antarctica and implications for its retreat.
Nature Geoscience, 3(7),468-472.
Jevrejeva, S., Grinstead, A., and Moore,J.C., 2014. Upper limit for sea level projections by 2100.
Environ. Res. Lett. 9 (2014) 104008 (9pp).
Johnson, G. C., McTaggart, K. E., & Wanninkhof, R. 2014. Antarctic Bottom Water temperature
changes in the western South Atlantic from 1989 to 2014. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Oceans, 119(12),8567-8577.
Joughin, I.,&Alley, R.B.2011.Stability of the West Antarctic ice sheet in a warming world.Nature
Geoscience,4(8), 506-513.
King, M.A.,Bingham, R.J.,Moore,P.,Whitehouse, P.L.,Bentley, M.J.,&Milne,G.A.2012.Lower
satellite-gravimetry estimates of Antarctic sea-level contribution. Nature,491(7425), 586-589.
Kirshen, P., Knee, K., and Ruth, M. 2008. Climate change and coastal flooding in Metro Boston:
impacts and adaptation strategies. Climatic Change. 90(4). 453-473.
doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9398-9.
Kirtman, B.P., Bitz, C., Bryan, F., Collins, W., Dennis,J., Hearn, N., Kinterlll, J.L., Loft, R., Rousset,
C., Siqueira, L., Stan, C., Tomas, R., Vertenstein, M. 2012. Impact of ocean model resolution on
CCSM climate simulations. Climate Dynamics. 39(6). 1303-1328.
doi:10.1007/s00382-012-1500-3.
Kleinosky, L.R.,Yarnal, B.,and Fisher,A.2007.Vulnerability of Hampton Roads,Virginia to storm-
surge flooding and sea-level rise. Natural Hazards. 40(1). 43-70.
d o i:10.1007/s 11069-006-0004-z.
Kopp, R.E., Horton, R.M., Little, C.M., Mitrovica,J.X.,Oppenheimer, M., Rasmussen, D.J.,Strauss,
B.H., and Tebaldi, C. 2014. Probabilistic 21st and 22nd century sea-level projections at a global
network of tide-gauge sites. Earth's Future. 2(8). 383-406. doi:10.1002/2014EF000239.
Morlighem, M., Rignot, E.,Mouginot,J.,Seroussi, H.,&Larour, E. 2014. Deeply incised submarine
glacial valleys beneath the Greenland ice sheet. Nature Geoscience, 7(6),418-422.
NASA/Jet Propulsion Laboratory. "Warming seas and melting ice sheets." ScienceDaily.
ScienceDaily, 26 August 2015.www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150826111112.htm
Nevada Geodetic Laboratory. 2015. "CHIN Station Data"
http://geodesy.unr.edu/NGLStationPages/stations/CHIN.sta
17
551
NOAA, 2015. "Mean Sea Level Trend, 8724580 Key West, Florida."
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends station.shtml?stnid=8724580
NOAA, 2014. Sea Level Rise and Nuisance Flood Frequency Changes around the United States.
Technical Report NOS CO-OPS 073. Sweet W. V., Park J., Marra J., Zervas C., Gill S.
http://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/publications/NOAA_Technical_Report_NOS_COOPS_073.pdf
Obeysekera, J. and Park, J. 2013. Scenario-based projection of extreme sea levels. Journal of
Coastal Research.Vol. 29, Issue 1, 1-7.
Overduin, P., Grigoriev, M.N., Schirrmeister, L., Wetterich, S., Natscher,V., Gunther, F., Liebner,
S., Knoblauch, C. and Hubberten, H. W. 2014. Permafrost degradation and methane release in
the central Laptev Sea. 4th European Conference on Permafrost, Evora. 18 June 2014 - 21 June
2014.
Park,J.and Sweet,W. 2015. Accelerated sea level rise and Florida Current transport. Ocean Sci.,
11, 607-615, doi:10.5194/os-11-607-2015.
Parris,A., Bromirski, P., Burkett,V.,Cayan, D.,Culver, M., Hall,J., Horton, R., Knuuti, K., Moss, R.,
Obeysekera, J., Sallenger, A., and Weiss, J. 2012. Global Sea Level Rise Scenarios for the US
National Climate Assessment. NOAA Tech Memo OAR CPO-1.
Pritchard, H. D., Ligtenberg, S. R. M., Fricker, H. A., Vaughan, D. G., Van den Broeke, M. R., &
Padman, L. 2012. Antarctic ice-sheet loss driven by basal melting of ice shelves. Nature,
484(7395), 502-505.
Rahmstorf, S., Feulner, G., Mann, M. E., Robinson,A., Rutherford, S., &Schaffernicht, E.J. 2015.
Exceptional twentieth-century slowdown in Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation. Nature
Climate Change.
Rampal,P.,Weiss,J., Dubois,C., &Campin,J. M. 2011. IPCC climate models do not capture Arctic
sea ice drift acceleration: Consequences in terms of projected sea ice thinning and decline.
Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans (1978-2012), 116(C8).
Rignot, E.,Velicogna, I.,van den Broeke, M.R., Monaghan,A., and Lenaerts,J.2011.Acceleration
of the contribution of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets to sea level rise. Geophysical
Research Letters. 38. L05503.doi:10.1029/2011GL046583.
Rye, C. D., Garabato, A. C. N., Holland, P. R., Meredith, M. P., Nurser, A. G., Hughes, C. W., ... &
Webb, D.J.2014. Rapid sea-level rise along the Antarctic margins in response to increased glacial
discharge. Nature Geoscience,7(10), 732-735.
18
552
Salas, J. and Obeysekera, J. 2014. Revisiting the concepts of return period and risk for
nonstationary hydrologic extreme events.J. Hydrol. Eng., 19(3), 554-568.
Sallenger, A.H., Doran, K.S., and Howd, P.A. 2012. Hotspot of accelerated sea-level rise on the
Atlantic coast of North America.Nature Clim.Change.2(12).884-888.doi:10.1038/nclimate1597.
Santamaria-Gomez, A., Gravelle, M., Collilieux, X., Guichard, M., Miguez, B.M., Tiphaneau, P.,
Woppelmann, G. 2012. Mitigating the effects of vertical land motion in tide gauge records using
a state-of-the-art GPS velocity field, Global and Planetary Change. 98-99. 6-17.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2012.07.007.
Schuur, E.A.G., Abbott, B.W., Bowden, W.B., Brovkin, V., Camill, P., Canadell,J.G., Chanton, J.P.,
Chapin, F.S., Ill, Christensen, T.R., Ciais, P., Crosby, B.T., Czimczik, C.I., Grosse, G., Harden, J.,
Hayes, D.J., Hugelius, G.,Jastrow,J.D.,Jones,J.B., Kleinen,T., Koven, C.D., Krinner, G., Kuhry, P.,
Lawrence, D.M:, McGuire, A.D., Natali, S.M., O'Donnell, J.A., Ping, C.L., Riley, W.J., Rinke, A.,
Romanovsky, V.E., Sannel, A.B.K., Schadel, C., Schaefer, K., Sky, J., Subin, Z.M., Tarnocai, C.,
Turetsky, M.R., Waldrop, M.P., Walter Anthony, K.M., Wickland, K.P., Wilson, C.J., Zimov, S.A.,
2013. Expert assessment of vulnerability of permafrost carbon to climate change. Climatic
Change. 119. 2. 359-374.
Smeed, D.A., McCarthy, G.D., Cunningham, S.A., Frajka-Williams, E., Rayner, D., Johns, W.E.,
Meinen, C.S., Baringer, M.O., Moat, B.I., Duchez, A., and Bryden, H.L. 2014. Observed decline of
the Atlantic meridional overturning circulation 2004-2012.Ocean Sci. 10. 29-38.doi:10.5194/os-
10-29-2014.
Snay, R.,Cline,M., Dillinger,W., Foote, R., Hilla,S., Kass,W., Ray,J., Rohde,J.,Sella,G.,and Soler,
T. 2007. Using global positioning system-derived crustal velocities to estimate rates of absolute
sea level change from North America tide gauge records. J. Geophys. Res. 112. B04409.
doi:10.1029/2006J B004606.
Spence, P., Griffies, S.M., England, M.H., Hogg, A.M., Saenko, O.A., Jourdain, N.C. 2014. Rapid
subsurface warming and circulation changes of Antarctic coastal waters by poleward shifting
winds. Geophysical Research Letters.41. 4601-4610.doi:10.1002/2014GL060613.
Sweet,W.V.and Park,J. 2014. From the extreme to the mean:Acceleration and tipping points of
coastal inundation from sea level rise. Earth's Future, 2: 579-600. doi:10.1002/2014EF000272.
Talpe, M., Nerem, R.S., and Lemoine, F. 2014. G21C-02 Two decades of ice melt reconstruction
in Greenland and Antarctica from time-variable gravity.Amer.Geophysical Union,Abstract G21C-
02,Ann. Natl. Mtg.
Tebaldi, C., Strauss, B.H., Zervas, C. E. 2012. Modelling sea level rise impacts on storm surges
along US coasts. Environ. Res. Lett. 7(2012) 11 pp.
19
553
USACE. 2015. USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator (2015.46)
http://www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm
USACE. 2013. Incorporating sea level change in civil works programs. Department of the Army
Regulation No. 1100-2-8162, 31 December 2013. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-CE,
Washington D.C.
USACE.2011.Sea-Level Change Considerations in Civil Works Programs. Department of the Army
Engineering Circular No. 1165-2-212, 1 October 2011. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, CECW-CE,
Washington, D.C.
Velicogna, I., T. C. Sutterley, and M. R. van den Broeke. 2014. Regional acceleration in ice mass
loss from Greenland and Antarctica using GRACE time-variable gravity data. J. Geophys. Res.
Space Physics. 41. 8130-8137. d oi:10.1002/2014G L061052.
Vinther, B. M., Buchardt, S. L., Clausen, H. B., Dahl-Jensen, D., Johnsen, S. J., Fisher, D. A., ... &
Svensson,A. M. 2009.Holocene thinning of the Greenland ice sheet. Nature,461(7262),385-388.
Watson, C.S.,White, N.J.,Church,J.A., King, M.A., Burgette, R.J. & Legresy, B. 2015. Unabated
global mean sea-level rise over the satellite altimeter era.Natrure Climate Change, 5, 565-568.
http://www.nature.com/nclimate/iourhal/v5/n6/full/nclimate2635.html
Wdowinski, S., Bray, R., Kirtman, B., and Wu, Z. 2015. Increasing flooding frequency and
accelerating rates of sea level rise in Miami Beach, Florida.Submitted, Envir. Res. Let.
Yin,J., Schlesinger, M.E., and Stouffer, R.J. 2009. Model projections of rapid sea-level rise on the
northeast coast of the United States. Nature Geosci. 2(4). 262-266. doi:10.1038/ngeo462.
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v2/n4/suppinfo/ngeo462 S1.html.
20
554
:,‘;1
r RR
4"R i f ,!': -', , )7 ,k".: f4 j
r
d -n.
C v-', A ':.-:-1-:'-P .. -1-v-..--,:- SY'
'NCF
___
.,,-,.- ,.- is, iP
A ! 'a
� C MIAMI®DADS ;l
F L O R I D A \�°!osttd!=-'/
APPENDIX A STAND ALONE GUIDANCE;DOC;UMENT.:AND°PR'OJ`ECTION
The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact's 2015 Unified Sea Level Rise Projection
is presented below showing the anticipated range of sea level rise for the region from 1992 to
2100(Figure 1).The projection highlights three planning horizons:
1) Short term, by 2030, sea level rise is projected to be 6 to 10 inches above 1992 mean
sea level;
2) Medium term, by 2060, sea level rise is projected to be 14 to 26 inches above 1992
mean sea level with the less likely possibility of extending to 34 inches;
3) Long term, by 2100, sea level rise is projected to be 31 to 61 inches above 1992 mean
sea level with the less likely possibility of extending to 81 inches.
The Unified Sea Level Rise Projection for Southeast Florida include three curves, named after the
global sea level rise curves from which they were derived: the NOAA High Curve (orange solid),
the USACE High Curve (blue solid) and the median of the IPCC AR5 scenario (blue dashed). The
blue shaded area represents the likely range of sea level rise for our region. The orange curve
represents a condition that is possible but less likely. The USACE Intermediate or NOAA
Intermediate Low curve is displayed on the figure for reference (green dashed curve). This
scenario would require significant reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in order to be plausible
and does not reflect the impact on sea level from the current emissions trends.
When determining how to apply the projection curves, the user needs to consider the nature,
value,interconnectedness,and life cycle of the infrastructure in question.The following guidance
is provided for using the projection.
21
555
• The shaded zone between the IPCC ARS median curve and the USACE High is
recommended to be generally applied to most projects within a short to long-term
planning horizon, especially those with a design life expectancy of less than 50 years.
The designer of a type of infrastructure that is easily replaced, has a short lifespan, is
adaptable, and has limited interdependencies with other infrastructure or services
must weigh the potential benefit of designing for the upper blue line with the
additional costs. Should the designer opt for specifying the lower curve, he must
consider the consequences of under designing for the potential likely condition.
• The uppermost boundary of the projection (orange curve) should be utilized for
planning of critical infrastructure to be constructed after 2060 or projects with a long
design life (more than 50 years)as a conservative estimate of potential sea level rise.
Critical projects include those which are not easily replaceable or removable, have a
long design life(more than 50 years),or are interdependent with other infrastructure
or services. If failure of the infrastructure would have catastrophic impacts on the
economy,community or environment, it should be considered critical.
To reference the projection to the current year i.e. 2015, simply subtract the values listed in the
table below from the projected sea level rise. For example, based on the projection,sea level rise
in 2030 will be 6 to 10 inches above 1992 mean sea level. In order to determine how much rise
will occur relative to the current year, 2015,the values listed in the table below for the IPCC AR5
median and USACE High curves can be subtracted from the projected range i.e. 6-3=3 inches for
the lower end of the range and 10-4.3=5.6 inches for the upper end of the range, respectively.
The projection can be restated as such: sea level will rise 3 to 5.6 inches from this year(2015)to
2030.
IPCC ARS Median USACE High NOAA High
Current Year
(Blue Dashed Line) (Blue Solid Line) (Orange Line)
2015 3 4.3 5.3
2016 3.1 4.7 5.6
•
2017 3.4 4.9 6
2018 3.5 5.3 6.4
2019 . 3.7 5.5 6.8
To convert local relative sea level rise datum from mean sea level to a topographic reference
point used in surveying land elevations (NAVD 88), add the number listed in the table below to
projected sea level rise:
22
556
• To convert relative sea . convert relative sea Mean High Mean Low
level rise datum from level rise datum from Water Water
. • .•mean.sea level to feet : . . mean sea!melt()inches �M (ML. .•NAVD 88#,add the.number. NAVD,88,;add the number
'WOW to.aatue fib• below to value from ••. ... ,, • projection . • . - • • •
••Key West •• -0.87 -10.4 -5.6 -14.2
Hasa Key• -0.83 -10 -5.6 -14.2
l -�trti�: -0.96 -11.5 3.0 -26.5
Beach
Lake Worth -0.95 -11.4 4.9 -27.8
*North American Vertical Datum of 1988(NAVD 88)is the topographic reference point used in surveying land elevations. By
definition it is the vertical control datum of orthometric height established for vertical control surveying in the United States of
America based upon the General Adjustment of the North American Datum of 1988.
Alternatively, the USACE Sea Level Change Curve Calculator (Version 2018.88) (USACE, 2015)
found at this website http://www.corpsclimate.us/ccaceslcurves.cfm can be used to change
datums, reference years and tide gauge locations. The projection curves were generated using
this tool.
The equations used for the curves.comprising the unified sea level rise projection are as follows:
•:• NOAA High Curve (Parris, 2012) and USACE High Curve (USACE, 2013):
E(t2)—E(t1)=a(t2—t1) +b(t22—t12)
where E(t2) — E(t1) = Eustatic sea level change (m) with reference
year of 1992;
tl = difference in time between current year or construction date
and 1992 e.g. 2015-1992= 23 years;
t2=difference in time between future date of interest and 1992 i.e.
2060-1992=68 years;
where a is a constant equal to 0.0017 mm/yr, representing the rate
of global mean sea level change,
23
557 •
and b is a variabe equal to 1.56x10-4 for the NOAA High Curve;
1.13x104 for the USACE high curve, representing the acceleration
of sea level change.
❖ IPCC AR5 RCP8.5 Median Curve(IPCC, 2013):
E(t2)—E(tl)=0.0017(t2—ti) +(4.684499x10-5)(t22—t12)
❖ The NOAA Intermediate Low/ USACE Low curve that is not part of the projection
but included on the graph for reference (green dashed line) can be derived as
follows:
E(t2)—E(ti)=0.001 7(t2—ti) +(2.71262x10-5)(t22—t12)
The equations above are global mean sea level rise projections. In order to adapt the curves for
regional use, the average rate of mean sea level rise or "a" value is adjusted. For example, to
reference the above equations to the Key West tide gauge, a equals 0.0022 mm/yr.
24
558
O —
l — C L
1 O u m N O
\ . 11 m .p .0 3 is O
t. N
1
'1' c0 a 0 .CU
\ •
11 .:7)
a a +t-' 0 a vs
1 a .a a m i
■ J = 3 N I- H
1 x tQ f0 v H C
1 ';r r tL0 a O
• 0 L
1 'o p a 3 q� a & •._
a -c ti .- p = >` O
t �' .0 +•' u •E
_ Q a
` a a O< r) .0 C
1 Z VI CU
11 = O a ;
•
APPENDIX B STATE_OF S:CLEIVCE UPDATE. • • . • Y '
'I I£ y sr -`
' .....
ACCELERATION OF SEA LEVEL RISE
A statistically significant acceleration of sea level rise has been documented in the latter half of
the 20th century continuing through recent years (Church and White, 2011; Calafat and
Chambers,2013; Hay et al.2015; IPCC,2013;Watson et al.,2015). Hay et al. (2015)reported the
global sea level rise rate from 1901 to 1990 to be 1.2 +/- 0.2 mm/yr (a value which had been
overestimated in previous studies). Since 1993, an increase in the average global mean sea level
rise rate has been observed(Hay et al.,2015;Watson et al., 2015).Watson et al. (2015) has most
recently reported the average global mean sea level rise rate to be more than double the rate of
the previous century, indicating an acceleration;the observed rate was 2.6+0.4 mm/yr from 1993
to 2015 with an acceleration of 0.04 mm/yr2. This acceleration indicates sea level will rise more
rapidly in the future than it has historically. The global and regional processes driving sea level
rise and its acceleration are discussed in the following sections.
FACTORS INFLUENCING SEA LEVEL RISE
GLOBAL PROCESSES
In 2011, the Work Group noted studies describing a variety of reinforcing (positive) feedbacks
that are accelerating ice sheet melt in Greenland and Antarctica and also accelerating Arctic pack
ice melt, permafrost thaw and organic decay, and methane hydrate release from the warming
Siberian Shelf, in addition to other global processes affecting sea level rise i.e. increasing
greenhouse gas concentrations, changes in volcanic forcing and tropospheric aerosol loading
(Compact,2011). Since then, numerous additional reinforcing feedbacks have been documented
and previously recognized feedbacks have intensified.
ACCELERATION OF ICE MELT
•
Accelerated melting of the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica (Rignot et al., 2011; Talpe et
al., 2014) is expected to be the predominant factor affecting sea level rise acceleration during
the 21"Century. Melting is caused by increasing temperatures and warming of the atmosphere,
warm currents moving along the coast of Greenland, and warm ocean water moving under and
up into ice sheets through deep outlet glacial fjords in Antarctica. Recent observations have
indicated ice sheets are more vulnerable to melting than previously realized due to the extent of
deep valleys within the ice sheets connecting warmer ocean water to the internal areas of the
ice sheets thus causing rapid melting and peripheral thinning (Jenkins et al., 2010; Jacobs et al.,
2011; Morlighem et al., 2014; Rignot et al., 2014; Greenbaum et al., 2015). Accelerated melting
results in large discharges of fresh water which raises the local sea level near the ice sheets (8
26
560
inches around Antarctica over past 20 years) (Rye et al., 2014). This release of freshwater has
resulted in a seasonal increase in the amount of sea ice in the Antarctic(Bintanja et al., 2013; Rye
et al., 2014) and slower circulation of North Atlantic surface water, also known as Atlantic
Meridional Overturning Circulation (Rahmstorf et al., 2015). The slowdown in circulation may
contribute to increased local sea level rise along the Florida coast, as discussed in the Regional/
Local Processes section. The IPCC projections do not include the factors related to acceleration
of ice melting processes described above, and as a result are likely an underestimate of future
sea level rise (Rignot et al., 2011).
ICE SHEET DISINTEGRATION
Indicators of ice sheet disintegration include retreat of the ice sheet's outer boundary and rapid
thinning. Lateral flow of the Greenland Ice Sheet margin, the outer boundary, has dramatically
accelerated in the past two decades in response to surface melt waters penetrating fractures in
the ice and warming and softening the ice(Bell et al., 2014). In addition to retreat,the ice sheets
have initiated a rapid thinning process due to basal melt (Pritchard et al., 2012), signaling the
initiation of prolonged ice sheet degradation based on historic analysis (Johnson et al., 2014).
Joughin et al. (2011) have used numerical models to look at the sensitivity of the outlet glaciers
of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet to ocean water melt and have concluded that the West Antarctic
Ice Sheet collapse is already underway;the extent of the collapse in the future is not yet known.
As part of the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite monitoring program,
ice sheet mass loss has been quantified as 280±58 gigatons per year(Gt/yr)from Greenland and
up to 180±10 Gt/yr in Antarctica (Velicogna et al., 2014). As a reference for the magnitude of a
gigaton, one could estimate one gigaton to equal the mass of over one hundred million
elephants. In addition, significant recent work was completed to verify the estimated
contribution of ice sheet disintegration to sea level rise using satellite data (Jacob et al., 2012;
King et al., 2012; Gardner et al., 2013) with the conclusion that ice sheet melt accounted for
29±13% of sea level rise from 2003 to 2009 (Gardner, 2013). In order to further refine the
estimates and projections of the magnitude of ice sheet degradation and their contribution to
sea level rise, the complex dynamics driving ice sheet melt need to be better understood, in
particular the mechanisms driving interactions between ice sheets and warm currents.
WARM CURRENTS
In 2011, the Work Group acknowledged the effects of warm ocean water currents accelerating
summer pack ice melt and causing melting beneath the outlet glaciers. Recent work has further
clarified the compounding mechanisms driving the flow and temperature changes of warm
currents. Spence et al. (2014) analyzed the poleward shift in direction of the southern
hemisphere westerly winds since the 1950's and simulated the intense warming of coastal waters
27
561
associated with such a shift in order to explain and forecast the significant temperature increase
in ocean waters interacting with the base of ice sheets and floating ice shelves.This study serves
to validate the projection of the persistence of this wind trend and the resulting melting due to
warm current interaction. Separate from wind forcing,an increase in ocean surface stress due to
thinning of the formerly consolidated sea-ice cover near Antarctica is proposed to result in a
redirection of warm ocean currents into submarine glacial troughs and further expediting melting
of the deep ice-shelf base based on ocean-ice modeling (Hellmer et al., 2012). Ice sheet melt as
a result of interaction with warm currents is one of the dominant factors contributing to recent
global sea level rise (IPCC, 2013); however, as discussed in the next section, land based
contributions to global warming may further exacerbate sea level rise in the future.
THAWING PERMAFROST
The potential for significant additional emissions of carbon dioxide and methane from thawing
permafrost and the rate of occurrence continues to be investigated. The intricate feedback
mechanisms associated with permafrost are not well understood; as such, the IPCC did not
include permafrost thaw in its projections (Collins et al., 2013). This deficiency was criticized
publicly due to the theorized potential for permafrost carbon emissions to exceed emissions from
fossil fuel use. Schuur et al. 2013 conducted a survey of experts to quantify permafrost change
in response to four global warming scenarios and found despite risk for significant contributions
of emissions from thawing, fossil fuel combustion was likely to remain the main source of
emissions and climate forcing.until 2100 based on the proposed warming scenarios.
Following the release of the IPCC(2013)report,demand for research to understand the dynamics
of the physical and chemical permafrost processes has increased in order to confirm the
estimates of emissions from thawing. As an initial step,the occurrence of significant submarine
permafrost thawing was confirmed by Overduin et al. (2014) when 8 to 10°C of warming within
the permafrost layer was observed in less than 1,000 years, resulting in a degradation of ice-
bearing permafrost at the rate of 3 cm/yr. In addition, seawater seeping through soil pores was
identified as the source of sulfate necessary to oxidize methane in the upper layer of the thawing
permafrost.Although site specific,studies such as Overduin et al. (2014)will begin to provide the
information necessary to incorporate permafrost thawing into models and projections in the near
future.
REGIONAL/ LOCAL PROCESSES
VERTICAL LAND MOVEMENT
Vertical earth movements,which regionally and locally modify the globally averaged rate of sea
level change, result in a relative rate of change that varies from one location to another. These
28 .
562
land motions have been inferred from historical tide data and geodesic measurements. When
added to projected rates of global mean sea level rise, they result in a perceived change ranging
from increased rise in regions of subsidence (e.g., New Orleans) to falling sea levels where the
land is being uplifted (e.g., along the northern border of the Gulf of Alaska). Other regions are
geologically stable and have only small differences with respect to the global rate of change. In
South Florida, in general, coastal land elevations are considered to be relatively stable meaning
that the land is not experiencing significant uplift nor subsidence. It is also important to note,the
vertical land movement that is occurring is non-uniform across South Florida and movement
measured at specific monitoring stations sites may not reflect vertical land movement in adjacent
areas.
The Continuously Operating Reference (COR) network of permanent Global Positioning System
(GPS) receivers provides precise measurements of vertical land movement in four locations
throughout Southeast Florida (Key West, Virginia Key, Pompano Beach, and Palm Beach) over
periods of nine to eleven years.Additional continuous GPS measurements have been acquired in
eight other sites in the region over various time periods (two to eleven years). Precise analysis of
these data reveals negligible vertical movements at most stations (less than 1 mm/yr) (Snay et
al.,2007;Santamaria-Gomez et al.,2012;NGL,2015). However,some stations show 1 to 6 mm/yr
of subsidence, reflecting mostly local unstable conditions of the GPS antenna monument (e.g.,
local building movements) (e.g., Bock et al., 2012).
National Geodetic Survey has operated continuous GPS stations at Key West, Fort Lauderdale,
Miami and Palm Beach Gardens. The GPS data of these sites were processed by the Nevada
Geodetic Laboratory, who presents the results at GPS time series
(http://geodesy.unr.edu/index.php). The rates of vertical land movement at these stations are
shown in Table 1(Blewitt et al., 2015). It should be noted vertical land movement is non-uniform
across South Florida as a result of geology variations and the non-uniform compaction of fill
placed during development of the region. Subsidence at tide stations is closely monitored to
ensure the accuracy of sea level rise measurements.The regional rate of sea level rise is affected
by such localized subsidence and is accounted for in the regional sea level rise acceleration
variable incorporated in the projections adapted for the region.
29
563
•
Table 1: Continuous GPS Operation in Southeast Florida (Blewitt et al., 2015)
: Vertical rate
Site ` location : Duration
i (rrtrn/yr� ,
KYW1, Boca Chica Key 1997-2008 -0.5 ±0.1
KYWS Boca Chica Key 2007-present 0.1 ±0.1
KYW6 . Boca Chica Key 2007-present 1.0±0.1(uplift)
Key West airport 2003-present -1.5 ±0.1
CHIN Key West, 500 m south of 2008-presnt -1.6±0.5
tide gauge
Fort Lauderdale Executive 2005-2014;
LAUD • Air ort 2014-2015 -0.5± 1.1
P
2004-2008;
ZMAI Miami Airport 0.2±0.9
2008-present
FLC6• Florida City 2009-present -1.8± 1.2
North Palm Beach County
':-PBCH.. 2005-present 1.0±1.0(uplift)
Airport .
Additionally, in some regions, the effects of changing ocean currents can further modify the
relative local rate of sea level rise. Such is the case of the east coast of Florida, as is discussed in
the next section, Ocean Dynamics, Gulfstream/Circulation
OCEAN DYNAMICS, GULFSTREAM/ CIRCULATION
Ocean circulation has changed little during the current period of scientific observation,but in the
future it can considerably alter the relative rate of sea level rise in some regions, including
Southeast Florida.A slowing of the Florida Current and Gulf Stream will result in a more rapid sea
level rise along the east coast of North America. By 2100, these circulation changes could
contribute an extra 8 inches of sea level rise in New York and 3 inches in Miami according to Yin
et al. (2009). Most of the global climate models used by the IPCC(IPCC,2007; 2013) project a 20-
30% weakening of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), of which the Gulf
Stream and Florida Current are a part. Measurements of the AMOC have yet to conclusively
detect the beginning of this change,however there has been a report of a recent decline in AMOC
strength by Smeed et al. (2014) that coincides with the mid-Atlantic hotspot of sea level rise
reported by Ezer et al..(2013) and Rahmstorf et al. (2015). Recent analysis of the Florida Current
transport has detected a decrease in circulation over the last decade, which appears to account
30
564
for 60%of South Florida sea level rise over the decade and contribute to a positive acceleration
(Park and Sweet, 2015). If a long-term slowdown of the AMOC and Florida Current. Rahmstorf
et al. (2015) use a proxy method also suggesting that a slowdown of the AMOC has begun. If a
long-term slowdown of the AMOC does occur, sea level rise along the Florida east coast could
conceivably be as much as 20 cm (8 inches)greater than the global value by 2100.
According to the most recent estimates by the IPCC (IPCC 2013, FigureB-1), the combined
differential due to regional ocean heating and circulation change along the Southeast Florida
coast would be in the range of 10%-20% greater than the globally averaged rise by 2090. For a
median (50%probability)sea level rise of one meter by 2100,this would give about 10-20 cm (4-
8 inches) of additional rise along the Southeast Florida coast, which is within the range of
estimates by Yin et al. (2009). However, the IPCC models do not have the horizontal resolution
required to effectively estimate these changes at the scale of the Florida Current and more
research with higher resolution ocean models will be required.As such, it is prudent to add—15%
to the global mean sea level rise values projected by the IPCC in order to use them for Southeast
Florida planning. This adjustment is accounted for in the regional sea level rise coefficients
incorporated in the projections adapted for the region.
•
31
565
Percentage Deviation from Global Mean:Figure 3.21 of Ch.13.AR5
:r f
,_. -4 ) l ! ,
,-; ( / II /4-o-'-
�.-2 — :{: .
\ lr'
j i ■ 40
'77 ) /--K--'\cr:;:// 4 i 1
r `' 30
20
r:':fir`
f i V \ -Ci ft&s.—. ,,—
r- i f
:a i :,..
' 0
r w ■ •10
111L-S"\;L:X. .
, � � 4'r:, ,t, a' .10.4,,,,,. •20
t ,.
��e+r t 1M•x�y .sy w a..,
d
Figure B-1. Percentage of the deviation of the ensemble mean regional relative sea level
change between 1986-2005 and 2081-2100 from the global mean value, based on Figure
13.21, IPCC(2013). The figure was computed for RCP4.5, but to first order is representative
for all Representative Concentration Pathways(RCP). RCPs are the four greenhouse gas
concentration trajectories adopted by the IPCC for its fifth Assessment Report(AR5).
32
566
APPENDIX C: WORKGROUP COMMENTARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommendations made by the Work Group for consideration by the Southeast
Florida Regional Climate Compact Steering Committee to be used by the Compact Counties as
part of the implementation of the Regional Climate Change Action Plan.
a. The unified SE FL sea level rise projection will need to be reviewed as the scientific
understanding of ice melt dynamics improves. The projection should be revised within
five years of final approval of this document by the Southeast Regional Climate Change
Compact Steering Committee. This timing is consistent with the release of
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Sixth Assessment Report which will provide
a synthesis of the major findings in climate science to date.
b. Users of the projection should be aware that at any point of time, sea level rise is
a continuing trend and not an endpoint.
c. The planet is currently on a high emissions trajectory for which committed sea level rise
is probably near the high end of the ranges. It should also be noted that the attenuation
of impacts through mitigation will not likely be sufficient to overcome the inertia of the
climate system prior to 2060.
d. Full and complete transparency of the projection and its implications should be promoted
across the communities in order to encourage and guide effective and realistic planning,
obtain realistic economic realities for maintaining functional infrastructure, insuring
social and economically sound further development, and necessary adaptation.
e. Further work to develop projections for the occurrence of extreme events in tandem with
sea level rise may be necessary to assist communities in planning for storm drainage
adaptation.
33
567
•
APPENDIX D,ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF PARTICIPANTS.
The Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties (Monroe, Miami-Dade,
Broward and Palm Beach Counties) and their partners wish to acknowledge the Work Group
participants,and members of the SE FL Regional Climate Change Compact Steering Committee
for participating in meetings to support the development of the Unified Sea Level Rise Projection
and the guidance document. The following members contributed to the development and
refinement of the projection:
Danchuk, Samantha, Ph.D., P.E.
Berry, Leonard, Ph.D. •
Enfield, David, Ph.D.
Gassman, Nancy, Ph.D.
Harlem, Peter, Ph.D.
Hefty, Nichole •
Heimlich, Barry
Jurado,Jennifer, Ph.D.
Kivett,Jeff, P.E.
Landers, Glenn, P.E.
Murley,Jim
Obeysekera,Jayantha, Ph.D., P.E.
Park,Joseph, Ph.D., P.E.
Steelman, Marcia, C.F.M
Van Leer,John, Ph.D.
Wanless, Hal, Ph.D.
Wdowinski,Shimon, Ph.D.
34
568
APPENDIX E: DEVIATION FROM 2011 PROJECTION
The updated unified sea level rise projection includes the range projected by the 2011 unified
sea level rise projection with three enhancements. As described in previous paragraphs, the
yearthe projection begins was shifted from 2010 to 1992. Since the projection now references
the sea level rise that has occurred since 1992 instead of 2010, the values in the projection are
larger as a result of the sea having 8 more years to rise. For example, at the lower boundary of
the projection, by 2030, sea level rise is projected to be 5 inches above the where mean sea level
was in 1992. This is the exact same projected elevation as 3 inches above where the mean sea
level was in 2010,just a different elevation datum.Table 1 shows the adjustment of values from
the 2011 Unified Projection with a reference (starting) year of 1992. Please note the lower
boundary is the same in both the 2011 and 2015 projections. The second enhancement to the
projection was the extension of the projection past 2060 continuing to 2100. The third
enhancement to the projection was the addition of the NOAA High Curve as the upper boundary
after Year 2060. For critical infrastructure projects with design lives in excess of 50 years, use of
the upper curve is recommended with planning values of up to 34 inches in 2060 and up to 81
inches in 2100.
Table 2:Comparison of Unified Projection in 2011 and 2015 at Key West
2011 Unified
2011 Unified
Projection Projection 2015 Proposed Unified Projection
Year (adjusted to reference (referenced to Year 1992)
(referenced to Year 2010)
Year 1992) (inches above msl)
(inches above msl) (inches above msl)
NRC. NRC NRC NRC y�
• ;;;N�!� ;�iF}} 'i vcx ir' _�ii NOM•Curve I Curve III Curve I Curve III `�, t1;41��;7,jl�i.r i'��5[{;*t j'�',`
:+ ' 'F' dean" High High
7 19 7 (1987)
1 87
F..
(1987) 8 1 8 9 ,..,;
<;. ..� .�i, . {pit •�
2030 3 7 5 10 5 ,) s}'
,ii,,tkSHr�E+_.��S STi7f ..:J,i'::.:;.t.a .•
, 12
2060 9 24 11 26 �ti�}i rs )j �►,, : 1
146
t) , 15 20 3$`
.'tip if':}stir .` —.�• >.•
•2100 22 31 '`;'' '', 81
35
569
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
•
570
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
571
- .
zti e
l,.
, t---„4:,44.4-1j,,,...:5n. ,.. ,
..,-* ir
C
r � 1
E , jam.st•-
,::-_,,,,t,.
44 Is
CO
L.
tin .,
. i - 1
forrtiL
0
Cl.. r
U
>`
_ a)
L E -c
a) -0
0
a)a) ..c
i - O
C co
L-
•— L.- a
o a, .-
o o W 03
co c
a) v) =
co
w
m CI
>` V 4—a CL V a�
.—
CC
co co
L- C - -)
V .-
MIMMj a)
s-cu E a)c) ai E 4-, 4-f
U •..-
�, �, cc cu
'E O v O MO V) a) .L- vi
L L a-.+cc CO o
1- CO o�C Q V V
• . • •
E Q
= O
• O fa
L 13
E .O -
U
o_
co E J O
E o = to
L
C C CO ca
L :41,-0 c °'
be, co 4-J 03 fp
tap O cD> I.§ E v)
co .• ca =
CL on _c
V) O
CO ca '
1 >% •- 0 cn CO
C -a ._ z O \ ca
�
�
4-
Q) O m O
p L -0
._ •- w • _
c/> 4A > ca •—
0) a) 4-, co cu
C/ Q. a) =.:E 2 t;
> z v) v) = O O
O >' L_
N '(-7) 0 c-- .4-'_ L.L.#'‘
C_ cn
c O ._ _E
2oa. ago > - )
u - ' .L) E
.� V > ate,., i
•-
0_ _C o 0_ D § a