2013-28417 Reso RESOLUTION NO.' 2013-28417
A RESOLUTION OF THE MANOR AND CITY COMMISSION O'F THE CITY Of
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CITY MANAGER'S REVISED
RECOMMENDATION TO REJECT ALL PROPOSALS RECEIVED PURSUANT
TO REQUEST 'FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 01-2013ME,-1=OR UNARMED
SECURITY GUARD SERVICES; -°FURTHER AUTHORIZING A CONTINUING
MONTH-TO-MONTH -EXTENSION OF THE CURRENT SECURITY GUARD
SERVICES CONTRACT WITH SECURITY ALLIANCE LLB, DATED APRIL 2,
-2007, WITH SAID EXTENSION `TERMINABLE BY THE CITY, FOR
CONV:ENIEffCE AND WITHOUT CAUSE, AT SUCH TIME AS A NEW
CONTRACT FOR SECURITY GUARD SERVICES IS APPROVED AND
EX1ECUTED.
WHEREAS, since April -2,2007, the City has had =Contract No.34-05/06 with Security
Alliance LL-C (Security Alliance), to provide Unarmed Security Guard Services at locations
around the City-(the-Contract); and
WHEREAS, the Contract was set to expire on April 30, 2013; however, at its July 18,
2012, the -City Commission approved a month-to-month extension -of the Contract to allow for
time to rebid the services; and
WHEREAS, on December 24, 2013, the-City issued Request for Proposals No. 01-
.2013ME, for Unat-med Security Guard Services (the RFP), and with an opening date of Marchl,
2013; and
WHEREAS, on July 17, 2013, the City Manager recommended that the Mayor and City
Commission authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked
proposer, -G4S Security Solutions; no action was taken by the City Commission at its July 17,
2013, and this matter was deferred; and
WHEREAS, since that time, the City Manager has further reviewed the proposals and
the solicitation process with regard to this RFP, and would herein revise his initial
recommendation; now -recommending that it would be in the best interest of the City
Commission to reject all proposals received pursuant to the RFP, and a issue a new Request
for Proposals for the following reasons -(as more specifically -set forth in the attached
Commission Memorandum):
1. the.costs proposed-by the top-ranked proposers exceed the City's current rates, as well
as the rates paid-by Miami?Dade County;
2. the -R-FP released may have contained some irregularities and lack -of clarity in the
Minimum Requirements which may have caused confusion, prevented some proposers
from-participating, or prevented a thorough evaluation of respondents;
3. the City -has moved to an objective methodology for evaluating cost -proposals that
removes subjectivity and inconsistencies-by Evaluation Committee members. However,
this -RFP was issued -prior .to those changes. As a result, it appears that -certain
inconsistencies may have arisen from a subjective evaluation of cost by -Evaluation
Committee members.
-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 the City Manager's revised--recommendation#o reject all proposals
received -pursuant to Request for Proposals ("RFP) No. 01-2013ME, for Unarmed Security
Guard Services; further authorizing a-Continuing month-to-month -extension of the current
security guard services contract with°Security Alliance LL-C, dated April 2, 2007, with- said
extension terminable by the City, for convenience and without cause, at such time as a new
contract for security guard services is approved and executed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day-of -2013.
ATTEST:
r
r�
Rafael rana IP ACltic A ;:�iP 1.�.�li � Mayor
INCORp ORATED:
. ., ;
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
&FOR EXECUTION
tb 1
City Attorn D_
UUMMIJJIUN I I tM JUMMAKY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach,Florida Accepting The Recommendation Of
The City Manager To Reject All Proposals Received Pursuant To Request For Proposals(RFP)No.01-2013ME For Unarmed
Security Guard Services; Authorizing A Month-To-Month Extension With The Current Contractor; And Requesting The
Administration To Submit A New RFP For Approval To Issue.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Increase resident rating of public safety services;and maintain crime rates at or below national rates.
Supporting Data(Surveys, Environmental Scan,etc.):
Item Summary/Recommendation:
Since April 2,2007,the City has been under contract agreement No.34-05/06 with Security Alliance LLC(Security Alliance),
to provide Unarmed Security Guard Services at locations around the City,as shown in Appendix"A".The current contract
also allows for as-needed security guard services City-wide.The provision of security guard services City-wide is managed by
the Police Department.The contract was set to expire on April 30,2012.However,at its July 18,2012,the City Commission
approved a month-to-month extension of the contract to allow for time to rebid the services.
On December 24,2012,RFP No.01-2013ME was issued with an opening date of March 1,2013.The Evaluation Committee
convened on May 17,2013 to evaluate proposals received and shortlist the proposers forfurther consideration in accordance
with the criteria set forth in the RFP. The Committee shortlisted five (5)top-ranked companies for further consideration
through presentations and interviews: G4S Secure Solutions,McRoberts Protective Agency,50 State Security,Allied Barton,
and Kent Security.
On June 24, 2013, the Evaluation Committee met to receive presentations from the short-listed firms. Details of the
Evaluation Committee recommendation are included in the attached memo. However, after carefully reviewing the RFP
requirements and the results of the Committee evaluation process, the City Manager finds that the Committee may have
acted outside of its authority(as dictated by the RFP).Additionally,the City Manager also finds as follows:
1. Cost.The costs proposed by the top-ranked proposers exceed the City's current rates,as well as the rates paid by
Miami-Dade County.
2. RFP.The RFP released may have contained some irregularities and lack of clarity in the minimum requirements,
which may have caused confusion,prevented some bidders from participating,or prevented a thorough evaluation
of respondents.For example,addendums had to be issued clarify licensure requirements which,at one point,listed
Class D Licenses issued by the State of Florida,which are only required by armed security guards,although the
RFP was clearly for unarmed security guards.Additionally,the RFP asked that proposers submit their Standard&
Poor's (S & P) or Moody's ratings, which are only available for publically traded companies. For non-publically
traded companies,the RFP required financial statements to be submitted,which had to be evaluated by City staff
and represent only a small, somewhat subjective, perspective of financial capacity rather than the more
comprehensive and objective perspective available through a D&B Supplier Qualifier Report(currently utilized by
the City for evaluating, in part,financial capacity).
3. Scoring of Costs.The City has moved to an objective methodology for evaluating cost proposals that removes
subjectivity and inconsistencies by Evaluation Committee members. However,this RFP was issued prior to those
changes.As a result,it appears that certain inconsistencies may have arisen from a subjective evaluation of cost by
Evaluation Committee members.
Based on the aforementioned,the City Manager believes it is in the best interest of the City to reject all proposals received
and release a subsequent RFP for security guard services after considering revisions to the solicitation for the issues noted
above, including possible reasons for the higher rates.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach,Florida accept the revised
recommendation of the City Manager to reject all proposals received pursuant to request for proposals(RFP)No.01-2013ME
for unarmed security guard services;further authorizing a month-to-month extension with the current contractor;and submit a
revised RFP for approval to issue.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
NA
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1 N/A N/A
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Alex Denis, Extension 6641
Sign-Offs:
Department Director Assistant C' Manager City nager
AD KGB JLM
T:\AGENDA\2013\December 11\Procurement\RFP-01-2013 ME Unarmed Security-Summary.doc
AGENDA ITEM G?�
MIAMIBEACH DATE � 3
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach,1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMIS SI N MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members o the City Co mission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: December 11, 2013
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYO AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCE ING THE REVISED RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO.
01-2013ME, FOR UNARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Increase resident rating of public safety services; and maintain crime rates at or below national
rates
FUNDING
The annual cost associated with City-wide security guard services is subject to funds
availability approved through the annual budgeting process. The funding and accounts for
the FY 2014 are approximately$3,153,000.00.
BACKGROUND
Since April 2, 2007, the City has been under contract agreement No.34-05/06 with Security
Alliance LLC (Security Alliance), to provide Unarmed Security Guard Services at locations
around the City, as shown in Appendix "A". The current contract also allows for as-needed
security guard services City-wide. The provision of security guard services City-wide is
managed by the Police Department. The contract was set to expire on April 30, 2012.
However, at its July 18, 2012, the City Commission approved a month-to-month extension of
the contract to allow for time to rebid the services.
On December 24, 2012, RFP No. 01-2013ME was issued with an opening date of March 1,
2013. The RFP resulted in the receipt of the following twelve proposals:
1. 50 State Security Service, Inc
2. Allied Barton Security Services
3. FPI Security Services
4. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.
5. Kent Security
6. McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc.
7. Navarro Group LLd. Inc.
8. Ocasa Logistics Solutions
9. Platinum Group Security
10. Responsible Security Inc.
11. SFM Security
12. US Security
On April 18, 2013, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 135-2013, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") for the purpose of evaluating the proposals
Commission Memorandum —RFP#01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
December 11, 2013
Page 2
received in accordance with the criteria established in the RFP. Subsequent to the
appointment of the Committee and resulting from scheduling and other conflicts experienced
by certain Committee members, changes to the Committee composition were required which
resulted in the final list of Committee members:
• Mickey Minagorri, Committee Chair, Resident and Leadership Academy
Graduate
• John Bowes, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
• Tony Kanieswski, Director, Property Management, City of Miami Beach
• Julio Magrisso, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation Department, City of
Miami Beach
• Michael Silverman, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
The Committee convened on May 17, 2013 to evaluate proposals received and shortlist the
proposers for further consideration in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP as
follows:
Total Points Evaluation Criteria
35 Experience and qualifications of the Contractor
20 Experience and qualifications of the Management Team
10 Past performance based on Performance Evaluation Surveys
10 Financial Strength as evidenced by the CPA reviewed/audited
financial statements, third-party reports.
25 Cost
Additional points, over the aforementioned potential points were to be allocated, if applicable
and in accordance to following ordinances.
LOCAL PREFERENCE: The Procurement personnel assigned an additional five (5) points to
Proposers, which are, or include as part of their proposal team, a Miami Beach-based vendor
as defined in the City's Local Preference Ordinance. Two (2) proposers, G4S Secure Solutions
and SFM Security, were eligible for Local preference.
VETERANS PREFERENCE: The Procurement personnel assigned an additional five (5)
points to Proposers, which are, or include as part of their proposal team, a small business
concern owned and controlled by a veteran(s) or a service-disabled veteran business
enterprise, as defined in the City's Veterans Preference Ordinance. Two (2) proposers, 50
State Security Service, Inc. and McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc., were eligible for Veterans
preference.
I
Commission Memorandum —RFP#01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
December 11, 2013
Page 3
The Committee individually evaluated the proposers' qualifications, experience, and
competence, and further scored and ranked the proposers accordingly. The Committee's
preliminary rankings pursuant to the proposal evaluation short-listing phase were as follows:
Pro osaiEva[uafior>and`Short:,Lts' 'of Low
P n9.. Miguel Michael Julio Tony Mickey AGGRE
Firms Pursuant:to RFP#01-2013 for Biengole John Angel Silverma Magriss Kanews Minagorr GATE
Unarmed Security GUar€I 6MCeS. a Bowes Vazquez n o ki i TOTALS
50 State Security (88)5 (45)2 (74)3 (99)4 (95)2 (95)3 (90)3
(22)3
Allied Barton (94)3 (42)4 66)5 99)4 (95)2 (97)2 (86)5 (25)4
FPI (72)6 (40)5 (25)9 8910 (85)8 (87)9 (78)6 (53)7
G4S Secure Solution(USA) (94)3 (46)1 (98)1 (105)1 91)4 (99)1 (94)1 (12)1
Kent Security 97)1 (40)5 (73)4 97)6 (91)4 (95)3 (89)4 (27)5
McRoberts Protective Agency (96)2 (43)3 (75)2 (101)2 (97)1 (95)3 (93)2 (15)2
Navarro Security 64 8 27 11 (40)6 88 11 79)11 (92)6 (55)11. (64)10
Ocasa Logistics Solutions 63 10 16 12 (38)7 (90)9 84 10 74 12 47 12 ? 72 11
Platinum Group Security 60 11 (36)8 (23)10 94)7 85)8 85 10 (58)9 (63)9
Responsible Security 50 12 (28)10 19 12 84 12 75 12 77 11 57)10 (79)12
SFM Security Subsidiary PM Security (68)7 (38)7 (34)8 (101)2 87)7 (91)8 (64)7 46)6
US Security Subsidiary of Security Alliance (64)8 (36)8 22 11 93)8 89 6 92)6 (60)8 ' (55)8
Following the initial evaluation of proposals, the Committee recommended shortlisting the five
(5) top-ranked companies for further consideration through presentations and interviews: G4S
Secure Solutions, McRoberts Protective Agency, 50 State Security, Allied Barton, and Kent
Security.
On June 24, 2013, the Committee met to receive presentations from the short-listed firms.
After presentations and question and answer sessions with each firm, the Committee
individually scored each firm on the criteria outlined in the RFP as a basis for deliberations.
The Committee's preliminary rankings after the presentations and Q&A session were as
follows:
Interview Preliminary Scoring Pursuant LOW
to RFP##01-2413 for Unarmed Security Michael Julio Tony Mickey John AGGREGATE
Guard Services Silverman Magrisso Kanieswski Minagorri Bowes TOTALS
G4S Security Solutions Inc. (103)1 (100)3 (100)1 (100)1 (85.6)3 (9)1
Kent Security (99)4 99)4 98)2 (100)1 (96)1 (12)3
50 State Security Service,Inc (103)1 (101)1 (98)2 (85)3 (85.7)2 (9)1
Allied Barton Security Services (97)5 (94)5 (92)4 (65)5 (72.5)4 23)5
McRoberts Protective Agency (100)3 (101)1 (92)4 (67)4 (59.3)5 (17)4
Following the preliminary scoring of presentations and Q&A session, the Committee
deliberated extensively on individual perceptions of the proposers' qualifications, experience,
and competence. In deliberating the Committee discussed, in general, the following
advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. The Committee discussed that G4S Security
Solution offered the highest quality proposal overall, but had submitted the highest cost out of
the five (5) shortlisted proposers. The Committee discussed that Kent Security offered cutting-
edge technology that would be beneficial to the City, including point of view cameras on the
guards and installation of cameras in all supervisor patrol vehicles which will report images via
internet to the dispatch command center. However, the Committee discussed that Kent
Security did not offer uniforms and guard appearance at the same level of quality as had other
proposers. Finally, the Committee discussed that 50 State Security Service offered a good
proposal, but offered less technological innovation and a higher cost than Kent Security.
Commission Memorandum — RFP#-01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
December 11, 2013
Page 4
Following the deliberation process, a motion was presented by Julio Magrisso, seconded by
Michael Silverman, and unanimously approved by all Committee members, to recommend the
following final ranking of proposers:
m 0%0111
G4S Security Solutions 1
....................................................................................................................................................................................... ,
Kent Security 2
..... ............................................................._......................_....................._._._._._.................................._........................_.................... .................................................................
50 State Security Service _ 3
.........................._........_........................_............_......._................................._..............................
......McRoberts....Protective Ag ency...._..._....._......................................................_...................................................._4................_................
Allied Barton Security rvices
5,
_......................_........................................................�!..................................................................................................................__..........,......_.................................................................;
*The Committee conditioned the ranking of proposers as noted
below
The Committee recommended that Administration engage in negotiations with G4S Security
Solutions, as the top-ranked firm, providing that G4S Security Solution was willing to lower its
costs to the City by 10%. In the event that the Administration was unable to negotiate an
agreement with G4S Security Solution, the Committee recommended that the Administration
engage in negotiations with Kent Security, as the second-ranked firm, providing that Kent
Security included the proposed technological innovations and improved the quality and
appearance of its uniforms.. In the event that the Administration was unable to negotiate an
agreement with Kent Security, the Committee recommended that the Administration engage in
negotiations with 50 State Security Service, as the third-ranked firm, providing that 50 State
Security Service lowered its costs to the City.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE AND REVISED RECOMMENDATION
After carefully reviewing the RFP requirements and the results of the Committee evaluation
process, the City Manager finds that the Evaluation Committee may have acted outside of its
authority(as dictated by the RFP). Additionally, the City Manager also finds as follows:
1. Cost. The costs proposed by the top-ranked proposers exceed the City's current rates,
as well as the rates paid by Miami-Dade County.
2. RFP. The RFP released may have contained some irregularities and lack of clarity in
the minimum requirements which may have caused confusion, prevented some
bidders from participating, or prevented a thorough evaluation of respondents. For
example, addendums had to be issued clarify licensure requirements which, at one
point, listed Class D Licenses issued by the State of Florida, which are only required by
armed security guards, although the RFP was clearly for unarmed security guards.
Additionally, the RFP asked that proposers submit their Standard & Poor's (S & P) or
Moody's ratings, which are only.available for publically traded companies. For non-
publically traded companies, the RFP required financial statements to be submitted,
which had to be evaluated by City staff and represent only a small, somewhat
subjective, perspective of financial capacity rather than the more comprehensive and
objective perspective available through a D & B Supplier Qualifier Report (currently
utilized by the City for evaluating, in part, financial capacity).
3. Scoring of Costs. The City has moved to an objective methodology for evaluating cost
proposals that removes subjectivity and inconsistencies by Evaluation Committee
members. However, this RFP was issued prior to those changes. As a result, it
appears that certain inconsistencies may have arisen from a subjective evaluation of
cost by Evaluation Committee members.
Commission Memorandum —RFP#01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
December 11, 2013
Page 5
Based on the aforementioned, the City Manager believes it is in the best interest of the City to
reject all proposals received and release a subsequent RFP for security guard services after
considering revisions to the solicitation for the issues noted above, including possible reasons
for the higher rates.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida accept the revised recommendation of the City Manager to reject all proposals
received pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 01-2013ME for unarmed security guard
services; further authorizing a month-to-month extension with the current contractor; and
submit a revised RFP for approval to issue.
T:\AGENDA\2013\December 11\Procurement\RFP-01-2013 ME Unarmed Security Guards - Memo-FINAL.doc