2002-24806 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2002-24806
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO REJECT THE ONLY
BID RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION TO BID NO. 41-00101, FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE GROUP "C" PARKS COMPRISED OF: FAIRWAY, MUSS
AND WASHINGTON PARKS.
WHEREAS, on October 8, 2001, DemandStar by Onvia ("DemandStar") issued Bid
notices to 1,741 prospective bidders, and the City's Procurement Division supplemented
DemandStar's broadcast list by sending the bid announcement via facsimile to the top 25
construction firms in South Florida; and
WHEREAS, on November 16, 2001, the City received one (1) responsive bid from
Regosa Engineering, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the Administration and the City's Consultant, REG Architects, Inc., have
evaluated the bid received and concluded that it is higher than the funding available for
construction for Muss and Fairway Parks.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, THAT THE MAYOR AND
CITY COMMISSION authorize the Administration to reject the only bid received in
response to Invitation to Bid No. 41-00/01, for the construction of the Group "C" parks
comprised of: Fairway, Muss and Washington parks.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 10th
day of April
ATTEST:
~dP~
CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDA\2002\MAR2002\CONSENTIResoGroupC,doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
All JlflL.IJ___ 1,-1/e- 0')..
'~D.
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
"""'iiiiiiiF'
Condensed Title:
Reject the Only Bid Received for the Construction of the Group "C" Parks Comprised of Fairway, Muss And
Washington Parks.
Issue:
I Whether to reject the only bid received.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
he bid documents specified that the work on the Group "C" Parks is to be completed under a single
)rime contract (all three parks or none).
"he Administration and the City's Consultant, REG Architects, Inc., have evaluated the bid received
land concluded that it is higher than the funding available for construction for Muss and Fairway Parks.
n-he Administration recommends that the bid be rejected, and invitation to bid be re-issued with the condition
hat the City may at its discretion award any or all of the Group "C" Parks to the "lowest and best bidder"
Jnder a single prime contract.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I N/A
Financial Information:
Amount to be expended:
D
Finance Dept.
Source of
Funds:
T:\AGENDA\2002\APR1002\REGULAR\SummaryGroupC.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
c78
9'-/CJ-a)...
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.ci.miami-beach.f1.us
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To:
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M, Gonzalez \. vJ'A
City Manager 0 v- U
From:
Date: April 10, 2002
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
REJECT THE ONLY BID RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO INVITATION TO
BID NO. 41-00/01, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE GROUP "C"
PARKS COMPRISED OF: FAIRWAY, MUSS AND WASHINGTON PARKS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Subject:
Adopt the Resolution,
ANALYSIS
On October 8, 2001, DemandStar by Onvia ("DemandStar") issued Bid notices to 1 ,741
prospective bidders, Additionally, the Procurement Division supplemented DemandStar's
broadcast list by sending the bid announcement via facsimile to the top 25 construction firms
in South Florida, The notices resulted in sixty-one (61) requests for plans and specifications
for the Project.
On November 16, 2001, the City received one (1) responsive bid, Vendors who had received
the plans and specifications were contacted to determine why they elected not to bid, and the
following responses were provided:
Company Name
Reason for not bidding
MCO Environmental
Project is too big as it is, Bond would
not cover all. Su ested breakdown
Time, Had other ro'ects oin on,
Time, Had other ro'ects oin on,
Did not remember exactly reason for
not bidding, but they would be
interested if re-biddin ,
Not their specialty. They are site
contractors (parking lots, etc)
Miami Sk line
R. L. Saum Construction
J,C,I. International
The Redland Co,
Jaffer Associates
They did bid as subcontractors for GC.
Their s ecialization is irri ation
Interested if Bid
re-issued?
Yes, if broken down
in two ro'ects
Yes,
Yes,
Yes,
Only if it was
negotiated with 2/3
contractors
Yes,as
subcontractor
Commission Memo
Group IIC" Parks
March 20, 2002
Page 2
The sole responsive bidder is Regosa Engineering, Inc. Regosa's bid includes all labor,
material, equipment and supervision necessary to complete the Group "C" parks in
accordance with the technical specifications and drawings,
The bid documents specified that the work on the Group "C" Parks is to be completed under a
single prime contract (all three parks or none).
The Administration and the City's Consultant, REG Architects, Inc" evaluated the bid received
and concluded that it is higher than the funding available for construction for Muss and Fairway
Parks,
On March 19, 2002, Regosa Engineering filed a protest pursuant to the City's Bid Protest
Ordinance. The City Manager withdrew his recommendation from the March 20 Commission
meeting in order to resolve the protest.
The basis for Regosa's protest was that the base bid amount for the Group "C" Parks
($1,310,000) is lower than the balance available for construction and contingency
($1,327,524), While on the surface and in isolation this statement was true, it is important to
note several things regarding the City's funding:
First, Fairway and Muss Parks are each partially funded by General Obligation (GO) Bond and
Miami-Dade County Safe Neighborhood Parks Bond (SNPB) dollars, Those dollars must be
spent within the respective parks and cannot be moved to other locations,
Second, the funding for Washington Park is from Miami-Dade County SNPB and South Pointe
Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Tax Increment Funding (TIF) dollars, These dollars can only
be spent within Washington Park,
Lastly, the City Commission approved at its March 20, 2002 meeting, $50,000 in Quality of Life
funding to be reallocated from the Fairway Park Project to another project. Thereby decreasing
the funding available for Group C Parks to $1,277,524 ($1,327,524 - $50,000).
We have attached a spreadsheet illustrating the City's available funding compared to Regosa's
Bid, Based on this action, you can see that the City does not have sufficient overall funds
($1,277,524) for the base bid for all three parks combined ($1,310,000), Additionally, when
restricted fund sources are taken into consideration, this problem is exacerbated and there is
not enough money to fund the individual base bids, and certainly not enough to fund the 10%
contingency that the City programs for similar projects.
The attached spreadsheet reflects that the total funding available for construction after
contingency is set aside, is only $1 ,149,772 as compared to Regosa's bid of$1,310,000, After
reducing the City's available funding by the funding available for Washington Park only, the
City's funding for construction is reduced to $1,049,098 ($1,149,772 - $100,674),
. Commission Memo
Group "C" Parks
March 20, 2002
Page 3
In reply to Regosa's protest letter dated March 20, 2002, the Administration cannot
recommend the award of a contract unless the necessary funds are available. And since there
is not enough money to fund the individual base bids, and certainly not enough to fund the
10% contingency that the City programs for similar projects, Regosa's request to be
recommended for the contract award was denied,
The Administration recommends that the bid be rejected, and an Invitation for Bids be re-
issued with the condition that the City may at its discretion award any or all of the Group "C"
Parks to the "lowest and best bidder" under a single prime contract.
JM . A :TH:~
T:~02\APR1002\REGJLAR\GrOuPc.dOC
Q)
o
IE
o
:::c l/)
Ut)
i1i.~
m2
_0.
:Ee
c(Q)
-E
:E Q)
u. >
o 2
~~
(316
-
'0..
co
U
+
"C
iii Co)
CD 1 i
=le.....
mCD"
~z8
I-
000
000
000
a:ia:illi
,...en<o
0...... .....
tA- tA- ~
UCD 000
ell) 8g8
Q)&f g~~
~ !~I
o CD
O-a
"#. CD
0Q)
...z
tA-~~
Q) 000
lI)e 000
1110 000
m:;::l 000
" Co) -al co co 10
-" 2 .- en ..... .....
lI)1i)m
o e
o
0:::0
l/)
c::
o
:;::;
~
:J
o
Cii
U
Q)
t:n
~
o
.s::
C/)
C)
c::
:0
c::
:J
U.
l/)
~
....
lU
0.
U
a.
;:J
2
(!)
-
Q)
-a
=
CD
~ tA- tA-
co en,...
,....0<0
COIl)IO
IN" a:i cO
-CO.....N
-a
=
CD
~~tA-
e 010,....
iJ -!~~
"-a~COM
1i)=.....T-N
em
o
o ~tA-~
~
....
lU
~ c.
~11U ~ 5
".......-
D. >- lU t:n
lU 0. .5
~~~
.- ;:J lU
~:ES:
o
o
q
.....
~
~.
.....
~
o
o
q
.....
M
.....
~
o
o
o
o
.....
M
T-
~
~
N
10
~
,...
N..
.....
tA-
N
Il)
,....
~
N
T-
~
N
,....
,....
a>
~
.....
.....
~
C/)
...J
~
o
I-
.
. .
. . .
CD
,,~
1:: ..
o "
.cD.
en ..
_ CD
"D.
'0
I-
~CO~
~o,....
Nenco
"':N"o
10.....0
~"-"'.,.-
tA- ~ tA-
-
~Ol"'"
! 1::1" ~ g ~
:;::l 0
e.c
oen
o
~~~
e oi:O,....
~ ~~-~.~.
u IOMen
=~M""'CO
..'CN-
-0-
lI).c
aU)
o
tA- tA- tA-
~
....
lU
~ 0.
~I ffi~ 5
,,0.....-
D. __ co C)
ro c.. c
:O!l/):E
Co l/) (I)
~~~
:E
a.
co
~
"'i
N
o
o
~
,....
~
M
c
.0
c5:;::;
0:0=0 ~
:ai~.Q
~.Qffi
....ffi"3
lU - 0
:;~:e
.g .- lU
t t a.
lU lU l/)
a. a.._
(I) .~ :5
:E:5.9
~.9-o
-"'O~
-oQ) Q) .g
.....0.1:;
.g :s 13
-l/)....
13 ~ ~
.... Q) lU
Q).....s::
ffi lU 0
.s::13:E
.g :E ~
.s:: ~ -
~ .f!?
urf!?,m
]i,m.g
C5.gc(
-0-00
-Oc::D:::
5 0 Q)
mme
~ 1!: '0
....lUQ.
~a..s::
g8g
.s::tC/)
o,g"g
..o.s::lU
a .Ql -0
.- Q) C
Q) Z 0
z m
Q)~~
1U~ffi
cn-oQ.
-Oc-O
c:: lU 0
co "'0 0
"Oc::t
c:: 0 0
Om..o
m .s::
OO.Ql
(!)(!)Q)
>-2
>'..0 Q)
..ot-
tcolU
co c.. (I)
a.c::>-
C ._ ..0
~"O~
Q)Q)-o
-o"gc::
c:: :J :J
:JLLU.
U. .
. .
. . .
.....
-
o
T-
Q)
C)
co
0.
l/)
~
'N
(;)
c::
o
:;::;
lU
"3
o
Cii
~
l/)
~
2
c..
u
a.
;:J
2
(!)