Resolution 2024-33144 RESOLUTION NO. 2024-33144
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, TO ADOPT A "STOP THE PAUSE"
POLICY BY REQUIRING A 5/7TH VOTE TO PAUSE, DELAY, STOP, OR
MATERIALLY MODIFY A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT(AS
DEFINED IN THIS RESOLUTION) HAVING AN ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST OF. $1,000,000 OR MORE THAT IS AT 60%
DESIGN, AND A 6/7TH VOTE TO PAUSE, DELAY, STOP, OR
MATERIALLY MODIFY A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT
HAVING AN ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF $1,000,000 OR
MORE THAT HAS OBTAINED ALL PERMITS AND IS SHOVEL-READY,
SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS FOR UNFORESEEN SITE CONDITIONS
THAT MATERIALLY IMPACT THE COST OF THE PROJECT, FUNDING
LIMITATIONS, AND/OR FUNDING EMERGENCIES, PROVIDED THE
FOREGOING POLICY SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY LIMIT THE
COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER TO REJECT ALL BIDS OR TO TAKE ANY ACTION
THE COMMISSION DEEMS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE CITY'S
RIGHTS UNDER A CONTRACT WITH A DESIGN CONSULTANT OR
CONTRACTOR.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach recognizes the importance of critical
infrastructure projects that are essential to the health, safety, and well-being of its
residents, commuters, and visitors; and
WHEREAS, such critical infrastructure projects include, by way of example:
• Projects relating to fire flow, stormwater drainage, potable water, and sanitary
sewer projects deemed critical due to the advanced age of pipes or risk of failure.
• Utility projects to replace and/or upgrade systems that are at or near capacity.
• Rehabilitation of City facilities deemed critical for providing services to residents.
• Neighborhood Improvement Projects (NIPs) that have been supported and
endorsed by a majority of residents in the applicable neighborhoods, such as road
raising and harmonization; and
WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the City to ensure that such critical
infrastructure projects proceed without unnecessary interruptions or modifications once
they have reached advanced stages of design or are shovel-ready; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission believes it is prudent to establish a higher
threshold, of approval to pause, delay, stop, or materially modify critical infrastructure
projects at advanced stages to ensure continuity and completion, while allowing for
exceptions in the case of unforeseen site conditions that materially impact the cost of the
project, funding limitations, and/or funding emergencies, and provided, this policy shall
not in any way limit the Commission's ability to accept the recommendation of the City
Manager to reject all bids or to take any'action the Commission deems necessary to
protect the City's rights under.a contract with a design consultant or contractor; and
WHEREAS, establishing such higher thresholds of approval to pause, delay, stop
or materially modify projects will also result in substantial cost savings to taxpayers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby adopt a "Stop the Pause" policy requiring a 5/7th vote to pause,
delay, stop, or materially modify a critical infrastructure project (as defined in this
Resolution) having an estimated construction cost of$1,000,000 or more that is at 60%
design, and a 6/7th vote to pause, delay, stop, or materially modify a critical infrastructure
project having an estimated construction cost of$1,000,000 or more that has obtained all
permits and is shovel-ready, subject to exceptions for unforeseen site conditions that
materially impact the cost of the Project, funding limitations, and/or funding emergencies,
and provided, this policy shall not in any way limit the Commission's ability to accept the
recommendation of the City Manager to reject all bids or to take any action the
Commission deems necessary to protect the City's rights under a contract with a design
consultant or contractor.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this a&' day of June, 2024.
ATTEST: •
.0.0A JUL 20(4 Steven Meiner, Mayor
8 ....
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk
I.INCORI' ORATED
(Sponsored by Commissioner Alex J. Fernandez) %,, , 40
meg
Co-Sponsored by Commissioner Joseph Magazine
APPROVED AS TO
FORM&LANGUAGE
&FOR EXECUTION •
COD' .
City Attorney Date
Resolutions=C7 BM
MIAMI BEACH.
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Rickelle Williams, Interim City Manager
DATE: June 26, 2024
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, TO ADOPT A"STOP THE PAUSE" POLICY BY REQUIRING A
5/7TH VOTE TO PAUSE, DELAY, STOP, OR MATERIALLY MODIFY A CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT(AS DEFINED IN THIS RESOLUTION)HAVING AN
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF $1,000,000 OR MORE THAT IS AT 60%
DESIGN, AND A 6/7TH VOTE TO PAUSE, DELAY, STOP, OR MATERIALLY
MODIFY A. CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HAVING AN ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST OF $1,000,000 OR MORE THAT HAS OBTAINED ALL
PERMITS AND IS SHOVEL-READY, SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS FOR
UNFORESEEN SITE CONDITIONS THAT MATERIALLY IMPACT THE COST OF
THE PROJECT, FUNDING LIMITATIONS, AND/OR FUNDING EMERGENCIES,
PROVIDED THE FOREGOING POLICY SHALL NOT IN ANY WAY LIMIT THE
COMMISSION'S ABILITY TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER TO REJECT ALL BIDS OR TO TAKE ANY ACTION THE COMMISSION
DEEMS NECESSARY TO PROTECT THE CITY'S RIGHTS UNDER A CONTRACT
WITH A DESIGN CONSULTANT OR CONTRACTOR.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approving.the Resolution.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The City of Miami Beach recognizes the importance of critical infrastructure projects that are
essential to the health, safety, and well-being of its residents, commuters, and visitors. Such
critical infrastructure projects include, by way of example:
• Projects relating to fire flow, stormwater drainage, potable water, and sanitary sewer
projects deemed critical due to the advanced age of pipes or risk of failure.
• Utility projects to replace and/or upgrade systems that are at or near capacity.
• Rehabilitation of City facilities deemed critical for providing services to residents.
• Neighborhood improvement projects (NIPs)that have been supported and endorsed by a
majority of residents in the applicable neighborhoods, such as road raising and
harmonization.
It is in the best interest of the City to ensure that such critical infrastructure projects proceed
without unnecessary interruptions or modifications once they have reached advanced stages of
design or are shovel-ready. The Administration believes it is prudent to establish a higher
threshold of approval to pause, delay, stop, or materially modify critical infrastructure projects at
advanced stages to ensure continuity and completion, while allowing for exceptions in the case
of unforeseen site conditions that materially impact the cost of the project, funding limitations,
and/or funding emergencies. Additionally, this policy shall not in any way limit the Commission's
ability to accept the recommendation of the City Manager to reject all bids or to take any action
the Commission deems necessary to protect the City's rights under a contract with a design
consultant or contractor. Establishing such higher thresholds of approval to pause, delay, stop or
materially modify projects will also result in substantial cost savings to taxpayers.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
No fiscal impact.
CONCLUSION
The Administration°recommends approving the Resolution.
Applicable Area
Citywide
Is this a"Residents Right to Know" item, Is this item related to a G.O. Bond
pursuant to City Code Section 2-17? Protect?
Yes No
Was this Agenda Item initially requested by a lobbyist which, as defined in Code Sec.2-481,
includes a principal engaged in lobbying? No
If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s) and principal(s):
Department
Public Works
Sponsor(s),
Commissioner Alex Fernandez
•
•
•
• • ' •
. -
. t..
• Pi
.r
•14
$
• *
ft
..t.off•ff .k.„
liffotr$1.11,
416
•••••,pr" •'""77,
!AA.' .•
1 t' •
+ft
46'
_ , •
' • —--— ,
• --
•
E w•
•
3' F�s� ( r - �
IMG 5548
OL0•6 CCGOI
du) G o D 2
To view the Video, please visit:
https://docmgmt.miamibeachfl.qov/WebLink/Browse.aspx?id=296623&dbid=0&repo=CitvClerk
Agenda Item C7BM
Date 6-a6.21(
8� ,
„ n 4 ''t{� 41�iLkE dig`.,QQ j?
�lvV A `...0 YHA 7< `6
14�0R
Joseph M.Centorino, Inspector General
MEMORANDUM
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
From: Joseph M. Centorino, Inspector General
Re: Agenda item C7-BM, a Resolution to Adopt A"Stop the Pause" Policy
OIG No. 24-12
Date: June 24, 2024
By way of this memorandum, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) provides the Mayor and
Commission with observations and information related to agenda item C7-BM, a resolution to
adopt a "stop the pause" policy. The policy would require a 5/7th vote to pause, delay, stop, or
materially modify a critical infrastructure project having an estimated construction cost of
$1,000,000 or more that is at 60% design, and a 6/7th vote to pause, delay, stop, or materially
modify a critical infrastructure project having an estimated construction cost of$1,000,000 or more
that has obtained all permits and is shovel-ready. It would include exceptions for unforeseen site
conditions that materially impact the cost of the project, funding limitations, and/or funding
emergencies, and would not in limit the Commission's ability to accept the recommendation of
the City Manager to reject all bids or to take any action the Commission deems necessary to
protect the City's rights under a contract with a design consultant or contractor.
Beginning in 2020 with OIG 20-07(Management of the Palm and Hibiscus Neighborhood
Infrastructure Project) and continuing with OIG 21-15 (Indian Creek Project) and OIG 22-07
(Review of West Avenue Phase 2 Project),the Office of Inspector General has identified the costs
and consequences of late-stage redesign of infrastructure projects and has made
recommendations to address this practice.
The OIG report on the Management of Palm and Hibiscus Neighborhood Infrastructure Project
concluded that making significant changes to a project's design criteria or construction plans after
work has begun poses a significant risk to the success of a neighborhood infrastructure
improvement project and should be avoided. To mitigate the risk of cost escalation caused by
changes in a project's design criteria or construction plans, the OIG recommended that the City
establish a formal mechanism to evaluate, document, and authorize any significant change that
is proposed after a project's bid is issued. In collaboration with the administration, the OIG
prepared a Management Policy for Internal Controls on Major Construction Projects which has
been fully implemented. (Management Policy is attached)
As indicated by the graph below, the Palm and Hibiscus Report also included a financial audit
that documented the increase in budget estimates from $9,086,774 to $50,217,166, which was
mainly due to design and scope changes.
Palm&Hibiscus Capital Budget
wax:a:
SSO.tX U: 54011a06 550217.166 550.117.16
SI6.619.017 $46.619,077
Slur'
5::10110: SU.11Z616
511.192.616 511,192.616
59.016.111
5:'1cxX 51.610.111
S
Nos,ers Mii 1':I 1015 201e 7017 1016 2019 /ON
OIG review of the West Avenue Phase 2 Project showed the increase in costs as a result of
changes to the scope and design caused, in large part, by requests from residents that were
adopted by the Commission. Those cost increases are reflected in the graph below.
West Ave D (North and South)
110.000.000
100.000.000
B0,000.000
C
8 60.000,000
O
4
4o.c x, i
,a
1
20,000,000 1
0
Nyy 11. 111
o O
Page 2 of 3
The Indian Creek Project report (OIG 21-15) found that late-stage changes in project design led
to the extremely high cost escalations and ballooning timeline of the project. A disregard for the
fundamental concepts of acquisition planning,engineering design, and construction management
caused the project's cost to double from $25.4 million to more than $50 million and extended the
project completion by four years.
More recently, the Office of Inspector General, in OIG 24-05(quarterly report on the 2018 General
Obligation Bond)identified the City's practice, both within the G.O. Bond and in general,of starting
and stopping projects to modify the scope (for reasons unrelated to the quality of a design) as a
practice that expends and wastes extensive resources. The report in OIG 24-05, included the
following:
Former and current City department heads have recommended that once a project has
achieved a 30%-60% design, ideally at Design Review Board or Historic Preservation
Board approval, and has been fully vetted in the community, there should be no additional
scope/design change, barring an unforeseen or other extraordinary event. The OIG sees
an opportunity for the City to study the cumulative impact of this practice on project costs
and timelines, weigh the costs and benefits of the practice, and assess whether changes
in the approval process for G.O. Bond and other City projects are warranted. The OIG is
prepared to work with the City Administration and elected officials in creating any
reasonable process reform that will better achieve that balance. One approach to
consider is the establishment of a voting threshold in excess of a majority of the
Commission members that would be required to alter the scope/design of a project
after certain critical pre-established criteria have been met. (Emphasis added.)
At the May 9th G.O. Bond Oversight Committee meeting, the OIG discussed the above
recommendation and encouraged the Committee to meet with the City Attorney and craft
legislation that would adopt the OIG's recommendation. The City Attorney was scheduled to
appear at the June G.O. Bond Oversight Committee meeting which was cancelled as a result of
local flood conditions.
The proposed Resolution, C7-BM, is a good first step towards curtailing the wasteful practice of
late-stage design changes in critical infrastructure projects. The OIG encourages the Mayor and
Commission to apply this policy or a similar one in order to preserve the City's financial resources
and more effectively meet the City's resiliency goals.
spectfully su. ed,
AIM 4-Aw 0 Va e4/
"os h Centori o, Inspector General Date
0&/a dc)-00)-y
a i Singer, Investf�ator Date
Page 3 of 3
OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL,City of Miami Beach
1 130 Washington Avenue.61"Floor.Miami Beach,FL 33139
Tel 305.673.7020•Fax:305.587.2401 •Hotline:786.897.1111
Email:CityofMiamiBeachOlGsmiamibeachfl.gov
Website:www.mbinspectorgeneral.com
EXHIBIT"A"
Management Policy for Internal Controls on Major Construction Projects
Section 1 —Definitions.
Architectural and Engineering Services means professional services of an architectural or
• engineering nature as defined by Section 287.055, Florida Statutes.
City's contingency means an amount approved by the City Commission to cover construction-
related costs which were not foreseeable or quantifiable at the time design requirements were
prepared for competitive bidding. The contingency amount is typically ten (10) percent of the
contract amount. The City Commission approval authorizes the City Manager, or designee, to
utilize the contingency at his/her discretion to defray any additional expenses relative to design
and construction of the project, as well as additional expenses expressly chargeable to the City
pursuant to the Contract Documents, including material changes. The contractor or design-build
firm has no right or entitlement whatsoever to the City's contingency and any unused amounts
in City's contingency remaining at the completion of the project shall accrue solely to the City.
Competitive sealed bidding means a procurement method based on an Invitation to Bid (ITB),
which shall, at a minimum, include design requirements (as applicable), terms and conditions,
and cost.
Competitive sealed proposals means the procurement method based on a Request for
Proposals (RFP), which shall include specifications, design requirements (as applicable), terms
and conditions, and cost. The RFP shall establish the evaluation criteria against which
proposals will be evaluated. Proposals are typically evaluated and ranked by an Evaluation
Committee appointed by the City Manager based on the evaluation criteria established in the
RFP.
Construction documents means the written and graphic instructions necessary for the
construction of a project that define the work and responsibilities required under a construction
contract and are legally binding on the parties(City and Contractor).
Construction manager at-risk means a project delivery method that entails a contractual
obligation to deliver the project within the agreed to Guaranteed Maximum Price(GMP). The
construction manager acts as consultant to the owner in the development and design phases
(often referred to as"preconstruction services")and as the equivalent of a general contractor
during the construction phase.
Design-bid-build means a project delivery method for which the City sequentially awards
separate contracts, the first for architectural and engineering services to design the project and
the second for construction of the project according to the design.
Design-build means a project delivery method in which the City enters into a single contract for
design and construction of an infrastructure facility.
Design-build-finance-operate-maintain means a project delivery method in which the City enters
into a single contract for design, finance, construction, maintenance, and operation of an
infrastructure facility over a contractually defined period.
Design-build-operate-maintain means a project delivery method for which the City enters into a
single contract for design, construction, maintenance, and operation of an infrastructure facility
over a contractually defined period.
Design Criteria Package(DCP)means concise specifications intended to be the baseline
design requirements about project requirements to permit design-build firms to prepare a
proposal in response to a request for proposal. The design criteria package must comply with
the requirements set forth in Section 287.055, Florida Statutes.
Design Criteria Professional means an individual or firm that is duly licensed to practice
architecture or engineering and who is employed by or under contract to the City to provide
professional architecture or engineering services in connection with the preparation of the
design criteria package for a particular project for which the design-build project delivery method
will be used.
Design requirements means the written technical and contractual requirements of a project that
should include (but not necessarily be limited to): the features, functions, characteristics,
qualities, and properties that are required by the City; the anticipated or desired schedule or
time for completion; and the estimated budget. Design requirements may be used
synonymously with DCP, construction documents, and specifications, as applicable to a
particular project.
Independent Cost Estimate means a cost estimate, prepared by an organization independent of
the project design or construction phases, using the same detailed technical and relevant
project information to establish or validate the anticipated construction costs.
Independent Reviewer Services are additional architectural and engineering services provided
to the City in design-build-operate-maintain or design-build-finance-operate-maintain
procurements. The function of the independent peer reviewer is to confirm that the key
elements of the professional engineering and architectural design provided by the contractor are
in conformance with the applicable standard of care. Services include(but are not limited to)
constructability, estimating and inspection services.
Infrastructure Facility means a building, structure, or networks of buildings, structures, pipes,
controls, and equipment that provide transportation, utilities, or facilities utilized by residents,
visitors, or employees. Examples may include(but are not limited to)government buildings;
educational facilities; public safety or judicial facilities;water, stormwater,wastewater facilities,
and pumping stations; public roads and streets; public parking facilities; public transportation
systems, including terminals.
Job Order Contract(JOC)means a contract for a fixed term or maximum dollar value in which a
contractor is competitively selected to perform various separate job orders during the life of the
contract, typically based on prices established in a construction task catalog and an agreed-to
fee or multiplier.
Major Change means any change to the project scope that requires significant redesign or
revision to any major design element or any change that may result in a project construction
cost increase of more than 10%.
Major Construction Project means building, improving, renovating, restoring, altering, repairing
or demolishing a city building or physical infrastructure asset with a construction value of$5
million or greater.
Material Change means: (i) any change to a project's budget, construction contract or
construction documents that would result in an overall increase or decrease in excess of five
percent(5%)in cost; (ii)a change in the design intent of the project or additional scope that
would add or decrease costs in excess of 5% of the overall value of the contract; or change in
construction schedule in excess of 25% of the contract duration beyond the allowable delays
stipulated in the contract.
Qualifications-based selection means the procurement method based on a Request for
Qualifications (RFQ)which shall include the format for submitting qualifications-based proposals
and the applicable terms and conditions. The-RFQ shall establish the evaluation criteria against
which proposals will be evaluated. Proposals are typically evaluated and ranked by an
evaluation committee appointed by the City Manager based on the evaluation criteria
established in the RFQ.
Responsible Director means the director of the department primarily responsible for the
construction or design, of the project, as applicable.
Section 2— Project Delivery Methods.
1. Scope. This section specifies the allowed project delivery methods, except as provided
in Section 3 (Small Purchases), Section 4(Job Order Contracting), Section 5(Continuing
Contracts)and Section 6 (Emergency Procurements). Notwithstanding any project delivery
method identified below, the Procurement Director may make a determination that an alternate
project delivery method is better suited for the particular project.
2. Design-bid-build. For the design phase, a qualifications-based selection process shall be
used to procure architectural and engineering services. For the construction phase, a
competitive sealed bidding process should be used to procure construction in design-bid-build
procurements, except in the case of contracts for construction manager at-risk for which
competitive sealed proposals or qualifications-based selection process should be used.
a. Prior to issuing a solicitation for the construction phase of the design-bid-build project delivery
method,the responsible director must affirm the following:
i. Construction documents have been completed and submitted to the Procurement Department
for inclusion in the solicitation.
ii. The Budget Department has confirmed the availability of funding for the construction phase.
iii. For projects with an estimated construction cost greater than $5 million, an independent cost
estimate has been completed and submitted to the Procurement Department.
3. Design-build. A competitive sealed proposals process should be used to procure
contracts for the design-build project delivery method, except in the case of progressive design
build procurements for which a qualifications-based selection should be utilized.
a. Prior to issuing a solicitation for the construction phase of the design-build project delivery
method, the responsible director must affirm the following:
i. The DCP has been completed, signed/sealed by the design criteria professional, and
submitted to the Procurement Department for inclusion in the solicitation.
ii. The Budget Department has confirmed the availability of sufficient funding for the project.
iii. For projects with an estimated construction cost greater than $5 million, an independent cost
estimate has been completed and submitted to the Procurement Department.
4. Design-build-operate-maintain and design-build-finance-operate-maintain.A competitive
sealed proposals process shall be used to procure contracts for the design-build-operate-
maintain or design-build-finance-operate-maintain project delivery methods.
a. Prior to issuing a solicitation for the design-build-operate-maintain or design-build-finance-
operate-maintain project delivery methods,the responsible director must affirm:
i. The DCP has been completed, signed/sealed by the design criteria professional, and
submitted to the Procurement Department for inclusion in the solicitation.
ii. The Budget Department has confirmed the availability of sufficient funding for the project.
iii. For projects with an estimated construction cost greater than $5 million, an independent cost
estimate has been completed and submitted to the Procurement Department.
Section 3—Small Purchases.
1. Scope. Projects with a value estimated at less than the formal bid threshold, pursuant to
Section 2-366 of the City Code, may be procured through open market procedures as stipulated
in Administrative Order P0.16.02 or, in the case of electrical projects, up to $75,000, pursuant
to Section 255.20, Florida Statutes, except as provided in Section 4(Job Order Contracting),
Section 5(Continuing Contracts)and Section 6(Emergency Procurements). Notwithstanding,
the requirements of Section 10 (Performance and Payment Bonds)shall apply to any project
with a value equal to or greater than $200,000,
Section 4—Job Order Contracting.
1. Scope. Notwithstanding the requirements of this procedure,job order contracting may be
utilized as a project delivery method providing that the requirements of the construction phase of
the design-bid-build project delivery method with regard to the completion of construction
documents and an independent cost estimate are met, as well as any applicable requirement
relating to performance and payment bonds, prevailing wages and local workforce. Job Order
Contracting may not be utilized on federal and state funded procurements without the prior
written authorization of the funding agency.
Section 5—Continuing Contracts.
1. Scope. Continuing contracts for construction services (e.g., push button contracts)and
design services, providing that the requirements of Sec. 287.055 have been met, are expressly
allowed.
Section 6—Emergency Procurements.
1. Scope. Emergency goods and services shall be procured in accordance with Section J,
Administrative Order P0.16.02.
Section 7—Prevailing Wages and Local Workforce
1. Scope. The requirements of Chapter 31 of the City Code shall apply to all contracts for
construction services greater than $1,500,000.
Section 8—Federal Requirements
1. Scope. The requirements of Administrative Order P0.16.06 shall apply to all contracts
that are federally funded or subject to federal reimbursement requirements.
Section 9—Bid Bonds
1. Scope. All competitive solicitations for projects which are federally funded shall include
the requirement that the bidder submit a bid bond in the amount stipulated in the funding agency
agreement or in 2 CFR Part 200, Code of Federal Regulations, as applicable. For other
projects, the competitive solicitation may require a bid bond if such is a requirement of a grant
intended to fund any portion of the construction contract or, for non-grant projects, when
deemed appropriate by the Procurement Director. For non-grant projects, the bid bond
requirement shall not exceed five(5)percent of the estimate of the cost of the work. In the
discretion of the bidder, the bid bond may be in the form of a cashier's check, bank money
order, bank draft of any national or state bank, certified check, or surety bond, payable to the
City.
Section 10—Performance and Payment Bonds
1. Scope. All contracts for construction services in excess of$200,000 shall include a
requirement that the contractor submit a performance and payment bond. The performance and
payment bond shall be in an amount equal to 100% of the portion of the contract price for
construction. Any change order that increases the amount of the project by more than $100,000
shall require a review of the performance and payment bond. If the remaining contract amount,
after payments have been applied, on the project plus the amount of the change order is less
than or equal to the amount of the existing bond, there shall be no requirement for a new
performance and payment bond. If the unpaid amounts on the project plus the amount of the
change order is less than or equal to the amount of the existing bond, there shall be no
requirement for a new performance and payment bond. If the remaining contract amount, after
payments have been applied, on the project plus the amount of the change order is greater than
10% of the amount of the bond, the contractor may furnish a revised bond (or bond rider)for the
remaining contract amount plus the change order.
Section 11 —Technical Review for Design-Build Projects
1. Scope. The City's design criteria professional, and its sub-consultants, shall assist the
City during the bidding and award phases of the design-build project delivery method. The
design criteria professional must review and evaluate submissions from the design-build firms
for completeness, technical compliance and satisfaction with the Design Criteria Package on its
technical merits, including the technical proposal and the design-build coordination plan. The
purpose of the technical review is to provide the city manager, responsible city director(s)and
the evaluation committee with a written assessment of any material issues of compliance with
the DCP for each submission by a design-build firm.
2. The design criteria professional will prepare an evaluation matrix comparing each
submission and may be required to assist during any interviews with short-listed design-build
firms. The design criteria professional may also be required to participate in pre-bid
conferences, attend the bid opening and attend any presentations by the design-build firms, and
assist during the negotiation phase of a contract with a selected design-build firm.
Section 12—Construction Phase Requirements for Permits and Plans
1. Permit Applications. Notwithstanding any provision in a'City contract or the City Code,
no City official shall sign a permit application for a major construction projects unless the City
official who signs the application as permittee on behalf of the City has confirmed that the permit
application and associated construction plans accurately and fully describe the project the City
intends to construct.
2. Notice to Proceed. Notwithstanding any provision in a City contract or agreement, no city
official shall issue a Notice to Proceed with the construction phase of a construction project until
all required permits have been issued by all agencies having jurisdiction.
3. Precedence. Notwithstanding any provision in a City contract or the City Code, under no
circumstances, including public emergencies, shall the approval of a project's plans by the
responsible director supersede the project's permitted plans or substitute for any of the above.
Section 13—Contract Modifications and.Change Orders
1. Scope. Notwithstanding any provision in a City contract or the City code, after award of a
design, construction or Design-Build contract, no City official shall approve a major change in
scope to the project until (a)the City Manager receives a fully executed "Request for Major
Modification to the Project's Scope" report; (b)the City Manager submits the modification
request to the Mayor and the City Commission; and (c)the Mayor and City Commission
approves the major change. The City Manager shall have the authority and discretion to utilize
the project's contingency as needed and in the best interest of the city to keep projects moving
forward. .
Section 14—Request for Major Modification to the Project's Scope
1. Scope. In the event that a major change in the project's scope is warranted, the
Responsible City Department shall initiate, prepare and sign a"Request for Major Modification
to the Project's Scope" ("Modification Request")and submit to the affected Department
Directors and respective Assistant City Manager(s).
The Modification Request form shall include the following information:
a) A summary of the current status of the project, including the percentage of the
project's completion; the total amount expended to date; the estimated cost to complete the
project without the major change; the project's current anticipated completion date.
b) A detailed summary of all pertinent facts and circumstances that serve as the
basis of the request; the expected benefits to the project of the change; the estimated increase
in the cost of the project and impact on the schedule if the change is approved; and a cost-
benefit analysis of the proposed change; any risks to the project's cost and/or schedule if the
request for a major change is denied or delayed.
c) A statement from the City Engineer,Architect/Engineer of Record, or Design
Criteria Professional, as applicable, providing their evaluation of the requested change and the
following issues: the extent to which the requested scope change will require changes to the
project's basis of design criteria, design criteria package or actual permitted/construction plans;
any potential technical,architectural/engineering, or construction risks that could result from the
change; and their assessment of any proposals by the Design-Builder or Contractor to mitigate
such risks.
The Responsible Department Director shall sign the Modification Request and indicate their
recommendations. The completed Modification Request shall be provided to the City Manager.
Resolutions -C7 BM
MIAMI BEAC
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Rickelle Williams, Interim City Manager
DATE: June 26, 2024
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, TO "STOP THE PAUSE" BY REQUIRING A 5/7TH VOTE TO
PAUSE, DELAY, STOP, OR MATERIALLY MODIFY A CRITICAL
INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT(AS DEFINED IN THIS RESOLUTION)HAVING AN
ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COST OF $1,000,000 OR MORE THAT IS AT 60%
DESIGN, AND A 6/7TH VOTE TO PAUSE, DELAY, STOP, OR MATERIALLY
MODIFY A CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE PROJECT HAVING AN ESTIMATED
CONSTRUCTION COST OF $1,000,000 OR MORE THAT HAS OBTAINED ALL
PERMITS AND IS SHOVEL-READY, SUBJECT TO EXCEPTIONS FOR
UNFORESEEN SITE CONDITIONS THAT MATERIALLY IMPACT THE COST OF
THE PROJECT, FUNDING LIMITATIONS, AND/OR FUNDING EMERGENCIES.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approving the Resolution.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The City of Miami Beach recognizes the importance of critical infrastructure projects that are
essential to the health, safety, and well-being of its residents, commuters, and visitors. Such
critical infrastructure projects include, by way of example:
• Projects relating to fire flow, stormwater drainage, potable water, and sanitary sewer
projects deemed critical due to the advanced age of pipes or risk of failure.
• Utility projects to replace and/or upgrade systems that are at or near capacity.
• Rehabilitation of City facilities deemed critical for providing services to residents, such as
fire stations,, police stations, and other City facilities.
• Neighborhood improvement projects (NIPS)that have been supported and endorsed by
a majority of residents in the applicable neighborhoods, such as road raising and
harmonization.
It is in the best interest of the City to ensure that such critical infrastructure projects proceed
without unnecessary interruptions or modifications once they have reached advanced stages of
design or are shovel-ready.
The Administration believes it is prudent to establish a higher threshold of approval to pause,
delay, stop, or materially modify critical infrastructure projects at advanced stages to ensure
continuity and completion, while allowing for exceptions in the case of unforeseen site conditions
that materially impact the cost of the project, funding limitations, and/or funding emergencies.
Establishing such higher thresholds of approval to pause, delay,stop or materially modify projects
will also result in substantial cost savings to taxpayers.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Page 1012 of 1862
No fiscal impact.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approving the Resolution.
Applicable Area
Citywide
Is this a "Residents Right to Know" item, Is this item related to a G.O. Bond
pursuant to City Code Section 2-17? Project?
Yes No
Was this Agenda Item initially requested by a lobbyist which, as defined in Code Sec. 2-481,
includes a principal engaged in lobbying? No
If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s)and principal(s): N/A
Department
Public'Works
Sponsor(s)
Commissioner Alex Fernandez
•
Page 1013 of 1862