2014-28749 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2014-28749
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,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2014-051-SR, FOR
DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS
3 & 4 RIGHT-OF-WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (THE RFP);
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE TOP RANKED PROPOSER, RIC-MAN INTERNATIONAL, INC;
AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP-RANKED PROPOSER,
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE SECOND RANKED PROPOSER, DAVID MANCINI & SONS, INC.;
AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER,
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE THIRD RANKED PROPOSER, CENTRAL FLORIDA EQUIPMENT
RENTALS, INC; AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE
SUCCESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE THIRD-
RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE A
NEW RFP; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON CONCLUSION OF SUCCESSFUL
NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, Request for Proposals No. 2014-051-SR (the RFP) was issued on May 16,
2014, with an opening date of July 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, a mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on Tuesday June 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City received a total of three (3) proposals; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No.
244-2014, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
• Mina Samadi, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital Improvement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach
• Jose Velez, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital Improvement Projects, City of
Miami Beach
• Bruce Mowry, City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Miami Beach
• Peter Luria, Resident, City of Miami Beach
• Michael Alvarez, Infrastructure Division Director, Public Works Department, City
of Miami Beach
The following individuals were appointed as alternates:
• Carla Dixon, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital Improvement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach
• Douglas Seaman, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
Miami Beach
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on July 21, 2014 to consider the proposals
received; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was provided an overview of the project; information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law; general information
on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal; and engaged in a question
and answer session after the presentation of each proposer; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to
the evaluation criteria established in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee's ranking was as follows: Ric-Man International, Inc., top
ranked; David Mancini & Sons, Inc., second highest ranked; and Central Florida Equipment
Rentals, Inc., third ranked; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing all the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's and
rankings, the City Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the
Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Ric-Man
International, Inc; and should negotiations fail with the top-ranked firm, the City Manager
recommends that the Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations with the second
ranked proposer, David Mancini & Sons, Inc; and should negotiations fail with the second
ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the Administration be authorized to enter
into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc; and
should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the
Administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
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 recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking
of proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 2014-051-SR (the RFP), for Design/Build
Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Right-Of-Way Infrastructure
Improvements; authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked
proposer, Ric-Man International, Inc; and should the Administration not be successful in
negotiating an agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing the Administration to enter
into negotiations with the second ranked proposer, David Mancini & Sons, Inc.; and should the
Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the second-ranked proposer,
authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central
Florida Equipment Rentals,.Inc; and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating
an agreement with the third-ranked proposer, authorizing the Administration to issue a new
RFP; and further authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon conclusion
of successful negotiations by the Administration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this O day of 014.
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, P. , . _ Philip LevrKe,
TAAGENDA\2014 ,b® Ssii e�ent'�Sunset 3&';4\RFQ-2 5 -SR Sunset Islands 3&4-Resolution.doc
INCNF
� 6
APPROVED AS TO
}' FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
Lip -
Ue�City Attorney
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
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, Pursuant To Request For
Proposals No. 2014-051-SR(The RFP), For Design/Build Services For Neighborhood No.8:Sunset Islands
3 &4 Right-Of-Way Infrastructure Improvements.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Ensure Reliable Stormwater Management By Implementing Select Short And Long-Term Solutions Including
Sea-Level Rise.
Supporting Data(Surveys, Environmental Scan,etc: N/A
Item Summa /Recommendation:
On December 11, 2013, the City Commission approved to issue the subject Request for Proposals(RFP).
On May 16, 2014, the RFP was issued. A pre-proposal conference to provide information to the proposers
submitting a response was held on June 2, 2014. RFP responses were due and received on July 16,2014.
The City received a total of three (3) proposals.
On June 17,2014,the City Manager via Letter to Commission(LTC)No.244-2014,appointed an Evaluation
Committee(the"Committee"). The Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law.The Committee also provided
general information on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal. Additionally, the
Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the presentation of each proposer.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP.The results of the evaluation committee process were presented to the City Manager
for his recommendation to the City Commission.
After reviewing all the submissions and the results of the evaluation process,the City Manager recommends
that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the administration to enter into negotiations with the top
ranked proposer, Ric-Man International, Inc.; and, should negotiations fail, authorize negotiations with the
second ranked proposer, David Manchini&Sons, Inc.;and, should negotiations fail with the second ranked
proposer, authorize negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc.
Further, should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the
administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
N/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1 $636,364.00 302-2318-069357-Pay-As-You-Go-Capital Fund
2 $2,296,126.26 429-2318-069357-Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
3 $2,306,987.00 431-2318-069357 2011 -Stormwater Bonds-Reso No.2011-
27782
4 $2,195,211.00 420-2318-069357 W&S GBL Series 2010 CMB Reso 2009-
27243
5 50,279.25 425-2318-069357 Water and Sewer Fund
o o i§-V r 6 $290,000.00 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
Total $7,774,967.51
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Alex Denis, Extension 6641
Sign-Offs:
rt irecto Assis ger City * n ger
AD TZ DM MT JLM
T:\AGE \2014WJjr\J ly 30\RFQ-2014-051-SR Sunset ummary.doc
MIAMIBEACH AGENDA ITEM R-7
DATE
_ o_
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members f the City mmission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager .�
DATE: September 10, 2014 `
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATIO PURSUANT TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PERTAI ' IG TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR X'OPOSALS NO. 2014-051-SR (THE RFP), FOR
DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3 &
4 RIGHT-OF-WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
On the July 30, 2014, City Commission agenda, the City Manager recommended that the
Mayor and City Commission authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the
top-ranked proposer, Ric-Man International, Inc. ("Ric-Man"), pursuant to the above-
referenced RFP. However, subsequent to the City Manager's recommendation, a letter of
protest was received from DMSI, the second-ranked proposer. As a result, the agenda item
was deferred from the City Commission meeting agenda until such time as staff could evaluate
the issues raised in the protest. The City has responded to the protest under a separate letter,
in accordance with the City's Bid Protest Ordinance. A copy of DMSI's protest is attached.
It should be noted that Addendum 3 to the RFP amended the evaluation criteria to place a
significantly greater emphasis on price because staff believed, that once proposals were
"qualified" to perform the required work, the lowest priced "qualified" proposal should be
recommended for award. While the described process is within the allowable methodologies
for procuring design-build projects pursuant to Florida's Consultant's Competitive Negotiation
Act (CCNA), the methodology deviated from the scoring methodology which had been
included in the RFP draft approved by the City Commission. The City's past practice has been
that, although RFP drafts are submitted to the City Commission for approval, addendums
issued to the RFP are not generally provided to the City Commission or to the City Manager.
The Administration understands that this may be a concern and, going forward, is revising past
practices to assure that addendums which include material changes to the minimum
qualifications, scope of services, or evaluation criteria be approved by the City Manager and
noticed to the City Commission via an LTC.
Notwithstanding, all the proposers received Addendum 3 prior to submitting their proposals;
therefore, they were aware of the increased emphasis on price. They were all treated equally
and no proposer received an unfair or competitive advantage as all proposers were made
aware (and acknowledged) the Addendum. Additionally, pursuant to the City's Bid Protest
Ordinance, the appropriate time to protest the change in the scoring criteria would have been
when Addendum 3 was issued and prior to the receipt of proposals; not now, after all
proposals were reviewed and evaluated. Again, all proposers were on equal ground with
respect to the change in criteria.
2
Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to the City Manager's Recommendation on RFP 2014-051-SR
There are two principal arguments being raised by DMSI to challenge the award to Ric-Man.
First, it is alleged that because Ric-Man's proposed price is significantly below the City
estimated cost (and the price bid by DMSI), Ric-Man cannot responsibly complete the project
as specified by the City. The second argument is that Ric-Man's proposal is non-responsive
because Ric-Man has allegedly deviated from the specifications in the design criteria package
prepared by the City (the "DCP").
With respect to the allegation that Ric-Man is non-responsible because it proposed a
significantly lower price than the City's estimate (compared to DMSI, which was significantly
above the estimate), I believe that this price is the result of the competitive process. At the
oral presentations, Ric-Man's representative stated that they were aggressive on price
precisely because they had not received any contracts from the City in some time and wanted
to re-establish the commercial relationship. This would not be the first time nor will it be the
last time that a company would choose to do that in order to obtain business. Furthermore,
such a strategy is consistent with views sometimes expressed on the dais and by taxpayers
that cities often pay more for construction than they should. If that is true, and since the City's
estimate obviously takes that into account, then it would be possible for an aggressive bidder
to significantly underbid an estimate and still complete the project as designed. Furthermore,
this is not the case of an inexperienced company that does not know what it is getting itself
into. Ric-Man has completed many projects over the years, including many on behalf of the
City, and it is neither naive nor ignorant about the bidding process. If they are willing to make
significantly less on the project in order to secure the business, that is precisely why we
competitively bid our contracts.
By way of further due diligence on this point, the Design Criteria Professional, Stantec
Consulting Services (Stantec), was tasked with the review of the proposed price submitted by
Ric-Man, and with providing its professional opinion on whether Ric-Man's price is within the
expected cost range, given the project requirements. In Stantec's opinion, which is attached as
Exhibit A hereto, the cost is subject to a wide margin of variability based on the specifics of the
project. It should be noted that the design presented in the DCP is preliminary by nature and
subject to even greater variability than projects with completed designs. Furthermore, project
bidding can be heavily influenced by the contractor's work load, capabilities and motivations.
In summary, considering the variability inherent with advance cost projections, the Ric-Man
price proposal falls within a range that could be considered valid for a project of this nature.
On the second point, that Ric-Man is proposing to do less than required by the DCP and is
therefore non-responsive, I do not believe that argument has any merit. The written
submission by Ric-Man takes precedence over any comments made at an oral presentation,
and will be the basis of the contract to be entered into. In this case, Ric-Man's written proposal
did not propose any changes to or deviations from the DCP. As such, if the City Commission
awards the contract to Ric-Man, said contract will commit them to adhere to the DCP.
Secondly, as part of my due diligence, I discussed this item with the City Engineer at length to
make sure he was in agreement that Ric-Man's proposal was consistent with the DCP and
was providing what the City needed. He assured me that it did and supported my
recommendation in this RFP.
3
Supplemental Memorandum Pursuant to the City Manager's Recommendation on RFP 2014-051-SR
By way of further assurance, I asked AECOM, the City's flood mitigation consultant, to perform
an independent review of the storm water drainage components included in the subject
Request for Proposals to identify if there were any abnormalities, conflicts or ambiguity which
could affect the overall solicitation and procurement process for the project. AECOM's review
determined that even though there were several areas of ambiguity and minor conflicts within
the original DCP, in their opinion the addenda issued for the project clearly addressed and
identified the stormwater management system design required for the project. The specific
issues outlined in their report did not rise to the level of interpretations by the perspective
proposers which could lead to material differences in the submitted bids. AECOM's review is
included in Exhibit B hereto.
By virtue of this additional due diligence, as well as the analysis in the original Memorandum,
hereby reaffirm my recommendation to award RFP 2014-051-SR, for Design/Build Services for
the Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Right-Of-Way Infrastructure Improvements, to Ric-Man Construction.
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members f the City ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: September 10, 2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYO AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2014-051-SR (THE RFP), FOR DESIGN/BUILD
SERVICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3 & 4 RIGHT-OF-
WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Ensure Reliable Stormwater Management By Implementing Select Short And Long-Term
Solutions Including Sea-Level Rise.
FUNDING
Funding for this project will be as follows:
$ 636,364.00 302-2318-069357 Pay-As-You-Go - Capital Fund
$21296,126.26 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
$2,306,987.00 431-2318-069357 2011 Stormwater Bonds - Reso No. 2011-27782
$2,195,211.00 420-2318-069357 W&S GBL Series 2010 CMB Reso 2009-27243
$ 50,279.25 425-2318-069357 Water and Sewer Fund
$ 290,000.00 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso 2009-27076
$7,774,967.51
BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2001, the City of Miami Beach (City) adopted Resolution No. 2001-24387,
approving and authorizing the execution of an agreement with CH2M HILL, Inc. (CH2M HILL)
for professional services for the Right-of-Way (ROW) Infrastructure Improvements Program for
Neighborhood No. 8 — Bayshore and Sunset Islands project pursuant to Request for
Qualifications (RFQ) No. 134-99/00. The agreement included planning, design, and
construction administration services for the collective Bayshore Neighborhoods which was
originally one (1) project and was subsequently separated into five (5) individual projects via
amendments to the original agreement. These five projects included Central Bayshore
Neighborhood (Package 8A), Lower North Bay Road Neighborhood (Package 8B), Lake
Pancoast Neighborhood (Package 8C), and the Sunset Islands (Packages 8D and 8E).
On April 9, 2003, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR),
completed and submitted by CH2M HILL for the Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore / Sunset
Islands Project. This BODR was the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort that
included input from and reviews by residents, various City Departments, and the Design
Commission Memorandum—RFQ#2014-206-SR Design/Build Services for the London House
Rehabilitation & Restoration Project
September 10, 2014
Page 2
Review Board (DRB).
RFP PROCESS
On December 11, 2013, the City Commission approved to issue the Request for Proposals
(RFP) No. 2014-206-SR. On May 16, 2014, the RFP was issued. A pre-proposal conference
to provide information to the proposers submitting a response was held on June 2, 2014. RFP
responses were due and received on July 16, 2014.
The City received proposals from the following firms:
Central Florida Equipment Rentals, Inc.
David Mancini & Sons, Inc.
Ric-Man International, Inc.
On June 17, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 244-2014, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
• Mina Samadi, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital Improvement
Projects Department, City of Miami Beach
• Jose Velez, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital Improvement Projects, City of
Miami Beach
• Bruce Mowry, City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Miami Beach
• Peter Luria, Resident, City of Miami Beach
• Michael Alvarez, Infrastructure Division Director, Public Works Department, City
of Miami Beach
The following individual was appointed as alternates:
• Carla Dixon, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital Improvement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach
• Douglas Seaman, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
Miami Beach
The Committee convened on July 22, 2014 to consider proposals received and interview the
proposers. The Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative to the
City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The Committee also
provided general information on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each
proposal. Additionally, the Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the
presentation of each proposer. The Committee was instructed to score and rank each
proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
The evaluation process resulted in the ranking of proposers as indicated in the next page.
Commission Memorandum—RFQ#2014-206-SR Design/Build Services for the London House
Rehabilitation & Restoration Project
September 10, 2014
Page 3
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing all the submissions and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the administration to enter into
negotiations with the top ranked proposer, Ric-Man International, Inc. Should negotiations fail,
the City Manager recommends that the administration be authorized to enter into negotiations
with the second ranked proposer, David Manchini & Sons, Inc. Should negotiations fail with
the second ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the administration be
authorized to enter into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment
Rentals, Inc. Should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager
recommends that the administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida: accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of
proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-051-SR for Design/Build
Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset Islands 3 & 4 Right-of-Way Infrastructure
Improvements; and, authorize the administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked
proposer, Ric-Man International, Inc.; and further authorize the City Manager to execute an
Agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
JLM/MT/DM /AD/YG
TAAGENM2014\July\July 30\ RFP-2014-051-SR Sunset Islands 3&4-Memo.doc
Y
z M r N
w
H
Q
C y
U] J
arn
00
3
O
c
c
N N
c9
Q'
N
C_
Y N M
c
cC
c0
7
J N rl- LO
O O r-
d)
CL
cm
C_
Y M N
C
m
Q'
O
LO
N rn z
r
U Q
7 a7
m j N C7
cm Z
c
LL
Y N M
C
co
N
CD
a)
LO
LO et I- O
O O O Cr) +m.• O CO
0 H O
CD LO
C O O
cn
cp ~ N C)
6
C r r EA EA
c0
cu
cu
Z U)
c0
0 _ c =
0
Q O N ~ C
G Q ui c
J y N c c J c c ° a
U)
� Z CO od a c is Q O :? 06 v L.tan' z "' 'r � o a � c w
c m
r N 0 = m c
O :° am L c W o c
WN'w v� `c° o
V) U. rn M
Q H = V
c a)
' U Q d
a Z � � 0
a
Exhibit A
Sta nte 21301 Powerline Road,Suite 311
Boca Raton,FL 33433
Tel:(561)487-3379
Fax:(561)487-3466
August 21, 2014
Mr. Jimmy Morales
City Manager
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: RIGHT OF WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3&4
Bid Analysis
City of Miami Beach, Florida
Dear Mr. Morales:
Stantec Consulting Services (Stantec), as the Design Criteria Professional on the above
referenced project, has been assisting the City with development of the project to date. We
are in receipt of the project bidding information and would like to provide this analysis to
assist you in determining the best path forward for the City.
It is our understanding that the City has received three bids for the above referenced
project:
Central Florida Equipment Company $ 11,995,938.85
Dave Mancini & Sons (DMSI) $ 11,200,000.00
Ricman International, Inc. $ 7,774,967.51
The bids represent a large differential between the apparent low bidder (Ricman) and the
other two bids. DMSI has protested the bid with indication that the low bid represents an
unreasonably low cost that cannot accomplish the project scope. The bid protest makes
other indications regarding the qualifications of the bidder; however, this letter is intended
only to address the issue of the value of the work.
In the performance of our duties as Design Criteria Professional, Stantec prepared an
"Opinion of Probable Cost" for the value of the project. Shortly before bidding, the City
adopted new drainage criteria as part of its adaptation strategy to address sea level rise.
Design with community in mind
Swntec
August 21,2014
Page 2 of 2
These new criteria were added into the Design Criteria Package shortly before bidding and
the "Opinion of Probable Cost" was updated accordingly.
The Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost for this project was determined to be
$9,811,614.68. This represents a variance of $2,036,647.17 from the Ricman low bid. It
should be noted that the Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost includes a 10% contingency
on the constructed elements. Therefore, the constructed opinion of cost without
contingency is actually under nine million.
An Engineer's Opinion of Probable Cost is a projection of costs based on industry
standards and experience on projects of a similar nature. As such, the cost is subject to a
wide margin of variability based on the specifics of the project. It should be noted that the
design presented in a Design Build Criteria Package is preliminary by nature and subject to
even greater variability than projects with completed designs. Furthermore, project bidding
can be heavily influenced by the Contractor's work load, capabilities and motivations.
Considering the variability inherent with advance cost projections, the Ricman International
Bid falls within a range that could be considered valid for a project of this nature.
We thank you for the opportunity to provide the City Of Miami Beach with our services. If
you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC.
Jeffrey Crews, P.E., LEED AP
Associate
Tel: (561) 487-3379 x 235
Fax: (561) 487-3466
Email: jeff.crews @stantec.com
V:\2167\active\216700119\Sunset\Bid Phase\DB Bid Analysis.docx
Exhibit B
AECOMAECOM 772 286 3883 tel
/'�� 850 N.W.Federal Highway 772 286 3925 fax
Stuart,Florida 34994
www.aecom.com
Memorandum
To Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager Pages 2
cc Eric T. Carpenter, PE, Public Works Director
Independent Review-Request for Proposals Design/Build Services for
Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Right-of-Way Infrastructure
Subject Improvements (RFP No. 2014-051-SR)
From Thomas F. McGowan, PE
Date August 25, 2014
AECOM received materials from the City Staff on August 13, 2014 to conduct an independent review
of the drainage components of the Request for Proposals Design/Build Services for Neighborhood
No. 8: Sunset Islands 3 and 4 Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements (RFP No. 2014-051-SR),
herein referred to as the Project. The materials reviewed consisted of the documents listed below:
Item 1. Request for Proposals Design/Build Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset Islands 3
& 4 Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvements (RFP No. 2014-051-SR), and dated May
16, 2014.
Item 2. Design Criteria for Design/Build Services for Right-of-Way Infrastructure Improvement
Program Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset Islands 3 &4, and dated May 5, 2014.
Item 3. Addenda No.'s 1 through 6. '
Item 4. RFP Submittal of Ric-Man International, Inc.
Item 5. RFP Submittal of DMSI
Item 6. RFP Submittal of Central Florida Equipment
Of note, we were not provided with copies of: 1) Volume 1A, Conceptual Plans, 2) Volume 3 —
Attachment 1, Drainage Report, or 3) Volume 3 — Attachment 10, Pump Station Schematic. In
addition, only one RFP package(Central Florida Equipment) included the bid tabulation form.
Per the request of Eric Carpenter, PE Public Works Director, we have reviewed the drainage related
q P 9
elements of the materials listed above, for abnormalities, conflicts or ambiguity which could affect the
overall solicitation and procurement process for the Project.
Review Approach:
The first phase of the initial project review involved reading the solicitation package(Items 1 &2)and
developing an independent list of questions, concerns or conflicts contained within those documents.
The second phase of the initial project review involved a review of the six(6)addenda issued (Item 3)
for the solicitation for questions specifically related to the drainage elements of the project. The third
phase of the initial project review was to review the drainage questions and clarifying responses to
ensure that the questions posed were succinctly and sufficiently addressed.
Finally, the initial project review was completed by cross referencing the addenda questions and
responses with the independent list of questions identified in the first phase to see if any question,
concern or conflict had not been fully addressed which could lead to differing interpretations by the
perspective proposers and which could lead to material differences in the submitted bids.
The second phase of the review included a cursory review of the proposal packages submitted by the
three(3)firms in response to the solicitation (Items 4, 5 and 6). In particular each submittal was
reviewed to ensure acknowledgement of the six(6)addenda issued for the Project, the Project
Approach, and the Risk Management Plan. All three proposers acknowledged receipt of the addenda
issued for the Project. The project approaches varied in the level of detail, but in general seemed to
indicate that each of the proposers had a sufficient understanding of the Project and scope of work to
submit their proposal. Other than days of lost work due to rain, none of the proposers indicated any
stormwater related concerns as it related to their submittal, and only one proposer(Ric-Man
International, Inc.)noted a concern regarding their ability to permit new stormwater outfalls.
Specific Comments:
(1) With respect to independent review questions which were not address in the design criteria
package or the addenda:
a. Section 1.04.C.2.a) subsection i. and iv. remain in conflict as to the placement of the
inlets and whether they are to be placed in the curb or placed behind the curb in a
swale.
b. Section 1.04.C.2.a) subsection xiii. regarding rehabilitation of existing outfalls is
unclear or ambiguous as to the size and rim elevation of the box intended to isolate
the outfall from the drainage system and act as an emergency overflow.
(2) With respect to the Request for Proposal Solicitation and in particular the bid tabulation form,
the bid tender form (Guaranteed Maximum Price Form) contains only nine (9) line items for
the contractor to complete. The submittal requirements to do not compel the proposer to
include a more detailed cost or quantity schedule. More cost or quantity detail in a separate
form or submittal could help the selection committee evaluate future proposals and to identify
where a particular proposer may have deviated significantly from other submittals. While
there certainly could be valid reasons for such differences, such as expertise or innovation, it
may also encourage the selection committee members to inquire further.
(3) It is understood that the City's stormwater criteria are evolving based on the work being done
to mitigate flooding within the City and combat sea level rise. As these criteria evolve, and
standards are created and adopted, a standard design for the City's stormwater pumping
stations is encouraged. As such a design is finalized, more detail may be able to be added to
the design criteria package to ensure consistency and redundancy in the construction,
operation and maintenance of the City's infrastructure systems.
Summary:
While our review determined that there were several areas of ambiguity and minor conflicts within the
original Design Criteria Package it is my opinion that the addenda issued for the project clearly
addressed and identified the stormwater management system design required for the Project. The
issues discussed in Specific Comment 1, do not rise to the level of interpretations by the perspective
proposers which could lead to material differences in the submitted bids.
C:\Users\capicerm\Desktop\Exhibit B Sunset Islands Review Memo.docx
LlorenteHeclde:� nk
July 28�20,14
Via E-Mail and Han&De
Mr.Jimmy,Morales
city.m'anager
City of Mian-A Beach
1.700 Cbnyentiori Center Drive
Miami Beach,FL X3139
Re: Request to Withdraw Recommendation to.Award RFP No.2014-051-SR
Design/Build Services.-for Neighborhood No.S.-Sunset,Islands III&TV
June 30,2014 Agenda Item.37B
De.-tt Mr.,Motales:
Llorente. and Heckler, PA. reptesents David Mancini & Sons, Inc. C`I).MSI`�, in regatds to Request for
Proposals:No..2014-051-SR Design/Build Services Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset Island III and TV PFPI,
We wtite this letter to express our concerrisabotit the eval uati op ro cess and ultimately,ately,the recommendation
to Negotiate with a firm that submitted a low-ball price pro posal
while failing to meet the minimum
qualifications requirements and bth r key specifications,included in the RFP.
'Maile the Evaluation Committee. determined that..DMST was the most ex,pen"enced and most qualified
proposer,the Committee-recommended negotiating with Ric-',Man International Inc.C Ric-,MaW for the sole
reason that Ric-Man's proposed price was considerably lower than the other proposers. But lac-Man's price,
which 'Was 31% lower than the n lowest biddet, calls into 4question the firms responsibility and its
undetsunding of the scope and requirements of the proposed Ject, We.respectfully urge you to reconsider
plrl
the recommendation to negotiate with Ric-Manaad recommend instead that the City negotiate with DMS_1,
the comp that submitted the lowest rcahstic price Proposal and is in die best positi n to understand the
, any , s . 0
complemdes and cost demands of the project, having.recently successfully completed a similar project on
Sunset Islands I and IL
L Background
On December 1°1, 2013, the City Commission approved issuing this RFP based on a draft provided by the
ptocurement department.That draft emblished,a two-step evaluation and selection process.Under the East
step,the proposers were scored on qualific.-Ltions and were s hottlisted for considergtion during the next step.
Then,under step two die price proposals of the short-listed.proposers we.t.e assigned points based on a fixed
formula. The shordis-ted proposers were to be tanked based an the overall,aggregape scones frorn step one
and step mm'(quantitative). (.Yee City Comm fission Agenda,Dec- 11.1, 2013, p. 104). Under this
ctite'ria was an important.but ilot definithre' .fictor.
I �price I I .
This-approach substantially changed when the City modified the evaluation criteria in Add.endurn No. 3 of
the RFP.While the City niamtamcd the.two-step process, it changed the scoring method. Under the revised
1101 Arthia Go4frev 0d Ste 4.01 1 �%Ihmfi Betic-11,1-1 33L40 / T 305.742.2810 / F 786.214673it I
Lloren-LeHeddel; PA.
approach, the First step was used only to select the three most qualified proposers and move them into step
two, where they were evaluated solely on cost Importantly, the ranking of the evaluation committee for
qualifications became irrelevant duriszg the second step of the proposal, Instead;the final ranking of the short-
listed proposers was simply based,on the lowest cost.
The new scoring process and the manner in which this R.FP process vas conducted essetitially converted this
solicitation into m invitation to.bid- Only three proposers submitted.bids in.response to this solicitation and
all of them were invited to oral.presentations before the evaluation.committee.As a result the scores from.
step one had absolutely net it�pact on the outcome of the pro ement, Although DMSI was the Highest
ranked ptoposet and four out of five evaluation committee members ranked DMS1 she highest,this became
irrelevant once the price ptoposals were opened. Without any regard for its quaUcadons, Ric-Tian was
selected because it was the lowest-cost proposer.
Low-cost competitive procurements are hest used when,the City has precise spec ficadoIas and requirements.
However,in a design-build project where the City provides a general idea of the requirements,but does-not
provide the specific requirements,the qualifications of the proposer as well as its proposed approach become
wholly relevant and vital to the successful completion of the project. Tl�s KFP was approved by the City
Commission and the residents of Sunset Islands with the intent to select the beast value proposer.nerefore,
the recommendation to negotiate with Ric-Man not consistent with the initial direction of the_ City
Commission.
17heretore,we respectfully urge you,as a matter of public policy, to exercise the discretion,vested in the City
.Manager under the City Code and the 11F,P to select the proposer that will best serve the interests of the Cit%
As explained below; five strongly►believe that that proposer is DMSL
H Ric-Man's Proposal Should he found Non-Responsible
Public entities have a duty to ascertain the degree of c�pcn.ence, the reputation for performance as well as
other mattes which influence the ability of each bidder to perform the contract that is being awarded.Willis
v. Hatbaa*a�„y,95 FkL 608, 616, 117 So. 89,94-5 (1928).As such, the Florida Siuprerne Court has held that a
proposal.may be deemed non-responsible when the proposed pr%a is below cost and the contracting;agency
is not convinced that the proposer ossmes"tile skit`1 ot!t egad I.�f erit ecg�.a �Q the arati� I art erdi i.0
F R p g g y us
r fvr� dfleE of the ii,,ark cotit plated."Imo„95.The Court reasoned that letting a contract to a bidder at a price less
than the actual,cast results in claims being fled by suppliers and subcontractors,the work being hampered or
delayed to nuin um progress and, altaost invariably, result in leaving to forfeit the contract and use the
contractor's surety to cornplete the work.Id.
Under Section 2-369 of the City of Mimi Beach Code of Ordinances C`City Code") and Section 0300.6 of
the RI~P, the City Manager may conduct a responsibility determ;nAtion at any time and leis.recommendation
does not have to be consistent with the Evaluation Committee's ranking and scoffing of the proposals. The
City Manager's responsibility deterniination must consider the following factors:
1 're abilio, c.paq_o end skill of d7e bidder lo per oar the coirtt t (2) IF"betbor the bidder can peyorrrr
the contract imtbw the late 0eafted, rivilhouf delay or haerfeirn.e. (3) The iharr ,der, int'eSnly, oration,
801. r€tietr ti�t�i�'c: Rol, E / item€ Haar ;t 3;31. k I '1�34�5,742.2910 f 1�786.214.fs34 / Llorue��:e�Hedl��nci��n
U T '
ore litt��,Heckler, P..k-
Jmdgm6il, e4e roe lue ajid efflit'ieng oaf I&bidder. (4) The qualio oft6fortvance of
prrdoiis cevlrads. (5)The
ptrrious and axiving complVance by the Lvdder ixth laws and ordinances felafing to'-thee cantf net
City Code,Section 2-360.
The City Code also allows the City Comnussion to approve or reject the recommendation and select the
Proposal which i I t deerns to be,in the best interest of the City.-Id.
a. Ric-Man's Ptoposed Prke is Below Cost
The City's expetience awarding belovi costs -bids has been exactly what the court in Willis V'. Hathaway
ptedicted. Important streetscape projects such as the City Center, South Point HL IV and V as.well as the
Indian Creek Utility Replacement which were awarded to low cost bidders:,were all delayed after being subject.
to disputes and litigation. In order to avoid history from repeating, i d-Lis H itation the City has a duty to
in so Ci
examine the project costs and scrutinize price proposals which appear to fall below the reasonable cost.
Ric-MAW s price is below cost consideting the scope and requirements of this project. This is evident given
the large differential between Mr.-Tdan's bid and the bid submitted by the other proposers. Ric-Ban's bid of
$7,774,967.51 - 31% lower than the DWI's bid olf$11,200,000.00 and 35%lower than the third proposers
b of$11,935IS 938.
Moreover, it slioald be noted that the imptovemeas to Sunset Island I and II cost approximately
$6007000.00 (not including the design of the project).That project was completed between February 2012
and Mai, 2013,when the costs for labor and materials were substantially lower. The costs of supplies have
increased NAth. the reactivation of construction projects in the local market (especially considering that
construction for this project will begin in the surnmer of 20,15). Unlike that project, the Sunset III and IXT
project in this solicitation includes design senrices, two. p=p stations, :a sanitary sewer restoration (which
X
costs around $800,000), and the marine crossing of the watekinain.. Futthcrinore, the Sunset Island I and II
project did not xeq, umie using black Vase for the road pavement,there was no undergrounding of public utilities
and the.contract did not require a guaranteed maximum price.All of these features add significant design and
construction costs to the Sunset HI and 1V project that make a-X710774,967.51 bid clearly unreasonable.
The large price 4ifferential betweenRic-_Ntan and the other two proposers dearly raises al-ted flag regarding
Ric-Man's respotisibility. This, together with Ric-man's failure to meet the minirnum qualification
requirements,supports a fin&ig that Ric-Man's proposal is non-responsible.
b. Ric-Man does not Meet the Minimum Qualification Requiirements of the RFP
The RPF provi&s the minimum requirements that Proposers must meet in order to be deemed responsive.
See Section 0100.6 of the R14T (as amended in Adde-ndurn No. 3 p. 8). Non-responsive bids should be
disqualified from receiving,further consideration.
First,one of the requirements is that proposers must have completed at least five(5)projects similar in scope
and volume dernoa'sttating the proposets' design-build project experience in the past ten (10) years. r1he
required e"eriienc6 can be a c /build firm, eting
the engine design
ombination of the exp�-_ticncc;of the-,design
801 Arthur Godfrey Rd,Ste 4.01 1 Afiijrni Beacit,FL 33140 f T 305,742.2910 1 ['786.214,0734 Llorev(ellecklor,enni
teHedderP.A.
firm anA the proposer e.,onstructin
g the project Secon d,proposers ti also req=ed to have completed three
�3} projects similar in scope and volume demonstrating the proposer's experience: performing deep
i
excavations/dewateidng procedures in coastal environments in the past ten (10)years.
To meet the desian-build exp erience-requiretnent�Ric-Man submitted the ten projects listed mi Table 1 below:
Ric-Man' 'Inte' addh
a, lNrL INIC-0
Base
6 ao
U Q. .3
tlllioom. 2 1q
Wambm W_.=A.-wvt
Ltattsnia ffid-F--&I DE;
Knoborbood Ito mv raulam�prol*--t
W.atmo-DoIdA 0,11nTy Miter NLEWrzt 54-1qch Parco hUla p4mint 16.65D-000 2005
&so-I&W Boa ruflimf
3ruward County V?atv;,& 404rtch Fwro Rain Ruplarmov 14.42DMO iDO V
FLUMbigo,Lumm=Aid,Pack ICE
of Hwu-4.8sach W04i V
Wimf-Dad*Cauar Waar Water MAn Al=g RickonW,Apr
Turcipi U- &-Sunrise 9 oulevai d
511,57eb,D)IJ 2006 wl
Craxslpgs Witrpr A41t%Rplocilbqn
Hiditi6-IM0 catim),water A-1*ds Wag v r M abi Q-o5 v=-,q
�,-werr 04VAMEIM At MbMi R!-,Frr 1W
Projects Amow TotaL St;�;Ac]ft 15013
—J
TABLE 1.TAKEN FROM RICK-MAN'S PROPOSAL SEC.2-16
However,key personnel from six of those, projects ('mg hhghted in Table 1) X-rc no longer part of Ric-Man's
team. Instead, they are part of the DMSI team. Then-president of Ric-Man, Mr. David Mancini, is now
I
president of DiNIST. Similarly, the project manager and head en of those projects, Mr. Albert
pr g!neer
Dominguez,is M.ISI's proposed project manager and head-engineer for this contract The same is true for
the project superintendent, fotm-an, and operator. In.addition, the design-consulting firm for most of those
projects was APCT Engineers,,which is 'now patt. of DMSI's tt-am. Ric-Man's proposed design-consulting
fin-n, Chen Moore: and.Associ-ates, Inc., was not part of any of those projects. Finally, the scope of the
temaining four projects slid riot include deep excavation and pump station design,which are key to the Sunset
Island III and IAA project. Ploppsal does- not demonstrate tbat its key personnel meets
the nukm'num rNuirements for de*i-build experience,.
801 ArLbar Godfrey Rd,Sw 401 1 _kLiarsil BuadL FL 33140 I T 30i.742.2810 F 786.214.6234 1 L1ort-ntcWr.ktcrxom
f,larenteHockle]; nk
The same applies to Ric-Man's-listed deep excavation prqects,highlighted in Table 2,
Ric-Man International Inc.
P"11,'14 roastal PTo-rVict Experience INTIL INC*
J
al 2
W a
so 4
_9 _; e t k
Rmd Ainallni Z 6 Z 0, t� a 'a rM.
ImpaymW Now
4dr;zmeture Impa"ema=Pmlarr
.......... — .. :1 1 � m.. ...
Town 40 Surfalde hauruinct S16,010-600 N14 Or'
LUM=U=Wd.Puk VON
S13.140bW
Ntaghbarheod LVNveprab Pmvrt
...........
City ej NU=J OV, Z041 'r 'r ee
-----------------
'uai
1W2U.M U4D
prziEt
Tit Shprotect
Trtatm"M=ict Mary II
Kry LarV Wasiewxter Vatrum Collection'mem Itmtn 5
six'Zo.0,00 m-y 'e
Tr6xtm;�t Woriet pule I
...........
Pre ectsAmoutil Total;
TABLE 2.TAKEN FROM RIC-MAN'S PROPOSAL SEC.2.17
Although Ric-N1=included nine proi,ce-ts,tno t of those projects -,ere completed by the team which is now
DMSL 7he Key Largo projects that were c
ornpleted by Ric-M-aj-i's proposed team are vacuum projects.As
their name indicates,vacauln projects involve shallow excavations,not deep coastal excavations.Therefore,
Rdc-Man s proposal did not pro-6de three projects in which its key personnel.2nd design firm has had deep
excavadon experience in the past ten years as required by the RFP.
In sum,,while Ric-'_Nlan was the legal entity that was party to the contacts fot the projects It listed to meet the-
Uln e.yedeuce requirements,the kev personnel and design firm that worked on thoso projects is actually
WASPs proposcd team. Based on the RFP specifications,Ric-Man should be found.non-responsive and be
disqualified for failt=to meet the minimum crittiia.However,even if the City finds Ric-Man responsive,its
failure to shot that its actual-team(including its design firm), mects the nunimum experience tequiireinents
.raises Serious concerns about Ric7man"s rcs on I Ensuing that the proposees team meets the RFP
r sibility. Ensur
muilmurn reqturernent ctitetia is directly related to whether Ric-Tylan has the ability, capacity, and skill to
perform the contradt.
801 Arthur Godfrey Rd.Ste 40-11 f Miami Buach.FL 33140 / T 3015.74L2 H) / F 786 214.6734 / Uornntellocklencom
T 7
LlorenteHeclder, R A.
lc� The Poor Past Performance of the Ric-Man/Chen-Moore team supports a finding that
its propot.al is non-, tc ponsible.
The sco�g resWts.for the first der e-valuation reflect the evaluation cOrntrAttee's great concerns about the
qtidtadvex' non-pricing factors of Ric-Man's proposal. While the majority (four out of five) evOuRtion
committee members.raked DMS1 the highest, only half of the committee members. ranked Ric-Man at the
top.
In particular,Mr. Peter Luria,president of the Sunset Islands Hotneawnej?s Association and,member of the
evaluation conmiittee.,tanked Ric-Man third after expressing serious cOncetns,about Ric-mans responsibiliqy.
Nfr.Luria cited multiple prpblern.s with Chen-Moote's design in the Sunset Islands,I and II pioiect,including
drivew.-ty harmonization issues,, lack of coordination with the utilities, and issues with the fire hydrant,,-,. (See
Transcript of Evaluation Cozimittee Meeting Attached).
Unfortunately,the Committees assessment of Ric-Man's qualifications and past perfortn.a.111ce was mat a.factor
in the finat ranking of the proposals on which the current recommendation is based.Therefore,eve respectfully
request that the City Nianager review these issues to determine the responsibility of Ric-Mares,proposal.
III. Ric-Man's Proposal Should be found Non-Responsive
.Even if Ric-Man's proposal is deemed responsible (which it is not), the proposal should be disqualified for
being non-tesponsive due to Ric-Man-'s material deviations from the design anal schedule requiretne.nts for
this-Project. See Robinson Meg.Co., 417 So.2d 10322! 1034 (Fla.Dist. Ct App. 1982)
The Design Criteria Package for tlY solicitation requixes proposers to use black base on all elevations below
15'NA"VD as oppose to lithe rock- (DCP,.p. 14).While lime rock is substantially cheaper than bla.ck base,it
should not be used on he:;vy flood-areas. Being a porous material, it will start relenting with.hater flowing
ftotn the bottom up to the surface.This is specially the case in Miami.Beach,whi ch is affected by the sea level
rise and storm tvatet surges. Nevertheless,during its oral presentation Ric-Man said that it does not antid 1pla to
using black base to pave the streets of the two islands. (See Transcri t 4ittee Meeting
p. of Evaluatio Comr
Attached.).Although this allowed Itic-Ivi.an to offer a lwxrer price,based on the geography of the project,using
lime rock as opposed to black base threatens the durability and qualiq7 of the pavement improvements.
Moreover, in its Risk Assessment Ric--?%fan stated dut they do not believe that the outface will be pe-umitted.
Therefore, they are considening,an alternative to placing of the outfalls.
Ric-Nian's schedule his several flaws which makes it noti-compliantwidlin the timelines specified in Section
010003 of the RFP. First,according t.).Section 9-2 of J;Uc-Nlan's prop.osal the per=itting process necessary
to begin construction will be completedby March 31,2015. However, the schedule has construction starting
artIng
on March 18, 2015, before obtaining the permits. Second,Section 01003 of the RF-P ti:quires that that the
project be substanfi:ally completed within 330 days of the second notice to proceed ed CN117). (RFP Scc.
0100.-j,p. S).According to the RFP, substantial completion oc(-uts when the City can fully occupy or util ize
the project for its intend purpose. aLFP Sample Contract; Sec. 1.3.p. 50), %, c-M:an`s substantial coiiipledon
date is Decembet 11,2015. (Ric-Nfan's Proposal,p 9-4). Howev�,pump will be offline until March
29,2016..(Ric-Man's Proposal,p.9-22).That is 564 days after the second notice to proceed is issued,in.-6olation
of the RFP specifications. Finall►, Ric-Man's schedule proposes instaffink the drainage pipe coAcurrendy in
SD!.e Godr.rey Rd.,Ste 401 / Wirii lic-sch,FL 33140 / 1'305.7-12-2810 1 1'786.214.6734 / LhirentcHuckler.corn
two adjacent zones of the project. (Itic-Man's Proposal, p: 9-2, 3). This is prohibited under the pliRsing
requirements,in Section 1.08(C)of the Design Crite Mi Package.
D11+fi9SPs design,on the other band,is based on the City's intent to have an aesthetically pleasAnt project which
takes m'to account the safety of the Sunset Island residents. DMSI'.s design does include black base to pave
the streets. It also contemplates placing all wires,including the electric power lines,underground. Moreover,
the RIF' requires rep.l.acing the watennain along Sunset Drive, between Islands III and. IV, with a 129
watenna.im P..Add.endum No. 5.,p4 3 Therefoate,UNIS:I.'s design proposes using a 12"watertnain across
board, as opposed to a 12'a wa term on the btidge: and an €i"watermain elsewhere} to have adequate fire
floes'for the safety of the residents.
!ill, of these con.erns together with Ric-Man's irresponsibly low price support a finding that Ric-Man's
proposal should be deerned non-responsible and be disqualified from receiving further consideration.
IV Conclusion
In sum,the Ric-Man Team's previous poor performance in similar projects at Sunset elands, the material
deficiencies in their proposed desk,:as well as its recklessly low bid below cost supports rejecting its proposal
for bezng non-responsible ae d non-responsive, The City hats paid an enormous.price when it has awarded
contracts based on bids that are below cost.The savings it sought to achieve were quickly outweighed by the
tiiue and resources that were spent on resolving unnecessary disputes and litigations In the meantime, the
residents suffered the consequences of a delayed project.We.hope that the City avoids history from repeating
itself by ensuring.that this-conttact be awuded to DNISI,the best value,.responsive and.responsible proposer.
We appreciate your attention to bus mattes and trust that you��4i11 tAke any action ?ecessaty to ensure the
successful and timely completion of this project,
Sincerely,
Alexander P. eekler,and
Diana C,Mendez
Cc. Mr. Raul Aguila,City Attorney
Mr.Rifael G.mnado,City Clerk
g
�11 a a1 t}a4Br GorUrcy 11d,Stc 40 1 I i a3 t:Beacti,11331+0 ! T305.742.2810 f .I'786 M4.6 34 I L,lureatutic.&Ic.r.csum