2001-24311 RESO
RESOLUTION NO. 2001-24311
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 THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO
REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 7-00/01, TO PROVIDE
URBAN DESIGN, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE, AND ENGINEERING
SERVICES FOR PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION
SERVICES FOR STREETSCAPE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN
THE FLAMINGOILUMMUS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD; AUTHORIZING
THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH
THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM OF EDA W, AND IF UNSUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT WITH THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM
OF EDAW AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A
CONTRACT WITH THE SECOND MOST QUALIFIED FIRM OF
WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS; AND IF UNSUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT WITH THE SECOND MOST
QUALIFIED FIRM OF WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS;
AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT
WITH THE THIRD MOST QUALIFIED FIRM OF THE CORRADINO
GROUP.
WHEREAS, Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 7-00/01 was issued to obtain
qualifications of professional firms with the capability and experience to provide professional
planning, urban design, landscape architecture and engineering services for design, construction
documents, bidding, and construction administration of streetscape and utility improvements in
the FlamingolLummus Park; and
WHEREAS, the following individuals were appointed to serve on the Evaluation
Committee ("the Committee") for the FlamingolLummus Neighborhood Project:
William Cary
Samuel Burstyn
Michael Alvarez
Mitch Novick
Joseph Johnson
WHEREAS, on February 9, 2001, the following firms provided an oral presentation and
participated in a question and answer session:
The Corradino Group
EDAW, Inc.
Montgomery Watson
Woltberg Alvarez & Partners; and
WHEREAS, after all the presentations and question and answer sessions had concluded,
the Committee deliberated, and ranked the fIrms as follows:
1. EDA W
2. Wolfberg Alvarez & Partners
3. The Corradino Group and Montgomery Watson; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager concurs with the Evaluation Committee's
recommendation.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND
CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the
Mayor and City Commission hereby accept 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 the proposals received in response to Request
for QualifIcations (RFQ) No. 7-00101, to provide urban design, landscape architecture,
and engineering services for planning, design, and construction services for streetscape,
and utility improvements in the FlamingolLummus park neighborhood; authorizing the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the most qualifIed fIrm of EDA W, and if
unsuccessful in negotiating a contract with the most qualifIed fIrm of EDA W authorize
the Administration to negotiate a contract with the second most qualifIed fIrm of
Wolfberg Alvarez & partners; and if unsuccessful in negotiating a contract with the
second most qualifIed fIrm ofWolfberg Alvarez & partners; authorize the Administration
to negotiate a contract with the third most qualifIed fIrm of the Corradino Group.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 28th day of
March,
2001.
ri/J
Mayor
ATTEST:
fJw~ d-' P #A~
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & lANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
'!, - y-c> ,
Date
Eva..ado. Matrh:
Group n Stnetlcape Projedl - RFQ #f7 00101
1# . CriIeria WIIIlII Score
I ,11 !and'
Exampla of critaia:
. Number of,.., experience of prime eonsuItant firm
. Number IIICI type of jobs the prime lad subs have previously collabonted
. ~ of respoasibilities in projects lIIIdertaken during Jut five yars
. Number of years experience of proj~ mlMler in desilD IIICI COIISln1ctiOlJ of
screetsc:ape IIICI utility projects
. Number of similar projects the project manager previously served IS proj~
mlDlller
. Suitability of nining and experience of project mlMler to putic:ular issues in this
neipborbood
. Ability of project mlaager to work successfully witb City Slaft'
. Ability of project llllDaBer to work successfully with citizens
2.- woiitloadNohI-.e of Work "
Examples of critaia:
. Recent, c:urrenI and proj~ed workloads of the team
. Volume of work previously awarded by the City
.
3. Previ!>>us similar oroieets
Examples of criteria;
. Number of projects truly similar in neighborhood context, urban design, andlor
engineering complexity
. Scope of responsibilities of leam members in similar projects
. Quality of design and conStruction of similar projects
. Fees paid 10 firm and total cost of conStruction
4. Oualiflcations of die Proiel Team
Examples of criteria:
. Experience and quality of UJbau designer
- . /-f,
. Experience and quality of public puticipation specialist
. Experience and quality of landscape architect
. Experience and quality of lI'lIffic analysis specialist
. Experience and quality of civil engineers (streets, sidewalks)
. Experience and quality of drainage engineers
. Experience and quality of water and sewer engineers
S. Past Perfo.....ace
Examples ofcriteria;
. Work complded on time
. Work completed witbin budget
. Quality of worIt
. Ability to worIt successfully witb City staff
. Ability to won: successfully with citizens
. Overall S8Iis!llclioa
. Lcpl claims agUnst tbe prime or subs
6.
Exampla of criteria;
. 0rgIIIizaIi0aaI structure of project team (suitability to project, efficiency)
. Suitability ofpllDning and public puticipation process described by team
. DemOlllll'llled UDClerstanding of project-specific issues
TOTAL
.-
-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
http:\\ci.miami-beach.fl.us
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM NO.
182-0)
Mayor Neisen O. Kasdin and
Members o1tbe City Commission
01
DATE: March 28, 2001
Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Manager
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 THE PROPOSALS RECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO REQUEST
FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 7-00/01, TO PROVIDE URBAN
DESIGN, LANDSCAPE ARCIDTECfURE, AND ENGINEERING SERVICES
FOR PLANNING, DESIGN, AND CONSTRUCTION SERVICES FOR
STREETSCAPE, AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE
FLAMINGOILUMMUS PARK NEIGHBORHOOD; AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE MOST
QUALIFIED FIRM OF EDAW, AND IF UNSUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT WITH THE MOST QUALIFIED FIRM OF
EDAW AUTHORIZE THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A
CONTRACT WITH THE SECOND MOST QUALIFIED FIRM OF
WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS; AND IF UNSUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING A CONTRACT WITH THE SECOND MOST QUALIFIED
FIRM OF WOLFBERG ALVAREZ & PARTNERS; AUTHORIZE THE
ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT WITH THE THIRD
MOST QUALIFIED FIRM OF THE CORRADINO GROUP.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS:
The City Commission at its February 21, 2001 meeting, adopted Resolution No. 2001-24277 as
amended, and authorized the administration to enter into negotiations with the most qualified firms
for the following neighborhoods: Nautilus; Normandy Isle; and West AvenuelBay Road; and
deferred the Flamingo/Lummus Neighborhood Project to the next scheduled commission meeting.
The specific project description for each neighborhood was previously presented to the City
Commission at its February 14,2001 meeting via Commission Memo No. 110-01, and Agenda Item
R7C. This agenda item will address the remaining neighborhood - Flamingo/Lummus Park.
Agenda Item fZ.iA
Date'3-'28' -0 f
Commission Memorandum
RFQ 7-00/01
March 28, 2001
Page 2
Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 7-00/01 was issued to obtain qualifications of professional
firms with the capability and experience to provide professional planning, urban design, landscape
architecture and engineering services for design, construction documents, bidding, and construction
administration of streetscape and utility improvements in the following neighborhoods: (1) Nautilus;
(2) Normandy Isle; (3) Flamingo/Lummus Park; and (4) West AvenuelBay Road.
Flamingo/ Lummus Park Neighborhood Description: The neighborhood is located in the heart
of the south Miami Beach area and includes much of the National Register Architectural District.
The neighborhood is composed of two distinct development districts occurring to either side of the
neighborhood's main arterial, Washington Avenue. The neighborhood to the west of Washington
Avenue is comprised of low rise, multi-family residential structures including a small enclave of
single-family structures directly west of Flamingo Park. The neighborhood located to the east of
Washington Avenue and surrounding Lummus Park forms the commercial and mixed-use
entertainment component of the National Register Architectural District and is deemed to be the
most popular tourist attraction in South Florida and one of the most successful revitalization projects
in the world.
The project consists of providing enhanced pedestrian and vehicular streetscape improvements
within an allocated budget and prioritization to include: comprehensive landscaping and irrigation,
traffic calming, sidewalks, park improvements, street lighting, street resurfacing, swale enhancement,
parking layout, signage, water line and drainage improvements. The work will also consist of
coordination with other consultants with respect to the City's Municipal Mobility Plan, Flamingo
Park charrette improvements, Lummus Park improvements, and Beach Masterplan projects, and
others.
Water line replacement and upgrades in the amount of $4,869,491 are funded by the Series 2000
Water & Sewer Bonds. Funding for Stormwater improvements is $13,338,204. The total General
Obligation (G.O.) Bond allocation for above ground streetscape improvements in this neighborhood
is $7,400,000. The total allocation for this project is $25,607,695. Not all of the total allocation will
require design or construction documents.
The following individuals were appointed to serve on the Evaluation Committee ("the
Committee") for the Flamingo/Lummus Neighborhood Project:
William Cary
Samuel Burstyn
Michael Alvarez
*Mitch Novick
Joseph Johnson
* Added as a replacement to Herb Sosa, who had a conflict with the firm of Bermello Ajamil, who
was part of the Montgomery Watson project team.
Commission Memorandum
RFQ 7-00/01
March 28, 2001
Page 3
INITIAL COMMITTEE MEETING:
On February 2, 2001, the Committee convened and discussed the Evaluation Criteria in detail. The
Committee members were provided with an Evaluation Matrix Form (copy attached) that covered
all the evaluation factors in the RFQ to a greater detail.
The Chairman of the Committee, Samuel Burstyn, moved that all Committee members track the
criteria reflected in the evaluation matrix throughout the presentations and question and answer
sessions, and that during the deliberations the Committee will decide:
(1) The exact documents (i.e. rating forms) that the Committee will submit; and
(2) How to weigh the criteria in coming up with the overall number.
The Committee voted on Mr. Burstyn's motion and agreed to utilize the Evaluation Matrix Form to
evaluate and assign the appropriate score on all six areas on form.
The Committee then agreed to invite all firms that responded to the RFQ to provide an oral
presentation.
ORAL PRESENTATIONS AND COMMITTEE DELIBERATONS:
On February 9, 2001, the following firms provided an oral presentation and participated in a question
and answer session:
The Corradino Group
EDA W, Inc.
Montgomery Watson
Wolfberg Alvarez & Partners
After all the presentations and question and answer sessions had concluded, the Committee
deliberated. As part of the deliberation process, the Committee discussed whether or not to assign
a weighted factor or score to each criteria listed on the Evaluation Matrix Form. The Committee
decided to only assign a score and not a weighted factor to each criteria, with the exception of the
following criteria which was not rated:
WorkloadNolume of Work
Examples of criteria:
. Recent, current and projected workloads of the team.
. Volume of work previously awarded by the City.
Commission Memorandum
RFQ 7-00/01
March 28, 2001
Page"
During deliberations, each Committee member discussed the strengths and weaknesses of each firm,
and then individually ranked each firm. After the initial discussion, each member listed their
preference as to their top-ranked firm, and Wolfberg Alvarez had two first place votes, with EDA W,
Corradino, and Montgomery Watson each having one first place vote.
INITIAL COMMITTEE RANKING
MEMBERS EDAW WOLFBERG CORRADINO WATSON
William Cary I 3 2 3
Samuel Burstyn 2 I 3 3
Michael Alvarez 4 I 3 2
Mitch Novick 2 4 3 I
Joseph Johnson 2 2 I 4
FINAL RANKING AND SCORING:
After each member had expressed the strengths and weaknesses of each firm, Samuel Burstyn
although having allocated the same score to both EDA Wand Wolfberg, decided to change his top
ranking from Wolfberg to EDA W. Therefore, EDA W received two first place votes, with Wolfberg,
Corradino, and Montgomery Watson each having one first place vote. The Committee's final ranking
and recommendation is as follows:
EDAW
WOLFBERG
CORRADINO
WATSON
MEMBERS
William Cary
49 (I)
45 (I)
33 (4)
43 (2)
44 (2)
43 (3)
45 (2)
41 (I)
34 (4)
44 (2)
47 (2)
40 (3)
37 (3)
40 (3)
45 (I)
43(4)
40(3)
37(2)
45(1)
40(4)
Samuel Burstyn
Michael Alvarez
Mitch Novick
Joseph Johnson
Commission Memorandum
RFQ 7-00/01
March 28, 2001
Page 5
The Committee members provided the following strengths on each of the firms:
EDAW
. Project approach
. Similar projects
. Qualifications of the project team
. Understanding of the neighborhood
. High ratings from reference checks
. Excellent presentation
. Good urban design experience
. Excellent project team
. Successful projects (i.e. Bayside Marketplace)
Woltberg Alvarez
. Very impressive approaches to parking enhancement, traffic calming, and streetscape design.
.' Community involvement
. Water and Sewer solutions
. Strong Management Plan
. Good Historical Preservation Staff
. Resources
. Track record
. Grant Assistance
. Excellent Project Manager experience
. Most streetscape experience
. Very impressive urban planner
. Good references
Montgomery Watson
. Cost savings potential
. Strong team
. Approach to infrastructure improvements
. Team has worked together on many projects
Corradino
. Strong project team
. Good presentation
. Project approach relating to mobility, parking, and safety
. Effective public relations individual
. Good traffic calming experience
. Working relationships with members of the team
. Excellent historic preservation team member
Commission Memorandum
RFQ 7-00/01
March 28, 2001
Page 6
NOTIFICATION TO ALL FIRMS
On February 12, 2001, all firms that responded to the RFQ were advised of the Committee's
recommendation. Mr. David Woltberg ofWoltberg Alvarez & Partners addressed a letter dated
February 12, 2001 to the City Manager, which expressed Woltberg's dissatisfaction with the
Committee's selection of ED A W, based on the following areas:
I. The City Commission had expressed an interest to have G.O. Bond Program contract awards
spread among several firms;
2. EDA W had already been awarded two neighborhood projects; and
3. EDA W does not have a local office -- their southernmost office is located in Orlando.
Later a request to defer this item at the February 21, 2001 Commission meeting was granted.
As a result ofWoltberg's letter, and the discussion held by the City Commission at its February 21,
2001 meeting, the following issues have been raised:
ISSUE NO.1: Was the Committee required to assign a score or weighted factor to the
W orkloadN olume of Work criteria, specifically as it relates to the recent, current and projected
workloads of the team; and the volume of work previously awarded by the City?
No. Pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, known as the Consultants' Competitive
Negotiation Act (CCNA), the Committee was required to consider and not necessarily score the
following factors:
2(b) The agency shall select in order of preference no fewer than three firms deemed
to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. In determining
whether a firm is qualified, the agency SHALL CONSIDER such factors as the
ability of professional personnel; whether a firm is a certified minority business
enterprise; past performance; willingness to meet time and budget requirements;
location; RECENT, CURRENT, AND PROJECTED WORKLOADS OF THE
FIRMS; AND THE VOLUME OF WORK PREVIOUSLY AWARDED TO EACH
FIRM B Y THE A GENCY, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of
contracts among qualified firms, provided such distribution does not violate the
principle of selection of the most highly qualifiedfirms. (emphasis added).
2 Certified minority business enterprise is omitted in the footnote of the Florida Statute. The City Attorney's Office
has opined that the footnote controls and that Certified Minority Business Enterprise is not a factor of consideration
in the selection process.
Commission Memorandum
RFQ 7-00/01
March 28, 2001
Page 7
The Committee did in fact consider the WorkloadlVolume of Work Criteria, and elected not
to assign a numerical score, based on the following reasons: (1) one member believed that
allocating a score in this area would not be fair to the firms that had previously been awarded
contracts by the City; (2) another member believed that the WorkloadlVolume of Work
criteria was already covered in another area of the RFQ Evaluation Criteria (i.e. References
Provided by Prior Project Owners); and (3) another member believed that since the
Evaluation Matrix Form had a handwritten NA, that he could not allocate a score.
ISSUE NO.2: Was the Committee required to assign a score or value to the firms' location in
making their recommendation?
No. Pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, known as the Consultants' Competitive
Negotiation Act (CCNA), the Committee was required to consider and not necessarily assign a score
or value to the firms' location. The Committee did in fact consider the fact that EDA W has
principal offices in Atlanta, Georgia, and Orlando, Florida, but was assured by EDA W that they were
in the process of leasing office space in Miami Beach (777 I i" Street). Therefore, the Committee
decided that the location of each firm did not require a rating.
ISSUE NO.3: Was the Committee required to consider the fact that EDA W had been previously
selected for two neighborhood projects?
Yes. Pursuant to Section 287.055, Florida Statutes, known as the Consultants' Competitive
Negotiation Act (CCNA), the Committee was required to consider recent, current and projected
workloads of each firm. The Committee was aware of the fact that EDA W had been selected for
two other neighborhood projects, but determined that EDA W had all the necessary resources to also
take on the FlamingolLummus Neighborhood project. Therefore, the Committee decided that this
criterion would not be rated.
In conclusion, CCNA does require that agencies (including municipalities) consider the recent,
current, and projected workloads of the firms; and the volume of work previously awarded to each
firm by the agency, with the object of effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified
firms, provided such distribution does not violate the principle of selection of the most highly
qualified firms. The City Manager concurs with the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee
and recommends EDA W as the most qualified firm for the FlamingolLummus Neighborhood
project.
JMG:MDS:GL~''"S'"
Attachment