2004-25501 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25501
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE
RANKING OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 64-02/03 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IMS) FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM OF CAMP DRESSER
AND McGEE (CDM); AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE
ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP RANKED
FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH
THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM OF WOOLPERT LLP.
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department does not have a computerized
public works management system to manage functions such as infrastructure
asset management, service request management, work order management, and
Geographic Information Systems implementation; and
WHEREAS, on January 8, 2002, the Public Works Department requested
authorization from the City Commission to issue Request for Proposal No. 64-
02/03 to secure a consultant that would provide a complete infrastructure
management system (the RFP); and
WHEREAS, the proposed Infrastructure Management System will provide
integrated software applications to enhance the inventory, management and
maintenance of all public works assets such as water, sewer, stormwater,
streets, streetlights, street furniture and equipment; and
WHEREAS, this RFP was issued to BidNet on August 27,2003, with an
RFP opening date of November 14, 2003; BidNet in turn contacted 70 vendors,
of which 59 downloaded the RFP package; and
WHEREAS, on November 14, 2003, the Procurement Division received 6
responses to this RFP; and
WHEREAS, two of the six responses were deemed non-responsive; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 283-
2004, appointed an Evaluation Committee consisting of the following individuals:
. Robert Halfhill, Project Administrator;
. Larry Kientz, Information Technology Specialist III;
. Leonardo Francis, Project Coordinator;
. Kee Eng, Assistant Public Works Director, City of
Hollywood;
. Evette Reyes, Information Technology, GIS Specialist;
. James Watts, Public Works Director, City of Sunny Isle
Beach;
. Philip Cousins, Miami Beach Citizen;
. Autumn Moore, Miami Beach Citizen; and
WHEREAS, during the first Evaluation Committee meeting, the Committee
discussed the following RFP evaluation criteria, which were used to evaluate and
rank the respondents:
. Quality of proposed approach;
. Ability to perform;
. Workload;
. Past performance;
. Applications software;
. Performance through the demonstration project;
. Cost; and
WHEREAS, consensus at the end of the meeting was to invite the 4
responsive firms to provide a 1.5 hour demonstration project, with a 30 minute
qualifications presentation followed by a one hour question and answer session;
and
WHEREAS, the Committee reconvened on Monday, February 2, 2004, to
deliberate and rank the proposals; and
WHEREAS, the Committee members ranked the four firms as follows:
First:
Second:
Third:
Fourth
Camp Dresser and McGee (CDM);
Wool pert LLP;
Hansen;
GBA Master Series. Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has accepted the raking of the Committee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND
THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the
Mayor and City Commission accept the City Manager's recommendation, and
authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm of
Camp Dresser and McGee (COM), pursuant to RFP No. 64-02/03 for
Infrastructure Management System (IMS) for the City of Miami Beach; and
should the Administration not be able to negotiate an agreement with the top
ranked firm, authorizing the Administration to negotiate with the second-ranked
firm of Wool pert LLP.
PASSED and ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
~~~
CITY CLERK
T:\AGENDA\2004\Feb2504\Consent\IMS RFP RESO.doc
2004
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGe
& FOR exeCUTION
~ $- ').2~03
u..
CITY OF'MIAMI,BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
~
Condensed Title:
Acceptance of the Manager's Recommendation Relative to the Ran king of Firms Pursuant to RFP No. 64-
02/03 for the Infrastructure Mana ement Stem IMS for the Cit of Miami Beach.
Issue:
Shall the Commission approve the Manager's recommendation relative to the rankings of firms and
authorize ne otiation with the to ranked firm of Cam Dresser and McKee CDM?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
At the present time, the Public Works Department does not have a computerized public works
management system to manage functions such as: infrastructure asset management, service request
management, work order management, and GIS implementation.
Prospective Consultants / Vendors were asked to submit proposals for a complete suite of infrastructure
management application software; and for the procedures and costs of the data conversion. Proposals
were to include specifications for all software, hardware and training and services.
On November 14, 2003, the Procurement Division received 6 responses of this RFP. Two of the six
responses were deemed non-responsive; they did not include the demonstration compact disk that was
requested by Addendum # 4. The non-responsive Consultants were: TRDI and CADD Centers of Florida.
Responsive Consultants who provided RFP's included:
Camp Dresser and McKee (COM)
GBA Master Series, Inc.
Hansen
Wool pert LLP
The Evaluation Committee convened on four separate occasions to evaluate the four responsive
Consultants as to their qualifications and software demonstration. After reviewing all proposals and
demonstration the committee ranked the firms as follows:
First: Camp Dresser and McKee (COM)
Second: Woolpert LLP.
Third: Hansen
Fourth GBA Master Series, Inc.
The Administration recommends approval of the Manager's recommendation relative to the ranking of
firms and authorize neootiations with Camo Dresser and McKee.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
I N/A
Financial Information:
Source of
Funds:
I
Ci Clerk's Office Le islative Trackin :
Bob Halfhill, Assistant Public Works Director
T:\AGENDA\2004IFeb2504\ConsentIIMS RFP SUMMARY.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
C70
2 - ;).5"-0 <(
m
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.ci.miami-beach.fl.us
To:
From:
Subject:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ~ "./ r~.
City Manager I'" - 0
A RESOLUTION F THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF QUALIFICATIONS
RECEIVED PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 64-
02/03 FOR INFRASTRUCTURE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (IMS) FOR THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM OF CAMP
DRESSER AND MCKEE (CDM), AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION
NOT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP
RANKED FIRM; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM OF WOOLPERT LLP.
Date: February 25,2004
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
The Public Works Department does not have a computerized public works management
system to manage functions such as: infrastructure asset management, service request
management, work order management, and GIS implementation.
The Public Works Department has been working closely with the Information Technology
Department towards identifying the software requirements which will combine the above
functions resulting in a better, streamlined, more efficient operation of Public Works
facilities and that will improve customer service.
The proposed Infrastructure Management System will provide integrated software
applications to enhance the inventory, management and maintenance of all public works
assets such as: water, sewer, storm water, streets, streetlights, street furniture and
equipment.
Commission Memo
RFP 64-02/03 - Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
February 25, 2004
Page 2
.
The IMS system will include the following:
Infrastructure Asset Manaaement
Inventory Condition Assessment
Schedule Maintenance
Scheduled Inspections
System Analysis
Service Reauest Manaaement
Customer Complaint Tracking
Service Order Generation
Work Order Manaaement
Work Order Generation
Work Order Scheduling
Warehouse (Parts and Materials) Inventory
Prospective Consultants! Vendors were asked to submit proposals for a complete suite of
infrastructure management application software; and for the procedures and costs of the
data conversion. Proposals were to include specifications for all software, hardware and
training and services. Additionally, the Consultant! Vendor would be responsible for the
correct recording and placement of all features and attributes.
On January 8, 2003, the Public Works Department requested authorization from the City
Commission to issue a Request for Proposal (RFP) to secure a Consultant that would
provide the complete Infrastructure Management System. During the time that the
Commission approved the issuance of this RFP, and the actual date it was issued, the
Public Works Department and IT provided in-depth research on the required software and
hardware to support the IMS initiative.
This RFP was issued to BidNet on August 27, 2003 with an RFP opening date of
November 14, 2003. BidNet in turn contacted 70 vendors, of which 59 downloaded the
RFP package. A Pre-Proposal conference was held on September 19, 2003, Consultants
were briefed on all documentation that needed to be submitted with the response.
Additionally, they were informed on the scope of service and the weight criteria to be used
by the Evaluation Committee for this project.
On November 14, 2003, the Procurement Division received 6 responses ofthis RFP. Two
of the six responses were deemed non-responsive; they did not include the demonstration
compact disk that was requested by Addendum # 4. The non-responsive Consultants were:
TRDI and CADD Centers of Florida.
Commission Memo
RFP 64-02/03 - Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
February 25, 2004
Page 3
Responsive Consultants who provided RFP's included:
Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM)
GBA Master Series, Inc.
Hansen
Woolpert LLP
The City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 283-2004, appointed an Evaluation
Committee ("the Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
. Robert Halfhill, Project Administrator
. Larry Kientz, Information Technology Specialist III
. Leonardo Francis, Project Coordinator
. Kee Eng, Assistant Public Works Director, City of Hollywood
. Evette Reyes, Information Technology, GIS Specialist
. James Watts, Public Works Director, City of Sunny Isles Beach
. Philip Cousins, Miami Beach Citizen
. Autumn Moore, Miami Beach Citizen
On January 12, 2004, the Committee convened and was provided with the project overview
and background information by Mr. Leonardo Francis, Project Coordinator. Committee
member, Larry Kientz, was unable to attend this or any other Committee Meeting and was
replaced by an alternate, Gary Kokorian, P.E., Engineer III. Additionally, Committee
Member, James Watts was unable to attend any of the meetings. During the first
Evaluation Committee meeting, the Committee reviewed references secured by the
Procurement staff. The evaluation criteria listed below was explained, discussed and used
to evaluate and rank the respondents:
. Quality of Proposed Approach
. Ability to Perform
. Workload
. Past Performance
. Applications Software
. Performance through the demonstration project
· Cost
A listing of the evaluation criteria, with weights, is attached.
Consensus at the end of the meeting was to invite all 4 firms to provide a 1.5 hour
demonstration project, with a 30 minute qualifications presentation followed by one hour of
question and answer session. The Procurement staff coordinated and scheduled
presentations, one presentation per day per company.
Commission Memo
RFP 64-02/03 - Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
February 25, 2004
Page 4
The Consultants provided their demonstration/presentation on the following dates:
Friday, January 23, 2004 - Camp Dresser and McKee (COM)
Wednesday, January 28, 2004 - GBA Master Series, Inc.
Thursday, January 29, 2004 - Hansen
Friday, January 30, 2004 - Wool pert LLP
The Committee reconvened on Monday, February 2, 2004 to deliberate and rank the
Consultants. During deliberations, the Committee members discussed their individual
ranking of the seven firms and arrived at the following Committee ranking:
Bob Autumn Leonardo Phillip Evette Kee Eng Gary
Halfhill Moore Francis Cousins Reyes Kokorian
CDM 465 (1) 490 (1) 435 (1) 380 (2) 460 (1) 485 (2) 415 (1)
WOOLPERT 420 (2) 415 (2) 425 (2) 405 (1) 450 (2) 500 (1) 400 (2)
HANSEN 350 (3) 300 (3) 300 (4) 350 (3) 350 (3) 400 (3) 335 (4)
GBA 305 (4) 150 (4) 390 (3) 340 (4) 340(4) 365 (4) 390 (3)
COM
5_151 Place Votes (5x1= 5)
2_2nd Place Votes (2x2-4)
Score: 9
WOOLPERT- 2_151 Place Votes (2x1=2)
5_2nd Place Votes (5x2=10)
Score 12
HANSEN - 5_3rd Place Votes (5x3=15)
2-4th Place Votes (2x4=8)
Score 23
GBA 2_3rd Place Votes (2x3=6)
5-4th Place Votes (5x4=20)
Score 26
LEGEND:
First:
Second:
Third:
Fourth
Camp Dresser and McKee (COM)
Wool pert LLP.
Hansen
GBA Master Series, Inc.
Commission Memo
RFP 64-02/03 -Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
February 25, 2004
Page 5
Camp Dresser and McKee (CDM) was deemed to be the first ranked firm based on the
experience and qualifications of their team, which consisted of the following Consultants:
Azteca Systems, Inc. - is the recognized leader in providing Enterprise-GIS Asset
Maintenance Management and CMMS software for the Public Works Department.
CHS SA - in business since 1993, CHS SA specializes in municipal civil engineering and
consulting services. CHS has a quality management system in accordance with ISO 9001-
2000 and approved by Bureau Verities Quality International (Bevin). CHS will provide
service for the following market applications:
. Digital Mapping Services
. Software Design and Development
ESRI- provides support to municipal agencies by designing, developing and implementing
geographic-based information management systems. The firm is the largest and most
experienced G IS organization in the world, bringing experience, state-of-the-art technology,
and a history of success in working with thousands of private enterprises, local
governments, and utility GIS users around the world.
IDAS - specializes in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Document Management
software, training, technical support and implementation consulting services.
The following are references secured by the Procurement staff in reference to CRM's past
performance on similar projects:
Angelo Marino
Chief Assessor/GIS Coordinator
City of Nashua, New Hampshire
"COM has provided excellent quality work for all of the projects they have been awarded. I
am extremely confident in the quality and performance that I have an open ended contract
for future projects as the need arises. You will not be disappointed with any project that
they are awarded. "
Michael R. O'Brien
GIS Coordinator
City of Auburn, Maine
"COM bends over backward to provide the City of Auburn with quality services in the on-
going development and maintenance of our GIS. Auburn has been associated with COM
for over 9 years and they continue to be accessible and exceptionally responsive to our
changing needs. COM delivers on-time and at a reasonable cost. I highly recommend
COM to assist you with your project".
Commission Memo
RFP 64-02/03 - Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
February 25, 2004
Page 6
Peter L. Bit you
Water Operations Engineer
Elgin, Illinois
"Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM) was hired on December 17, 1997 to develop City of
Elgin's Water Department Geographic Information System (GIS). Since then CDM was
hired by the City of Elgin to perform additional work in relation to updating water GIS,
prototype & field portable maintenance information system, developed data maintenance
tools & processes, assisted the City in selection and implementation of work order
management system, process & implementation of water service connection locations to
GIS database, creation of water service connection card program, and provided training for
City's staff. Since CDM has a successful track record with the City of Elgin, CDM will
deserve our consideration in our future projects."
Mr. Daniel Nvule
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority
"We have had 3 GIS/Database contracts with CDM. The one I have described above was
the last one. I found CDM's staff to be very responsive to our needs and they also
produced high quality work in a timely fashion. "
Below is a draft summary for the breakdown of costs prepared from the proposal,
presented by COM. These costs may vary after contract negotiations.
Cost Quotations Summary (IMS RFP 64-02/03 ) CDM
Aooendix IV: Data Conversion Costs $472,631
Appendix V: Software Training & Education Cost $119,700
Appendix VI: Software Installation Cost $203,482
Appendix VII: Application Software License Fees & Modification Cost Summary form $76,395
Appendix VIII: Application Software Annual Maintenance Fee summary form $16,807
annual fee is
22% of
software cost
TOTAL $889,015
Note: For uniform comparison, the maximum number of licenses (20 seats)
requested in the proposal were used to do the cost summary calculations.
Commission Memo
RFP 64-02/03 - Infrastructure Management System (IMS)
February 25, 2004
Page 7
COST
The consultant (COM) has provided, in their proposal, a preliminary schedule indicating
that complete implementation will take a little under 2 years (March 2004 to Dec 2005).
The additional costs, such as, user hardware upgrades, purchase of server hardware,
management of the MS Sequel Server database system, purchase of additional ArcGIS
software licenses, and additional operations and management staffing for system's support
are yet to be determined. There may be other costs associated with any additional Optional
Functions the City may want to add to the system. Many of these costs will be finalized
after contract negotiations are completed and/or after the end of Phase I - Initial Data
Conversion and implementation.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission adopt the attached
resolution which accepts the City Manager's recommendation, and authorizes the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm of Camp Dresser and
McKee (COM), and should the Administration not be able to negotiate an agreement with
the top ranked firm; authorizing the Administration to negotiate with second-ranked firm of
Wool pert LLP.
T:\AGENDA\2004\Feb2504\ConsentlIMS RFP Memo.doc
SECTION IV - EVALUATION/SELECTION PROCESS: CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
The procedure for proposal evaluation and selection is as follows:
1. Request for Proposals issued.
2. Receipt of proposals.
3. Opening and listing of all proposals received.
4. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate
each proposal in accordance with the requirements of this RFP. If further
information is desired, proposers may be requested to make additional written
submissions to the City Procurement Director, or may be requested to make oral
presentations to the Evaluation Committee before it makes its recommendation.
5. The Evaluation Committee shall recommend to the City Manager the proposal or
proposals acceptance of which the Evaluation Committee believes to be in the
best interest of the City.
The Evaluation Committee shall base its recommendations on the following
factors:
1. QUALITY OF PROPOSED APPROACH ( 15 Points);
2. ABILITY TO PERFORM ( 15 Points);
3. WORKLOAD (10 Points);
4. PAST PERFORMANCE (10 Points);
5. APPLICATIONS SOFTWARE (20 Points); and
6. PERFORMANCE THROUGH THE DEMONSTRATION PROJECT
( 15 Points).
7. COST ( 15 Points).
Proposer must attach copies of financial statements for the last three years,
preferably audited. If audited financial statements are unavailable, include an
explanation as to why they were not available.
The Evaluation Committee will rank no less than three firms as follows:
a. The firm with more than 50% of the Committee Members' first-place ranking will be
deemed the top-ranked firm. The second and third rank firms will be ranked based on the
total low aggregate score. For example, a Committee of seven (7) members rank the firms
as follows:
A
4 - 1ST place votes (4x1=4)
1 -2nd place vote (1x2=2)
2 -3rd place votes (2x3=6)
B.
2 - 1st place votes (2x1=2)
4 - 2nd place votes (4x2=8)
1 - 3rd place votes (1x3=3)
C.
1 - 1st place votes (1x1=1)
2 - 2nd place vote (2x2=4)
4 - 3rd place votes (4x3=12)
12
13
17
RFP NO: 64-02/03
DATE: August 27,2003
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
Page 26 of 78