LTC 274-2002
~.~,-~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Office of the City Manager
Letter to Commission No. c97-(j-.::>c:x:J-:J..
m
From:
Mayor David Dermer and Date: December 9, 2002
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez \ _./
City Manager G ef'11
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC.
To:
Subject:
The purpose of this LTC is to transmit the investigator's report and the final disposition of
the Debarment Committee relative to the above referenced architect's work on the 6th
Street Community Center Project. While there were things that REG should have known or
done, the investigator, Mr. Dan Davis, and the Debarment Committee did not find cause for
debarment.
Debarment Committee Decision
On October 16, 2002, pursuant to Section 2-405 of the City Code, the Debarment
Committee (the "Committee") conducted a hearing on the proposed debarment of REG
Architects ("REG"). The Committee listened to a presentation from Mr. Dan Davis,
Investigator, which included his findings, opinions, and recommendations. Additionally, the
Committee conducted a question and answer session with Mr. Colin Price, Vice President
of REG Architects, and with Mr. Dan Davis.
After concluding its question and answer session with the investigator (Mr. Davis), the
Committee deliberated, and Committee member Todd Tautfest made the following motion,
which was seconded by Committee member Natascia Ayers Deshayes, and unanimously
approved by the Committee:
Based on the investigator's report, as written, there does not appear to be
anything found to substantiate debarment against REG. Therefore, I move to
dismiss the complaint filed against REG Architects.
Process
This process began on December 13, 2001, when Mr. Victor Diaz filed a complaint as a
citizen-at-Iarge, to the City Manager. Mr. Diaz's complaint was pursuant to Section 2-
405(a), which states that requests for the debarment of contractors may be initiated by a
city department or by a citizen-at-Iarge and shall be made in writing to the office of the City
Manager.
On February 20, 2002, the City Manager recommended that Mr. Daniel Davis, Attorney
and Engineer, be hired to perform investigative services. Resolution No. 2002-24737 was
adopted by the Mayor and City Commission, which authorized the execution of an
agreement with Mr. Davis in an amount not to exceed $20,000.
On June 18,2002, the Debarment Committee convened and was provided with a briefing
from the City Attomey's office and the Procurement Division, relative to the following:
a. Public Records;
b. Sunshine Law;
c. Conflict of Interest;
d. Lobbying; and
e. Debarment procedures.
On July 31, 2002, Mr. Davis completed his report of investigation of the proposed
debarment of REG Architects, Inc. with respect to the A & E contract on the South Shore
Community Center.
October 16, 2002, pursuant to Section 2-405 of the City Code, the Debarment Committee
convened to conduct its proceedings. All interested parties (i.e. Mr. Diaz, Mr. Davis, and
REG Architects) were notified of said meeting.
Summary of Flndinas
1. REG did not overstate the cost of repair of the project, and its probable cost of
new construction was reasonably close to the final report ofthe probable costs.
2. REG should have obtained copies of the original building plans ofthe Center in
conjunction with its work under the Schematic Design Phase of its Agreement
with the CMB. However, it is apparent that prior to July 6, 2000 either REG was
not aware that Morris Lapidus was the architect of the South Shore Community
Center, or did not believe that fact to be sufficiently significant to warrant
disclosure.
3. REG never committed to have the construction completed by any date. REG's
timetables estimate the date of commencement of construction, but do not
address the date of completion. Inasmuch as the architect does not control the
contractor on a construction project, it would be inappropriate for REG to commit
for a date of completion of the construction.
4. There is no evidence in the documentation that REG was initially informed that
phased construction was a consideration in its planning. And when REG was
notified to provide for phased construction, it took immediate steps to
accommodate the request by providing sketches indicating the temporary
relocation of the tenants during the construction process.
5. While REG was remiss in failing to force resolution of this critical design
element, the City initially assumed the responsibility for resolving the problem by
undertaking to obtain a variance from its own board. The City withdrew the
application for variance, but no one re-initiated the application process or
directed REG to flood proof the building. Ultimately, the problem was resolved
as initially projected: by the City Flood Plain Management Board granting a
variance.
6. The documentation is replete with evidence of efforts the City's Building
Department's help obtain a permit. But the implication that the Building
Department gave REG preferential treatment in the permitting process is mis-
founded.
7. The calculations of the two structural engineering consultants engaged by REG
were consistent.
Conclusion
Pursuant to Section 2-405(4) of the City Code, the Debarment Committee conducted its
proceedings and determined that based on the investigator's report, as written, there does
not appear to be anything found to substantiate debarment against REG. Therefore, the
Debarment Committee dismissed the complaint filed against REG Architects. The
Debarment Committee's decision is final.
As a result of the "lessons learned" on this debarment process, the City Attorney's office in
coordination with the Administration, and as a result of feedback obtained from the
Community Affairs Committee, will be recommending amendments to Section 2-405 of the
City Code, entitled Debarment procedures. Said amendments will be presented for first
reading in January 2003.
Please advise if additional information is required.
Attachment: Mr. Dan Davis' Investigation Report
C: Mayra Diaz Buttacavoli
Assistant City Manager
Raul Aguila
First Assistant City Attorney
Timothy Hemstreet
CIP Director
GusLopez,CPPO,CPPB
Procurement Director/Liaison to Debarment Committee
F:\PURCI$ALL\GUSIL TCIDebannent.doc
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE
PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC.
WITH RESPECT TO
A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
PURSUANT TO CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
ORDINANCE NO. 2000-3234, 91, 2-23-00
prepared by:
Daniel Davis, Esq.
1313 Ponce de Leon Boulevard
Suite 200
Coral Gables, Florida 33134
tel: (305) 446-2517
July 31, 2002
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
INDEX
Exhibits Index. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . i
Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1
The Complaint ............................................,.......... 2
Findings ............................................................ 4
A. REG overstated the cost of repair of the Project, and the cost of repair
of the Project was in excess of the cost of replacement of the Project ....... 4
B. REG failed to report that the project was designed by Morris Lapidus
or inform the CMB of its historic value. ............................,. 11
C. REG missed numerous deadlines in providing the delivery of construction
documents. REG failed to timely provide documents so that construction
could be commenced in June, 2001 and completed in August, 2001 as
committed .................................................... 14
D. REG failed to provide for phased construction, including the relocation of
existing tenants without displacing them ............................. 26
E. After the construction documents were to be completed, REG first informed
the CMB that the air conditioning system needed replacement, meaning
that phased construction was impractical ............................ 29
F. After the construction documents were to be completed, REG first informed
the CMB that a fire sprinkler system was required. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 29
G. REG failed to resolve the FEMA flood plain requirements, notwithstanding
the issue was raised a year earlier. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 31
H. As of January, 2002 the construction documents are still not complete
notwithstanding the CMB Building Department's "bending over backwards
to help" . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 35
I. The original FEMA calculations provided by REG were incorrect, causing
REG to engage another consultant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 36
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
EXHIBIT INDEX
CMB Code SS 2-397 through 2-407, Debarment of Contractors from City Work . . . .. 1
Victor Diaz's request to CMB for debarment: 12-13-01 ........................ 2
REG's Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization Analysis
("May 17 Report"): 05-17-00 ....................................... 3
Del Vecchio's Memorandum: 07-03-00 .................................... 4
REG letter to Michel Magloire: 07-11-00 ................................... 5
Michel Magloire memorandum to Annabelle Sanz: 06-12-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6
Matthew Schwartz letter to Frank Del Vecchio: 08-03-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7
REG's Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization Analysis
("July 13 Report"): 07-13-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . .. 8
REG letter to Michel Magloire: 07-17-00 ................................... 9
South Shore Community Center Report: 08-07-00. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10
REG's Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization Analysis
("September 20 Report"): 09-20-00 ............. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11
REG's Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization Analysis
("September 25 Report"): 09-25-00 ..... , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 12
Victor Diaz letter to Nancy Liebman: 07-06-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .'. . . . .. 13
Reuben Caldwell memorandum to Michel Magloire: 07-13-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 14
William H. Cary memorandum to Hamid Dolikhani: 11-28-00 .................. 15
Contract between CMB and REG: 07-16-97 ............................... 16
CMB Resolution 98-22848: 07-15-98 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17
Amendment No.2 to REG Contract: 02-01-00 . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. 18
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Exhibits Index (Continued)
Michel Magloire letter to REG: 10-13-00 .................................. 19
Philip Azan memorandum to Chairman, Flood Plain Management Board
("Azan Letter"): 12-15-00 ............................... _ . . . . . . . .. 20
REG letter to Michel Magloire: 12-06-00 .................................. 21
REG letter to M-D Board of Rules and Appeals: 01-25-01 ................ . . . .. 22
M-D Board of Rules and Appeals letter to REG: 02-23-01 .......... . . . . . . . . . .. 23
Michel Magloire letter to REG: 02-22-01 .................................. 24
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire ("REG Schedule"): 02-28-01 . . . . . . . . . . . .. 25
REG fax to Carla Dixon: 03-07-01 ....................................... 26
Christina Cuervo letter to Margarita Cepeda: 03-12-01 ....................... 27
REG fax transmittal to Michel Magloire: 03-07-01 ........................... 28
Michel Magloire letter to REG: 03-16-01 .................................. 29
Carla Dixon letter to REG: 04-09-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. 30
REG fax to Michel Magloire ("REG Revised Schedule"): 04-16-01 .............. 31
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire: 05-16-01 ........................... 32
REG fax transmittal to Michel Magloire: 05-22-01 ........................... 33
Brad Judd memorandum to Michel Magloire: 05-22-01 ....................... 34
Carla Dixon letter to REG: 05-24-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .. 35
REG fax transmittal to Carla Dixon: 05-29-01 .............................. 36
REG fax transmittal to Michel Magloire: 06-01-01 ........................... 37
ii
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Exhibits Index (Continued)
REG Meeting Minutes: 06-07-01 ........................................ 38
David Moslemian letter to REG: 06-14-01 ................................. 39
REG fax transmittal to Carla Dixon: 06-28-01 .............................. 40
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire: 07-09-01 ........................... 41
Michel Magloire letter to REG: 07-12-01 .................................. 42
REG letter to Carl Hastings: 09-06-01 ..........................,......... 43
Brad Judd memorandum to Carl Hastings: 09-07-01 ......................... 44
Carl Hastings letter to REG: 09-12-01 .................................... 45
REG letter to Carl Hastings: 09-18-01 .................................... 46
Carl Hastings memorandum to Tim Hemstreet: 10-03-01 ..................... 47
CMB Permit Application: 10-04-01 ....................................... 48
South Shore Community Center Renovation Project Meeting Agenda: 10-26-01 ... 49
REG Re-Iocation Sketches: 08-08-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 50
REG Project Time Line: 08-08-01 ....................................... 51
REG letter to Carl Hastings: 10-01-01 .................................... 52
REG Construction Schedules: 10-03-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 53
Carl Hastings memo to Tim Hemstreet: 12-14-01 ........................... 54
REG memorandum to Carl Hastings: 12-28-01 ............................. 55
REG letter to Carl Hastings: 01-04-01 .................................... 56
.
REG draft letter to Michel Magloire: 07-07-00 ...............,....,......... 57
Hi
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Exhibits Index (Continued)
South Shore Community Report: 08-07-00 ................................ 58
Jorge Gonzalez memorandum to G.O. Bond Task Force: 09-11-00 ............. 59
REG fax to Michel Magloire: 11-20-00 ................... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 60
Matthew Schwartz letter to CMB Flood Plain Management Board: 01-04-01 . . . . . .. 61
Carl Hastings memorandum to Jorge Gonzalez: 12-13-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 62
Christopher E. Pruitt memorandum to REG: 12-21-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 63
REG letter to Tim Hemstreet: 12-28-01 ................................... 64
Sinclair Engineering Company letter to REG: 03-05-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 65
Sinclair Engineering Company letter to REG: 03-22-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 66
REG letter to Carl Hastings; 04-10-02 .................................... 67
CMB Plans Processors' Review Sheets: 10-12, 14, and 18-02 .......,......... 68
Carl Hastings letter to REG: 03-07-02 .................................... 69
REG letter to CMB Flood Plain Management Board: 01-02-01 ................. 70
CRA Clarke, Inc. letter to Carla Dixon: 01-04-01 ............................ 71
iv
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
AUTHORITY
City of Miami Beach ("CMB") Ordinance No. 2000-3234, ~1, 2-23-00 ("Ordinance")
provides that:
Requests for the debarment of contractors may be initiated by
a city department or by a citizen-at-Iarge and shall be made in
writing to the office of the city manager. Upon receipt of a
request for debarment, the city manager shall transmit the
request to the mayor and city commission at a regularly
scheduled meeting. The mayor and city commission shall
transmit the request to a person or persons who shall be
charged by the city commission with the duty of promptly
investigating and preparing a written report(s) concerning the
proposed debarment, including the cause and grounds for
debarment, as set forth in this division.1
On December 13, 2001 Victor Diaz, a resident of the CMB, president of the not-for-
profit One Stop Career Center located at the South Shore Community Center ("Center"),
and member of the GO Bond Project Oversight Committee, filed a written request that
"pursuant to Section 2-405 of the City Code, ... debarment proceedings be initiated against
REG Architects for their careless, sloppy and untimely performance of the A&E Contract
on the South Shore Community Center ("Project")."2
On February 20, 2002 at a regularly scheduled meeting of the CMB commission,
the CMB mayor and commission appointed undersigned to carry out the duties described
in the Ordinance. Pursuant to said assignment undersigned has reviewed the complete
2
CMB Code ~ 2-405 (a) (Exhibit 1 @ pp 5).
Victor Diaz letter to Jorge Gonzalez dated December 13, 2001 (Exhibit 2).
1
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
file provided by CMB City Manager with respect to the Project, visited the Project site, and
conducted face-to-face or telephone interviews with the following individuals: Victor Diaz,
the complainant; Michel Magloire, CMB Senior Capital Projects Coordinator; Carl Hastings,
CMB Senior Capital Projects Coordinator; Colin Price, Director of Operations of REG
Architects, Inc.; Frank Del Vecchio, memberofthe GO Bond Project Oversight Committee;
Jorge Gonzalez, CMB City Manager; Tim Hemstreet, CMB Special Assistant to the City
Manager; Brad Judd, CMB Director of Property Management; Ralph Moreno, CMB ,
Property Management Air Conditioning Supervisor; and PhilipAzan, CMB Building Official.
As a result of the above described interviews and analysis of the information and materials
that were gathered, the following was determined:
THE COMPLAINT
Victor Diaz articulated that his complaint was predicated on the over-all deficient
performance of REG Architects, Inc. ("REG") with respect to the Project, and cited the
following specific examples:
1.
REG overstated the cost of repair of the Project, and the cost of repair of the
Project was in excess of the cost of replacement of the Project.
2.
REG failed to report that the Project was designed by Morris Lapidus or
inform the CMB of its historic value.
3.
REG missed numerous deadlines in providing the delivery of construction
3
All documents incorporated in this report are as provided by CMB unless
otherwise indicated.
2
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
documents. REG failed to timely provide documents so that construction
could be commenced in June, 2001 and completed in August, 2001 as
committed.
4. REG failed to provide for phased construction, including the relocation of
existing tenants without displacing them.
5. After the construction documents were to be completed, REG first informed
the CMB that the air conditioning system needed replacement, meaning that
phased construction was impractical.
6. After the construction documents were to be completed, REG first informed
the CMB that a fire sprinkler system was required.
7. REG failed to resolve the FEMA flood plain requirements, notwithstanding
the issue was raised a year earlier.
8. As of January, 2002 the construction documents are still not complete
notwithstanding the CMB Building Department's "bending over backwards to
help."
9. The original FEMA calculations provided by REG were incorrect, causing
REG to engage another consultant.
3
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
FINDINGS
A. REG OVERSTATED THE COSTOF REPAIROFTHE PROJECT, AND THE COST
OF REPAIR OF THE PROJECT WAS IN EXCESS OF THE COST OF
REPLACEMENT OF THE PROJECT.
On or about May 17, 2000 REG delivered its report entitled, "City of Miami Beach
South Shore Community Center Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis" ("May 17 Report"),4 to the Parks Department which transmitted it to the
City Manager's Office which in-turn placed it on the CMB Finance and Citywide Projects
Committee agenda for June 6,20005where it was presented by REG.6 Included within the
May 17 Report was Exhibit "A," Opinion of Probable Cost for Renovation Improvements,
in which estimates of renovation costs were reported as follows:7
I. Maintenance Items
The following items have been placed in priority order:
1. New roofing system, double-T joint filler, insulation and
storm water improvements
2.
$ 150,000.00
Existing HV AC system demolition
$ 45,000.00
4
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated May 17, 2000 (Exhibit 3).
Letter from Matthew Schwartz, Assistant City Manager, to Frank Del
Vecchio, dated August 3, 2000 (Exhibit No.7).
Discussion with Tim Hemstreet on July 30, 2002.
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated May 17, 2000 (Exhibit 3 @ pp 16).
4
5
6
7
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
3. Complete HV AC system replacement $ 19,000.00
4. Window replacement at second floor level $ 36,000.00
5. Electrical swichboard [sic] replacement $ 55,000.00
6. Ground floor storefront replacement $ 43,500.00
7. Lighting Improvements $ 32,000.00
Total Recommended Maintenance Improvements 1,139,500.00
* Note: No provision for asbestos has been included in this estimate
II. Renovation Items
1. ADA Compliance upgrades throughout facility, including $ 120,000.00
restrooms, access to parking, life safety issues and door
hardware.
2. Accommodate existing tenants immediate and possible $ 95,000.00
future programming needs: computer/ Internet stations,
minor office space modifications, etc.
3. Renovate interior spaces: new paint, flooring, ceilings as $ 95,000.00
needed, sound attenuation/ proofing in day care area.
4. Renovate tot lot and playground. $ 95,000.00
5. Sandblast, repair, and waterproof exterior. $ 100,000.00
6. Landscaping improvements: remove exterior planters $ 100,000.00
filled with concrete, new planting/ garden areas, sod, and
irrigation.
7. Multipurpose auditorium renovated, etc. $ 95,000.00
Total Budget for Renovation Items $ 700,000.00
5
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Tota~ Maintenance and Renovation Budget
$1,839,500.00
In comparison, Exhibit "B" of the May 17 Report, Opinion of Probable Cost for New
Construction, reported the costs of demolition and construction of a new Community
Center as follows:8
I. Demolition
The following items have been placed in priority order:
1.
2.
Demolition of existing structure
Site preparation for new structure
Total Demolition
$ 85,000.00
$ 5,000.00
$ 90,000.00
* Note: No provision for asbestos has been included in this estimate
II. New Community Center
1. Day care center 3,600 sf $ 280,000.00
2. 2 Story office and education center , 9,000 sf $ 675,000.00
3. Rest rooms 1,500 sf $ 128,000.00
4. Reception hall/auditorium 3,600 sf $ 180,000.00
5. Equipment areas 1,800 sf $ 99,000.00
Total area 19,500 sf $1,362,000.00
Total demolition and site preparation $ 30,000.00
10% Mobilization $ 139,200.00
10% Unforeseen $ 139,200.00
8
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated May 17, 2000 (Exhibit 3 @ pp 18).
6
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Total Construction Budget
$1,670,400.00
Even a cursory review of the two Exhibits discloses two inconsistencies. First, the
sum of the "Maintenance Items" listed in Exhibit "A" is $380,500.00, not $1,139,500.00 as
reported; an apparent overstatement of the Total Recommended Maintenance
Improvements in the amount of $759,000.00. This discrepancy was first disclosed on July
3,2000 by Frank Del Vecchio ("Del Vecchio's Memorandum").9
The second inconsistency occurs in Exhibit "B," the calculation of the Probable
Costs for New Construction. Although the total demolition cost, itemized under paragraph
I is in the amount of $90,000.00, the figure is restated in paragraph" as $30,000.00; an
apparent understatement of the Total Construction Budget in the amount of $60,000.00.
As a result of the two inconsistencies it was reported that the Opinion of Probable Cost of
New Construction, $1,670,400.00, is $169,100.00 less than the Opinion of Probable Cost
of Renovation Improvements, $1,839,500.00.
On or about July 11, 2000 in response to Del Vecchio's Memorandum. and
prompted by a memorandum from Michel Magloire dated July 5,200010, REG first informed
that the May 17 Report was intended as a draft and not intended for general distribution,
and enclosed a Revised Exhibit "A" ("REG July 11 , 2000 Letter").11 While Exhibit "A" of the
May 17 Report contained only 7 Maintenance Items, Revised Exhibit "A" of the REG July
9
Memorandum from Frank Del Vecchio to Lawrence A. Levy dated July 3,
2000 (Exhibit 4).
10
CMB's documents did not include the memorandum from Mr. Magloire
dated July 7,2000, but it's existence is referenced in REG's July 11, 2000
correspondence (See Exhibit 5).
REG letter to Michel Magloire dated July 11, 2000 (Exhibit 5).
7
11
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
11, 2000 Letter included 14, the first seven of which have identical descriptions to those
in the original Exhibit "A." Apparently, items 8 through 14 in the REG July 11,2000 Letter
were either intentionally or inadvertently omitted from the May 17 Report.
Interestingly, item 3 of the original Exhibit "A" for complete HVAC system
replacement was listed at $19,000.00 while the same description in Revised Exhibit "A"
was listed at $195,000.00. This would lend credence to REG's statement that the May 17
Report was not finalized. Moreover, on June 12, 2000, after the May 17 Report was
released, but prior to the disclosure of apparent discrepancies in Del Vecchio's
Memorandum, Michel Magloire reported to Annabelle Sanz that the Probable Cost for
Renovation, Exhibit "A," had been revised ,by REG from $1,839,500 to $1,460,200,12
lending additional support to REG's statements that the May 17 Report was neither
finalized nor intended for general distribution. Finally, on August 3, 2000 Matthew
Schwartz issued correspondence to Mr. Del Vecchio responsive to Del Vecchio's
Memorandum in which he stated among other things that:
. The May 17 Report was inappropriately submitted by CMB staff to the
Finance Committee prior to a proper internal review;
. The May 17 Report was inadvertently placed on the CMB Finance and
Citywide Projects Committee agenda by the CMB Manager's Office;
. The May 17 Report was not submitted to the Project Manager for review
when submitted to CMB;
. Numerous elements necessary for a proper determination were not known
or included in the May 17 Report; and
12
Michel Magloire memorandum to Annabelle Sanz dated June 12, 2000
(Exhibit 6).
8
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
. The May 17 Report is not considered to be a final report.13
After REG provided its Revised Exhibit "A" on July 11,2000, it continued to analyze
and evaluate the estimated costs of new construction and renovation of the Center. On
July 13, 2000 REG issued a revised version of its Existing Building Conditions
Observations & Program Utilization Analysis ("July 13 Report").14 On July 17, 2000 REG
revised its correspondence to Michel Magloire dated July 11, 2000.15 On or about August
7,2000 it was determined that the preliminary studies should include an asbestos survey
of the building, an appraisal of the building, reclassification of the building as an historic
contributing structure, and investigation of obtaining a flood variance. 16 On September 20,
2000 REG issued its "Final Draft" of the Existing Building Conditions Observations &
Program Utilization Analysis ("September 20 Report").17 On September 25, 2000 REG
issued its "final" Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program Utilization Analysis
("September 25 Report"). 18
Issue: Whether REG overstated the cost of repair of the project, and the cost of
repair of the project was in excess of the cost of replacement fo the projoct.
13
Matthew Schwartz letter to Frank Del Vecchio dated August 3, 2000
(Exhibit 7).
14
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated July 13, 2000 (Exhibit 8).
REG letter to Michel Magloire dated July 17, 2000 (Exhibit 9).
South Shore Community Center Report dated August 7,2000 (Exhibit 10).
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated September 20, 2000 (Exhibit 11).
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated September 25, 2000 (Exhibit 12).
9
15
16
17
18
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Ooinion: It can be seen by review of REG's estimates that the preliminary estimate
for 100% Renovation provided in the May 17 Report was reasonably close to its final
reported estimate (6% greater than finally reported), and that its estimate for the cost of
100% Renovation varied from 10% more than New Construction to virtually the same as
New Construction, as follows:
I n summary it appears that the May 17 Report was preliminary and not intended for
distribution; the May 17 Report estimate of the cost of renovation was not overstated; and
19
A "minimum" renovation. Option "A," was also provided at the estimated
cost of $1 ,449.294.00.
20
A "minimum" renovation, Option "A," was also provided at the estimated
cost of $1 ,499,108.00.
10
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
the May 17 Report indicated the Probable Cost of Renovation to be 10% greater than its
Probable Cost of New Construction which was reasonably close to the final report of
probable costs.
B. REG FAILED TO REPORT THAT THE PROJECT WAS DESIGNED BY MORRIS
LAPIDUS OR INFORM THE CMB OF ITS HISTORIC VALUE.
The May 17 Report contains the following statement:
Constructed in 1969, the structure has undergone several
modifications in 1974 and 1979 in order to keep up with the
growing and changing needs of the community.21
The May 17 Report also advocates demolition of the structure and the erection of a new
replacement facility.22
In response to the May 17 Report, Victor Diaz reported to CMB Commissioner,
Nancy Liebman on July 6, 2000 that pursuant to his request CMB conducted an
investigation of the architectural origin ofthe building, and determined that the South Shore
Community Center was designed by Morris Lapidus.23
The July 13 Report contains the following statement:
Designed by Morris Lapidus in 1969 and constructed in the
early 1970's the structure has undergone several modifications
in 1974 and 1979 in order to keep up with the growing and
22
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated May 17, 2000 (Exhibit 3 @ pp 4).
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated May 17, 2000 (Exhibit 3 @ pp 5).
Victor Diaz letter to Nancy Liebman dated July 6, 2000 (Exhibit 13).
11
21
23
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHOaE COMMUNITY CENTER
changing needs of the community.24
Both the September 20 Report,25 and the September 25 Report26 contain the
following statement:
Designed by prominent Miami Beach Architect Morris Lapidus
in 1969 and constructed in the early 1970's the structure has
undergone several modifications in 1974 and 1979 in order to
keep up with the growing and changing needs of the
community.
However, aside from the documents identifying the structure's architectural origins
no documentation provided in this investigation dated prior to August 19, 2000
demonstrates the building's historical significance. Moreover, it appears that the historic
value of this building was not given any consideration until July 13, 2000, when the
relevance of the building's historical significance as it applied to the proposed renovations
was discussed as follows:
.
A meeting was held on July 13, 2000 to determine strategies that would
result in renovating the building in compliance with the 50% Rule.27
24
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated July 13, 2000 (Exhibit 8 @ pp 5).
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated September 20, 2000 (Exhibit 11 @ pp 5).
REG's Report of Existing Building Conditions Observations & Program
Utilization Analysis dated September 25, 2000 (Exhibit 12 @ pp 5).
In general, the 50% Rule provides that where renovations or additions to
an existing building are to be constructed, and said renovations or
additions have an estimated cost in excess of 50% of the appraised value
of the existing structure, then certain contemporary requirements must be
met for which the building was previously exempt.
25
26
27
12
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
. The relevant consideration was compliance with the Flood Plane
Management Criteria. The first floor of the South Shore Community Center
is at elevation six (6) feet, and the required elevation is eight (8) foot,
minimum.
. The strategy under consideration involved Section 8-15 (~~) of the CMB's
Flood Plane Management Ordinance, which states that variances can be
issued for renovations above 50% by the Flood Plane Management Board
provided that the existing structure is a "contributing structure" within a local,
state or federally designated historic district.
. The South Shore Community Center was not listed as a "contributing
structure," but it did lie within the National Register Architectural District as
well as the Local Flamingo Park Historic District and was fully eligible for
reclassification as a "contributing structure."28
The South Shore Community Center was designated a contributingstructure by the
Historic Preservation Board on August 10, 2000.29
Issues: (1) Whether REG failed to report that the project was designed by Morris
Lapidus, and (2) Whether REG failed to inform the CMB of the project's historic value.
28
Reuben Caldwell memorandum to Michel Magloire dated July 14, 2000
(Exhibit 14).
29
William H. Cary memorandum to Hamid Dolikhani dated November 28,
2000 (Exhibit 15).
13
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Ooinion: As a routine matter, REG should have obtained copies of the original
building plans of the Center in conjunction with its work underthe Schematic Design Phase
of its Agreement with the CMB.30 However, it is apparent that prior to July 6, 2000 either
REG was not aware that Morris Lapidus was the architect of the South Shore Community
Center, or did not believe that fact to be sufficiently significant to warrant disclosure. It
further appears that prior to its designation on August 10, 2000 the South Shore
Community Center was not officially recognized as having historic value.
C. REG MISSED NUMEROUS DEADLINES IN PROVIDING THE DELIVERY OF
CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. REG FAILED TO TIMELY PROVIDE
DOCUMENTS SO THAT CONSTRUCTION COULD BE COMMENCED IN JUNE,
2001 AND COMPLETED IN AUGUST, 2001 AS COMMITTED.
On July 16, 1997 CMB and REG entered into a written contract wherein REG would,
among other things, provide architectural services for the South Shore Community Center
("REG Contract").31 On or about July 15, 1998 CMB reduced the scope of the REG
Contract, temporarily eliminating the South Shore Community Center project from REG's
scope of work.32 On February 1, 2000 CMB and REG entered into Amendment No.2 of
the REG Contract wherein the South Shore Community Center was added to other projects
30
Agreement between City of Miami Beach and REG Architects, Inc. dated
July 16, 1997 (Exhibit 16 @ pp 9).
31
Agreement between City of Miami Beach and REG Architects, Inc. dated
July 16, 1997 (Exhibit 16).
City of Miami Beach Resolution No. 98-22848 (Exhibit 17 @ pp 2).
14
32
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
for which REG was providing architectural services ("Amendment No. 2").33 Amendment
NO.2 provided the following timetable: December, 1999 Amend the REG Contract; July,
2000 completion of construction documents, specifications and permitting process;
September, 2000 bidding and award of contract; October, 2000 through September, 2001
construction.34
From the outset the timetable was in jeopardy. Although the timetable indicated that
the REG Contract would be amended in December, 1999 Amendment No.2 was not
executed until February, 2000, two months behind the projected schedule. The timetable
provided seven months from the time the REG Contract was amended until the working
drawings and specifications would be completed and construction permits issued. In
contrast, although REG was authorized to begin work on the project in February, 2000 it
was not until October 18, 2000 (8 months later, and one month after the timetable
allowance for issuance of permits) that REG completed the Schematic Design Phase and
the CMB issued its authorization to REG to proceed with the Design Development Phase.35
Between February, 2000 and October, 2000 numerous issues had to be
considered, and many resolved, before the project could move forward. Significant among
them were the consideration of the historical significance of the Center, the flood
requirements, the 50% Rule, and the impact each of them would have on the construction
requirements. These topics are discussed more fully in other sections of this report.
Additionally, the May 17 Report project the Cost of Renovation to be $1,839,500 and the
33
Amendment No.2 to Agreement between CMB and REG Architects, Inc.
dated February 1, 2000 (Exhibit 18 @ pp 3).
34
Amendment No.2 to Agreement between CMB and REG Architects, Inc.
dated February 1, 2000 (Exhibit 18 @ pp 6).
Michel Magloire letter to REG dated October 13 [sic], 2000, (Exhibit 19).
15
35
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Cost of Replacement to be $1,670,400. Both figures were in excess of the allocated
construction budget, $1,200,000,36 and therefore, the CMB was compelled to seek
additional funding from the Sunshine State Switch Gear Loan Pool Fund ($100,000), the
City-Wide Roof Repair- G.O. Bond Fund ($100,000), and the City-Wide ADA Repair- G.O.
Bond ($100,000) to cover the estimated increased costs of construction and
commensurate $29,401 in increased architectural fees.37 Additionally, after funding was
achieved, then the CMB staff had to schedule review of the proposal by the CMB Finance
and Citywide Projects Finance Committee and the G.O. Bond Oversight Committee, and
finally obtain authorization from the CMB Commission prior to issuing the Notice to
Proceed with the Design Development Phase.38
Notwithstanding the issuance of authorization to proceed with the Design
Development Phase, additional considerations hindered REG from doing so. For example,
the issue of compliance with the Flood Plain Management Criteria was not resolved. The
significance of this issue from an architectural design perspective is described in a letter
from Phil Azan, CMB Building Director and Building Official, to the Chair and members of
the CMB Flood Plain Management Board dated December 15, 2000 ("Azan Letter"),39 as
follows:
Under the terms of the City's Flood Plain Management
Ordinance, and applicable Code of Federal Regulations (CFR),
39
Amendment No.2 to Agreement between CMB and REG Architects, Inc.
dated February 1, 2000 (Exhibit 18 @ pp 6).
Discussion with Tim Hemstreet on July 30, 2002.
Discussion with Tim Hemstreet on July 30,2002.
Philip Azan letter to Chairman, Flood Plain Management Board dated
December 15, 2000 (Exhibit 20).
16
36
37
38
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
all new construction and substantial improvements40 of non-
residential structures must have the lowest floor to or above
the Base Flood Elevation (UBFEU), or be designed so that the
structure is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to
the passage of water and with structural components having
the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and effects of buoyancy (a/k/a dry flood proofing). The
Finished Floor Elevation of the referenced structure is 2.5 feet
below the BFE. The applicant is seeking variance from
requirements of flood proofing or elevating the structure to the
BFE.
Until the CMB Flood Plain Management Board rendered its decision, or the CMB
withdrew its application, REG could not know whether a variance would be granted and the
first floor structure would remain, or a variance would not be granted in which event the first
floor would have to either be raised 2.5' or flood proofed. This resolution of this issue
further delayed the preparation of the architectural drawings because although not part of
the REG Contract basic services, the preparation of the application to the Flood Plain
Management Board was delegated to REG.41 Accordingly, REG was compelled to use its
resources to prepare the complicated application which required extensive research.42 The
Flood Plain Management Criteria was further complicated because while factions of CMB
were in favor of granting the flood variance (Reuben Caldwell43 and William Cary,44) other
40
Read: 50% Rule.
43
REG letter to Michel Magloire dated December 6,2000 (Exhibit 21).
REG letter to Michel Magloire dated December 6,2000 (Exhibit 21).
Reuben Caldwell memo to Michel Magloire dated July 13, 2000 (Exhibit
14 ).
41
42
44
William H. Cary memorandum to Hamid Dolikhani dated November 28,
2000 (Exhibit 15).
17
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
CMB officials were not (Phil Azan45).
Another issue that complicated the preparation of the design was the resolution of
compliance with the contemporary wind load requirements of the South Florida Building
Code. In January, 2001 CMB applied to the Miami-Dade County Board of Rules and
Appeals ("BORA") for exemption from the contemporary wind load requirements. REG
submitted a cover letter to Francisco Quintana, Secretary to BORA which describes the
problem, as follows:
According to the South Florida Building Code Section 104.3(e)
"Where repairs and alterations amounting to more than 50
percent of the replacement value of the existing building are
made during any 12 month period, the building or structure
shall be made to conform to all requirements of a new building
or structure or be entirely demolished." This renovation will
include the entire replacement of electrical and mechanical
systems, new DCPA impact resistant windows and storefront
doors, ADA upgrades, FEMA flood proofing requirements, and
life safety upgrades to comply with the current code. Being
that his building has been given historic contributing status, we
are requesting that the structure remain in its existing condition
and not be required to comply with today's wind loads. The
existing facility has survived many natural disasters since its
construction without any structural damage.45
On February 15, 2001 BORA approved the CMB application for an historic building
exception to the present structural requirements of the South Florida Building Code47 And
45
Philip Azan memorandum to Flood Plain Management Board dated
December 15, 2000 (Exhibit 20).
47
REG letter to Francisco Quintana, Secretary to the Miami-Dade Board of
Rules and Appeals dated January 25, 2001 (Exhibit 22).
Francisco Quintana letter to REG dated February 23, 2001 (Exhibit 23).
18
46
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
on February 22, 2001 Michel Magloire wrote to REG as follows:
Pursuant to the resolution of the issues regarding FEMA
requirements, and subsequent to the waiver of the South
Florida wind load requirements which was granted for this
project by the Miami-Dade County Board of Rules and
Appeals, the City of Miami Beach hereby authorizes your firm,
to proceed with the design development of the South Shore
Community Center. In addition as previously discussed please
submit an updated schedule for the subject project, time is of
the essence.48
Consequently, thirteen months after Amendment NO.2 was executed, REG was
authorized by CMB to prepare design development drawings,49 and directed to provide a
time schedule for its work. REG responded to Mr. Magloire by providing the following
benchmark due dates:
. 100% design development submittal: March 8, 2001
. Design Development Approval: March 13,2001
. 50% construction documents submittal: April 4, 2001
. CMB Staff review and comments: April 1 0, 2001
90% construction documents submittal: April 25, 2001
. Estimated permitting completion with City Assistance: May 9, 2001
. Construction Commencement: May 14, 200150
("REG Schedule").
50
Michel Magloire letter to REG dated February 22, 2001 (Exhibit 24).
Pursuant to the REG Contract and Amendment No.2 REG was to provide
(1) Schematic Design Drawings, then (2) Design Development Drawings,
and finally (3) Construction Documents.
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire dated February 28, 2001 (Exhibit
25).
48
49
19
REPORT OF INVESTIGATrON OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
On March 7, 2001 REG requested that CMB provide it with a full set of the Project
working drawings for use by its consultants.51 On March 12, 2001 Christina Cuervo,
Assistant City Manager of CMB, wrote to Margarita Cepeda, Executive Director of the
Miami Beach Hispanic Community Center ("Cuervo Letter"), and attached the REG
Schedule,52 The Cuervo Letter states that, "Notwithstanding any unforseen circumstances,
we estimate that construction should commence no later than June 1, 2001, and be
completed by January, 2002." On March 8, 2001 REG timely submitted its design
development drawings to CMB.53 On or about March 16,2001 CMB responded to REG's
design development drawings by directing REG to:
. re-explore possibilities for the Auditorium toilet rooms;
· add a data and telephone room on the first floor;
. provide separate sex toilet rooms for the kindergarten;
. re-evaluate the use of the current folding partition between rooms 124 and
125;
. enlarge classrooms 202 and 205;
. re-evaluate the use of sliding doors in classrooms 202 and 205:
. convert room 209 from storage to data and telephone room.54
By April 3, 2001 REG revised its design development drawings and resubmitted
54
REG fax transmittal to Carla Dixon dated March 7, 2001 (Exhibit 26).
Christina Cuervo letter to Margarita Cepeda dated March 12, 2001
(Exhibit 27).
REG fax transmittal to Michel Magloire dated March 7, 2001 (Exhibit 28).
Michel Magloire letter to REG dated March 16, 2001 (Exhibit 29).
20
51
52
53
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
them to CMB,55 and on April 9, 2001 CMB sent its reply ("Dixon Letter").56 In the Dixon
Letter, the CMB indicates approval of the design development drawings with one minor
exception (location of an interior door), and seeks confirmation that the Project will be
"ready for bid by May 9, 2001" as per the REG Schedule. On April 16, 2001 REG
responded to Ms. Dixon by providing the following benchmark due dates:
. 100% design development submittal: March 8, 2001
. Design Development Approval: April 9, 2001
. 50% construction documents submittal: May 16, 2001
. CMB Staff review and comments: May 30,2001
. 90% construction documents submittal: June 6, 2001
. Estimated permitting completion with City Assistance: June 28, 2001
. Construction Commencement: June 29, 200157
("REG Revised Schedule").
REG also stated that its Construction Documents were intended for permitting and
construction, not for bid purposes; that the CMB Property Management Department will
complete the construction.56 An examination of the REG Schedule and REG Revised
Schedule indicates that the 27-day delay in the approval of the design development
drawings59 resulted in projected delays of 42-days for the 50% construction documents
55
Carla Dixon letter to REG dated April 9, 2001 (Exhibit 30).
Carla Dixon letter to REG dated April 9, 2001 (Exhibit 30).
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire dated April 16, 2001 (Exhibit 31).
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire dated April 16, 2001 (Exhibit 31).
03-08-01: REG's first submittal. 03-16-01: CMB response to the first
submittal. 04-03-01: REG's second submittal. 04-09-01: CMB response
to second submittal and approval. Total CMB review time: 14 days. Total
REG revision time: 13 days. Total Delay Time: 27 days.
21
56
57
58
59
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
submittal; 42-days for the 90% construction documents submittal; 50-days for the
estimated permitting with CMB assistance; and 46-days for the commencement of
construction.
On May 16, 2001 REG delivered a progress set of drawings to the CMB, stating that
it needed responses from CMB on its requests for direction dated May 1, 2001 in order to
finalize its 50% construction documents submittal (REG May 16, 2001 Letter").60 In the
REG May 16, 2001 Letter, REG identified its proposed electrical, air conditioning, and
plumbing solutions, and requested confirmation and additional information by May 21,
2001. On May 22,2001 REG sent a follow-up transmittal to CMB requesting a response
to the REG May 16, 2001 Letter.61 On May 22,2001 Brad Judd wrote to Michel Magloire
stating that he disagreed with the air conditioning solution proposed in the REG May 16,
2001 Letter.62 On May 24, 2001 Carla Dixon wrote to REG stating that the CMB has
concerns regarding the air conditioning solution proposed in REG May 16 Letter, and
requesting a meeting to resolve the problem.63 On May 29,2001 REG wrote to Ms. Dixon
requesting confirmation of the meeting concerning HV AC issues, and informing her that
the mechanical and electrical engineering had been put on "hold" pending resolution of the
problem.64 9n June 1, 2001 REG wrote to Michel Magloire stating that it still had not
received the tenants' electrical equipment loads requested in the REG May 16, 2001
60
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire dated May 16, 2001 (Exhibit 32).
REG fax transmittal to Michel Magloire dated May 22, 2001 (Exhibit 33).
Brad Judd memorandum to Michel Magloire dated May 22,2001 (Exhibit
34).
61
62
64
Carla Dixon letter to REG dated May 24, 2001 (Exhibit 35).
REG fax transmittal to Carla Dixon dated May 29, 2001 (Exhibit 36).
22
63
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Letter, and that its consultant could not proceed without the information.65 On June 7, 2001
a meeting was held in which the air conditioning solution proposed in the REG May 16,
2001 Letter was discussed.66 In summary, David Moslemian, REG's mechanical
consultant, recommended replacement of the entire air conditioning system, including all
components. Brad Judd, CMB Director of Property Management, agreed that the existing
air handling units should be replaced. size for size, and that the existing condenser needed
replacement, but did not agree to the replacement of the existing chiller, air conditioning
piping, or air ducts.67 On June 14, 2001 David Moslemian wrote to REG confirming his
original instructions to provide an entirely new air conditioning system, and supporting the
reasoned decision to do so ("Moslemian Letter").68 On June 28,2001 REG wrote to Carla
Dixon stating among other things that it could not proceed with the final electrical and
mechanical design until the chiller system is decided upon.69
On July 9, 2001 REG wrote to Michel Magloire in which it stated:
With reference to our meeting with City of Miami Beach (CMB)
on 6/7/01, REG received approval from CMB lastweek, 7/3/01,
to proceed with engineering design drawings for a new chiller
and air conditioning system. This design includes new
equipment, electrical and plumbing feeds, panels, controls,
etc.7o
("REG July 9, 2001 Letter").
65
REG letter to Michel Magloire dated June 1, 2001 (Exhibit 37).
REG Meeting Minutes dated June 7, 2001 (Exhibit 38).
Interview with Brad Judd on April 5.2002.
David Moslemian letter to REG dated June 14,2001 (Exhibit 39).
REG fax transmittal to Carla Dixon dated June 28. 2001 (Exhibit 40).
REG memorandum to Michel Magloire dated July 9,2001 (Exhibit 41).
23
66
67
68
69
70
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS. INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
On July 12, 2001 Michel Magloire responded to the REG July 9, 2001 Letter
indicating that the CMB had previously requested a cost comparison between the
renovation of the existing system and the proposed replacement system, and that said
comparison had not been provided ("Magloire July 12, 2001 Letter").71 However, the
Magloire July 12, 2001 Letter neither confirms nor denies the CMB acceptance of the
proposed replacement system, nor directs REG to provide the requested cost comparison.
On the contrary, it merely directs REG to "design the project within the allocated budget,"
and to "provide a progress cost estimate to ensure that the project is within budget." On
September6, 2001 REG wrote to Carl Hastings, CMB Capital Projects Coordinator72 again
discussing reasons to proceed with complete replacement of the air conditioning system
("REG September 6,2001 Letter").73 The REG September 6,2001 Letter also advises that
if REG has to "reinvestigate cooling loads and chiller systems at this stage, after being
given the directive by you with our design and documents complete, it would mean
additional fees and an extended redesign period oftime."
On September 7, 2001 Brad Judd issued an interoffice memorandum to Carl
Hastings addressing the REG September 6,2001 Letter ("Judd Memo").74 The Judd Memo
takes exception to the statement that the chiller was not properly maintained. It also
74
Michel Magloire letter to REG dated July 12, 2001 (Exhibit 42).
Initially, Michel Magloire was the Capital Projects Coordinator for the
Project. During the course of the Project the CMB Capital Improvements
Office was reconfigured, and the Project was reassigned to Carl Hastings.
Interviews with Michel Magloire and Carl Hastings on March 15, 2002.
See also Magloire July 12, 2001 Letter, Exhibit 42, and REG September
6,2001 Letter.
REG letter to Carl Hastings dated September 6, 2001 (Exhibit 43).
Brad Judd memorandum to Carl Hastings dated September 7,2001
(Exhibit 44).
71
72
73
24
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
asserts that the building has sufficient insulation "because the HV AC system was designed
to handle the loads without it." On September 12, 2001 Carl Hastings wrote to REG
requesting that REG make an economic analysis of replacing the entire system in
comparison with retaining the existing chiller unit while replacing the air handling and
condensing equipment ("Hastings September 12, 2001 Letter").75 The Hastings September
12, 2001 Letter also states that the economic study should be provided at no additional
fee.
On September 18, 2001 REG responded in writing to the Hastings September 12,
2001 Letter.76 In it REG states that the re-use of the existing chiller with the new
replacement equipment "would not be possible," as follows:
. The existing chiller is 25% over capacity in tonnage and is not compatible
with the design of the revised air conditioning system.
. REG's consultants found the existing system to be malfunctioning.
. The existing chiller has high electrical consumption, excessive noise and
vibration as a result of the chiller system.
. REG's consultants will not be responsible for the chiller.
. REG's consultants can not predict the life expectancy of the chiller.
. REG's consultants are not prepared to sign and seal their drawings if the
system is to accommodate the existing chiller.
Additionally, REG enclosed a copy of the Moslemian Letter,77 stating that its
consultants had provided an "energy cost savings factor." Copies of additional documents
77
Carl Hastings letter to REG dated September 12, 2001 (Exhibit 45).
REG letter to Carl Hastings dated September 18, 2001 (Exhibit 46).
David Moslemian letter to REG dated June 14,2001 (Exhibit 39).
25
75
76
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
were provided78 to indicate that CMB had previously authorized REG to proceed with the
design encompassing the complete replacement of the entire air conditioning system.
Ultimately, the CMB determined that an economic analysis of replacing the entire system
in comparison with retaining the existing chiller unit while replacing the air handling and
... condensing equipment was not within REG's scope of work, that such an analysis would
involve additional charges by REG, and that due to the advanced age of the existing
equipment such an expenditure was not warranted.79 Accordingly, the CMB agreed to
allow the replacement of the entire HV AC system as recommended by REG.80
On October 3,2001 REG delivered two sets of signed and sealed plans to the CMB
for permit processing.81 On October 4,2002 CMB applied for the building permit and the
review of the plans by the various CMB plans processors was commenced.82 By October
26,2001 the plans were approved by the electrical section and the mechanical section; the
engineering section and the accessibility section had lodged comments indicating
additional information or changes to the plans were required; and the other sections had
not issued approval or comments.83 Of particular significance was the Engineering
78
REG letter to Michel Magloire dated July 9, 2001 (Exhibit 41): Carla Dixon
letter to REG dated April 9, 2001 (Exhibit 30); and Michel Magloire letter
to REG dated October 13, 2000 (Exhibit 19).
79
Telephone conversation with Tim Hemstreet on July 30, 2002.
Telephone conversation with Carl Hastings on June 19, 2001.
Carl Hastings memorandum to Tim Hemstreet dated October 3,2001
(Exhibit 47).
City of Miami Beach Permit Application dated October 4, 2001 (Exhibit
48).
80
81
82
83
South Shore Community Center Renovation Project Meeting Agenda,
October 26, 2001 with City of Miami Beach Plans Processing Approvals
26
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Section's comment:
Provide drawing in detail for Flood proofing design & a signed
and sealed flood proofed certificate by the structural engineer
on record.
Although there were many comments from the various plans processors, the two
most significant issues to be addressed were (1) the fire sprinkler system, and (2) the flood
proofing of the first floor to comply with the FEMA requirements.84 A discussion of these
two issues follows in detail in sections following in this report.85
Issues: (1) Whether REG missed numerous deadlines in providing the delivery of
construction documents, and (2) Whether REG failed to timely provide documents to that
construction could be commenced in June, 2001 and completed in August, 2001.
Opinion: On April 3, 2001 REG committed to have its construction documents 90%
completed by June 6, 2001, and it estimated that permitting would be completed by June
29, 2001. Subsequent to that date, REG had to confront issues regarding the (1) phased
construction, (2) the scope of the air conditioning replacement, (3) the necessity for fire
sprinklers in the auditorium, and perhaps in the entire structure, and (4) the FEMA flood
proofing problem. The air conditioning issue is described in this section, and the other
issues are described separately in sections that follow. In summary, however, REG's
failure to provide documents timely is directly related to the additional work it was
compelled to perform as a result of these four issues.
attached (Exhibit 49).
84
Telephone conference with Carl Hastings on June 19, 2002.
See Sections F and G.
85
27
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Finally, REG never committed to have the construction completed by any date.
REG's timetables estimate the date of commencement of construction, but do not address
.
the date of completion. Inasmuch as the architect does not contror the contractor on a
construction project, it would be inappropriate for REG to commit for a date of completion
of the construction. Moreover, the CMB projected the time for construction to be
approximately one year86 or eight months.87 Therefore, assuming that the construction of
the Project could be completed within three months is not justified.
D. REG FAILED TO PROVIDE FOR PHASED CONSTRUCTION, INCLUDING THE
RELOCATION OF EXISTING TENANTS WITHOUT DISPLACING THEM.
The September 25 Report contained among other things, REG's recommendations
for the contemplated renovation work, as follows:
. The entire building should be resealed, insulated and re-roofed.
. [A]II of the storefronts and storefront doors be replaced and proper
installation details provided in order to prevent future water intrusion and
energy loss.
. All of the restrooms will require new floor finishes to meet the new slip
coefficient, all fixtures need to be upgraded and sizes of stalls enlarged.
. All of the HVAC should be replaced.
. The existing electrical switch gear unit should be replaced.
. None of the rest rooms in the building are in compliance with ADA
requirements; they will require full renovation.
. The current tenants on the second floor can be accommodated more
87
Amendment No.2 to REG Contract dated February 1, 2000 (Exhibit 18).
Christina Cuervo letter to Margarita Cepeda dated March 12, 2001
(Exhibit 27).
86
28
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
efficiently after a significant renovation and re-distribution of space.
. The tenants on the first floor can also benefit from a re-distribution of
space.88
The September 25 Report also contained a copy of correspondence received from
Jose Damien, Asset ManagerofCMB dated April 20, 2000 ("Damien's Memo") transmitting
the CMB programming information for the Project and notes from his meetings with the
then existing tenants of the project.89 While Damien's Memo provides substantial
information regarding the users' needs for the Project, it does not inform that the Center
is to remain in operation during the period of construction.
Moreover the first reference to phased construction or re-Iocation of the tenants
within the Project during construction does not appear until August 8, 2001. On that date
REG furnished the CMB with a sketch of the first and second floors which was hand-
marked to indicate the temporary re-Iocation of the users within the project.90 Attached to
the sketches is a Project Time Line wihchbears the notation, "Construction Period will be
extended due to working with tenants in occupancy."91
On October 1, 2001 REG wrote to Carl Hastings in regard to a meeting held on
September 28. 2001 in which it commented as follows:
90
REG Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization
Analysis dated September 25,2000 (Exhibit 12 @ pp 8).
REG Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization
Analysis dated September 25,2000 (Exhibit 12 @ pp 59).
REG Re-Iocation Sketches dated August 8,2001 (Exhibit 50).
REG Project Time Line dated August 8, 2001 (Exhibit 51).
29
88
89
91
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
With regard to accommodating the tenants over the
construction period, please find enclosed our sketch showing
the sequences of rotating the tenants as per your instruction at
Friday's meeting.92
REG also submitted a time line dated October 3, 2001 in which it indicated the
period of construction including phasing and the period of construction not including
phasing.93
Issue: Whether REG failed to provide for phased construction, including the
relocation of existing tenants without displacing them.
Opinion: It appears that this criticism is unjustified for two reasons. First, there is
no evidence in the documentation that REG was initially informed that phased construction
was a consideration in its planning. The first reference to phased construction does not
appear until August, 2001, four months after CMB approved the design development
drawings and authorized REG to proceed with the construction documents phase.
Second, when REG was notified to provide for phased construction, it took immediate
steps to accommodate the request by providing sketches indicating the temporary re-
location of the tenants during the construction process.
93
REG letter to Carl Hastings dated October 1, 2001 (Exhibit 52).
REG Construction Schedules dated October 3, 2001 (Exhibit 53).
30
92
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
E. AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WERE TO BE COMPLETED, REG
FIRST INFORMED THE CMB THATTHE AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEM NEEDED
REPLACEMENT, MEANING THAT PHASED CONSTRUCTION WAS
IMPRACTICAL.
Please refer to Article C, above for a discussion of the HVAC system issue, and
Article D, above for a discussion of the phased construction issue.
F. AFTER THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS WERE TO BE COMPLETED, REG
FIRST INFORMED THE CMB THAT A FIRE SPRINKLER SYSTEM WAS
REQUIRED.
The September 25 Report states that:
A fire alarm system is present but does not comply with current
building codes; there are no strobes or emergency lights
visible. The childcare center alarm system appears to be
compliant, but egress routes are not clearly identified. The
entire fire system and life safety compliance of the building
should be tested and inspected by the City of Miami Beach
Fire Department as soon as possible.94
The next reference in the documents to the fire sprinkler system is contained in an
interoffice memo from Carl Hastings to Tim Hemstreet dated December 14, 2001 informing
that the plans submitted for permit required fire sprinkler system design drawings.95
On December 28.2001 REG responded to Carl Hastings' inquiry regarding the fire
95
Report of Existing Conditions Observations & Program Utilization Analysis
dated September 25, 2000 (Exhibit 12 @ pp 9).
Carl Hastings memo to Tim Hemstreet dated December 14, 2001 (Exhibit
54).
94
31
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
sprinkler requirement, as follows:
In our initial investigation of the existing facility we determined
that program use of the facility based on the operation s
currently an proposed to be provided at the facility. By doing
so, the occupancy load of the facility was reduced. This
resulted in the design of limited life safety improvements
including sprinklers in the ground floor breezeway area only.
At our second review, the Fire Prevention Officers did not
agree with our interpretation of the code regarding the program
use and load factors. This requires that we provide a fire
suppression sprinkler system with a voice alarm system
throughout the entire facility.96
On January 4, 2001 REG met with the Fire Marshall in an attempt to resolve the
problem.97 REG reported that the existing configuration ofthe auditorium space as a dining
area has a smaller occupant load than if the space is configured with auditorium seating.
This discrepancy between the existing use and the possible use caused the need for the
fire sprinkler. If the CMB would commit to using the space solely as a dining facility
(permanently affixing the dining tables to the floor) the space would not need fire sprinklers,
but if the space was to retain its flexibility so it could be used as either a dining area or an
auditorium space, then fire sprinkler are required. REG further reported that:
The [CMB fire department] needs to re-evaluate the occupancy
load for the remainder of the facility. If the occupancy load is
under 300, fire sprinklers would only need to be provided in the
exit passages, as shown on our drawings. If the occupancy
load exceeds 300, it requires fire sprinklers throughout the
entire facility.98
98
REG memorandum to Carl Hastings dated December 28, 2001 (Exhibit
55).
REG letter to Carl Hastings dated January 7, 2001 (Exhibit 56).
REG letter to Carl Hastings dated January 7.2001 (Exhibit 56).
32
96
97
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF '
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Issue: Whether REG first notified the CMB that a fire sprinkler was required after
the construction documents were completed.
Ooinion: It is obvious that although this criticism is true, it too is unjustified for two
reasons. First, REG recommended in September 20,2000 that the CMB fire department
inspect the Center for compliance with life safety issues. CMB either failed to do so, or
failed to inform REG of its findings. Second, the CMB fire department is still reviewing the
construction drawings and has not, as of this writing determined all the requirements for
the Center. It seems patently unfair to criticize REG for failing to predict the fire
department's requirements when the fire department itself has not yet determined them.
G. REG FAILED TO RESOLVE THE FEMA FLOOD PLAIN REQUIREMENTS,
NOTWITHSTANDING THE ISSUE WAS RAISED A YEAR EARLIER.
The issue of flood plain requirements was known to REG and the CMB in early July,
2000.99 On July 14. 2000 Reuben Caldwell recommended to Michel Magloire that the CMB
seek a Flood Plain Management Board Variance.1Oo On August 7. 2000 a report was
issued which stated that:
Staff is also investigating the ways to obtain a flood variance
before the Board of Adjustment.101
100
REG draft letter to Michel Magloire dated July 7,2000 (Exhibit 57).
Reuben Caldwell memo to Michel Magloire dated July 14, 2000 (Exhibit
14).
99
101
South Shore Community Report (author unknown) dated August 7,2000
(Exhibit 58).
33
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
On September 11, 2000 Jorge Gonzalez informed the G.O. Bond Task Force that:
As a result of the building's historical significance, the City will
seek a waiver from FEMA for the flood plain requirement which
may reduce the project cost by $82,303.102
On November 20, 2000 REG sent Michel Magloire a draft of the letter it proposed
to submit to the CMB Flood Plain Management Board with a request for him to review it
along with the Application for Board of Adjustment Hearing with instruc;tions to have it
executed and available for him to pick up the following day in order to meet the application
deadline.103 On December 15, 2000 Phil Azan issued his memorandum in response to the
CMB request for variance from flood plain management requirements in which he stated,
"denial of the variance as recommended."104 On January 4,2001 the CMB requested that
the Flood Plain Management Board continue the matter until its next regularly scheduled
meeting on February 2, 2001.105 In light of the CMB Building Official's recommendation
opposing the flood plain variance, Assistant City Manager Schwartz withdrew the CMB
application.106 Subsequent to withdrawing its application to the Flood Plain Management
Board, Mr. Schwartz left the employ of the CMB, and the issue lied dormant for nearly a
102
Jorge Gonzalez interoffice memorandum to the G.O. Bond Task Force
dated September 11, 2000 (Exhibit 59 @ pp 2).
REG fax transmittal to Michel Magloire dated November 20, 2000 (Exhibit
60).
103
104
Philip Azan memorandum to Flood Plain Management Board dated
December 15, 2000 (Exhibit 20).
Matthew Schwartz letter to CMB Flood Plain Management Board dated
January 4, 2001 (Exhibit 61).
105
106
Interview with Michel Magloire on March 15, 2002.
34
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
year.107 On January 25,2001 REG informed that the proposed renovations would include,
"FEMA flood proofing requirements," apparently indicating that the application for variance
had been abandoned. loa ~owever, on December 13,2001 Carl Hastings wrote to George
Gomez, Director of the Planning Department to:
Please cancel the application for review of the subject project
by the Flood Plain Management Board, as a proposal to flood
proof the building has been submitted to, and accepted by the
Building Official of the City of Miami Beach.109
Nevertheless, on December 21, 2001 REG's structural engineer, Sinclair
Engineering Company informed that:
[I]t is entirely unreasonable to believe that the structure can
resist a reversed bending load on the order of 250 psf
(hydrostatic pressure loading expected under extreme flood
event). No normally designed and constructed slab can
sustain loads of 500% beyond design capacity. No further
rigorous analysis is warranted in order to prove this. There is
no way to certify the existing floor slab structures for the
calculated flood pressure called for in the FEMA Guidelines. 110
After receiving its engineer's terse analysis REG requested a meeting with CMB to
discuss, among other things, resolution of the FEMA flood zone requirements.111 On
107
10a
109
110
111
Interview with Michel Magloire on March 15, 2002.
REG letter to M-D Board of Rules and Appeals dated January 25, 2001
(Exhibit 22).
Carl Hastings memorandum to Jorge Gomez dated December 13, 2001
(Exhibit 62).
Christopher E. Pruitt fax memorandum to REG dated December 21,2001
(Exhibit 63).
REG letter to Tim Hemstreet dated December 28, 2001 (Exhibit 64).
35
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
March 5112 and 22 113, 2002 Sinclair Engineering Company issued reports to REG
identifying the numerous difficulties of complying with the FEMA flood proofing
requirements.
As a result of the impracticality of flood proofing the first floor of the Center, the CMB
reapplied to the CMB Flood Plain Management Board and by April 1 0, 2002 was granted
a variance from the flood proofing requirements.114
Issue: Whether REG failed to resolve the FEMA flood plain requirements,
notwithstanding the issue was raised a year earlier.
Opinion: Clearly the FEMA flood plain requirement issue went unresolved for over
one year. However, the CMB initially assumed the responsibility for resolving the problem
by undertaking to obtain a variance from its own board. The CMB withdrew the application
for variance, but no one re-initiated the application process or directed REG to flood proof
the building. Ultimately, the problem was resolved as initially projected: by the CMB Flood
Plain Management Board granting a variance. While REG was remiss in failing to force
resolution of this critical design element, it hardly seems fair to criticize REG only for the
delay of the CMB in obtaining a variance from its own Board.
112
Sinclair Engineering Company letter to REG dated March 5, 2002 (Exhibit
65).
113
Sinclair Engineering Company letter to REG dated March 22, 2002
(Exhibit 66).
REG letter to Cart Hastings dated April 1 0, 2002 (Exhibit 67).
36
114
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
H. AS OF JANUARY, 2002 THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS ARE STILL NOT
COMPLETE NOTWITHSTANDING THE CMB BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S
"BENDING OVER BACKWARDS TO HELP."
. The discussion of the permitting, and the implications that the FEMA flood proofing
and fire sprinkler requirements are having on the issuance of a building permit are
discussed in Sections C, F, and G herein.
However, the issue of whether the CMB Building Department is bending over
backwards to help has not been addressed. The documentation is replete with evidence
of efforts to help obtain a permit, most notably by Carl Hastings. But, Mr. Hastings is not
a member of the CMB Building Department. Nevertheless, it appears also that the CMB
Building Department plans processors are diligently reviewing the plans and plans changes
without delay. To that extent the CMB Building Department has been helpful. Yet it
appears safe to say that the CMB Building Department is not bending over backwards to
help. Review of the plans processors' comments sheets indicates that they are performing
their tasks as intended without preferential treatment of any kind for this project.115
Moreover, while not a member ofthe CMB Building Department, the CMB Fire Department
plans processor required REG to provide hydraulic calculations as a condition to receiving
his approval.116 This event is noteworthy only to the extent that the fire department
processor has the latitude to approve the plans subject to submittal of the hydraulic
calculations at a later date.117 Accordingly, it appears that the implication that the CMB
116
Plans processors' review sheets dated October 12, 14, and 18 (Exhibit
68).
Carl Hastings fax to REG dated March 7, 2002 (Exhibit 69).
Telephone conversation with Carl Hastings on June 19, 2002.
115
117
37
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
Building Department is giving REG any preferential treatment in the permitting process is
mis-founded.
I. THE ORIGINAL FEMA CALCULATIONS PROVIDED BY REG WERE
INCORRECT, CAUSING REG TO ENGAGE ANOTHER CONSULTANT.
In January 2001 Matthew Schwartz was choreographing the application for flood
elevation variance to the CMB Flood Plain Management Board.118 In conjunction with the
application, REG submitted its opinion letter requesting approval of the application.119
Attached to, and referenced in, REG's letter was a letter from CRA Clarke, Inc., its
structural engineer ("Clarke No. 1").120 In Clarke No. 1 the engineer discusses four
alternate proposals to flood proofing the first floor: adding thickness to the first floor,
replacing the first floor, elevating the building by severing the first floor from its pile
foundations, and creating an earth berm around the building. In the discussion, each
proposal is dismissed. On January 4, 2001 CRA Clarke, Inc. issued a second report
("Clarke No. 2").121 I n Clarke No.2 the engineer reports that it is possible to reinforce the
slab to withstand the force of the upward pressure of the flood-waters. He cautions,
however, that this ability of the slab to resist the hydrostatic pressure does not
automatically confer "flood-proofed" status. "The water can, and will, come through the
118
See Section G.
121
REG letter to CMB Flood Plain Management Board dated .January 2, 2001
(Exhibit 70).
CRA Clarke, Inc. undated letter to City of Miami Beach Public Works
Department (Exhibit 70).
CRA Clarke, Inc. letter to Carla Dixon dated January 4,2001 (Exhibit 71).
38
119
120
REPORT OF INVESTIGATION OF THE PROPOSED DEBARMENT OF
REG ARCHITECTS, INC. WITH RESPECT TO A&E CONTRACT ON
THE SOUTH SHORE COMMUNITY CENTER
walls, doors and windows (depending on the sill-height, of course)."
On March 5, 2002 Sinclair Engineering Company issued a report to REG ("Sinclair
Report").122 The Sinclair Report states, among other things, that:
Both CRA Clarke, Inc. and Sinclair Engineering Company have
stated that the existing slabs cannot withstand the calculated
buoyancy forces necessary to satisfy the FEMA flood-proofing
requirements. In order to provide the required resistence
strength, a new, structurally reinforced overlay slab of between
4" to 6' would have to be added on top of the entire ground
floor area - integrally attached to act as a composite
mechanism with the existing slabs and grade beams.
The Sinclair Report further provides that:
While the economics and physical difficulties of this exercise
can be easily recognized, the real negative impact occurs
where all of the building doors, ingress and egress pathways,
plumbing and equipment fixtures, etc. would be affected by this
elevated floor level. Every door, frame and head condition will
have to be revised in order to maintain a viable building.
The reports of the two engineers are consistent. Both state that it is possible to
construct a slab, monolithically attached to the foundation. that will resist the FEMA
imposed loads. Both also caution of the impracticality of the theoretical solution.
Issue: Whether the original FEMA calculations provided by REG were incorrect,
causing REG to engage another consultant.
Ooinion: The calculations of the two structural engineering consultants engaged by
REG were consistent.
122
Sinclair Engineering Company letter to REG dated March 5, 2002 (Exhibit
65).
39