HomeMy WebLinkAbout442-2003 RDA Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 442-2003
A RESOLUTION OF THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY (RDA), ACCEPTING, IN PART
THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 68-01/02,
FOR THE MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PARKING
COMPONENT OF THE ANCHOR SHOPS AND PARKING GARAGE,
AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SELIG ENTERPRISES, INC., d/b/a AAA
PARKING ONLY, FOR THE OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE
ANCHOR GARAGE; FURTHER, IF NEGOTIATIONS ARE NOT
SUCCESSFUL, TO REPORT BACK ON THIS ITEM TO THE
CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE RDA, AT THEIR NEXT
SCHEDULED MEETING THEREAFTER
WHEREAS, on September 18, 2002, subsequent to the direction of the City's
Finance and Citywide Projects Committee and the RDA, the Administration issued Request
for Proposals No. 68-01/02 forthe Management and Operation of the Parking Component
of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage (the RFP); and
WHEREAS, the current Garage Facility Management Agreement (Agreement),
dated July 15, 1998, between Quik Park of Florida, Inc., and the RDA for the operation of
the Anchor Garage, expired on December 15, 2002, and was extended on a month-to-
month basis, at the discretion of the City Manager, until such time that the RFP process
yielded a new management agreement; and
WHEREAS, the intent of the RFP was to create a managed public-private
competitive bid process, whereby the City's Parking Department could also submit a
proposal to be evaluated against private sector proposals; and
WHEREAS, proposals were initially due on October 18, 2002; the deadline was
subsequently extended to November 1, 2002; and
WHEREAS, on November 1, 2002, five (5) proposals were received from Imperial
Parking, Parking Company of America (PCOA); Quik Park of Florida; Selig Enterprises,
Inc., d/b/a AM Parking (AM Parking); and the City of Miami Beach's Parking
Department; and
WHEREAS, subsequent to an initial review of the proposals to ensure
responsiveness and compliance with the specifications of the RFP, letters were sent to
Quik Park and Imperial Parking, advising them that certain payroll projections submitted in
their respective proposals did not comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance (No. 2001-
3301), as required in the RFP, and therefore such non-compliance rendered their
proposals non-responsive; and
WHEREAS, on January 24, 2003, an Evaluation Committee, appointed by the
Executive Director convened to hear presentations by AAA Parking, PCOA, and the
Parking Department; and
WHEREAS, the Committee decided to hear presentations by the two private sector
firms first, rank the two firms, then hear the presentation by the City's Parking Department,
and rank the Parking Department against the top-ranked private sector firm; and
WHEREAS, the Committee made a motion that the ranking would be based on the
firm with the highest number of points; and
WHEREAS, upon conclusion ofthe two private sector presentations, the Committee
assigned scores to the proposers, with AAA Parking receiving the highest score of 632
points, and Parking Company of America receiving 420 Points; and
WHEREAS, the Committee Members were unanimous in awarding the highest
score to AAA Parking; and
WHEREAS, certain Committee members expressed strong reservations about
including PCOA in the recommended rankings to the City Manager; and
WHEREAS, the Committee adopted a motion ratifying the scores awarded to the
two proposals and waited to renderfurther recommendations until after the presentation by
the Parking Department; and
WHEREAS, upon conclusion of the Parking Department's presentation, the
Committee ranked two proposals, with the City receiving 575 points and AAA receiving
564 points; and
WHEREAS, the Committee adopted a motion, recommending the following:
. based on its ranking of the two private sector firms, the Committee only
recommended consideration of AAA Parking as the top-ranked private firm; and
. based on its ranking of AAA Parking and the City's Parking Department, the
Committee recommended the City's Parking Department with the highest number of points
and AAA Parking second; and
WHEREAS, the Executive Director reviewed the Evaluation Committee's
recommendation, and recommended to the Chairman and Members ofthe RDA that the
Administration enter into negotiations with AAA Parking, based on its representation that it
would consider offering a guarantee of net revenue to the RDA; further, if negotiations
failed to achieve acceptable terms and conditions with AAA Parking, the Executive Director
recommended entering into negotiations with the City's Parking Department; and
WHEREAS, at its regular meeting on February 26, 2003, the Chairman and
Members of the RDA considered the recommendation of the Executive Director, as well as
hearing presentations from AAA Parking and the City's Parking Department; and
WHEREAS, in its presentation, AAA Parking reaffirmed its willingness to negotiate a
guarantee of some net revenue from the operation of the Anchor Garage; and
WHEREAS, in the event that the Administration and AAA Parking are not able to
negotiate an agreement, which agreement would include a net revenue guarantee
satisfactory to the RDA, there was further discussion to bring the item back to the
Chairman and Members of the RDA for consideration and rejection of all proposals to the
RFP, and termination of the RFP process as a whole; and
WHEREAS, following consideration of the Executive Director's recommendation, the
afore stated presentations, and an extensive discussion regarding the merits of the terms
raised by each proposer therein, the Chairman and Members of the RDA directed the
Executive Director, through his Administration, to commence negotiations with AAA
Parking only, and if negotiations are unsuccessful, to return with a report on same to the
RDA, at its next regularly scheduled meeting thereafter.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE CHAIRMAN AND
MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, that the Chairman and
Members hereby accept the recommendation of the Executive Director, in part,
pertaining to the ranking of the proposals received pursuant to Request for Proposals
(RFP) No:68-01/02, for the Management and Operation of the Parking Component of the
Anchor Shops and Parking Garage, and authorize the Administration to enter into
negotiations with Selig Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a AAA Parking only, for the operation of the
Anchor Garage; further, if negotiations are. not successful, the Administration is to report
back on this item to the Chairman and Members of the RDA at their next scheduled
meeting thereafter.
PASSED and ADOPTED this 26th
,2003.
:D: 1 f) J
~ rlfA
S CRETARY
T:\AGENDA\2003\feb2603\ROA\Anchor _conlract_Reso.doc.
APPROVED NlJ10
FORM&LANGUAGI
,. FOR EXECUlIQN
.,
EXHIBIT A
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
'6~ tf J1(iomi 1lt'm'A
F
L
o
R
D
A
MURRAY H. DUB BIN
. City Attorney
Telephone:
Telecopy:
(305) 673-7470
(305) 673-7002
October 31, 2002
Rafael Llopiz, Vice President
Quik Park
1100 Biscayne Boulevard
7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132
-..
-- VIA FACSIMILE 305-604-1722 AND U.S. MAIL
Re: Protest Letter, Dated October 4, 2002, to CMB Request for Proposals No. 68-01/02
Management and Operation of the Parking Component of tbe Anchor Shops and
Parking Garage (the RFP)
Dear Mr. Llopiz:
The following shall serve to respond to your above referenced protest letter, as submitted to
City of Miami Beach Procurement Director, Gus Lopez. Upon review of the subject letter by this
office, and following discussions with Mr. Lopez, the City Manager, and members of his staff, this
office has determined that your request regarding the specifications relative to the evaluation process
in the above referenced RFP--specifically that the evaluation process be removed entirely from the
City Manager and administrative staff purview and instead be given to an ad hoc committee
appointed by the City Commission--is hereby denied. The specifications in the RFP relative to the
evaluation committee, remain as set forth in the RFP.'
Your protest letter states, in summary, that the City Manager's ability to appoint the
evaluation committee members relative to the above referenced RFP; make a recommendation for
award to the City Commission; and communicate with evaluation committee members and City
staff, does not allow for fair and open competition.
Section 4,02 of the Charter of the City of Miami Beach establishes the functions and powers
of the City Manager, stating as follows:
IAII references herein to the RFP shall be deemed to include any addendum issued by the
City thereto.
Exhibit "B"
1700 Convention Center Drive -- Fourth Floor -- Miami Beach, Florida 33139
The city manager shall be the chief executive officer and head of the
administrative branch of the city government. Except as specifically
provided otherwise in this charter, the city manager shall be
responsible to the city commission for the proper administration of all
affairs of the city, The functions and powers of this office shall be:
...
...
...
(f) To recommend to the city commission for adoption,
such measures as he/she may- deem necessary or
expedient.
(g) To keep the city commission fully advised as to the
financial condition and needs of the city.
...
...
...
The City Manager is responsible for the successful management and operation of the City
from an administrative standpoint and he is accountable to the City Commission and to the people.
One of the inherent duties and responsibilities of the City Manager is to recommend to the City
Commission the lowest and best bidder on the subject RFP, and in this regard, the Manager has
appointed the evaluation committee to assist him in the preparation of a preliminary
recommendation.
This office has reviewed whether the City Manager's ability to herein appoint evaluation
committee members, where some evaluation committee members may include City employees,
constitutes a legal conflict of interest. After review of State law and the Miami-Dade County Code
and City of Miami Beach Code provisions on ethics and conflicts of interest, we find herein that
there is no legal conflict of interest.
You have provided no legal basis to substantiate the allegations that the City Manager has
shown any biases or predispositions relative to the proposed RFP. Alleged statements made by the
City Manager to the City Commission prior to the issuance of the subject RFP do not refute the
presumption that the evaluation process shall be conducted in an open, fair and competitive manner.
Lastly, while the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance does not prohibit the Manager from
having oral communications with his staff and evaluation committee members during the RFP
process, it should be noted that other bidders may communicate as well with staff and evaluation
committee members, provided their communications are in writing and a copy filed with the City
Clerk.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE. MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Notwithstanding denial of the relief requested in your bid protest letter, the City will continue
to ensure that the evaluation process be open, fair, and competitive. The managed competition
utilized in this RFP is consistent with processes that have been utilized across the country, including
Miami-Dade County (where, in a managed competition request for proposals for the management
of the County's marinas, the County Manager was also charged with appointing evaluation
committee members). The City will ensure that the evaluation committee in this case is ethnically
and gender balanced; consist of individuals that are knowledgeable or have experience relative to
the RFP scope of services; includes Miami Beach residents; and is balanced with both City staff and
non-staff members. Lastly, all evaluation committee members will be further screened by City staff
to ensure that there exists no individual conflicts of interest.
You may appeal this decision by filing an original action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the applicable court
rules. Any action not brought in good faith shall be subject to sanctions, including damages suffered
by the City and attorney's fees incurred by the City in defense of such wrongful action,
Very truly yours,
.~~
.~u~ay !f'Dubbin
City Attorney
cc: Mayor David Denner
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Christina M. Cuervo, Senior Assistant City Manager
Mayra Diaz-Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager
Gus Lopez, Procurement Director
P:\AILO'-NII.It'lJ'IU.'.U'O.....rao
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE. MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Manager
FROM: Murray H. Dubbirll .. t\..JlI"
City Attorney JW\ yt:'P" .
Raul J. Aguila fLe..lq (' N',(-
First Assistant City ArO~Y
DATE: November 18, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals No. 68-01102 for Management and Operations of the
Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage (RFP)
This responds to your request that this office review the submissions referred to hereafter,
responding to RFP No. 68-01/02 referred to above. This office, with the Procurement Division, has
reviewed the subject submissions and has come to the conclusion, as set forth hereafter.
This office has been working with Procurement Director Gus Lopez on a first - tier review of
the proposals submitted in response to the above referenced RFP, In the course of this review, it
appears that the proposals submitted by the finns of Quik Park and hnPark (hnperial Parking),
respectively, do not comply with the requirements of the City's Living Wage Ordinance (Ord. No,
2001-3301) on their respective faces. Specifically, in the line item delineated for payroll projections,
the respective operating budgets submitted with the Quik Park and hnPark proposals show that the
proposed wages for certain employee categories enumerated therein (i.e. cashiers and porters) fall
below the minimum threshold requirements of the Ordinance. Said operating budgets were reviewed
carefully numerous times and the conclusion is still the same.
Section Y on page 17 of the above referenced RFP provides that the City's Living Wage
Ordinance shall apply to the RFP, and that proposers shall be required to comply with said
requirements. The language of the RFP is unequivocal and clearly makes compliance with the
Ordinance mandatory. Based upon the Quik Park and hnParks' failure to comply with same, these
proposals should be deemed non-responsive. As such, they would receive no further consideration in
the evaluation process.
1
Exhibit "C"
"
,
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above please do not hesitate to
contact me,
RJAled
cc: Mayra Diaz Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager
Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Gus Lopez, Procurement Director
F:\atto\AGUR\MEMOS\gonzalez.anc.doc
2
.'
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.ci.miami-beach.fl.U5
Office of the City Manager
Telephone 305.673.7010
Facsimile 305.673,7782
Via Facsimile: 305,604.1722
November 25, 2002
Mr. Rafael Llopiz
Quik Park
1100 Biscayne Boulevard
7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132
Re: Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 68-01/02 - Management and Operation of the Parking
Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
Dear Mr. L1opiz:
In reviewing your payroll projections as submitted in response to the above subject RFP, your payroll
projections for your cashiers ($6.00 and $6.50 per hour) and porters ($7.00 per hour) do not comply
with the requirements of the City's Living Wage Ordinance (No. 2001-3301).
As stated in the above subject RFP, all service contractors, as defined in Ordinance No, 2001-3301
("Living Wage Ordinance"), shall pay to all its employees who provide services covered by the Living
Wage Ordinance, a living wage of no Jess than $8.56 an hour with health benefits, or a living wage
of not less than $9.81 an hour without health benefits, as described in this Section.
Section Y on page 17 of the RFP provides that the Living Wage Ordinance shall apply to the
subject RFP and proposers shall be required to comply with said requirements.
Inasmuch as your proposed hourly wage for your cashiers and porters, do not comply with the
requirements of the Living Wage Ordinance. your proposal is hereby deemed non-responsive. and
will receive no further consideration.
Sincerely,
\ :.",~ .~ ;-Y'/?<)-'
Yorge~, G~nzale~ .
City Manager
C: Murray Dubbln
City Attorney
Mayra DIIZ Bullacavoli
Aulstant City Manager
Christina Cuervo
Ass'stant City Manager
Raul Aguila
First Asslslant City Attorney
Gus Lopez
Procurement Director
Exhibit "D"
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
www.ci.miami-beach.ll.us
Office 01 the City Manager
Telephone 305.673.7010
Facsimile 305.673.7782
Via Facsimile: 305.579.9215
November 27, 2002
Mr. Harvey Figueroa, General Manager
1060 Brickell Avenue
Suite 107
Miami, Florida 33131
Re: Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 68-01/02 - Management and Operatlonofthe Parking
Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
Dear Mr. Figueroa:
In reviewing your payroll projections as submitted in response to the above subject RFP, your payroll
projections for your cashiers ($7.31 per hour) and porters ($7.31 per hour) do not comply with the
requirements of the City's Living Wage Ordinance (No. 2001-3301),
As stated in the above subject RFP, all service contractors, as defined in Ordinance No. 2001-3301
("Living Wage Ordinance"), shall pay to all its employees who provide services covered by the Living
Wage Ordinance, a living wage of no less than $8.56 an hour with health benefits, or a living wage
of not less than $9.81 an hour without health benefits, as described in this Section,
Section Y on page 17 of the RFP provides that the Living Wage Ordinance shall apply to the
subject RFP and proposers shall be required to comply with said requirements.
Inasmuch as your proposed hourly wage for your cashiers and porters, do not comply with the
requirements of the Living Wage Ordinance, your proposal is hereby deemed non-responsive, and
will receive no further consideration.
Sincerely,
JA~on::O~
City Manager
c: Murray Dubbin
City AIlom.y
MaY'a Diu Buttacavoli
Alslstant City Manager
Christina Cuervo
Alslslant Clly Manager
Raul Aguila
First Assistant City Altorney
Gus Lopez
Procurement Director
Exhibit "E"
5:~Q ~~~ C))> "0
ill';!-< DJ_= s'3 ~
~. 5' S. "'OlCO g. ~l5'
iii~m
m co ;: . :> iil g co
'" 0-' G) '" F'-:abl
III ",Ill )> "O-a
n'O 3 o C) 3
?" ~-. Ol :>,
m ;!-<II "" )>'0
:!] '" -,'" o'-~
III :> <II
n co '<
"" sa.
:> ~ ~
!u co co
'" - ....
0> ....
co <II 00
m -0 ::1 "C
~ Q ~~
CDUlm!!!.
en' m CD
~;:
~o:g
m ~..,
m~~
"'~
"'''''''
-0
o
o
...(")CD:TCIIG')
~03 ~ 9.@~
I ::1~mcu
~~ - m .:"'"'cc
~.. -g ::1 O.CD
~ ;1-0.3<11
(II -. 3 n c:
"C cS ~. 5D ~
QI 0 ..., 0
lil ~!P.",
nOl_
~?!2.
i~o
5:CDT
'" -
iil'
~
""
15'
<II
g>b~ ~~
s."'~=~
:TCXlm=cu
CD CD Cl>m CD'
'" 3 S" <II
Q) "'C en CLl
noQ'.P-c
::J"',< c: 0"0
i' CD "'" 0 a
Q.mcnOx
= I iii'O '"
i (;)QJ8
<II~!" ~
. 0 ~ tS
:r .......
~~~
Olll",
olilill
",<11-
3 s'm
12.. m 0
~ to' Ci
'" ""~
"'-....
<II 1&!J'
_0
"'0
y>o
{.
~bls~ &?f5gai"g ~~
~ 3 ~ ~ m ~ 3 [ x- ~. @
. ~ OJ.;cc .....-g . ~'~cg
1\)"='QlSDco.. .
:g O';!-o.... 13<11
<II ~:i'3: <lllil~
~ ![~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
CD O:J'" n CD a. CD
"Oa.~(D 530"
~ CD ~. or m A!. .-
)(.- 12 -0 Ol
I~~ ~~~.
~'Q' en CD:::1.
.11 . a-
iil'
~
15'
<II
5:"OC)Ul5:m::EUl5:5:
~~E~~~!!!,~~ll:
c2l S' ~ "T1 ~ ~ ~ 5-~' g
",CO)>iil ~~"'co a.
..., 0 a.::1 UI \U - -
9~~!il~~~~[
iCJ 5!!..!e..~ n !;!
:,-g 9:l =
~':J ..,
'" <II
a.
~blla'$?;~g~
g-5~~~6~2::J
g .0; S' 5::;' ~ S, ~ lir
-g. '< (Q ~. ~ g> ~ !h a.
S" ~ cn a @ 0 ..., Q.) );
''''=rl",--c:<II=~
...... I UI :J :1::!. CD'"
. m 0 -< :J (")
~81 liro)>
'" :> :>
I a ur I
- IlO
zo;;tJ"O
CD -0 CD .....
-(1)<.2.
:;:0-,(0(1)
~~2~
~~~a.
ffi m!!~
.- ~ <0 ~
~~~cn
wc.n=
~~g'
oco
OCO
00>
84'
:> 0
-'0
ill 0
n <II
-'"
<II <II
:i" 0
'!2.c:
Ol <II
n '"
'" '"
)(
~
S'
co
zo;;tJ"O
~ i ~ .2.
;;;c-.<tl(D
~~2ft
~t5~a.
c:m(,9G)
~~ !'Ja
ill" 0 en
-"Ul...a.cn
. "'....
..J:lo........Co
~!DC11
. 0> ~
"'co
~'"
!!
'0
!!l
C6
III
~
rC)C)'-
DJQ)Q)O
:> a..::> <II
g:cC'"2. ~
:> 111l2.:>
=:::::CQ)
gr 1r
:J.~
cr<ll
'" -,
-0
'" 0 <II
~':i ~
~~ .
:>
COC)
Q g
-i"
mill
c~
I
c:
<II
'"
zO;;tJ"Oz;a
5e.-g ~.Q.g.~
:;ca;CDCDma>
~e.Ei ~
CDt5~~ CD
~m~G) go
~~ -"'a m
fR" Co en )C
..-.a.Ul~tJ) 'i
N CD~ ::I
~~~ =
. 0> CO
:t~
c..>
......
"''''
. ....
"'.
"'0
00
3'0
0'0
:> '"
-~
::1''<
'"
Ol
~
m ......
<II C,,,,,
n' 0>
III O.
-00
III 00
g'3~
~ 0 CD
(")a..,
:2 ::r~
III
~
C))>
m3
~ Q
':"'Ul
'" '"
"'"n
1 c:
~
0;;::0:
-'<
ml
:><11
:i" ~
COc:
:>,
<
n
o
3
'U
..
'"
'<
;;a
"T1
"ll
Z
!:l
'"
CO
b
....
o
N
~
III
::l
~
'"
3
CD
'"
..
lID
8
CD
iil
..
c)"
'"
o
...
..
~
'"
"ll
III
...
:00-
~.
C)
o
~
o
::l
'"
::l
..
a
..
~
'"
)0
::l
n
~
o
...
CIl
~
~
(II
lID
"ll
III
~
:00-
,go
C)
..
~
'"
I
~
III
..
...
j('
o
...
"T1
o
C
:>
a.
'"
a.
III
II
n
,[
g
::l
0..
n
o
3
'U
II
~
II
D"
'"
m
..
"i
~
ii'
:>
n
'"
~
'<
CIl
..
..
=:
lJI
c:
D"
n
o
::l
<II
c:
::;
..
:>
..
(II
;;a
'"
(II
-g
'"
<II
..
(II
lJI"'Cl
<;'0
c:"
!lo
C<II
it!.
"T1
..
..
~
><
:=
...
==
-
,..;j
==
EXHIBIT C
fQ
CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH
December 4, 2002
Mr. Gus Lopez
Procurement Director
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive, Third Floor
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
RE: QUIK PARK LETTER OF 11/22/02 - RESPONSE
Dear Mr. Lopez:
The following is in response to the correspondence submitted on November 22, 2002 by
Quik Park wherein they allege that the Parking Department's response to RFP No. 68-
01/02 should be disqualified due to: (1) full disclosure was not provided regarding their
[Parking Department] sub-consultant's [APCOAlStandard] terminations at other public
parking operations and (2) they [Parking Department] are unable to comply with the
city's living wage ordinance. The following is a summary of the responses to Quik Park's
allegations including APCOAlStandard's formal response (see Exhibit No.1). If further
information is needed, it is available upon request.
The followina key points dismiss Alleaation No.1:
. Both the Detroit Metropolitan "Detroit Metro" Wayne County Airport and "Fort
Wayne" Civic Center agreements were lease agreements (not fixed hourly
rate labor contracts). These agreements expired and APCOAlStandard fully
satisfied their obligations under those agreements.
o In the Detroit Metro case, the lease agreement expired and
APCOAlStandard operated on a month-to-month basis until such time
that Detroit Metro issued an RFP (Request for Proposals) for a three-
year contract. The reality is that Detroit Metro requested
APCOAlStandard to bid on this RFP. APCOAlStandard declined to
participate. The competitive bidding process resulted in an award to
AMPCO System Parking. As a result, on September 10, 2000,
APCOAlStandard voluntarily discontinued operations at Detroit Metro.
The contract ran its course and APCOAlStandard continued to
operate in good faith while the competitive bidding process took its
course. In regards to the claim of overcharging, the truth of the
matter is that the major issues of vehicle leases and single business
tax payments were mediated in court and APCOAlStandard received
a mediation award of $650,000 net to be paid by Detroit Metro to
APCOAlStandard. Moreover, APCOAlStandard has in its possession
a Detroit Metro memorandum concluding that all vehicle leases were
competitive. In regards to the alleged insurance overcharges, there
were no overcharges and APCOAlStandard has a claim pending
against Detroit Metro for insurance reimbursements (see Exhibit No.
1 ).
Miami Beach Parking System. Historic Old City Hall. 1130 Washington Avenue, Suite 100, Miami Beach. Florida 33139-4600
Phone (305) 673-7505
o In Fort Wayne's case, as in the Detroit Metro case, the contract was a
lease agreement and not a fixed hourly rate contract. As such, the
Fort Wayne contract was not a similar project to the Anchor Garage
project. Secondly, APCOAlStandard was not fired at Fort Wayne
Civic Center. The truth is APCOAlStandard was held over for 18
months after its lease agreement expired. The Fort Wayne Lease
Agreement expired on its own terms on October 31, 2000.
APCOAlStandard continued operating that facility without a contract
as an accommodation with the understanding that the lease would be
replaced with a management agreement. Despite APCOAlStandard's
best efforts, Fort Wayne was never able to finalize a management
agreement and 18 months after the lease agreement expired Fort
Wayne unilaterally decided that the lease had remained in effect.
APCOAlStandard did not concur with this decision and had no
intention of continuing to operate the facility under the old lease
agreement. The lease was not advantageous to APCOAlStandard for
various reasons including changes in parking rates and the removal of
revenue generating parking spaces without accompanying rent credit
for APCOAlStandard. APCOA readily agreed to cease operations in
April 2002 (18 months after the lease had expired).
APCOAlStandard's operation of the facility would have ceased at the
end of the lease agreement had Fort Wayne not held out a prospect
of a management agreement (see Exhibit No.1). Further information
is available upon request from APCOAlStandard.
. Both Detroit Metro and Fort Wayne contracts were lease agreements.
APCOAlStandard's contract with the Parking Department is a fixed hourly
rate labor contract to provide cashiers/attendants and supervisors. THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH'S CONTRACT WITH APCOAlSTANDARD IS
NEITHER A MANAGEMENT AGREEMENT NOR A LEASE AGREEMENT,
IT IS A FIXED HOURLY RATE LABOR CONTRACT). The Parking
Department provides management and oversight for all operations. By
contract, APCOAlStandard is strictly required to provide, "trained, quality
hourly employees, positioned as parking attendants/cashiers and supervisors
as deemed necessary by the City." The Parking Department determines all
staffing levels and manages the day-to-day operations. Furthermore, this fact
was stated at the Pre-Proposal Conference for RFP No. 68-01/02 held on
October 2, 2002. Both IMPARK and AM Parking specifically inquired about
APCOAlStandard's absence at the Pre-Proposal Conference. The author
responded to this question in the same manner as above. The Parking
Department manages and operates all municipal facilities. APCOAlStandard
strictly provides fixed hourly rate contract labor as does Armored Security for
our security services. Once again, this was stated in the Parking
Department's RFP response. In fact, my introductory letter states, "The
Department has a management team in place consisting of an Assistant
Director (Project Manager), an Operations Manager, and five facility
supervisors, all of who are employed by the City".
. The "Parking Department Questionnaire" in Request for Proposals No. 68-
01/02 which was issued as part of Addendum NO.4 on October 25, 2002,
Question No. 2 (actually Question No.3) states, "Have any similar
agreements held by the Parking Department or its sub-consultants for a
project similar to the proposed project ever been canceled? Clearly, the
answer is NO. APCOAlStandard only has only one similar contract in the
context of this RFP. The only similar contract is a fixed hourly rate labor
contract with the City of Orlando, Florida.
In summary, the Parking Department questionnaire in the RFP inquired as to
cancellation of public contracts and, again, APCOAlStandard's contracts were neither
similar to those in the context of this RFP nor were they ever canceUed.
The following key points dismiss Alleaation No.2:
. APCOAlStandard provided a written correspondence on September 23,
2002, providing a fixed hourly rate of $12.05 and $13.55 for
cashiers/attendants and supervisors, respectively, to be supplied for the
Anchor Garage operation (see Exhibit No.2). My request to
APCOAlStandard was precipitated by the City's Living Wage Ordinance
requirement as stated in RFP 68-01/02. The letter provided by
APCOAlStandard states that the rates provided are Living Wage Ordinance
compliant. Clearly, the existing contract between the City and
APCOAlStandard is not Living Wage Ordinance compliant; however, there is
no requirement for the City's contract with APCOAlStandard to be Living
Wage Ordinance complaint at this time. I am not aware of any bidder (public
or private) that is required to incur [operational] expenses prior to receiving
the award. If and when, the Parking Department is awarded the contract, the
existing agreement between APCOAlStandard and the City may be amended
to incorporate the Living Wage Ordinance compliant rate for the Anchor
Garage operation. Similar to any other bidder that may be awarded the
Anchor Garage contract and then may negotiate a contract for services
(cashiers, security, etc.) which must adhere to the Living Wage Ordinance
requirements.
. The Parking Department's budget submission for the Anchor Garage clearly
states the hourly rate ($12.05 and $13.55) to be paid for cashiers/attendants
and supervisors. These rates are Living Wage Ordinance compliant (see
Exhibit No.3).
The aforementioned facts dismiss the allegations made by Quik Park. Clearly, the
Parking Department (bidder) and APCOAlStandard (sub-consultant) are fully compliant
and responsive bidders to RFP No. 68-01/02. Please pass on this information to the
evaluation committee.
If you should have any further questions, please contact me at (305) 673-7000,
extension 6483 or via electronic mail at saulfrances@cLmiami-beach.fl.us.
Sincerely,
sa~
Parking Director
c: Mayor and Commissioners
Raul Aguila, First Assistant City Attorney
Robert Parcher, City Clerk
~~'/D'I'DD' "", FAX "'D'O""
~~ ~'1~Il~'J!.!,arking.
LEGAL
III 001
EXHIBIT 1
900 North Michigan Avenue. Sulls 1 BOO
Chicago, Illinois 60611
(312) 274-2000 . Fax (312) 640-6187
By Overnight Delivery
December 3, 2002
Mr. Gus Lopez, CPPO
Procurement Director
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Re: RFP No. 68-01/02, Management and Operation of Parking Component of Anchor
Shops and Parking Garage, Miami Beach FL
Dear Mr. Lopez:
I am in-house legal counsel for APCOAlStandard Parking. Roamy Valera in Standard
Parking's Miami office has sent to me a copy of Quik Park's November 22, 2002 letter
to the City, in which Quik Park urged the disqualification of the City's Parking
Department proposal in response to the above-captioned RFP. One of the grounds for
disqualification alleged by Quik Park is that "... full disclosure was not provided
regarding their sub-consultant's [Le., APCOAfStandard Parking's] terminations at other
parking operations... P
My understanding is that the RFP package included a questionnaire asking if any
similar agreement held by the Parking Department, or its sub-consultants, for a project
similar to the proposed project has ever been canceled, and that the Parking
Department responded "No."
Quik Park claims the Parking Department response was false, stating that it was aware
of "at least two instances where... [APCOAfStandard Parking] was fired from operating
a major public parking operation." Quik Park claims APCOAfStandard Parking was
fired at Detroit Metro and at the Fort Wayne Civic Center. In short, Quik Park is wrono,
APCOA was not fired at Detroit, but instead its month to month contract terminated
after APCOA declined its client's invitation to participate in an RFP process. And, at
Fort Wayne, rather than be fired, APCOA was held over 18 months beyond the
expiration date of its lease with the client. Further explanation follows.
".,I......I\.-.........dmJlll.'1WI....irl.r.Jsinga
12/03/2002 11:31 FAX 3126406162
LEGAL
I4J 002
EXHIBIT 1
Detroit Metro
APCOAlStandard Parking was not fired at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport.
Rather than be fired, Wayne County has admitted in its pleadings in The Countv of
Wavne vs, APCOA. Inc.. et ai, Case No, 99-924131, Circuit Court of Wayne County,
that the 1989 contract under which APCOA had operated Detroit Metro (month to
month since 1992) ended because a three (3) year contract was bid by the County and
APCOA, although specifically requested by the County to submit a bid, decided not to
submit a bid. APCOA does acknowledge that the County did send a termination notice
to APCOA long after the fact, but the County has stated in its pleadings that they did
not think the notice was necessary, because the APCOA contract was month to month.
Copies of the relevant pleadings will be provided upon request.
With the award of the contract to AMPCO System Parking pursuant to an RFP process
in which APeOA did not participate, APCOA voluntarily discontinued operations at
Detroit Metro on September 10, 2000. Again, APCOA was not barred from the Detroit
Metro RFP, but was actually requested to participate.
Quik Park has cited certain alleged overcharges at Detroit Metro, but the true story is that
the major issues of vehicle leases and single business tax payments were mediated in
court and APCOA received a mediation award of $650,000 net to be paid bv the County to
APCOA And, APCOA has in its possession an internal memorandum of a County
investigation that concludes that all vehicle leases were competitive. As for alleged
insurance overcharges, there were no overcharges, and in fact APCOA has a claim
pending against the County for insurance reimbursements.
The October 16, 2001 article quoted in the Quik Park letter regarding the use of a petty
cash fund for political contributions refers to a statement made by a former manager who
left APCOA in 1996 to join a competitor, This former manager later pleaded the 51t1
Amendment when questioned with regard to this statement.
As for the overall quality of APCOA's Detroit Metro personnel, the Airport's general counsel
has admitted under oath that the people at APCOA that he worked with were good people.
Again, copies of all materials cited will be provided upon request.
The distinction between being "fired- (as alleged by Quik Park) and deciding not to bid a
contract (as the facts support) is important. APCOAl$tandard Parking's litigation with
Wayne County over Detroit Metro is still pending, and in fact APCOA has claims in excess
12/03/2002 11:32 FAX 3126406162
LEGAL
IaI 003
EXHIBIT 1
of $4,000.000 against the County. Not surprisingly, APCOA elected not to bid for a contract
with a client that does not reimburse expenses as agreed.
Finally, there was no intent to deceive here, as APCOA routinely discloses the Detroit
Metro matter in responding to RFPs and as pendency of the Detroit litigation has been
continuously disclosed in all of the company's filings for SEC purposes. The Parking
Department questionnaire inquired as to terminations and, again, APCOA was not fired
at Detroit Metro.
Fort Wavne Civic Center
Two (2) important points should be made about the Fort Wayne Civic Center contract.
First, the Fort Wayne contract was a lease, not a management contract. As such, Fort
Wayne was not a "project similar to the proposed project" in Miami Beach. Second,
and more importantly, APCOA/Standard Parking was not fired at the Fort Wayne Civic
Center. In fact, APCOA was held over by the City for 18 months after its lease with the
C,ity expired. As with Detroit Metro, some explanation is necessary.
APCOA's 1990 lease with the City of Fort Wayne for the Civic Center parking facility
expired by its terms on October 31, 2000. APCOA continued operating the parking
facility after that date without a contract as an accommodation to the City, and with the
understanding that the lease would be replaced with a management contract. The
lease was no longer advantageous for APCOA by the time it expired for a number of
reasons, including the City's resistance to changes in parking rates and the City's
removal of revenue generating parking spaces, without an accompanying rent credit for
APCOA. Despite APCOA's best efforts, the City never was able to finalize a
management contract and, 18 months after the Lease expired, the City unilaterally
decided that the lease had, atter all, remained in effect. APCOA did not concur with -the
City's decision and had no intention of continuing to operate the facility under the old
lease. Consequently, APCOA readily agreed to cease operations in April 2002, some
18 months after the lease expired. Had the City not held out the prospect of a
management contract; APCOA's operations undoubtedly would have ceased with the
expiration of the lease. Rather than "fire" APCOA, APCOA was held over by the City
for 18 months after the lease expired.
..\1.._..._............__ .AI .. ...
12/03/2002 11:32 FAX 3126406162
LEGAL
IaI 004
EXHIBIT 1
If the City is interested in discussing this matter in greater detail, then please do not
hesitate to call me, and we can arrange for the appropriate parties to speak with
representatives of APCOAlStandard Parking and its legal staff.
Very truly yours,
~~(j;3~
mes C. Burdett
ice President, Associate Counsel
cc: Robert Sacks
Herb Anderson
Tom Hagerman
Roamy Valera
n:VeDIIJWpaqctl\cal'$pond\lopez1.doCl
!r~ ~l!l!~~!flf'arking.
1674 Meridian Avenue. Suite 106
Miami Beach, Flonda 33139
EXHIBIT 2 .
(305) 534.6888 . Fax (305) 534.0053
September 23,2002
Mr. Saul Frances
Parking Director
City of Miami Beach
1130 Washington Avenue, Suite 800
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Re: Labor Rate for The Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
Dear Saul:
As per your request, the following is the living wage rate compliant hourly rate for
parking attendants/cashiers and supervisors:
Cashiers/Attendants: $12.05
Supervisors: $13.55
*Both hourly rates includes all payroll taxes, and benefits, as well as the required liability
insurance as set forth in RFP #68-01-02 for the Management and Operation Component of the
Anchor Shops and Anchor Garage.
If you have any questions and/or need additional information, you can reach me at 305.534.6888.
.s~~
~amy V~lera
Regional Manager
Ambiance in Parking..
Gl
~
o
~
o
;:
r-
9 Rl il ~ i
CO) l!!
~ c (')
i z x
a 0 r/I
'" :ll m
~ I r/I ~
m X
~ 0 (')
." !'I
~ z CII
~ ~ i
~ n
m 0
.
~ i CII
m ~
n .
m
n E z
& Gl
m ..
'" CII ~
~ (')
x
m (')
m 0 r-
C ~
r-
m
Z
Gl
,
:ll
~
w
CII-
mo
~....
(')
m
.. ~ CII
N
!
m
~
!;
......
-<~
r: ~ i~
I ~
t-
..
N
I
G)
i
o
~
i
o
~
~
i!
~ ~~~ ~ ~l!! ~~
jil!
III ~s Xz
00
"'8 :~
. .... ~~
CD i I X~
:J: Z (/lZ 'ix
;II;II~ xli! ClIO
(/llll
XXg il Glc
..... ,.~
~i~ 111,- ~.
~~-c -< Gl:ll
."x~ E me
;II..... ~
:-Nm m
~h :.. w
.
"I- r/I
~ i Z i
n n
~ 1Il 1Il
... i ~ ;
i! m
i ." ." 0
i :II .~
i
(')
- n n ~
c C
1Il ill
I !
~ S
m
s~g
cm~
:ll:;ll;
- ~i i m CII~
:s
x-<~
gi~
. _1Il ... 1Il ~,..~
. N'" ... ... -<
J: it~ ll: Is:
!s
mC
-- W ~
NN
gg ll:
...~
.. .. i~
.. - -
Ui!jl -
1Il
~m !:l
..
.. ..
- -
l!l -
...
!S !:l
..
....
EXHIBIT 3
9 ------- ~ r~l(l
nJU[[ n m~g
~ ~
-=-=-=-=-=i- r/lClli!
!l! (')~~
f~ffr.' : ill
~ m!!l:
fi"'P'-. c 0
~ ;!~] I cGlc
. I I . . 3 Ifte~
...."""'....... .:..
iftffif
m fiq
1111111 0
lllllll ~
.w
. , I I-~-
f~~f
f~5'
--5
- -
s~g
cm~
:ll:;ll;
CIIr-
i -<
l:l~~l:llllll:lll
:-<g
;: gi~
iN Nilll III III ~~
I ...& -........
CD NNN
------- ~~
NNNNfil,)NN ~
~~~~~~~
...~
~....~....~ -<0
ift~ ~~ i~
....ww.':....':....~
~ww~~~
..
-
...
...
=
-
'--
~(')
(')~
so
:ll....
CIIc
5;
.,,-
r/llll
e~
filt
Z5
z
Gl
o
I
m
~
i
QUIK
PARK
November 22"d, 2002
1100 BISCAYNE BOULEVARD
7'" FLOOR
MIA;VlI. FL 33132
PH: (305) 373-6200 · (305) 604-6048 ,(
F&'X; (305) 604-1722 .
Mr. Gus Lopez, CPPO
Procurement Director
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
RE: RFP NO. 68-01/02, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PARKING
COMPONENT OF THE ANCHOR SHOPS AND PARKING GARAGE
Dear Mr. Lopez:
Upon review of the response submitted by the City of Miami Beach Parking Department
to the atove referenced RFP, we have determined that the Parking Department's
proposal should be disqualified because (1) full disclosure was not provided regarding
their sub-consultant's terminations at other public parking operations and (2) they are
unable to comply with the city's living wage ordinance. '
,
FAILURE TO DISCLOSE STANDARD/APCOA TERMINATIONS
The RFP package included a questionnaire to be completed by the Parking Department
askin~1 if any similar agreement held by the Parking Department, or its sub-consultants,
for a project similar to the proposed project has ever been canceled. (Attached) The
Parking Department falsely responded NO. Our research has discovered at least two
instances where the Parking Department's partner, Standard/APCOA, was fired from
operating a major public parking operation. Attached please find newspaper articles
detailing Standard/APCOA's terminations. . . .
Metro Detroit Airport
In late 1999, the Wayne County Commission [Detroit] ordered their Airport Director to
fire Stanciard/APCOA after the county auditor general/and prosecutor estimated that
Standard/APCOA and their local partner had overcharged the Detroit Metro Airport $1
million. I\ccording to The Detroit Free Press, the Commi'ssion was also angered that
Standard/APCOA had hired relatives of airport and county officials, and by suspicions
that Standard/APCOA "had overcharged the airport hundreds of thousands of dollars for
reimburs~ble insurance costs." The $1 million overcharge allegation led to a full blown
investigafon by a Michigan state legislative committee into corruption at the Detroit
Airport.
Page 1 of 4_
".:.::::..~."';",-:'.:7'
a~ .. ..' , '. .....
~..;
.- .._--..:.:....;.:;..-~-- .:.~..,-----..,..----
- ." - ,
.. - '"
.- . . .
.- ._.. .'-.. ...~..:.---_.....-.-.._..--:.=-.,....,.,.......,... -."-;...--...;....:....---'-'....---... .....
- .-..---- .
,.- ...=---~_.._-.
"';_,:;,;,.T:.~":...:_
The Detroit Free Press later reported on March 2nd, 2001 that the manager of
Standard/APCOA's contract at the Detroit Airport stated under oath that they.
overcharged the airport for insurance costs, management fees for employees' 401 (k)
retirement plans and his own salary. Another article published on October 16th, 2001,
reported how Standard/APCOA's manager admitted to putting up to $50,000 of parking
revenue into a petty cash account, otten used to make political contributions, instead of
turning it over to the airport.
l\'-
Standard/APCOA's termination at the Detroit Airport led to an FBI inquiry and a criminal
review by the Michigan Attorney General. Attached please find 18 articles from The
Detroit Free Press and The Detroit News documenting this public scandal.
Fort Wayne [Indiana] Civic Center
On April 3, 2002, the City of Fort Wayne, Indiana, terminated Standard/APCOA from
operating their Civic Center Garage - a 1,000 spot facility. According to The Journal
Gazette, Fort Wayne estimated that up to $200,000 might have been lost to bad
:3ccnunting practices under Standard/APCOA's management. ill terminating
Standard/APCOA, Fort Wayne's Associate City Attorney, Jim Howard, cited nine
concerns including "erroneous accounting entries" and a failure to provide information
needed for "a complete and accurate audit." Attached please find an article reporting
this termination. '
,
INABILITY TO COMPLY WITH THE LIVING WAGE ORDINANCE
The RFP requires all proposers entering into a contract with the City to pay its
permanent employees a living wage, pursuant to City of Miami Beach Ordinance No.
2001-3301. The Parking Department's proposal explains that the laborers they will use
to manage the Anchor Garage will be provided through their city contract with
Standard/APCOA. That contract does not pay a living wage.
In fact, during the most recent extension of Standard/APCOA's contract, the 'City.
Administration made a point of arguing the financial benefits of this extension to avoid
having to comply with the Living Wage ordinance. Interestingly, this contract extension
by the Miami Beach Commission occurred in the midst of the widely documented Detroit
Airport corruption probe by county, state and law enforcement officials.
To be awarded the management of the Anchor Garage, ,the permanent employees of
any proposer must be paid a living wage. It is impossibl~ for the Parking Department to
comply with this requirement, even if it wanted to. Simply put, the Parking Department's
cashiers, attendants and supervisors for this contract will be provided under the
Standard/APCOA contract, which does not pay a living wage. Accordingly, the Parking
Department cannot and will not pay a living wage. Furthermore, the Parking
Department never took exception to the living wage requirement, as it should have.
Page 2 of 4
. _. .-. '-:~,.'- "..-..'. -
_ .- .-:F<;:',.;.':'-":::-
.,,' --------"- .
......_r...""'._....o:- ...-------.-
:..........':,:':"'"',...-..;..._~..z.... .
A City Commission amendment to the Standard/APCOA contract prior to the
culmination of the Anchor Garage process is the only possible way for the Parking.
Department to become compliant with this requirement. That option is unrealistic and
negates any alleged financial benefit that extending the Standard/APCOA contract
promised.
In conclusion, the proposal submitted by the City's Parking Department should be
disqualified for lack of disclosure and inability to comply with the living wage ordinance.
The scandalous terminations of the Parking Department's partner, StandardfAPCOA,
were required to have been disclosed. Also, the Parking Department's labor contract
with StandardfAPCOA does not comply with the living wage ordinance. We look
forward to your confirmation of the facts we have submitted regarding the Parking
DepartmenV StandardfAPCOA proposal.
Please pass on this information to the members of the Evaluation Committee.
Sincerely,
\
QUIK p~/
Jf~
Rafael L10piz
Executive Vice President
\
Cc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Miami Beach City Commission
Mr. Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Mr. Murray Dubbin, Esq., City Attorney
Attachments
1.' Parking Department Questionnaire
"2. Detroit Free Press (Mf) , "Corruption at Metro Alleged, Parking Firm Favored
Airport Executives, County Official's Suit Holds", January 19, 2000.
3. Detroit Free Press (Mf) , "Wayne County Seeks Papers from Parking Firm",
August 25, 2000.
4. Detroit Free Press (Mf)) , "Airport Parking Exec ;restifies, His Admission Gives
Metro Ammunition", September 1, 2000.
5. Detroit Free Press (Mf), "Airport Parking in New Hands, Controversial Vendor is
out After 19 Years", September 6, 2000.
6. Detroit Free Press (Mf), "Airport Parking in Transition, New Company Takes
Over", September 11, 2000.
Page 3 of 4.
,,;".-~7'"'......, .-
._--~- ._--" .
-~.....;.._~
----.-.--
_"__''-_4_--==~--''-~~~'::''''''----'.''-- ,.- -...,.". ...--.~:....__.;".. .,....- -""---:----:."..
-.---..---.....-.----...
. . -. .....--....... -~-_.,.
_. .~~.:~.:..:~--,-..:~-=.a.
EXHIBIT D
December 9, 2002
Mr. Jorge Gonzalez
City Manager City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Dear Jorge:
This letter is written in my role as chairperson of the Evaluation Committee for RFP No.
68-0102, Management and Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops
and Parking Garage. As you are aware, a complex set of issues has arisen regarding the
procurement process that requires resolution. These issues fall into four categories:
ethics allegations, completeness of information provided by the proposers, managed
competition and process.
Ethics Allegations: The Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission has received an
allegation that the City Manager's legally required role in appointing the Evaluation
Committee somehow means that the committee will be biased in favor of a managed
competition proposal submitted by the City of Miami Beach Parking Department. The
Ethics Commission did not rule saying it had no jurisdiction in the matter.
I believe this issue can be resolved in a two-step process. First, any city employees
should resign from the committee since they either directly or indirectly report to the City
Manager. I suggest this to solve the problem and not in any way to cast aspersions on
either the City Manager of City employees. The City Manager and City employees have
proven themselves over many years to be highly ethical public servants and capable of
making this evaluation in an unbiased manner. However, as Mayor Gelber often says,
"Sometimes when there is smoke there is fire. Sometimes there is just a smoke
machine." This suggestion is made solely to resolve the clouds that the allegations have
placed over the process and to ensure that all members of the Evaluation Committee are
independent.
To further put the ethics issue to bed, the City of Miami Beach may request an opinion of
the Florida Ethics Commission. This body has clear jurisdiction over all ethics matters
statewide and issues advisory opinions that give guidance on complex ethical issues such
as this. If you choose to seek such an opinion, I suggest that the request be drafted on
your behalf by a person who has no role or interest in the process. This will ensure that
the substance of the request is completely unbiased. You should be aware that Steve
Zack, a citizen of Miami Beach, is a former chairperson of the Florida Ethics
Commission. If he has no conflict in the process, he would be an excellent candidate to
write the request on your behalf If you wish the drafting to occur within the City, the
City Attorney could certainly perform the task.
I believe the combination of a slightly revised membership of the Evaluation Committee
coupled with an opinion of the Florida Ethics Commission will resolve the ethics
allegations from both the image and substance viewpoints.
ComDleteness ofInformation: The Miami Herald article of November 28, 2002 states
that two proposers have been rejected on November 25, 2002. This information differs
from what the Evaluation Committee was told by Raul Aguila, First Assistant City
Attorney, in our meeting of November 25, 2002. We were told that the rejection was
under consideration. In fact, it is possible that two other proposals may not meet the
requirements of the City's living wage ordinance. I asked that the two additional
proposals be reviewed as well before any decisions were made on disqualification.
It is important to understand that the failure to meet the living wage salary requirements
goes to either entry salary rates during probationary periods or long-term salary rates
after employees have met all requirements to earn permanent status.
Since four of the five proposers may not have understood the RFP specifications
regarding living wage or the City may have not provided sufficient clarification during
the pre-bid conference or in the addenda, or the ordinance itself does not speak to
probationary periods, I suggest that all vendors be given an opportunity to clarify their
proposals and commit to the $9.81 per hour salary level until all their employees meet the
fringe benefit eligibility date, at which point, the minimum salary must be the $8.56 per
hour minimum salary level if fringe benefits are provided. This would require allowing
all vendors to certify on a city provided form that they will pay the required wage levels
and be willing to certify that the wage level have been paid with each reimbursement
request in the future. Each proposer would also be given an opportunity to submit a
revised budget and certify that their reimbursement requests would not exceed the annual
amount per the budgets clarified unless some unforeseen event occurred and the over-
expenditure was approved by the City Commission in a public meeting.
There were other requests for additional information such as the request for audited
financial statements, which were duly noted by City staff, and which will become part of
the thought process of the evaluators.
Mana2ed ComDetition: The key issue in managed competition is providing a level
playing field for the private sector in relation to the internal governmental proposal. This
requirement goes to full disclosure of all costs and requiring the internal proposal to
disclose information for its subcontractors or subcontractor teams.
My suggestion to resolve concerns regarding the managed competition is that the Parking
Department clarify its proposal to include all information from each of its subcontractors
or members of a subcontractor team that the private sector vendors are required to
submit. Second, the Parking Department as the "prime contractor" in the proposal should
include its full costs in the budget to include supervision by the named personnel in the
RFP and a fair share of the City's indirect costs, including all costs assessed to the City
on Enterprise Funds as a contribution to the General Fund. The fair share costing should
weigh the requirements of parking garage versus lots and metered on-street spaces and
assume that parking garages are the most capitol and management capacity intensive.
You should also give consideration to the fact that some of the city garages used as
qualifiers were instructed with General Fund monies.
I believe that the full disclosure of subcontractor information and the balancing of cost
structures as described above will clarify any information the Evaluation Committee
needs to make a rational and balanced comparison of the highest ranked private
contractor to the Parking Department proposal as required in the RFP.
Process: It is suggested that the first step should be the advisory opinion independently
requested of the Florida Ethics Commission. Presuming a positive answer, the next step
is recommended to be a publicly noticed meeting with all five vendors in which the
clarification process is described and all questions asked and answered. Questions should
be submitted one week in advance to give the City time to answer the questions. It is
important that the vendors be required to waive their rights to any protest for issues
occurring before the clarified information is submitted, which should be approximately
two weeks after the above described meeting. The waivers plus the clarified proposals
and ethics opinion will ensure that the process continues with a level playing field for all
proposers allowing the Evaluation Committee to do its job and the City Manager and City
Commission to recommend and award respectively the best vendor for the people of
Miami Beach.
I appreciate the confidence you have shown to appoint me as chairperson and hope the
recommendations embodied in this correspondence will allow the process to continue. It
is suggested that the Evaluation Committee meeting scheduled for December 13, 2002 be
deferred until the issues contained in this letter can be addressed in their entirety.
Sincerely,
Roger M. Carlton
cc: Raul Aguila
Gus Lopez
Robert Parcher
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
F:NMiCE CiKFC TOR'S OFF ,~
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIA
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
TELEPHONE: (305) 673-7010
FAX: (305) 673-7782
January 14, 2003
Mr. Roger M. Carlton
First Union Financial Building
200 South Biscayne Blvd
Suite 1080
Miami, FL 33131
RE: RFP NO. 68-01/02, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE
PARKING COMPONENT OF THE ANCHOR SHOPS AND PARKING
GARAGE
Dear Roger:
I have thoroughly reviewed the various issues that you have raised in your e-
mails dated December 9, 2002, and January 3, 2003, relative to the above
referenced RFP, and I am hereby forwarding tile following information:
As you have suggested and to ensure that there does not exist any perception of
bias or conflict of interest, I am exercising an abundance of caution by removing
the following two City employees from the Evaluation Committee: Mayra Diaz
Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager; and Georgie Echert, Assistant Finance
Director. There are no City employees serving as Evaluation Committee
Members.
I have appointed as replacements to the above referenced individuals, Mr. Larry
Herrup, CPA and former Budget Advisory Committee Chairperson; and Mr.
Roberto Sanchez, General Obligation Bond Committee Member. Both Mr. Herrup
and Mr. Sanchez have been provided with copies of the proposals from the three
remaining proposers (AAA Parking, Parking Company of America, and the
Parking Department.)
As requested, attached please find the following documents:
1. Letter from Parking Director Saul Frances, dated January 8, 2003, which
provides the Parking Department's administrative/overhead costs.
2. Parking Company of America's Financial Statements as of December 31,
2001.
3. AM Parking's Financial Statements as of December 31, 2001.
4. Parking System Enterprise Fund of the City of Miami Beach, Financial
Statements as of September 30, 2001.
5. Resume of Mr. Manuel E. Grossy, President of AM Parking. As
requested by the Evaluation Committee.
6. Letter from Procurement Director Gus Lopez dated December 12, 2002,
which provides the names of all individuals (including sub-consultants)
with a controlling financial interest in the above referenced RFP. Please
note that the disclosure questionnaire form must be completed and
submitted to the Procurement Division prior to the Evaluation
Committee Meeting of January 24, 2003.
7. Correspondence received by the City regarding the issue of
responsiveness of proposal by Quik Park Inc., Imperial Parking, and the
City of Miami Beach.
8. Report of references on AM Parking and Company Parking of America.
Please note that the City Attorney's office has not completed its research and
reply to Quik Park's protest on the issue of the Parking Department's
responsiveness. Upon receipt of the City Attorney's opinion, we will forward it to
you and the other members of the Committee immediately via facsimile.
Once again, I welcome your comments/suggestions and appreciate the time and
effort you are devoting to this very important project. If I can be of any further
assistance, please call me.
Sincerely,
f''''-')r t/1-X
Yorge K1{. Gon~~le~
City Manager
c: Evaluation Committee Members
Mayra Diaz Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager
Gus Lopez, Procurement Director
Raul Aguila, First Assistant City Attorney
F:\cmgr\$ALL\JORGEGONIlETTERSIRoger M Carlton.doc
!.-,I c'
. ...-"
. ,-I
-..~,.;;...;;r.../.,JD' ~){::'l~C::$ O[?~.
---,",
, .~
'--
~ ., '! ,,~ "
" C,. ') I
:,,\11 ..'. '-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
)I/~_~' Q~
MEMORANDUM
@lW.1 ~~~
&wI ~~S_
TO:
Chairman Roger M. Carlton and Members of the Evaluation Committee
Raul J. AgUilaZ~ Q{) ;(_
First Assistant City Attorpey ~
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Request for Proposals No. 68-01102/Management and Operation of the Parking
Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage (the RFP)
DATE:
January 15, 2003
Pursuant to Chairman Roger M. Carlton's request to the City Manager, by letter dated
December 9th, 2002, and electronic transmission dated January 3rd, 2003, the City Attorney's Office
herein responds to the legal questions raised therein as follows:
1. Ethics Allegations
On October 41\ 2002, QuikPark, LLC (QuikPark), one of the subsequent proposers
pursuant to the RFP, alleged, in summary, that the City Manager's ability to appoint
the Evaluation Committee for the RFP; make a recommendation for award to the City
Commission; and communicate freely with Evaluation Committee Members and City
staff would not allow for fair and open competition. In the alternative, QuikPark
proposed that the evaluation and recommendation process be removed entirely from
the City Manager and his staff and be given to an ad hoc committee appointed by the
City Commission. A copy of QuikPark's protest letter is attached as Exhibit "A"
hereto.
On October 31 st, 2002, the City Attorney's Office, after consulting with the City
Manager and relevant administrative staff, responded to QuikPark's protest letter,
denying QuikPark's request, and upholding the specifications in the RFP relative to
the Evaluation Committee process. In support of this, this office cited certain
inherent functions and powers of the City Manager, as set forth in Section 4.02 ofthe
Charter ofthe City of Miami Beach, supporting the proposition that the City Manager
essentially serves as the chief executive officer for the City and, as such, he is
responsible for the successful management and operation of the City from an
administrative standpoint; including, but not limited to the procurement process.
Included among these inherent duties and responsibilities is to recommend to the City
Commission the lowest and best bidder on the subject RFP. The Manager's
appointment of an Evaluation Committee for the subject RFP, which is advisory to
him, is essential to assist him in the preparation of his recommendation to the City
Commission. This office also reviewed whether the City Manager's ability to
appoint Evaluation Committee members, where some members may include City
employees, constitutes a legal conflict of interest. After review of State Law and the
Miami-Dade County Code and City of Miami Beach Code provisions on Ethics and
Conflicts of Interest, no legal conflict of interest was found. I A copy of the City
Attorney's response to QuikPark's protest letter is attached as Exhibit "B" hereto.
Notwithstanding the issues raised in QuikPark's October 4th, 2002 protest letter, and
the City Attorney's Office's subsequent determination on same that no legal conflict
of interest was found to exist, the City Manager has since excused the two (2) City-
employees formerly serving on the RFP Evaluation Committee.
Mr. Carlton had additionally raised the possibility of the City's requesting an ethics
opinion from the Florida Ethics Commission on the aforestated matters. As the City
has addressed QuikPark's protest by way of its October 31S\ 2002 letter, and-
additionally-as the City Manager has excused the City employees from the
Evaluation Committee, it is this office's opinion that the issue has been addressed
and answered. Of course, it is always within the prerogative ofthe City Manager to
direct the City Attorney's Office to request a further opinion from the State; however,
said request may necessarily delay the RFP process, pending receipt of such opinion.
I would therefore leave this matter to the discretion of the City Manager.
n. Non-responsiveness of the OuikPark and Imperial Parking (US). Inc. (ImPark)
Proposals
As Mr. Carlton correctly notes in his November 9th, 2002 letter, at the first meeting of
the Evaluation Committee on November 25th, 2002, I addressed the Committee
relative to the ongoing administrative and legal evaluation process regarding the
responsiveness of all proposals submitted pursuant to the RFP. As I informed the
committee at that time, no final determination had been made as to the
responsiveness and/ornon-responsiveness ofthe submitted proposals. Since that first
meeting, the City Attorney's Office and Administration completed its first tier review
of all proposals, and on November 25th, 2002, and November 2ih, 2002, respectively,
the City Manager issued letters to QuikPark and ImPark, advising them that certain
payroll projections submitted in their respective proposals did not comply with the
City's Living Wage Ordinance (2001-3301); as required by the RFP. Said
compliance was required at the time of submittal pursuant to Section Y, page 17, of
the RFP, which states that the Living Wage Ordinance shall apply to the subjectRFP
I On October 23'd, 2002, the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public Trust considered a request by
QuikPark for an ethics opinion relative to the issues raised in its protest letter to the City, dated October 4th, 2002. At that
time, the Commission determined that it did not have jurisdiction to consider QuikPark's request. No subsequent ethics
complaint relative to this process has been filed.
and proposers shall be required to comply with said requirement. Both proposers
responses with respect to said Living Wage compliance were exhaustively evaluated
by the City Attorney's Office; the Procurement Office; the Finance Department; and
the City Manager. The City Attorney's Office's memorandum with respect to the
non-responsiveness of the QuikPark and ImPark proposals is attached as Exhibit "C"
hereto.
Additionally, copies ofthe City Manager's letters to QuikPark and Imperial Parking
are attached as exhibits "D" and "E", respectively.
III. "Clarification" of Living Wage Ordinance Compliance Issue
In his December 91\ 2002, letter, Mr. Carlton suggests that, due to lI,n alleged
ambiguity or misunderstanding of the Living Wage requirement in the RFP, the City
might consider allowing all proposers to clarify their responses with respect to this
issue. The City Attorney's Office would not recommend allowing proposers an
opportunity to clarify their proposals with regard to their payroll projections, to the
extent that said "clarifications" would essentially have the effect of amending (and
therefore not-per se-c1arifying) their responses to be compliant with the Living Wage
requirements of the RFP. As stated, the QuikPark and ImPark proposals were
deemed non responsive because their submittals failed to meet the monetary
threshold requirements of the Living Wage Ordinance. No ambiguity has been
found to exist with regard to the City's determination in this matter. Additionally, in
its initial review of all proposals, the City has deemed that the three remaining
proposers are responsive, not only with regard to submittal of the Living Wage
Ordinance requirements, but with regard to compliance with the other material
requirements of the RFP.
Mr. Carlton's proposed "clarification," which would allow all proposers to commit to
a $9.81 per hour salary level until all employees meet the fringe benefit eligibility
date, at which point, the minimum salary becomes $8.56 per hour if fringe benefits
are provided, could inadvertently have the effect of allowing the two non-responsive'
proposers to correct, and in effect, amend their responses to the RFP, thus exposing
the City to a possible legal challenge from one or all ofthe three original responsive
proposers. Mr. Carlton addresses the latter issue in his December 9t\ 2002, letter, by
suggesting that all proposers be required to waive their rights to any protest with
respect to the clarification issue. It is not within the purview of the City Attorney's
Office to opine on this type of solution, but rather to advise the City as to what
Florida Law requires. The law in Florida is well settled-ifit is necessary to permit a
change to a bid to make it conform to the specifications, such deviation would be
found to be material and thus non waiveable.2
2 See E.M. Watkins & Company, Inc. v. Board of Regents 414 So. 2nd @ 583; Baxters Asphalt and Concrete, Inc. v.
Liberty County 406 So. 2nd 461 (Fla. 151 DCA 1981), rev'd 421 So. 2nd 505 (FI 1982); Harry Pepper and Associates,
Inc.v. City of Cape Coral, 352 So. 2nd @ 1190.
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above, please do not hesitate to
contact me.
Cc: Murray H. Dubbin, City Attorney
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Mayra Diaz Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager
Gus Lopez, Procurement Director
RJA\ed
F:\ano\AGUR \MEMOS\QuikPark.Response.doc
Oct. OS 02 05: 141"
LUklS-.tlalser-a
,..~
QUIK
- ..
PARK
1100 BISCAYNE BOULE\'ARD
7'" FLOOR
MIAMI. FL. 33132
PH: (305/ 373-6200 . (305) 604-6048
FAX: (305) 604-1722
October 41t!, 2002
Mr. Gus lopez, CPPO
Procurement Director
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
RE: RFP NO. 68-01/02, MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PARKING
COMPONENT OF THE ANCHOR SHOPS AND PARKING GARAGE
Dear Mr. Lopez:
This letter serves as our protest of the process set forth in the specifications of the
above referenced Request for Proposal (RFP). For the first time in Miami Beach's
history, a department of the city government will have an opportunity to compete against
the private sector under the concept of MManaged Competition. M We welcome the
opportunity to match our company's credentials against the city's Parking Department,
or any other competitor. However, we object to the special privileges granted to the City
Manager in this process. The Manager's ability to appoint the Evaluation Committee
members on this issue, make a recommendation for award to the Commission and
communicate freely with Evaluation Committee members and city staff does not allow
for a fair and open competition.
As chief executive officer of the city government, as stated in section 4.02 of the city
charter, the Manager is responsible for any bid submitted by the Parking Department
and is therefore a bidder. This is evident in the Manager's past pUblic references to this
competition when he refers to the Parking Department's bid in possessive personal
pronouns like "I', "weM, and "our: Accordingly, the Manager should be removed from
the evaluation and recommendation process.
The RFP contemplates a process wherein the Manager will appoint an Evaluation
Committee that will evaluate each competitor, including the Parking Department, rank
them and issue a recommendation for award that he has the sole discretion to accept or
reject. Then, the Manager will issue a recommendation for award to the City
Commission.
Whatever recommendation the Commission receives should be bome of an open, fair
and objective process that is free of implied biases or predispositions. This
recommendalion should also be free of real or perceived conflicts. Any
Page 1 of 3
Exhibit "A"
DC~ U~ U~ 05:1~p
- -~---,_._--- -- -
Lukis-Balser-a
p.3
recommendation issued by the City Manager would not meet this standard due to his
role as a bidder in the process combined with his numerous public statements about his
desired outcome. The Manager has said clearly that he feels that the City's Parking
Department would be the best option to operate the Anchor Garage. In fact, during the
May 29111, 2002, City Commission meeting, the Manager stated, "/ would prefer to take
over the Anchor Garage.. And when asked about the Parking Department's
performance managing other 'garages, he replied, "I think we're doing a good job."
Lastly, when asked by a Commissioner if the city will have an unfair advantage in this
process, the Manager responded "of course."
/f the Manager is left responsible for this selection process, every bidder will indeed
enter this process at a tremendous disadvantage to the Parking Department. Any city
-- employee appointed to the Evaluation Committee by the Manager will be subject to hIs
publicly stated preference and will be put in a precarious situation that may prevent that
individual from being a fair and objective evaluator. The same applies to any private
citizen appointed by the Manager to the committee. A fair and open evaluation process
cannot occur if the Manager appoints the committee members.
It should a/so be noted that this process is under the cone of silence, which disallows
any bidder from speaking to city staff, Evaluation Committee members, or members of
the City Commission. However, this law does not apply to the City manager, who is
allowed to speak freely to staff and Evaluation Committee members. As a bidder, the
Cone of Silence should also apply to the Manager in this special circumstance to ensure
the fairest and most open process. The Manager should not be allowed special
privileges denied to his competitors and should be required to abide by the cone of
silence like all bidders.
The purpose of this RFP is to compare public versus private management of the Anchor
Garage to determine what option provides the best service at the best cost to the city.
The private companies that will participate in this process deserve the utmost fairness
and openness. The RFP's current specifications do not provide this. Alternatively, we
propose that the evaluation and recommendation process be removed entirely from the
Manager and his staff and be given to an ad-hoc committee appointed by the City
Commission. That committee should be tasked with evaluating all competitors,
induding the City, and issuing a recommendation for award to the Commission. .Our
proposal is based on a practice the Commission has opted for before when seeking a
recommendation outside of the administration, like during the Royal Palm selection and
the selection of the Manager. This kind of process evens the playing field for private
competitors and will provide the Commission with a more objective recommendation.
Section 287.132 of Florida's statutes requires "... free, fair and open competition" in
public contracting and purchasing processes. Also, section 2-339 of Miami Beach's
charter requires the Procurement Director.... endeavor to obtain as full and open
competition as possible on all purchases and sales." Miami Beach's first foray into
"managed competition" will only succeed if the process is open and fair for all
participants.
Page 2 of 3
,......
.,
Thank you for your consideration of our concems.
Sincerely,
Cc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
Mr. Jorge Gonzalez, City Manager
Mr. Murray Dubbin, City Manager
Mr. Robert Parcher, City Clerk
Page 3 of 3
"
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
~~ ef c.lIUmni 1JfIlM
f
L
o
R
D
A
MURRAY H. DUBBIN
City Attorney
Telephone:
Telecopy:
(305) 673-7470
(305) 673-7002
October 31, 2002
Rafael Llopiz, Vice President
Quik Park
1100 Biscayne Boulevard
7th Floor
Miami, Florida 33132
VIA FACSIMILE 305-604-1722 AND U.S. MAIL
Re: Protest Letter, Dated October 4, 2002, to CMB Request for Proposals No. 68-01102
Management and Operation of tbe Parking Component of tbe Anchor Shops and
Parking Garage (the RFP)
Dear Mr. Llopiz:
The following shall serve to respond to your above referenced protest letter, as submitted to
City of Miami Beach Procurement Director, Gus Lopez. Upon review of the subject letter by this
office, and following discussions with Mr. Lopez, the City Manager, and members of his staff, this
office has detennined that your request regarding the specifications relative to the evaluation process
in the above referenced RFP--specifically that the evaluation process be removed entirely from the
City Manager and administrative staff purview and instead be given to an ad hoc committee
appointed by the City Commission--is hereby denied. The specifications in the RFP relative to the
evaluation committee, remain as set forth in the RFP.I
Your protest letter states, in summary, that the City Manager's ability to appoint the
evaluation committee members relative to the above referenced RFP; make a recommendation for
award to the City Commission; and communicate with evaluation committee members and City
staff, does not allow for fair and open competition.
Section 4.02 ofthe Charter of the City of Miami Beach establishes the functions and powers
of the City Manager, stating as follows:
'AII references herein to the RFP shall be deemed to include any addendum issued by the
City thereto.
Exhibit "B"
1700 Convention Center Drive -- Fourth Floor -- Miami Beach, Florida 33139
The city manager shall be the chief executive officer and head of the
administrative branch of the city government. Except as specifically
provided otherwise in this charter, the city manager shall be
responsible to the city commission for the proper administration of all
affairs of the city. The functions and powers of this office shall be:
.
.
.
(f) To recommend to the city commission for adoption,
such measures as he/she may deem necessary or
expedient.
(g) To keep the city commission fully advised as to the
financial condition and needs of the city.
.
.
.
The City Manager is responsible for the successful management and operation of the City
from an administrative standpoint and he is accountable to the City Commission and to the people.
One of the inherent duties and responsibilities of the City Manager is to recommend to the City
Commission the lowest and best bidder on the subject RFP, and in this regard, the Manager has
appointed the evaluation committee to assist him in the preparation of a preliminary
recommendation.
This office has reviewed whether the City Manager's ability to herein appoint evaluation
committee members, where some evaluation committee members may include City employees,
constitutes a legal conflict of interest. After review of State law and the Miami-Dade County Code
and City of Miami Beach Code provisions on ethics and conflicts of interest, we find herein that
there is no legal conflict of interest.
You have provided no legal basis to substantiate the allegations that the City Manager has
shown any biases or predispositions relative to the proposed RFP. Alleged statements made by the
City Manager to the City Commission prior to the issuance of the subject RFP do not refute the
presumption that the evaluation process shall be conducted in an open, fair and competitive manner.
Lastly, while the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance does not prohibit the Manager from
having oral communications with his staff and evaluation committee members during the RFP
process, it should be noted that other bidders may communicate as well with staff and evaluation
committee members, provided their communications are in writing and a copy filed with the City
Clerk.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE. MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
Notwithstanding denial of the relief requested in your bid protest letter, the City will continue
to ensure that the evaluation process be open, fair, and competitive. The managed competition
utilized in this RFP is consistent with processes that have been utilized across the country, including
Miami-Dade County (where, in a managed competition request for proposals for the management
of the County's marinas, the County Manager was also charged with appointing evaluation
committee members). The City will ensure that the evaluation committee in this case is ethnically
and gender balanced; consist of individuals that are knowledgeable or have experience relative to
the RFP scope of services; includes Miami Beach residents; and is balanced with both City staff and
non-staff members. Lastly, all evaluation committee members will be further screened by City staff
to ensure that there exists no individual conflicts of interest.
You may appeal this decision by filing an original action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh
Judicial Circuit, in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the applicable court
rules. Any action not brought in good faith shall be subject to sanctions, including damages suffered
by the City and attorney's fees incurred by the City in defense of such wrongful action.
Very truly yours,
,~~
.~u~ay IjDubbin
City Attorney
cc: Mayor David Denner
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
Christina M. Cuervo, Senior Assistant City Manager
Mayra Diaz-Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager
Gus Lopez, Procurement Director
fM 110"";\1.".11 TtJlhl.LOM7 NO
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. 1700 CONVENTION CEN1"ER DRIVE. MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
TO: Jorge M. Gonzalez
City Manager
FROM: Murray H. DubbiPl1 .1l\..U;--
City Attorney JW\ ~ ~
Raul J. Aguila l7..rlq (' /lr'(-
First Assistant City ATOiby
DATE: November 18, 2002
SUBJECT: Request for Proposals No. 68-01/02 for Management and Operations of the
Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage (RFP)
This responds to your request that this office review the submissions referred to hereafter,
responding to RFP No. 68-01/02 referred to above. This office, with the Procurement Division, has
reviewed the subject submissions and has come to the conclusion, as set forth hereafter.
This office has been working with Procurement Director Gus Lopez on a first - tier review of
the proposals submitted in response to the above referenced RFP. In the course of this review, it
appears that the proposals submitted by the finns of Quik Park and ImPark (Imperial Parking),
respectively, do not comply with the requirements of the City's Living Wage Ordinance (Ord. No.
2001-330 I) on their respective faces. Specifically, in the line item delineated for payroll projections,
the respective operating budgets submitted with the Quik Park and ImPark proposals show that the
proposed wages for certain employee categories enumerated therein (i.e. cashiers and porters) fall
below the minimum threshold requirements of the Ordinance. Said operating budgets were reviewed
carefully numerous times and the conclusion is stilI the same.
Section Y on page 17 of the above referenced RFP provides that the City's Living Wage
Ordinance shall apply to the RFP, and that proposers shall be required to comply with said
requirements. The language of the RFP is unequivocal and clearly makes compliance with the
Ordinance mandatory. Based upon the Quik Park and ImParks' failure to comply with same, these
proposals should be deemed non-responsive. As such, they would receive no further consideration in
the evaluation process.
1
Exhibit "e"
Should you have any questions or comments regarding the above please do not hesitate to
contact me.
RJAled
cc: Mayra Diaz Buttacavoli, Assistant City Manager
Christina Cuervo, Assistant City Manager
Gus Lopez, Procurement Director
F:\atto\AGUR\MEMOS\gonzalez.anc.doc
2
MIAMI BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
m
Condensed Title:
Acceptance of the Executive Director's recommendation relative to the ranking of firms pursuant to RFP No. 68-
01/02 for the Management and Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage.
Issue:
I Whether to approve the Executive Director's recommendation relative to the ran kings of firms.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On September 18, 2002, subsequent to the direction of the City's Finance and Citywide Projects Committee
and the RDA Board, the Administration issued Request for Proposals No. 68-01/02 for the Management
and Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage. The intent of the RFP
was to create a managed public-private competitive bid process, whereby the City's Parking Department
could submit a proposal to be evaluated against private sector proposals.
On November 1, 2002, five (5) proposals were received from Imperial Parking, Parking Company of
America (PCOA), Quik Park of Florida, AAA Parking and the City's Parking Department. Subsequent to a
review of the proposals to ensure responsiveness and compliance with the specifications of the RFP,
letters were sent to Quik Park and Imperial Parking, advising them that certain payroll projections submitted
in their respective proposals did not comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance (2001-3301), as required
in the RFP.
On January 24, 2003, the Evaluation Committee convened to hear presentations by AAA Parking, PCOA
and the Parking Department. Following presentations by AAA Parking and PCOA, the Committee ranked
the two private-sector firms, with AAA Parking receiving the highest score. Following the presentation by
the Parking Department, the Committee decided to only rank the Parking Department's proposal against
that submitted by the top-ranked private sector firm of AAA Parking. The Parking Department's proposal
received the higher score by a small 11-point lead. While the Committee agreed that the overall scores
would determine the outcome, a review of the individual scores showed that AAA was favored by 3
committee members, the City Department was favored by 3 committee members and 1 committee member
found the two proposals equal.
In light of the closeness of the vote on the evaluation committee and in light of the representations by AAA
representatives discussing the possibility of guaranteeing a minimum revenue for the facility, it is in the
City's best interest to pursue this discussion. This guarantee is an element that the City's Parking
Department could not provide.
The Administration recommends entering into negotiations with AAA Parking and to the extent that an
acceptable guarantee and/or other terms cannot be achieved, the Administration then recommends
entering into negotiations with the City's Parking Department.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
IN/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: 1
D 2
3
4
Finance Dept. Total
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
I Gus Lopez
Si n-Ofts:
De artment Director Assistant Ci
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
?>A
'J. -J/tJ -0 3
GL
JG
CMC
T:\AGENDA \2003\feb2603\rdalanchor _summary.doc
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH. FLORIDA 33139
www.cLmiami-beach.fl.us
To:
From:
Subject:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Date: February 26, 2003
Mayor David Dermer and
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. GOnZalez~.
City Manager . ,
A RESOLUTIO F THE CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE MIAMI
BEACH REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY, ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PERTAINING
TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS RECEIVED PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 68-01102, FOR THE
MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION OF THE PARKING COMPONENT
OF THE ANCHOR SHOPS AND PARKING GARAGE; AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH SELIG ENTERPRISES d/b/a AAA PARKING,
FOR THE OPERATION OF THE FACILITY, AND IF NEGOTIATIONS
ARE NOT SUCCESSFUL, TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH'S PARKING DEPARTMENT.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
On September 18, 2002, subsequent to the direction of the City's Finance and Citywide
Projects Committee and the RDA Board, the Administration issued Request for Proposals
No. 68-01/02 for the Management and Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor
Shops and Parking Garage (RFP). The current Garage Facility Management Agreement
(Agreement), dated July 15, 1998, between Quik Park of Florida, Inc., and the RDA for the
operation of the Anchor Garage, expired on December 15, 2002, and was extended on a
month-to-month basis, at the discretion of the City Manager, until such time that the RFP
process yielded a new management agreement.
The intent of the RFP was to create a managed public-private competitive bid process,
whereby the City's Parking Department could submit a proposal to be evaluated against
private sector proposals. Managed competition is defined as a competition between a
public agency and private firms held under a controlled or managed process that clearly
describes the steps to be followed and the roles of the participants. It is a program in
which city departments compete with private firms for the right to provide a given service. It
does not assume that the private sector will always perform a service more effectively than
the public sector. Instead, it offers public-service providers an opportunity to compete. Such
competition between the public sector and private firms is to determine who is the better
service provider.
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 2 of 11
Proposals were initially due on October 18, 2002, however, due to certain allegations by
Quik Park (one of the subsequent proposers); concerning the selection process, the
deadline was extended to November 1, 2002. In correspondence dated October 4, 2002,
Quik Park alleged that the City Manager's ability to appoint an Evaluation Committee; make
a recommendation for award to the City Commission; and communicate freely with
Evaluation Committee Members and City staff would preclude a fair and open competition.
Quik Park proposed that the entire evaluation and selection process be removed from the
City Manager's purview and given to an ad hoc committee appointed by the City
Commission. Quik Park's representatives also sought consideration from the Miami-Dade
County Ethics Commission, which determined that it was within the City's jurisdiction to
render such a decision. On October 31, the City Attorney's Office, after consulting with the
City Manager and relevant administrative staff, responded to Quik Park's letter, denying
Quik Park's protest, and upholding the specifications in the RFP relative to the Evaluation
Committee process. Copies of this correspondence is included as Attachment A to this
memorandum.
On November 1, 2002, five proposals were received from Imperial Parking, Parking
Company of America, Quik Park of Florida, AAA Parking and the City of Miami Beach's
Parking Department. The proposals were reviewed for responsiveness and compliance
with the specifications of the RFP. Subsequent to this review, letters were sent Quik Park
and Imperial Parking, advising them that certain payroll projections submitted in their
respective proposals did not comply with the City's Living Wage Ordinance (2001-3301); as
required in the RFP. Quik Park's payroll projections reflected $6.00 and $6.50/hour for
cashiers and $7.00/hour for porters, while Imperial Parking projected an hourly rate of
$7.31 for cashiers and porters. The City's Living Wage Ordinance, which was referenced
throughout and included within the RFP, provides for a living wage of not less than
$8.56/hour with health benefits and not less than $9.81 without health benefits. A matrix
summarizing the proposals submitted by AAA Parking, Parking Company of America and
the City's Parking Department is included as Attachment B to this memorandum.
The initial meeting of the Evaluation Committee occurred on November 25, 2002. The
Committee was comprised of Roger M. Carlton (Committee Chair), Mayra Diaz
Buttacavoli, Grace Cespedes, Clark Cook, Roberto Datorre, Georgie Echert and Deede
Weithorn. The Committee members were each provided with copies of the proposals
submitted by AAA Parking, Parking Company of America and the City's Parking
Department. Raul Aguila informed the Committee that the proposals submitted by Quik
Park and Imperial Parking were being considered for rejection on account of the fact that
both appeared to be non-compliant with the Living Wage Ordinance. The Committee then
reviewed the selection/scoring criteria as presented in the RFP, which included the
following areas:
. The respondent's demonstrated prior experience in managing comparable large-
scale parking facilities of 500 or more parking spaces. 15 Points
. The capability and relevant experience of key staff to be assigned to the
management of the Anchor Garage. 15 Points
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 3 of 11
. The respondent's financial capability, proposed Operating Budget and
Management Fee. 30 Points
. The respondent's proposed methodology and approach to address scope of
services, maintenance and operating standards set forth in the RFP. 30 Points
. Quality and number of references. 10 Points
The Committee determined that the private proposal receiving the highest score would
be compared to the proposal submitted by the City. To this end, the Committee Chair
emphasized the importance of providing a level playing field for the contestants.
Specifically, the City's Parking Department was asked to clarify its proposal to include
all information from each of its subcontractors and/or members of each of its
subcontractors' teams. The City was also asked to submit its full costs in the budget to
include supervision by the named personnel in the RFP and a fair share or the City's
indirect costs, including all costs assessed to the City or Enterprise funds as a
contribution to the General Fund. This information was deemed essential in order for the
Committee to make a rational and balanced comparison of the highest ranked private
contractor to Parking Department's proposal.
Additional information was also requested from AAA parking and Parking Company of
America, including Financial Statements as of December 31, 2001, resumes of key
individuals referenced in their respective proposals and a report of references for both
companies. The Committee also decided that presentations would be required from the
remaining proposers.
At the close of the meeting, Gus Lopez was provided with a copy of correspondence
from Quik Park, dated November 22, 2003, suggesting that the Parking Department's
proposal should be disqualified due to (1) full disclosure was not provided regarding
Standard Apcoa's (City's sub-consultant) terminations at other public parking operations
and (2) the proposal was not compliant with the City's own Living Wage Ordinance.
On December 4, 2002, Saul Frances responded to these allegations in writing,
indicating that in both the Detroit Metropolitan "Detroit Metro" Wayne County Airport and
"Fort Wayne" Civic Center Agreements (the two cases cited in Quik Park's letter), the
Agreements were lease agreements (not fixed hourly rate labor contracts), which
expired, with Standard/Apcoa fully satisfying their obligations therein. With respects to
Living Wage issue, the Parking Department's budget submission clearly states an
hourly rate pf $12.05 and $13.55 to be paid for cashiers/attendants and supervisors. A
copy of this correspondence is included as Attachment C.
On December 9, 2002, Roger Carlton submitted correspondence to the City Manager,
recommending certain provisions to address ethics allegations; completeness of
information provided to the proposers; providing a level playing field for the private
sector proposals in relation to that provided by the City; and, establishing clarification of
process. The recommendations included the following:
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 4 of 11
. Removing city employees from the Evaluation Committee;
. Request an opinion from the Florida Ethics Commission relative to the validity of
the selection process;
. Provide an opportunity for all the proposers to clarify their respective proposals
relative the Living Wage Ordinance and have all commit to the $9.81/hour level
until their respective employees meet the fringe benefit eligibility date.
Additionally, at the first Evaluation Committee meeting, proposers were asked to
submit certain additional information as noted earlier in this memorandum;
. In order to resolve concerns about managed competition, the City should clarify
its proposal to include information relative to its subcontractors as well as a
breakdown of the projected indirect costs associated with operating the Anchor
Garage; and,
. Presuming a favorable ruling by the Florida Ethics Committee, the City should
convene all five proposers at a publicly noticed meeting, and provide complete
clarification concerning the selection process.
On January 14, 2003, the City Manager responded to Roger Carlton's letter, indicating that
that the two City employees, Mayra Diaz Buttacavoli and Georgie Echert were being
replaced by Larry Herrup, the former Chairman of the City's Budget Advisory Committee
and Roberto Sanchez, a member of the City's G.O. Bond Advisory Committee. In
subsequent correspondence from the City Attorney's office addressed to the Chairman and
Members of the Evaluation Committee, the City Attorney addressed the remaining issues
in Roger Carlton's letter. With respects to the Living Wage Ordinance compliance issue,
the City Attorney recommended against allowing proposers to submit clarifications, since it
would essentially have the effect of amending their responses. The proposals submitted by
Quik Park and Imperial Parking were deemed unresponsive, leaving three proposals for
consideration by the Committee. With respects to seeking an opinion from the Florida
Ethics Committee, the City Attorney advised that since the City Manager had excused the
two City employees from the Evaluation Committee, the issue has been addressed.
Copies of the correspondence from the City Manager and the City Attorney are included as
Attachment D.
On January 24, 2003, the Evaluation Committee met to hear presentations by AAA
Parking, Parking Company of America and The City' Parking Department. The Committee
decided to hear presentations by the two private sector firms first, rank the two firms, then
hear the presentation by the City's Parking Department, and rank the Parking Department
against the top-ranked private sector firm. The Committee made a motion that the ranking
would be based on the firm with the highest number of points.
Prior to the presentations getting under way, the Chairman informed the Committee that
members of the public representing Quik Park, wanted to address the Committee. The
Committee spoke against allowing this, however, the Chairman advised he was going to
allow it, since it wouldn't affect the Committee's mission. Sylvester Lukis, of Lukis-Balsera
LLC was the only member of the public to address the Commission and posed a question
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 5 of 11
to the Committee to determine whether the selection process was in fact neutral, based on
the fact that Raul Aguila, as the City's Attorney, was also the attorney for one of the
bidders. The Committee took exception to Sylvester Lukis' statements, and affirmed that
Raul was not only representing the best interests of the City, but also was able to remain
impartial relative to the Parking Department.
A summary of presentations is as follows:
AM Parkina
The presentation was spearheaded by the company's President, Ronald F. Williams.
Established in 1956, AAA parking is considered the oldest and most established parking
management company in the Southeastern United States. AAA Parking is a subsidiary of
Selig Enterprises, an established an renowned real estate holding company, founded in
Atlanta, Georgia, in 1913.
AAA parking operates approximately 200 facilities, containing 50,000 parking spaces in
four states. The Company has 1,028 employees, 200 of which are employed at facilities
on Miami Beach. AAA claims 1,000 plus contracts to operate private and institutional
parking facilities, with no record of termination for performance-related issues. AAA
maintains exclusive contracts with companies such as Marriott, Bank of America and Sun
Trust. Institutional clients include the Georgia Dome, the World Congress Center in Atlanta;
the City of Atlanta's parking facilities, the Atlanta Civic Center and Georgia State University.
It should be noted that among Marriott's facilities operated by AAA, is the Marriott Orlando
World Center Resort, which includes 1,400 parking spaces and an extensive valet
operation. AAA also has extensive experience in multi-use operations, including retail,
residential, business and institutional uses. AAA prides itself on guest satisfaction,
achieved through frequent guest recognition programs, comment card drives, employee
training, employee recognition programs and other incentives.
As part of their proposal, AAA submitted budget reports for comparable Georgia-based
facilities which they operate, including One Ninety One Peachtree Tower Garage,
containing 1,298 spaces, serving hotel and office-based clientele, the Pinnacle, containing
1,287 spaces, serving restaurant and office building clients and the Lenox Building/JW
Marriott Garage, containing 750 spaces, also serving hotel and office building clientele.
AAA's proposed management team has approximately 70 years of collective experience in
the parking industry, as well as an impressive educational and professional background.
Mr. Manny Grossy, who is currently responsible for AAA' accounts at the Eden Roc and the
Marriott Coutyard, will be overseeing the operation at the Anchor Garage.
AAA's proposed budget for the Anchor Garage, estimates first year revenues of
$2,017,951, approximately 13 percent over actual revenues achieved in FY 01/02. When
asked whether this number was achievable, the Company responded that in the last 13
years, for every new account, (whether a new facility or one taken over from a previous
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 6 of 11
contractor), they have been able to increase revenues between 5 and 15 percent. AAA
attributes this to a systematic accounting system, capable of tracking all transactions. As
such they believe their projections to be achievable. Operating expenses were projected at
$579,785, which includes a Management Fee of $27,000. This number is within 1 percent
of actual operating expenses for FY 01/02 and is due in part, to the fact that AAA proposes
to use existing contracts at the garage. Staffing is to include one Operations Manager, two
Assistant Managers for a total of 80 hours weekly, cashier attendant coverage for a total of
192 hours/week and maintenance porter coverage for a total of 112 hours/week. It should
be noted that the RFP specified 24/7 supervisory coverage, which leaves AAA shy by 88
hours. No explanation was offered in this regard. AAA is proposing a total of 224 hours of
security coverage. The net income to the RDA is projected at $1,438,816, approximately 19
percent greater than what was actually achieved last year.
Citing the example of one of AAA's campa rabies, the Lenox Building/JW Marriott Garage,
the Committee Chair asked AAA if they were willing to guarantee some form of incremental
revenue increase to the RDA. The Company responded that they would consider providing
such a guarantee, provided they have certain latitude with setting parking rates,
undertaking certain promotional initiatives, and depending on certain other non-specified
conditions.
ParkinQ ComDanv of America (PCOA)
The presentation was given by Josefina Carpio, a Manager for a PCOA-operated self-lock
parking lot located in downtown Miami. It should be noted that the presentation provided
very little in the way of new information or clarification of the material presented in PCOA's
proposal document.
PCOA was established in 1974 and is based in Cincinnati, Ohio. It operates approximately
75,000 spaces in eight states and employs a staff of over 1,100 people. PCOA claims
experience in a variety of parking environments including metered and attended surface
lots, garage facilities, short and long term airport parking, fair and exposition parking,
sports event parking and valet parking for hotels and restaurants. It should be noted
however, that Ms. Carpio, who is being proposed as the Facility Manager for the Anchor
Garage, has no direct experience in valet or hotel operations.
PCOA's Proposal identified eleven comparable facilities ranging in size from 250 spaces to
its largest operation involving 30,900 spaces at Hartsfield Atlanta International Airport.
Operating figures were provided for only one facility, Underground Atlanta, containing 1,250
spaces, where PCOA's contract has since expired. With the exception of one of the
smaller comparables, none of the facilities listed catered specifically to hotel and/or valet
operations. Most of the facilities served corporate and transient uses.
PCOA's proposed budget for the Anchor Garage includes revenue projections of
$1,976,000, an 11 percent increase over actual revenues for last year. Expenses were
projected at $632,685, which include a Management Fee of $36,000. It should be noted
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 7 of 11
that PCOA's projected expenditures exceed actual expenditures by approximately 10
percent, AM's proposed expenditures by 9 percent and the Parking Department's
proposed expenditures by 8 percent. Proposed staffing is to include one Manager, two to
three Assistant Managers for a total of 168 hours weekly, cashier attendant coverage for a
total of 168 hours weekly, lead cashier coverage for a total of 21 hours weekly, and
maintenance porter coverage for a total of 112 hours weekly. AM is also proposing a total
of 224 hours of security coverage per week.
The Committee Chair inquired whether PCOA would be willing to guarantee a certain net
income to the RDA. Ms. Carpio indicated that such a decision would have to come from
PCOA's home office in Cincinnati.
Upon conclusion of the two private sector presentations, the Committee assigned scores to
the proposers. AM received the highest score with 632 points. PCOA received 420 Points.
The scores assigned by each Committee Member are as follows:
Committee Parking Company
Member of America AAA Parking
ROQer Carlton 45 80
Deede Whitehorn 84 95
Roberto Sanchez 53 89
Roberto Datorre 70 85
Clark Cook 30 85
Larry Herruo 65 100
Grace Cesoedes 73 98
Total Score 420 632
It should be noted, that Committee members were unanimous in awarding the highest
score to AM Parking. Certain Committee members expressed strong reservations about
including PCOA in the recommended rankings to the City Manager. The Chairman
recommended holding off on any action concerning PCOA until after the Parking
Department's presentation. As such, the Committee just voted to ratify the scores awarded
to the two proposals.
The Committee also decided that upon conclusion of the Parking Department's
presentation, that the ranking of the City's proposal against AM's proposal would be based
on the first four selection criteria only. The fifth criteria - Quality of References, was
deemed non-applicable in the ranking of the Parking Department's proposal.
City of Miami Beach ParkinCl Deoartment
The Parking Department's presentation was spearheaded by Saul Frances, with an
introduction of key staff to be involved with the Anchor Garage. Chuck Adams, the
Assistant Parking Director, who has 23 years of hotel and convention parking experience
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 8 of 11
and 15 years of valet operations experience, would be in charge of the Anchor Garage.
Day-to-day operations would fall under an Operations Manager position, which is currently
vacant and 5 supervisory positions, all held by City employees. Collectively, the team has
over 64 years of experience in attended and valet parking operations.
The Parking Department operates and manages over 12,000 parking spaces within the City
of Miami Beach, in the form of metered on and off-street parking, attended surface lots and
garages throughout the City. The Department operates and manages five garages
throughout the City, on 7th Street, 1 ih Street, 13th Street, 17th Street and 42nd Street. The
Department operates garages and surface lots servicing the Miami Beach Convention
Center, Jackie Gleason Theater of the Performing Arts and world class hotels such as the
Delano, National and Fountainebleau Hilton. The Department is typically looked upon to
provide parking services for all major events in the City, including, but not limited to, annual
events such as; NMMA International Boat Show, Yacht Brokerage Show, the Auto Show,
Art Deco Weekend, Memorial Day Weekend, New Year's Eve and a wide variety of other
special events.
The Parking Department's approach to operating its parking facilities, which would include
the Anchor Garage, involves a combination of private sector expertise with public sector
oversight. As indicated earlier, the management team is comprised entirely of City
employees. Contract services, which are the result of a competitive bid process, include
cashiers, attendants and supervisors, provided by APCOAlStandard Parking VIP Parking
Systems, Armored Car Services through Armored Security, landscaping services through
Country Bill and janitorial services through Best Maintenance. The advantage to this
approach is that service providers are the lowest most responsive bidders, labor costs are
controlled through fixed fee contracts, precluding having to pay for over time and the City
retains control over parking policy.
The Parking Department's projections for the Anchor Garage, call for revenue collections of
$1,968,922 and operating expenses of $587,996, which is consistent with actual revenues
and expenses at the facility. Compared to the two private sector proposals, the Parking
Department's expenses are $44,689 less than PCOA's and $8,200 higher than the
expenses projected by AAA. As indicated previously however, AAA's projections should
include an additional 88 hours of supervisory coverage, which based upon their
$10.00/hour rate for supervisors, would add an additional $45,760 to their projections. The
most notable differences in the Parking Department's proposal include:
. a "$0" line item for General Liability Insurance - since the operation would fall under
the City's Self Insurance Fund and Standard APCOA provides additional coverage
through its fixed-rate contract with the City, there is no incremental cost for this item.
PCOA's line item for insurance was $22,512, which is consistent with the coverage
held by Quik Park for the last three years, while AAA' s estimate for this line item
was only $12,613; and
. a "$1" per year Management Fee, compared to $36,000 fee proposed by PCOA and
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 9 of 11
a $27,000 fee proposed by AAA.
The Parking Department's staffing proposal calls for 168 hours (24/7) of supervisory
coverage, 192 hours of cashier coverage, 280 hours of security coverage and 52 hours of
landscaping and maintenance coverage on a weekly basis.
Following the last presentation, the Committee spent time deliberating. The Committee
expressed the fact that the management team in place in the Parking Department, may in
fact, be the best that the City has ever seen. Concern was expressed over the City's ability
to retain such a strong team in the long run, given the chance for promotion and/or
opportunities in the private sector. AAA on the other hand has extensive years of
experience and depth of individuals, providing for continuity. The Committee had no real
concerns relative to budgetary issues, as both submitted comparable budgets, however, at
the end of the day, the Committee Chair pointed out that the private sector proposer has to
pay taxes and bear the cost of home office expenses, thereby resulting in having to
charge a Management Fee. The Committee then scored the two proposals, with the City
receiving 575 points and AAA receiving 564 points, as follows:
Committee AAA Parking CMB Parking
Member Department
ROQer Carlton 72 69
Deede Whitehorn 85 84
Roberto Sanchez 79 77
Roberto Datorre 75 85
Clark Cook 75 80
Larrv Herrup 90 90
Grace Cespedes 88 90
Total Score 564 575
While the Committee agreed that the overall scores would determine the outcome, a review
of the individual scores showed that AAA was favored by 3 committee members, the City
Department was favored by 3 committee members and 1 committee member found the two
proposals equal.
The Committee then adopted a motion, reaffirming that the ranking was based upon the
highest number of points received and, based on its ranking of the proposals, the
Committee recommended to the Manager the following:
. based on the ranking of the two private sector firms, the Committee only
recommends consideration of AAA Parking as the top-ranked private firm, and
. based on its ranking of AAA Parking and the City's Parking Department, the
Committee recommends the Parking Department with the highest number of points
and AAA Parking second.
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 10 of 11
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
Previously the Administration has discussed the relative merits of managing and operating
the Anchor Shops Garage through the City's Parking Department. These issues were fully
discussed at the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee on May 20, 2002. At that
time, the Administration's recommendation was based on several major factors including:
cost savings, privatization (competitive bidding process), increased efficiencies through
economies of scale, enhanced internal controls, and maintaining appropriate control of the
operation and management of the facility.
The City's Parking Department maintains a commitment to public service and customer
satisfaction. At times, this may translate into higher operational costs derived from
increased security/traffic control, additional cashiers/attendants/supervisors for events,
and/or increased maintenance. However, private parking operators have a commitment to
profits and customer service is secondary. A cost savings provided by a private operator
many times translates into a reduction in service to the public. Customer service is a
crucial factor in the success of any service-oriented entity and has been a basic tenet of the
City's Parking Department, which has an excellent track record in providing superior
customer service.
The City of Miami Beach Parking System inventory and operations reflects our commitment
to quality customer service for both visitors and resident, including enhanced attention to:
the level of attendance, maintenance, security and upkeep which far exceeds normal
industry standards.
In order to be competitive with the private sector, the City's Parking Department
implemented privatization initiatives for the delivery of the following garage operating
services:
. Cashiers/Parking Attendants and On-site Supervisors
. Security and Traffic Control
. Maintenance and Housekeeping
The benefits of this partial privatization is as follows:
. Services are competitively bid (and in place).
. Service providers are lowest responsive bidders, based on price and experience.
. Partial privatization allows Parking Department to control labor costs.
. City retains direct control of parking policy, garage management, and levels of
customer service provided to the public.
. Contract labor services reflect no Administrative overhead charges as would be
evidenced with a full privatization effort.
Commission Memo
Request For Proposals (RFP) NO. 68-01/02, For the Management and
Operation of the Parking Component of the Anchor Shops and Parking Garage
February 26, 2003
Page 11 of 11
In short, the Parking Department's partial privatization provides maximum cost
effectiveness through the competitive bidding process and ensures the City of control of
labor costs and of management and operating standards.
The fact remains that private parking operators provide a valuable service. Clearly, there is
a distinction between public versus private sector approaches; however, these are two
divergent approaches to management (service driven vs. profit driven) that must be fully
evaluated in order to attain the Mayor and Commission's policy directives and goals.
One other key advantage of municipal parking operations vs. private operations is the
former's exemption from ad valorem taxation. Privatization of the City garages may subject
these facilities to ad valorem taxes, as is the case with the Anchor Garage which however
is not reflected in Quik Park's expense figures. If comparable private operations reflected
the tax expense in their figures, the City would consistently reflect a more competitive "cost
per space".
However, in light of the closeness of the vote on the evaluation committee and in light of
the representations by AAA representatives discussing the possibility of guaranteeing a
minimum revenue for the facility, it is in the City's best interest to pursue this discussion.
This guarantee is an element that the City's Parking Department could not provide.
If there is an opportunity to secure specific minimum guarantee on the facilities revenues
and expenditures and if we can ensure high levels of service and performance specifically
in the area of customer service, facility maintenance and security, then the City should
explore this further. As such, the Administration recommends entering into negotiations
with AAA Parking and to the extent that an acceptable guarantee and/or other terms cannot
be achieved, the Administration then recommends entering into negotiations with the City's
Parking Department.
JMG/CMC/KOB
Attachments
T: \AGENDA \2003\feb2603\rda\Anchor _ Contract.doc