LTC 190-2009 Correspondence relative to Item R7H (Lincoln Park) on the July 15, 2009 Commission Meetingm M l AM I B EAC H 2609 Jlli. 15 ~N S: ~ 4
SIC` i:. ~.. .
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
NO. LTC # 190-2009 LETTER TO COMMISSION
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: July 14, 2009
SUBJECT: Correspondence relative to Item R7H (Lincoln Park) on the July 15, 2009
Commission Meeting
Attached please find two (2) letters related to Item R7H (Lincoln Park) on tomorrow's
Commission agenda.
The attachments are as follows:
(1) Letter to the Mayor & City Commissioners dated July 13, 2009 re: Lincoln Park
Consultant Selection from Hargreaves Associates
(2) Letter to the City Manager dated July 14, 2009 re: Response to Hargreaves
Associates Letter Questioning Evaluation Committee's Recommendation to
Award Landscape Architect
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
Attachments
JMG/DM
F:kmgrl$ALL'~LTG09~,LTC re Correspondence regarding R7H June 15 Comm.tloc
ccV rkAW:IS:O
C4AtltlIDGF
V CF' YCtK
July 13th, 2009
Mayor Matti Herrera Bower & ,;,,,,, „_,,,;
Members of the City Commission
1700 Convention Center Drive "'" ° "-
c~: e~ mEn r
Miami Beach
Florida, 33139 ""°~""r`i0"
Re: Lincoln Park Consultant Selection
HA Project #: NWS 0901
Dear Mayor & Commissioners,
Having learnt of the Lincoln Park selection committee's decision on Friday the 10"'July, we ,__I,,..~.-~r.
were disappointed but prepared to accept the recommendation and move on - until we read -"°''''~"-'•~ «^''
the Commission Item Summary before you. 1. F F WLH
,,,,,;,,;,~,;,,
As a friend of Miami Beach, we wish to bring to your attention that the recommendation
before you may not be in the public interest. Having gone through a fair public selection ,,,, „~,,,-,
~~ : °~. ~.,_<~',
rocess some 4 ears a o for South Pointe Park, the consultant selection rocess for Lincoln
Park has not met the same high standard. """"' "'
This unfairness has resulted in a recommendation that is flawed and promises to further
tarnish the public image surrounding the Lincoln Park process.
Specifically the flaws are;
7) The opening date of January 2011 was delayed for one team but not the other.
On numerous occasions the City Commission and its Committees have stressed the
importance of opening Lincoln Park for January 2011. The RFQ stressed the
importance of on-time delivery, and at the 18° June pre-bid meeting, we specifically
asked the panel to elaborate on the ambitious schedule. New World Symphony
representatives stressed that the park must be operational and look great for January
2011 and City representatives stressed that they would not spend extra funds on an
interim landscape just for an opening. At no time were we told that the schedule
could be delayed and so we based our presentation around delivering a great park on
time and on budget.
Upon reading the Summary, we were shocked to learn that the other team was
allowed to delay the park delivery by an extra 8 months to September 2011 and that
our team was penalized for sticking to the original deadline.
2) The RFP evaluation criterion weighting was kept secret.
The RFQ evaluation criterion and their weighting were known in advance by all
bidders. However, the RFP evaluation criterion and their weighting was kept secret.
According to the Summary, there was an extraordinary high (SO%) weighting to
"concept plan, vision & similar projects" which unfairly favored style over substance
and image over delivery. If we had known the criterion and weighting prior to the
interview we would have done a different interview rather than emphasize delivery
and process.
Furthermore, on behalf of the cities we have worked in, the citizens of London, Tokyo,
Hong Kong, Singapore, New York, Chicago, San Francisco and even Miami Beach
would disagree with the inference that they are not "first tier international cities". By
reference, the RFP response included the RFQ response which showed our larger
body ofwork including more "urban" work and this fact should not have been
overlooked.
3) The lowest responsible and best-value bid was overlooked.
As requested on July 8`" by Hines, our final fee was confirmed at $1,393,500 on July 9''
based on delivering a great park on time and on budget with all of the required
expertise included. The other team's fee was higher, to deliver the project later and
had missing expertise necessary to deliver the park.
The Hargreaves team carried 11 specialists including an international artist, Miami
Beach architect & landscape architect and water feature specialist. We understand
the West 8 team only included only 5 specialists - L'Observatorie International,
Coastal Systems, Acoustic Dimensions, Cosentini and Ken DiDonato with no Miami
Beach architect or landscape architect.
Once the missing expertise is added, the other team's fee would be over budget.
4) Critical contractual Issues were overlooked.
As requested on July 8`" by Hines and confirmed by us on July 9°, we accepted all the
standard contract conditions contained in the RFP unmodified. This fact is omitted
from the Summary. Furthermore, the conditions contained in the RFP state a very
important clause as follows;
"ll D. QUALIFICAT/ONS& STAFFING
The Landscape Architect represents that it is experienced and fully qualified to
perform the Services contemplated by this Agreement, and that it is proper/y licensed
pursuant to applicable law to perform such Services. "
It has been suggested by others that the West 8 team as bid, cannot comply with this
contract condition or indeed state law. A quick search of the Florida Department
Business & Professional Regulation reveals no listing of West 8's currently listed staff
as licensed professionals to practice Landscape Architecture or Architecture in the
state as required bylaw. Ifthis is true, then the West 8 team is not qualified to do the
park because their team contained no local landscape architectural or architectural
practice as subconsultants. Ifthe West 8 team were allowed to add this missing
expertise then their fee would be over budget.
Fundamentally the difference between the 2 bids is this - the Hargreaves proposal believed in
the best of Miami Beach - that an alignment of private and public interests can be reached,
that the best local and international design can be blended, that art can be included upfront,
that resident's voices can be heard, that budgets can be maintained, and that deadlines could
be met to open a great building and a great park in January 2011.
Ifyou think the public interest has not been served, then you have several options other than
accepting the recommendation;
1) Do a background check for professional registrations and if no one on the West 8
team is registered to practice landscape architecture or architecture in the State -
they either must withdraw or be disqualified,
2) Stick with the original schedule and do not delay the project any longer- in which
case the West 8 team cannot meet the original schedule,
3) Reject both bids and start again.
Hargreaves Associates has enjoyed our small part in serving the public interest and shaping
Miami Beach's future and we wanted to bring this to your attention before the Commission
meeting so you are fully informed.
Regards,
~~~ .
Gavin McMillan
principal
cr
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Tim Hemstree[, Assistant City Manager
George Hargreaves, Hargreaves Associates
Matt Tucker, Hargreaves Associates
File
t~ fr~;,~\ STATE OF FLORIDA
OF
- ~`., DEPARTMENT BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONAL REGIILATION
! ll BOARD OF LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE (850) 487-1395
1940 NORTH MONROE STREET
~~.,~*~ TALLAHASSEE FL 32399-0783
HARtaREAVES AS.40CIATE3
RECENED
HAROREAVESSASSOCIATES JUL 13 2009
398 KANSAS STREET
SAN FRANCISCO CA 94103 UWDSCAPEARCHiTECTa
SAN FRANCISCO CA
Congratulations! Wilh this license you become one of the nearly one million
Floridians licensed by the Department of Business and Professlonel Regulation.
Our professionals and businesses range from architects to yacht brokers, from
boxers to barbeque restaurants, and they keep Florida's economy strong.
Our mission at the Department is: License Efficiently, Regulate Fairly. We
constantly strive to serve you better so that you can serve your customers.
Thank you for doing business in Florida, and congratulations on your new License!
DETACH HERE
July 14, 2009
Mr. Jorge Gonzalez
City Manager
City of Miami Beach
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Lincoln Pxric, Miami Bcach, Florida
Hll ll-ir7 Re: Response to Hargreaves Associates Letter Questioning Evaluation
Committee's Recommendation to Award Landscape Architect
Dear Jorge
Thank you for forwarding a copy of the Hargreaves Associates letter dated July
13, 2009 titled "Lincoln Park Consultant SelecKion". As you know, the
Evaluation Committee consisted of six members, three representatives of City of
Miami Beach and of New World Symphony. The Evaluation Committee
reviewed Proposals from Hargreaves Associates and West 8 in a transparent and
fair process that produced a unanimous recommendation fmm Hvaluation
Committee to award contract to West 8.
Please see below our response to each of the issues raised in I-Iargrcavcs
Associates (I Iargreaves) letter. We thank you for the opportunity to respond and
took forward to discussing this recommendation with you and the Commission
tomorrow.
1. "The opening date of Janarary 2011 was delayed jor one team and not the
ather. "-
The Request for Proposal Section IIl Proposal Rcquitrments Paragraph C
Design Schedule requests the following
"Provide a Design Schedule from start of Programming through
wmplction of Conslmction Documents based on Attachment B
"Regulatory Process".
The Request for Proposal does not provide any requirements, timeframcs
or deadlines for Project wmpletion. Jn the Introduction (Pre-Bid)
Noa World Symphony 1672 Urczcl Avenue Miami Bcxch, Flonde 3313y (3115) 535-62R4 (305) 5'36-'1696 YAX
Meetings both firms were provided information regarding the anticipated
Grand Opening of New World Symphony and a list of Park components
that New World Symphony wanted to have operational at the Grand
Opening. Each faro approached the schedule in a different manner.
Hargreaves presented an aggressive schedule that in Hazgreaves words
"had no float or room for error" and "would require approvals without
delay or second submission or the Project would be delayed". As stated
in our recotrunendation letter, the Evaluation Committee noted with
concern that the Hargreaves fee was based on 18-month fast track process
with all fee risk transferred to City should the project's duration gu
beyond 26 months. West 8's fcc oovcrcd the duration of the project and
anticipated as much as a 25 month schedule. Because Hargreaves' fee is
contingent on what is an aggressive schedule, the Evaluation Committee
felt that the Wesi 8 &~: is "safer" and consequently a better value.
2. '7he RFP evaluation criterion weighting was kept secret. "
Request for Proposal Section III Proposal Requirements details the
evaluation criterion. The weighling was not provided to either taro. The
lvaluation Comtnittec ranked West 8's Proposal higher in every
category. Therefore, the relative weighting of categories did not affect
the Evaluation Committee;'s unanimous decision.
3. "The lowesd responsible and best-value bid was overlooked. "
In comparing the Proposals for a complete design team, West 8's
proposed fee is less than Hargreavev fee by $23,015.
West 8 fee per letter dated July 9, 2009 is $1,284,485.
Hazgreaves fee per letter dated July 9, 2009 is $1,246,500 but does not
include what they deemed as special services.
't'he West 8 Proposal inclndcs Gootochnical borings and updated report,
Supplemental updated Survey and Environmental Study and Acoustics.
The Hargreaves Proposal lists these services as Special Services that are
additive to the fee in the amount of $30,000, $8,000 and $23,000
respectively. 1'he revised fee for Hargreaves is therefore $1,307,500.
4. "Critical contractual issues were overlooked. "
Request for Qualifications Section lII Proposal Requirements Section A
Summary ofMinimum Qualifications Pazagaph 1 states
"Professional licenses and insurance in the State of Fiorida is
preferred. If the Firm is not pre,9ently licensed as a Landscape
Architect in Florida, the Firm shall state in its Proposal whether it
will sock licenstue in Florida for the Project, or if asub-consultant
Landscape ArchitecKure Firm will be utilized for this ptnpose."
West 8's response w Request far Qualifications page A.2 states
"West 8 New York will obtain all licenses required by the State of
Florida or the City of Miami Beach to perform the services called
for in the RFQ."
We believe the Request for Qualifications proce.9s and Request for Proposal
process was fair, transparent and has provided a reconunendation that is in the
best interests of the Ciry of Iviiami Beach. The Evaluation Committee was
unanimous in its decision to recommend West 8 to you and the City
Commission.
Than you,
/~
c Barry
nes
CC: Evaluation Committee Members
Mr. Floward Herring, New World Symphony
Mr. David Phillips, New World Symphony
Mr. Tim Hemstreet, City of Miami Beach