2015-28924 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2015-28924
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, CANCELLING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO.
2014-294-ME, FOR DESIGN/BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE MIAMI BEACH
CONVENTION CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT
(PROJECT); REJECTING ALL PHASE I PROPOSALS AND TERMINATING
THE PHASE II EVALUATION PROCESS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY
MANAGER TO PREPARE A NEW REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS FOR A
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FIRM (CMR) TO PROVIDE PRE-
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES VIA
A GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AMENDMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
WHEREAS, on July 30, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance
of RFP 2014-294-ME for Design Builder Services for the Miami Beach Convention Center
Renovation and Expansion (the "RFP") pursuant to Section 287.055 of the Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, RFP 2014-294-ME was issued on August 5, 2014, with an opening date of
September 29, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City received proposals from the following four (4) firms: Clark
Construction Group, LLC ("Clark"); Hensel Phelps Construction Co. ("Hensel Phelps"); Hunt
Construction Group, Inc. ("Hunt"); and Tutor Perini Building Corp. ("Tutor Perini"); and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2014, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission (LTC) No.
2014-348, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), which convened on October
29, 2014 to consider proposals received and interview the proposing teams; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-
28848, accepting the recommendation of the City Manager to short-list the top three
design/build proposers (Clark, Hunt, and Hensel Phelps) to proceed to Phase II of the RFP
evaluation process; and
WHEREAS, on November 19, 2014, following the City Commission's adoption of
Resolution No. 2014-28848, Hensel Phelps informed the City of its decision to withdraw from
the RFP process; and
WHEREAS, on November 24, 2014, in an effort to promote competition, the City
Administration reached out to the fourth ranked firm, Tutor Perini, to assess its interest in
moving forward to Phase II of the RFP process, but on or about November 25, 2014, Tutor
Perini declined to continue to participate in the RFP selection process; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2014, the Miami-Dade County Board of County
Commissioners adopted Resolution No. R-1110-14, approving, among other things, the
issuance of tax increment revenue bonds in an amount not-to-exceed $430,000,000, to be used
for specified purposes, including the design and construction of the Project;
WHEREAS, on December 18, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-
28882, approving the issuance, to the two remaining proposers (Clark and Hunt), of the Design
Criteria Package prepared by Fentress Architects, which included approximately 1,320
drawings, 2,326 pages of Technical Specifications and a 996 page design narrative, developed
with the assistance of Fentress's team of fourteen sub-consultants and experts; and
WHEREAS, on January 21, 2015, Hunt notified the City of its withdrawal from the Phase
II evaluation process; and
WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2015-
28907, modifying the Evaluation Process and directing the City Administration to meet with
Clark to better understand Clark's ability to deliver the Project within the City's budget and
confirm for the benefit of the City and the public that Clark's pricing is competitive,
notwithstanding Clark's position as the sole remaining bidder for the Project; and
WHEREAS, on February 5, 2015, the City Administration met with over 20 members of
Clark's team, and it became clear that the Project, as designed, could not be delivered within
the City's budget unless the City hastily approved a number of"value engineering" or re-design
proposals; and
WHEREAS, at the February 5, 2015 pre-proposal conference, Clark voluntarily offered a
process to "open" or share certain of its subcontractor bid prices in an effort to assure the City
that its pricing is competitive, but it further became clear to the City Administration that in this
case, such efforts would not serve as an adequate substitute for true and open competition; and
WHEREAS, although the City has made substantial progress with regard to developing
the design for the Project and securing the necessary approvals with respect to the Project's
funding, proceeding with the renovation of the Convention Center is critical to the City and
needs to continue to be expedited; and
WHEREAS, in order to permit the City to meet the existing Project timeline, calling for
completion of the Project by 2018 while also accommodating Art Basel and other events at the
Convention Center during construction, the City Manager has recommended cancelling the RFP
and moving forward with a new Request for Qualifications for a Construction Manager-At-Risk
firm to deliver the Project;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby cancel
Request For Proposals No. 2014-294-ME, for Design/Builder Services for the Miami Beach
Convention Center Renovation And Expansion Project (Project); reject all Phase I Proposals
and terminate the Phase II Evaluation Process; and direct the City Manager to prepare a new
Request for Qualifications for a Construction Manager-at-Risk firm to provide pre-construction
services and construction phase services via a guaranteed maximum price amendment for the
Project.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this '1 day of FelOntGr 2015.
u uo
•4` s-� h�
ATTEST. •���.... •Q 1hi
APPROVED AS TO
�NGORr OR _ ORM&LANGUAGE
Rafael Granado, City erk � aip vin- 6' &FOR EXECUTION
\( 4.7 z_ _ (5
City ttor
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Cancelling Request
For Proposals No. 2014-294-ME, For Design/Builder Services For The Miami Beach Convention Center
Renovation And Expansion Project (The Project); Rejecting All Phase I Proposals And Terminating The
Phase II Evaluation Process; And Directing The City Manager To Prepare A New Request For
Qualifications For A Construction Manager At Risk Firm (CMR) To Provide Pre-Construction Services And
Construction Phase Services Via A Guaranteed Maximum Price Amendment For The Project.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Improve alliance with key business sectors, namely hospitality, arts & international business with a
focus on enhanced culture, entertainment&tourism.
Supporting Data(Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On July 30, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance of RFP 2014-294-ME for Design
Builder Services for the Project(the "RFP"), pursuant to Section 287.055 of the Florida Statutes, commonly
referred to as the Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act(CCNA).
On November 19, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-28848, accepting the
recommendation of the City Manager to short-list the top three proposers (Clark, Hunt, and Hensel Phelps)
to proceed to Phase II of the RFP evaluation process. Following the City Commission's adoption of this
Resolution, Hensel Phelps Construction informed the City of its decision to withdraw from the RFP process.
On December 18, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-28882, approving the issuance,
of the Design Criteria Package prepared by Fentress Architects to the two remaining proposers (Clark and
Hunt).
On January 21, 2015, the City received notice that Hunt Construction Group was formally withdrawing from
the RFP process, leaving only one qualified bidder— Clark Construction Group. On January 27, 2015, the
City Commission directed the Administration to meet with Clark to better understand Clark's ability to deliver
the Project within the City's budget and ascertain whether the City and the public could be assured that
Clark's pricing is competitive, notwithstanding Clark's position as the sole remaining bidder for the Project.
On February 5, 2015, we met with several members of Clark's team, and it became clear that the Project,
as designed, could not be delivered within the City's budget unless the City hastily agreed to a number of
"value engineering" or re-design proposals. And most importantly, because of the lack of competition, it is
the collective judgment of the internal and external professionals on the City's team, that ensuring the City
achieves the best price is not possible under the current design-build approach.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
N/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
2
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Maria Hernandez, Extension 7284
Sign-Offs:
Dep.rtment Director Assistant ••:`anager City Manager
�� ��
AD _ II� ∎A` JLM
I•\2015\February\MBCC\Design-Build RFP can •: MMARY.docx
-7
AGENDA ITEM R ! F
MIAMI BEAH
M
sixsimissiseas
1915.2015
MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive,Miami Beach, Florida 33139,www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members tf the City 1;ommission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager 1 �)
DATE: February 11, 2015
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MA •R AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, CANCELLING REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2014-
294-ME, FOR DESIGN/BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE MIAMI BEACH
CONVENTION CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION PROJECT (THE
PROJECT); REJECTING ALL PHASE I PROPOSALS AND TERMINATING THE
PHASE II EVALUATION PROCESS; AND DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO
PREPARE A NEW REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) FOR A
CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK FIRM (CMR) TO PROVIDE PRE-
CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND CONSTRUCTION PHASE SERVICES VIA A
GUARANTEED MAXIMUM PRICE AMENDMENT FOR THE PROJECT.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
Improve alliance with key business sectors, namely hospitality, arts & international business
with a focus on enhanced culture, entertainment & tourism.
BACKGROUND
On July 30, 2014, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the issuance of RFP 2014-294-
ME for Design Builder Services for the Project (the "RFP"), pursuant to Section 287.055 of the
Florida Statutes, commonly referred to as the Consultant's Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA).
The City received proposals from the following four (4) firms: Clark Construction Group, LLC
("Clark"); Hensel Phelps Construction Co. ("Hensel Phelps"); Hunt Construction Group,
Inc.("Hunt"); and Tutor Perini Building Corp. ("Tutor Perini").
On October 13, 2014, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission. (LTC) No. 2014-348,
appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), which convened on October 29, 2014 to
consider proposals received and interview the proposing teams, which resulted in Clark deemed
by the Committee as first ranked, followed by Hensel Phelps as second ranked, followed by
Hunt as third ranked, and Tutor Perini as fourth ranked.
Design-Build RFP No. 2014-294-ME-Cancellation
February 11, 2015
Page 2
On November 19, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-28848, accepting
the recommendation of the City Manager to short-list the top three proposers (Clark, Hunt, and
Hensel Phelps) to proceed to Phase II of the RFP evaluation process.
Later on November 19, 2014, and following the City Commission's adoption of Resolution No.
2014-28848, Hensel Phelps Construction informed the City of its decision to withdraw from the
RFP process.
On November 24, 2014, in an effort to promote competition, the City Administration reached out
to the fourth ranked firm, Tutor Perini, to assess its interest in moving forward to Phase II of the
RFP process, but on or about November 25, 2014, Tutor Perini declined to continue to
participate in the RFP selection process.
On December 16, 2014, the Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners adopted
Resolution No. R-1110-14, approving, among other things, the issuance of tax increment
revenue bonds in an amount not-to-exceed $430,000,000, to be used for specified purposes,
including the design and construction of the Project.
On December 18, 2014, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2014-28882, approving
the issuance, to the two remaining proposers (Clark and Hunt), of the Design Criteria Package
prepared by Fentress Architects, which included approximately 1,320 drawings, 2,326 pages of
Technical Specifications and a 996 page design narrative, developed with the assistance of
Fentress's team of fourteen sub-consultants and experts.
At the January 27, 2015 City Commission meeting, staff discussed the letter received on
January 21, 2015, from Hunt Construction, notifying the City that they were withdrawing from
the RFP process. This left Clark Construction (Clark) as the sole proposer. At that meeting it
was my recommendation to: a) allow Clark the opportunity to offer the City their best number
and schedule, and b) direct the Administration to prepare for"Plan B", transitioning the project to
a "Construction Manager at Risk" project delivery approach. As part of that recommendation,
staff planned to schedule pre-proposal meetings with Clark to better understand Clark's ability to
deliver the Project within the City's budget, and ascertain whether the City and the public could
be assured that Clark's pricing is competitive, notwithstanding Clark's position as the sole
remaining bidder for the Project.
ANALYSIS
On February 5, 2015, staff, our consultants, and I met with several members of the Clark
Construction design-build team. The Clark team engaged in constructive conversation and
acknowledged the difficulty created by the lack of competition.
From the budget perspective, it became clear that Clark did not believe they could deliver the
project for the City's budget, without the City hastily agreeing to a number of"value engineering"
or re-design proposals previously not considered by the City of its consultants. While these
design changes may be viable and warranted, the City's Design Criteria Package would have to
be modified in a manner that would either loosen certain criteria placing decision control with the
Clark team, or would require our Design Criteria Professional (Fentress) to revise the Design
Criteria Package, extending the selection process. If an ultimate agreement with the Clark team
could not be reached, this extension would not leave the City ample time to implement "Plan B"
while still maintaining the overall project schedule.
Design-Build RFP No. 2014-294-ME-Cancellation
February 11, 2015
Page 3
The second major item discussed related to the method of assuring a competitive price. The
Clark team indicated they would be willing to share the results of their sub-contractor bidding
process and allow the City to review all bids prior to award, but would not allow the bids to be
made public until after execution of the Design-Build Agreement. Furthermore, they indicated
they would be requesting less than three (3) bids for at least three (3) of the major trades,
limiting competition considerably. While I appreciate the effort by Clark to "open" their bids, the
proposed process is not transparent enough and further, it is not sufficient to assure the City
and public that we have received the best price prior to entering into a contract.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
Both Clark and the City are victims of a robust local and national construction industry. It is the
collective judgment of the internal and external professionals on the City's team that ensuring
the City achieves the best price is not possible under the current design-build approach.
Therefore, I recommend cancelling RFP number 2014-294—ME and moving forward with Plan-
B, which is to deliver the Project under a Construction Manager at Risk (CMR) approach.
Under a CMR approach, the CMR will competitively bid to the construction trades in an open
and transparent process, and guarantee that the project will be delivered for a fixed price (a
GMP) for the sum total of the bids plus the cost of contractor fees and project general
conditions, which the City will negotiate with the selected CMR. However, prior to engaging the
CMR approach, the City will need to 1) engage Fentress to complete the design documents and
2) procure a CMR firm through a Request for Qualifications process.
Under this approach, the project schedule can be maintained, meeting the targeted Art Basel
events and 2018 completion.
I would like to reiterate that the change in project delivery approach should in no way be
perceived as anything negative toward Clark Construction. They are a well-qualified firm that
has successfully built convention centers around the country. Moreover, they offered to be as
open book as possible under a design-build approach. Unfortunately, such efforts would not
ultimately serve as a substitute for true and open competition, and the lack of competitors
ultimately makes it not possible to move forward under the design-build approach.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission cancel Request for
Proposals no. 2014-294-ME, for Design/Builder Services for the Miami Beach Convention
Center Renovation And Expansion Project (The Project); reject all Phase I proposals and
terminate the phase II evaluation process; and direct the City Manager to prepare a new
Request For Qualifications (RFQ) for a Construction Manager at Risk Firm (CMR) to provide
pre-construction services and construction phase services via a Guaranteed Maximum Price
Amendment for the Project.
JLM:MT:MH:AD
T:\AGENDA\2015\February\MBCC\Design-Build RFP cancellation-MEMO.docx