2016-29476 Reso RESOLUTION NO. 2016-29476
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT FOR GROUP
1 TO TEAM CONTRACTING, INC., AND TO REJECT ALL BIDS RECEIVED
FOR GROUPS 2-4, PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 2016-111-
ND FOR THE PURCHASE OF CONCRETE CURBING/SIDEWALK
CONSTRUCTION, ASPHALTIC CONCRETE/RELATED MATERIALS, AND
STRIPING OF CITY STREETS AND PARKING LOTS.
WHEREAS, on March 21, 2012, the City awarded agreements for concrete
curbing/sidewalk construction., purchase of asphaltic concrete/related materials, and
striping of city streets and parking lots; and
WHEREAS, the current agreements expired on May 30, 2016; and
WHEREAS, on April 11, 2016, the City issued an Invitation to Bid 2016-111-ND
(the "ITB") to establish a successor contract, by means of sealed bids, for the purchase
of concrete curbing sidewalk construction, asphaltic concrete/related materials, and the
striping of city streets and parking lots; and
WHEREAS, on May 13, 2016, bids were received from Team Contracting, Inc.
(Team Contracting), H & R Paving, Inc. (H & R), Bergeron Land Development, Inc.
(Bergeron), and Metro Express, Inc. (Metro); and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsive, responsible bid received for Group 1 was
submitted by Team Contracting; and
WHEREAS, staff recommends awarding a contract for Group 1 to Team
Contracting; and
WHEREAS, the bid received by Metro for Group 2 was found to be non-
responsive; and
WHEREAS, the lowest responsive bid received for Group 2 and Group 3 was
submitted by H & R; and
WHEREAS, staff has determined that H & R's prior performance on previous
contracts has been unsatisfactory, as confirmed by the contractor performance
evaluations on file; and •
WHEREAS, the second lowest responsive, responsible bid for Group 2 and
Group 3 was submitted by Bergeron and the bid exceeded the City's cost expectations;
and
WHEREAS, staff does not recommend an award of Group 2 and Group 3 at this
time; and
WHEREAS, the sole bid received for Group 4 was submitted by Bergeron and
the bid exceeded the City's cost expectations; and
WHEREAS, staff does not recommend an award of Group 4 at this time.
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 to approve the
award of a contract for Group 1 to Team Contracting, Inc., and to reject all bids received
for Groups 2-4, pursuant to,invitation to bid (ITB) No. 2016-111-ND for the purchase of
concrete curbing/sidewalk construction, asphaltic concrete/related materials, and
striping of city streets and parking lots.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this /3 day of_1417____2016.
ATTEST:
,/ 7 , -' .---14'1 7,1,
R A FA'' . GR. re ••ITY,tL' ''.4,� PHILII 'LE '',`'- MAYOR
,r_
ti ,,v � / 1.4.4
'7 4I
APPROVED AS TO
-FORM & LANGUAGE .
&FOB EX CUTION •
�.r�_ � ��City Attorney 4a' r
T:\AGENDA\2016\July\Procurement\2016-111-ND (ITB) For the Purchase of Concrete Curbing.Sidewalk
Construction,Asphaltic Concrete.Related Materials, and Striping of City Streets and Parking Lots\ITB-2016-111-ND
•
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 BIDS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO BID (ITB) NO. 2016-111-ND FOR THE
PURCHASE OF CONCRETE CURBING/SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, ASPHALTIC
CONCRETE/RELATED MATERIALS,AND STRIPING OF CITY STREETS AND PARKING LOTS.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Build and Maintain Priority Infrastructure with Full Accountability
Supporting Data(Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The ITB was issued on April 11, 2016. 417 bid notices were issued and a pre-bid conference was held on April
18,2016. On May 13,2016,bids were received from Team Contracting, Inc.(Team Contracting), H&R Paving,
Inc.(H&R), Bergeron Land Development, Inc.(Bergeron),and Metro Express, Inc.(Metro).The bid tabulation is
included in Appendix A. The due diligence review by staff of each bid received has found as follows:
Group 1 —The lowest responsive,responsible bid received for Group 1 was submitted by Team Contracting.The
bid received by Metro was found to be non-responsive for its failure to meet the minimum requirement,as stated
in Section C1 (p.26),which required bidders to submit,with its bid,three(3)client references for which the Bidder
has completed work,similar in nature to the scope of the ITB. Metro's bid failed to include the required references.
Group 2—The lowest responsive bid received for Group 2 was submitted by H & R. However, to the matter of
responsibility, staff has determined that H & R's prior performance on previous contracts has been poor as
indicated in the attached contractor performance evaluations. The bid received by Metro was found to be non-
responsive for its failure to meet the minimum requirement,as stated in Section C1 (p.26),which required bidders
to submit,with its bid,three(3)client references for which the Bidder has completed work,similar in nature to the
scope of the ITB. Metro's bid failed to include the required references.The bid submitted by Bergeron exceeded
the City's cost expectations. Staff does not recommend an award of Group 2 at this time.
Group 3—The lowest responsive bid received for Group 3 was submitted by H & R. However, to the matter of
responsibility, staff has determined that H & R's prior performance on previous contracts has been poor as
indicated in the attached contractor performance evaluations. The bid received by Metro was found to be non-
responsive for its failure to meet the minimum requirement,as stated in Section C1 (p.26),which required bidders
to submit,with its bid,three(3)client references for which the Bidder has completed work,similar in nature to the
scope of the ITB. Metro's bid failed to include the required references.The bid submitted by Bergeron exceeded
the City's cost expectations. Staff does not recommend an award of Group 3 at this time.
Group 4—The sole bid received for Group 4 was submitted by Bergeron.However,the bid submitted by Bergeron
exceeded the City's cost expectations. Staff does not recommend an award of Group 4 at this time.
RECOMMENDATION
The City Manager considered the staff's recommendation and bids received,pursuant to ITB 2016-111-ND,and
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the Resolution awarding a contract for Group 1 to
Team Contracting, Inc.and rejecting all bids received for Groups 2-4,pursuant to invitation to bid(ITB)No.2016-
111-ND for the purchase of concrete curbing/sidewalk construction, asphaltic concrete/related materials, and
striping of city streets and parking lots.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
N/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account
Funds: 1
Total 1
Financial Impact Summary: The cost associated with the purchase of concrete/sidewalk construction,
asphaltic concrete/related materials, and striping of city streets and parking lots is subject to the funds
availability approved through the City's budgeting process.
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Alex Denis, Roy Coley
Sign-• i s: �`
Der•_�y ent Director Assis 1 i,City M. '_ • :'W City •er
AD r& RC E MT Pi , JLM A,
T:\AGENDA\201, •.rocurement\2016- For the Purchase of Concrete Curbing.Sidewalk Constru Concrete.Related Materials.a •• ping of Crty Streets and Parking Lots\hem
Summary 7.0.10
1\
M I Al V 1 I BEACH AGENDA ITEM C 7 0
DATE /- 13 '/C
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 of e City Co mission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager ;i
DATE: July 13, 2016
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AN i CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,ACCEP NG THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE BIDS RECEIVED PURSUANT
TO INVITATION TO BID(ITB)NO.2016-111-ND FOR THE PURCHASE OF
CONCRETE CURBING/SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION, ASPHALTIC
CONCRETE/RELATED MATERIALS,AND STRIPING OF CITY STREETS
AND PARKING LOTS.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
NA
FUNDING
The cost associated with the purchase of concrete/sidewalk construction, asphaltic
concrete/related materials, and striping of city streets and parking lots is subject to the
funds availability approved through the City's budgeting process.
BACKGROUND
On March 21, 2012, the City awarded agreements for concrete curbing/sidewalk
construction, purchase of asphaltic concrete/related materials, and striping of city streets
and parking lots. The current agreements expired on May 30, 2016.
On April 11,2016,the City issued an Invitation to Bid 2016-111-ND(the"ITB")to establish a
successor contract, by means of sealed bids,for the purchase of concrete curbing sidewalk
construction, asphaltic concrete/related materials,and the striping of city streets and parking
lots.
ITB PROCESS
The ITB was issued on April 11, 2016. 417 bid notices were issued and a pre-bid
conference was held on April 18, 2016. On May 13, 2016, bids were received from Team
Contracting, Inc. (Team Contracting), H & R Paving, Inc. (H & R), Bergeron Land
Development, Inc. (Bergeron), and Metro Express, Inc. (Metro). The bid tabulation is
included in Appendix A. The due diligence review by staff of each bid received has found as
follows:
Group 1 — The lowest responsive, responsible bid received for Group 1 was
submitted by Team Contracting. The bid received by Metro was found to be non-
responsive for its failure to meet the minimum requirement,as stated in Section C1
(p.26), which required bidders to submit,with its bid,three(3)client references for
which the Bidder has completed work, similar in nature to the scope of the ITB.
Metro's bid failed to include the required references.
Commission Memorandum
ITB 2016-111-ND For the Purchase of Concrete Curbing/Sidewalk Construction,Asphaltic Concrete/Related Materials,
and Striping of City Streets and Parking Lots
June 13, 2016
Page 12
Group 2—The lowest responsive bid received for Group 2 was submitted by H &
R. However, to the matter of responsibility, staff has determined that H & R's prior
performance on previous contracts has been poor as indicated in the attached
contractor performance evaluations. The bid received by Metro was found to be
non-responsive for its failure to meet the minimum requirement, as stated in
Section C1 (p.26), which required bidders to submit, with its bid, three (3) client
references for which the Bidder has completed work, similar in nature to the scope
of the ITB. Metro's bid failed to include the required references.The bid submitted
by Bergeron exceeded the City's cost expectations. Staff does not recommend an
award of Group 2 at this time.
Group 3—The lowest responsive bid received for Group 3 was submitted by H &
R. However, to the matter of responsibility, staff has determined that H & R's prior
performance on previous contracts has been poor as indicated in the attached
contractor performance evaluations. The bid received by Metro was found to be
non-responsive for its failure to meet the minimum requirement, as stated in
Section C1 (p.26), which required bidders to submit, with its bid, three (3) client
references for which the Bidder has completed work, similar in nature to the scope
of the ITB. Metro's bid failed to include the required references. The bid submitted
by Bergeron exceeded the City's cost expectations. Staff does not recommend an
award of Group 3 at this time.
Group 4—The sole bid received for Group 4 was submitted by Bergeron. However,
the bid submitted by Bergeron exceeded the City's cost expectations. Staff does
not recommend an award of Group 4 at this time.
CITY MANAGER'S RECOMMENDATION
After considering staff's recommendation and the bids received, pursuant to ITB 2016-111-
ND, I recommend that the Mayor and City Commission approve the Resolution awarding a
contract for Group 1 to Team Contracting, Inc., and rejecting all bids received for Groups 2-
4, pursuant to invitation to bid (ITB) No. 2016-11-ND for the purchase of concrete
curbing/sidewalk construction, asphaltic concrete/related materials, and striping of city
streets and parking lots.
JLM / ? AD / ND / RC
T T:\A; NDA\2016\July\Procurement\2016-111-ND (ITB) For the Purchase of Concrete Curbing.Sidewalk Construction,
Asphaltic Concrete.Related Materials, and Striping of City Streets and Parking Lots\Memorandum 7.6.16.doc
CD-
<
115.
\
§ /
t� - 6,3 _Lo
00. _•
I /
" CD
Lb-
CI k
z _ _CD +cn CD
.a— ƒ 6 _
CO $
•
._ k as
E I I 3 {
a 1 0 2 2 + /
2 Ti
o \ - ® 3
E e k
-J E
» /
—% —\ —% —
I- ® (/ d\ \ \ 7 Cl egeoe \ e
3k0 + D. £ 0_ \ {
m a / e ƒ e = a = m
E � EfE $ E / £
o \ o • oaf To 3 O E
7 $ § » p
2 J � e
\ 0 � k
c 2 ± ƒ /
8 \ \ -co k
+ - 2 o
\ \ ƒ
7 7 -0 2 CD
< CK \cc m 2 $ $
\ « _
a \ k
\ }
CA
}
k ]
£
}
MIAMI BEACH VENDOR EVALUATION FORM-GENERAL SERVICES
Evaluation Date: April 7,2016
Completed by: Matthew LePera
Department: Public Works-Operations
Vendor Name: H&R Paving
ITB,RFP,RFQ Number: 15-11/12
Description of Services:
Striping of City Streets and Parking Lots
Vendor's Contact Person: Raul
Contract Original Term: Two Years
Indicate if Department accepts
to renew Yes ii Non (if not,provide explanation in"Comments")
Options to Renew Year: Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 I Year 4
Please rate contractor performance by placing an'7C"under one of the five performance ratings below.If you don't know or any services are
not applicable,please leave a blank response. For any"poor"or"below average"rating,please provide comments below.
Rating
Poor Below Average Good Excellent
Average
1 2 j 3 4 5
I
1 Provide the services in a timely basis '• I n ❑
l
2 Provide services as set forth in the Scope of Services
3 Compy with timely deliveries as per contract ✓
4 Provide excellent customer services with professional approach
5 Quality of work performed
6 Responsiveness to Owner inquiries
7 Provide work under emergency conditions LI: •
•
8 Provide proper documentation-Reports/Required Training,etc. ■ i tl
9 Provide proper documentation-Invoices j
•-■ 17=1.
10 Provide timely response to dicrepancies,delays,disputes,and/or
claims ✓ s N..........
11 Submit proposals requested by Owner for additions,deletions,
and/or modifications to contract scope in timely manner 1
12 Overall customer satisfaction I I n I I I
TOTAL#of RATINGS: 6 2 I 3
COMMENTS .
H&R Paving has not responded to many emails and phone calls regarding new projects.
Invoices are sent to wrong departments and sometimes have mistakes. Unresponsive.
I
Evaluator Signature: / r Digitally signed by Date uploaded to Contract
if' Matthew LePera Management Module:
Director/Asst.Director Initials: Uploaded to Contract
Management Module By:
1 of 1
9 MIAMIBEACH CONTRACTOR EVALUATION FORM '
Quarterly Evaluation Date: Final Evaluation?{YINJ:
Completed by:Mike Alvarez Department:-I''+c s4Ac.1A,iE,c.
Contractor: H&R Paving Rating Summary
Rating >! °!o Pointe • Overall •
Project Name; Citywide asphalt paving ,,..;ii,t;„, Score
Poor • 0 . 0% - 0 L
NWwContractor Project Manager:Res!Perez 'Below Aver. • :5 ... 3% .a 10
-Contractor9uperintendent�-~ ..,.........,» �� -. .Ai'et. . .. .4 �� 85% 102 • 58%
Project Completion Date:Annual_.,_. °P»Decd .,___,1 -....�,,.,$°�»� .,...:4w- - •
—..:Project Closeout Date:Annual,,,,,.... .,. ......,......,.............. ..Excellent . .,o.4 ...,....«...,0 .,,..... _,....,.-.0
Total: 40 : : 100% 116 .� 200
MM FWD
Please rate contractor performance by piecing an'7C"under one of the five performance ratings below.
Rating
Category • Paw below Average Good Excellent •
,Average
1 2 3 4 8 •
.•A-PROJECT M.4M4eEMENT AND ADMINISTRATION _
i•
1 Demonstrated due diligence during pre-award period x
2 Verified construction documents against existing field conditions X
3 ..Completed each project phase on schedule.......,..,.».,..,...,._..,..,,.»..,.,... .. _....,- I._ X.,,.. II. d..,. _.
4 Quality of work performed x
6 Coordination of trades with NE disciplines x
6 -Con,alnatlon and Interaction with NE team and Owner staff �Y-~ w x ._ ,-»r.",.
7 Enforced strict discipline among employees.sub-contractors,or R
others working on behalf of the contractor 7! w_
...8 Responsiveness to Owner inqulrfes,..,,,._,._- . ....,..._ ...._ . _ !_.._.,_.._.,.,.. R..,..,.d... 1
9 Provided solutions to problems X
10 Quality of protect reporting measures x
__...,.._.,._.._.,..,.................,,.,.-._.».,........._...,....,,....,.,.,..___W,_.__.._.,.,...................,..,.......,..,..,_,.......-....... ._____..__...,..,_.s_._,.....,.,
11 Effectiveness of weekly construction meetings x I .
_....._..,... ........_.__.. ..t ,
12 Timely processing of shop drawing x
13 Pulled permits in a timely basis x
Provided timely submittal of updated schedules reflecting approved
14 time extensions and/or recovery schedule�ubmittai _ x
»16 Provided timely notification of discrepancies,delays,disputes,and __w»» ,.� 9,.. »�..X .,_.....,».._.^. . _.._M._...
or clef1ns
10 Submitted proposals requested by Owner for additions,deletions. »� #
and/or modifications to contract scope In timely manner ( I --
13-SUPERINTENDENT • i
•
17 Accessibility and responsiveness __...._ ..._.._.._...._.._....___.____._..._. .. .,....,_y`_._........-_...-....,.,.,..,._ - ? ,
18 Ability to direct and coordinate trades X
19 Ability to maintain schedule..._.........,..,, ,._.,....w,_,._-...w.....__...._ ..._._.....»._....._.-..........._..X.__... _-....__..__.. .M.....,.._..,... ,. 1.
20 Effectiveness In handling material deliveries ,... � .�_� - ..........»Y~W._.W.x -� ^.. i
21 Effectiveness In controlling construction quality
�^ ___.- __.....» .. ,_..._..�.._._.,,.,..,..,._,......- .... _X..,_._
i
i
,
l
6onh,11 C.xd..»limn i,f')
Catego►y Poor 6a1°w Average I Good j Excellent
_ _ _ _ __ Avstagg _J.
22 Professionalism..,._._........tn. ..,.o.,w,,. ,,,.....,,..,,.. .,...._M..,..,,..._ .t. .. .._.x�,.w..tn. .,,...,,.,... .,..,......___._.
_.23 x
..,Overall expertise and project knowledge N__..w... .... _...,..._......._.....,.„ ,,.... .. ........,......_....._M.,.... ._ ...----
24 Overall effectiveness as supervisor x III•
26 Ability to resolve construction I design conflicts in a timely manner x I
26w.Ability to Identify project risks Ihal may impaci cost schedule and^ ,��..~.,�.^i �..�, .....",.,,.�. "'_._....._._.
_.._ owner expectations In a timely basis _........ .....,._,.. ..,.,.w....ro....a.....,,x,...._ .._...__.......,,...._ ......._.,. _....
27 Effectiveness In working with Cily and AlE construction s x
management teams
•
C•PROJECTSITE
Adequate staR1nglmanpower to perform work and provide proper
28 X s !
supervision and coordination In compliance with contract .r r,,d........._..—,........ .,, ,y.,-......_ .....M....._.—.wu. _..,.._............_
Contractor and sub-contractor employees identifiable by
29 identification badge and/or clothing_ _ _ _ _ _ _ x _
30 Implemented measures to ensure safety ar.d job site security uu w.....a.....,.Vw.w. Y� 1.....,�.._.�.... i
31_ Maintained neat end organized work areas yw x 11
_32 .Maintalned.a clean..safe.silo and workman-like conditions for the.._,-,w,�.��„�.......�-i- - ��M...�,�. ��~W . �. �� .-.-�,- "......•-
_ duration of the project ] x
Secured timely approval of management of traffic and pedestrian. .�.m .._........ ............,,.. w.....X.._.,. __........ ..�....�� _,_..
.._.__ eases Mans. .... ,... ... ..._....,...__ ..._..�_..._ .,. ..............�. ......-,�M...._.. _,.__....r...
34 Attempted to minimize disruption to neighborhood residents and
. during construction..............._. ._......,...,........_.._..,............... .....,,....._......__........,._,....... .X..... _.._....„.......... ...,..-.....,...,.
36 Secured timely approvals for weekend work x '
D"--PAYMENTS AND PROJECT•CLOEE.Otrr ',. j �1
.
Provided timely submittal of appropriate executed documents,back•
36 up documentation,and updated schedules to allow for the prompt x r I
processing of payment requisitions
.. _Provided timely payment of subcontractors upon receipt of . ... M.M.._....—.._...........,.,....... -~ __..
payment from City x .
38 Followed General Conditions procedures for final completion . •
on and X
project_close-out _ _ _ _
.39 Completeness and timeliness of clove-out document submittals^M. ^W y.MM,M a^-,M,•M. N M x M VNT ..0 M,^ ^.^M„ .M
40 Overall customer satisfaction X
TOTAL fZ of RATINOS: 0 5 34 1 0
COMMENTS;
• It.,
` e3) / •.1.(
i ✓... ' . ri..
l i
Evaluator Signature: Mike Alvarez �jf Cla ,(.,cC,'j s rOale Forwarded to Proc.Div.: 03/00/2012
J
Team Leader/Asst.Dlr.Initials: Mike Alvarez I IV ' ' Eack-up Dors Attached? No
/ f.• • �.,. /
� a
,ti'-
J t ,. l i
•
A enharr Fsroinetrnn 9(If 9