Resolution 2022-32423 RESOLUTION NO. 2022-32423
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ISSUE A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION FOR A REPLACEMENT
CONTRACT FOR MOBILE PARKING PAYMENT SOLUTIONS.
WHEREAS, on May 8, 2013, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance
of Request for Proposals (RFP) 177-2013ME, seeking proposals from qualified providers of
pay-by-phone systems that enabled parking payments for the City's on-street and off-street
metered facilities via phone, mobile applications, or text; and
WHEREAS, the pay-by-phone system was intended to supplement the existing
payment options and provide discounted rates and service fees to Miami Beach residents;
and
WHEREAS, the RFP resulted in responses from five firms, including Pango USA,
LLC, Pasport Parking, LLC, QuickPay Corp., PayByPhone Technologies, Inc. (PayByPhone),
and Park Mobile USA, Inc. (ParkMobile); and
WHEREAS, in part, the RFP was awarded to ParkMobile because they were the only
bidder to waive the convenience fee for Miami Beach residents; and
WHEREAS, following the competitive solicitation process on February 1, 2014, the
City entered into an agreement with ParkMobile to provide parking pay-by-phone services;
and
WHEREAS, the agreement had an initial term of five (5) years with two (2) additional
2-year renewal terms; and
WHEREAS, the Agreement is scheduled to expire on February 23, 2023; and
WHEREAS, on October 26, 2022, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-
37370, directing the Administration to explore options for contracting with the best mobile
parking payment application service with a specific interest in considering mobile parking
payment applications being used by neighboring jurisdictions with the intent of maximizing
convenience to residents and local visitors; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission discussed whether the City should consider options
for piggybacking existing agreements executed by neighboring jurisdictions or whether it was
best to issue a competitive solicitation for the City to negotiate and execute its own
agreement; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the City Commission's direction on October 26, 2022, staff
researched the mobile parking payment solutions utilized by neighboring jurisdictions to
determine whether any of these agencies or municipalities had appropriate contracts for
piggybacking; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority responded that its contract had
been competitively solicited and awarded to PayByPhone in 2014 and is scheduled to expire
in 2025; and
WHEREAS, the City of Coral Gables, City of Doral, City of Hallandale Beach, and City
of Fort Lauderdale confirmed that they were piggybacking off of the City of Miami/Miami
Parking Authority contract; and
WHEREAS, the City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority's contract with PayByPhone is
similar to the City's current contract with ParkMobile in that it allows for a resident discount
rate and does not charge residents a transaction fee; and
WHEREAS, unlike the City's current contract, under which the City does not pay any
charges (resident transaction fees are absorbed by visitors in the visitor rates charged), the
City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority contract would allow the City to absorb the resident
transaction fees; and
WHEREAS, however, based on approximately 503,000 resident transactions at the
current PayByPhone convenience fee of $0.27, doing so is estimated to cost the City
$136,000.00 annually; and
WHEREAS, staff also identified competitive contracts awarded to PayByPhone by the
National Cooperative Purchasing Alliance (NCPA) and the City of Tampa; and
WHEREAS, the NCPA contract does not allow for discounted rates and no transaction
fees to residents; and
WHEREAS, further, the Agreement with the City of Tampa contains local preference
language that typically precludes other agencies from piggybacking; and
WHEREAS, staff was unable to identify a contract awarded to PayByPhone that
meets the City's current requirements to offer residents discount rates and fee waivers; and
WHEREAS, this is an important distinction because piggybacking typically requires
that the agency desiring to piggyback accept the terms, conditions, and pricing of the other
agency's contract without modification; and
WHEREAS, during the research process, staff learned that some jurisdictions (e.g.,
the City of Tampa) awarded contracts for mobile parking payment solutions to more than one
provider as a means of extending convenience to visitors traveling into the City from areas
serviced by other providers; and
WHEREAS, based on the above findings, the Administration recommends the City
Commission authorize the preparation of a competitive solicitation for a replacement contract
for mobile parking payment solutions that appropriately prioritizes, among other relevant
factors, the convenience to the customer and potential benefits to the City of utilizing a mobile
parking payment solution provider used by a majority of neighboring jurisdictions; and
WHEREAS, if deemed by the City Commission to be in the best interest of the City,
the solicitation will allow for an award of contract to more than one mobile parking payment
solutions provider.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission approve the Resolution accepting the City Manager's recommendation and
authorize the Administration to issue a competitive solicitation for a replacement contract for
mobile parking payment solutions.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this iq day of ,Ncembe,/ 2022.
s.....„.3f
ATTEST:
DEC 11 6 2022 ' i<2.7,,,
RAFAEL E. G 1ADO, CITY CLERK DAN GELBER, MAYOR .
ft r i '''i
IEICORPffORATEQ'
,, 6
APPROVED AS TO -
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
C-D I 2- .c--)-1-
City Attorney•.4 Date
Competitive Bid Reports -C2 B
MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Aline T. Hudak, City Manager
DATE: December 14, 2022
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
ISSUE A COMPETITIVE SOLICITATION FOR A REPLACEMENT
CONTRACT FOR MOBILE PARKING PAYMENT SOLUTIONS.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the City pursue a replacement contract for mobile parking
payment solutions through a competitive solicitation.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
On May 8, 2013, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Request for
Proposals (RFP) 177-2013ME, seeking proposals from qualified providers of pay-by-phone
systems that enabled parking payments for the City's on-street and off-street metered facilities
via phone, mobile applications, or text. The pay-by-phone system was intended to supplement
the existing payment options and have the capability of providing discounted rates and service
fees to residents.
The RFP resulted in responses from five firms, including Pango USA, LLC, Pasport Parking,
LLC, QuickPay Corp., PayByPhone Technologies, Inc. (PayByPhone), and Park Mobile USA,
Inc. (ParkMobile). In part, The RFP was awarded to ParkMobile because they were the only
bidder able to waive the convenience fee for residents.
Following the competitive solicitation process on February 1, 2014, the City entered into an
Agreement with ParkMobile to provide parking pay-by-phone services. The agreement had an
initial term of five (5) years with two (2) additional 2-year renewal terms. The Agreement is
presently scheduled to expire on February 23, 2023.
On October 26, 2022, the City Commission adopted Resolution No. 2022-37370, directing the
Administration to explore options for contracting with the best mobile parking payment
application service. Specifically, the City Commission expressed an interest in considering
mobile parking payment applications being used by neighboring jurisdictions with the intent of
maximizing convenience to residents and local visitors.
Page 20 of 952
A discussion ensued on whether the City should consider options for piggybacking existing
agreements executed by neighboring jurisdictions or whether it was best to issue a competitive
solicitation for the City to negotiate and execute its own agreement.
ANALYSIS
Pursuant to the City Commission's direction on October 26, 2022, staff researched which
mobile parking payment solutions were being utilized by neighboring jurisdictions and whether
any of the contracts executed by these agencies could be piggybacked by the City. All local
jurisdictions were queried, and responses were received from the following:
1) City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority;
2) City of Coral Gables;
3)City of Doral;
4)City of Hallandale Beach; and
5)City of Fort Lauderdale.
The City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority responded that its contract had been competitively
solicited and awarded to PayByPhone in 2014 and is scheduled to expire in 2025. The other
four agencies responded that they were piggybacking off the City of Miami/Miami Parking
Authority Contract.
The City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority's contract with PayByPhone is similar to the City's
current contract with ParkMobile in that it allows for a resident discount rate and does not charge
residents a transaction fee. However, unlike the City's current contract, under which the City
does not pay any charges (resident transaction fees are absorbed by visitors in the visitor rates
charged), the City of Miami/Miami Parking Authority contract would allow the City to absorb the
resident transaction fees. Doing so is estimated to cost the City $136,000.00 annually. This
estimate is based on approximately 503,000 resident transactions at the current PayByPhone
convenience fee of$0.27.
Staff also identified competitive contracts awarded to PayByPhone by the National Cooperative
Purchasing Alliance (NCPA)and the City of Tampa. However,the NCPA contract does not allow
for discounted rates and no transaction fees to residents. Further, the Agreement with the City
of Tampa contains local preference language that typically precludes other agencies from
piggybacking.
Staff was unable to identify a contract awarded to PayByPhone that meets the City's current
requirements to offer residents discount rates and fee waivers. This is an important distinction
because piggybacking typically requires that the agency desiring to piggyback accept the terms,
conditions, and pricing of the other agency's contract without modification.
During the research process, staff learned that some jurisdictions (e.g., the City of Tampa) had
awarded contracts for mobile parking payment solutions to more than one provider as a means
of extending convenience to visitors traveling into the City from areas serviced by other
providers.
SUPPORTING SURVEY DATA
Not Applicable.
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
Page 21 of 952
Not Applicable.
CONCLUSION
Based on the above findings, the Administration recommends the City Commission authorize
the preparation of a competitive solicitation for a replacement contract for mobile parking
payment solutions that appropriately prioritizes, among other relevant factors, the convenience
to the customer and potential benefits to the City of utilizing a mobile parking payment solution
provider used by a majority of neighboring jurisdictions. The solicitation will also allow an award
of a contract to more than one mobile parking payment solutions provider if the City
Commission deems that doing so is in the City's best interest.
It is anticipated that the solicitation will be presented to the City Commission for approval at its
next regularly scheduled meeting in February 2023.
Applicable Area
Citywide
Is this a"Residents Right Does this item utilize G.O.
to Know" item, pursuant to Bond Funds?
City Code Section 2-14?
No No
Legislative Tracking
Parking/Procurement
Sponsor
Co-sponsored by Commissioner Alex Fernandez
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
• o Resolution
Page 22 of 952