R7L-Accept Recommendation Food And Beverage Services For MBCCCOMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Approving Option "A"
And Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pursuant To Invitation To Negotiate No. 059-
2013me, For Food And Beverage Services For The Miami Beach Convention Center {ITN), And Authorizing
The Administration To Enter Into Negotiations With The Second And Third Ranked Proposers, Centerplate
And Aramark; Or, In The Alternative, Approving Option "B" And Rejecting All Proposals In Response To The
ITN, And Authorizing The Administration To Include The Provision Of Food And Beverage Services For The
Miami Beach Convention Center As A Component Of The Scope Of Services In The New Convention Center
Management And Operation Agreement Being Negotiated With Global Spectrum.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maximize Miami Beach as a Destination Brand
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: The 2012 Community Satisfaction Survey indicated
that the average attendance last year at the Miami Beach Convention Center was four (4) times , yet 18% of
the residents visited over six (6) times.
Item Summary/Recommendation:
On December 12, 2012, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Invitation to Negotiate
{ITN) No. 059-2013ME For Food and Beverage for the Convention Center {ITN).
ITN No. 059-2013ME was issued on February 4, 2013, with an opening date of March 12th, 2013. A pre-
proposal conference and a site visit to the facility was held on February 13, 2013. Twelve (12) downloaded
from The Public Group. Additionally, the Procurement Division notified 11 additional proposers via e-mail,
which resulted in the receipt of four (4) proposals: Aramark, Centerplate, Ovations, and Levy Restaurant.
On March 4, 2013, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 076-2013, appointed an Evaluation
Committee {the "Committee") which convened on March 26, 2013 to consider proposals received and
interview proposing teams. The Committee discussed its individual perceptions of the proposers'
qualifications, experience, and competence, and further scored and ranked the proposers accordingly. A
motion was presented by Steve Hass and seconded by Ita Moriarty to recommended entering into
negotiations with the three (3) top-ranked proposers: Ovations, Centerplate, and Aramark. Six (6) committee
members were in favor of the motion presented; two (2) committee members, Jeff Lehman and Stuart
Bloomberg, opposed to the motion. The motion passed.
After considering the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, the City Manager also exercised his due
diligence. This review necessarily included his consideration of the conflict of interest issues and their
potential impact, in determining whether or not to recommend the sort-listing of Ovations pursuant to the ITN,
as well as the superior ranking received by Ovations in the process. As such, the City Manager recommends
that the Mayor and the City Commission enter into negotiations with the second and third ranked proposers,
Centerplate, and Aramark, or, in the alternative, that the City Commission reject all proposals in response to
the ITN, and further authorize the Administration to include the provision of food and beverage services for
the Miami Beach Convention Center as a component of the scope of services in the new Convention Center
management and operation agreement being negotiated with Global.
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION
Advisory Board Recommendation:
Financial Information:
Source of Amount
Funds: 1
I I 2
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
AD
MIAMI BEACH 571
Account ~
City Manager
--~------~~~~ --------4 3LN\
AGENOAITE
DATE ~-JJ-!3
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: April17, 2013
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING OPTION "A" AND ACCEPTING THE
RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO INVITATION TO
NEGOTIATE NO. 059-2013ME, FOR FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR
THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER (ITN), AND AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE SECOND AND
THIRD RANKED PROPOSERS, CENTERPLATE AND ARAMARK; OR, IN THE
ALTERNATIVE, APPROVING OPTION "B" AND REJECTING ALL PROPOSALS
IN RESPONSE TO THE ITN, AND AUTHORIZING THE ADMNISTRATION TO
INCLUDE THE PROVISION OF FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER AS A COMPONENT OF THE SCOPE OF
SERVICES IN THE NEW CONVENTION CENTER MANAGEMENT AND
OPERATION AGREEMENT BEING NEGOTIATED WITH GLOBAL SPECTRUM.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Maximize Miami Beach as a Destination Brand
BACKGROUND
The initial term of the agreement with the City's current vendor, Centerplate, to provide food
and beverage services at the Miami Beach Convention Center (Convention Center or MBCC),
expired on September 30, 2012 (the Centerplate Agreement). The Centerplate Agreement
also provides for two (2) five (5) year renewal options, to be exercised at the City's discretion.
In anticipation of the expiration of the initial term of the Centerplate Agreement, the Convention
Center Advisory Board (CCAB) held a discussion at its June 7, 2001 meeting on whether or
not the City should exercise the first five (5) year renewal option under the Agreement, or
issue a new competitive solicitation for food and beverage services for the Convention Center.
The CCAB recommended that the City issue a new Request for Proposals.
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee (FCWPC) also discussed this matter at its
October 27, 2011 meeting. At that time, City staff recommended that, should there be a desire
on the part of the City to exercise the first renewal term under the Centerplate Agreement, it
might be appropriate to consider breaking up the renewal term into shorter terms (For
example, year-by-year terms rather than the one five year term). This way, any potential
performance issues could be more effectively and immediately addressed. The FCWPC
572
Commission Memorandum-ITN # 59-2013ME Food and Beverage for MBCC
April17, 2013
Page2
concurred, and recommended that the City exercise its option to renew the Centerplate
Agreement, for a two (2) year initial renewal term, with three (3) subsequent one (1) year
renewals (all at the City's discretion).
At its December 14, 2011 meeting, the City Commission considered the FCWPC's
recommendation and, following discussion, instead directed the Administration to issue a new
Request for Proposals for food and beverage services at MBCC.
Request for Proposals No. 39-11/12 for Food and Beverage for the Convention Center (the
2012 RFP or the RFP) was issued on April 25, 2012. Two (2) proposals, from Aramark
Corporation and Ovations Food Service, respectively, were received.
On May 22, 2012 and June 7, 2012, respectively, the City received two letters from
Centerplate setting forth the reasons as to why it had chosen not to submit a proposal, and
requesting that the City discontinue the RFP process and renew the Centerplate Agreement
for one ( 1) year. Centerplate's letters essentially alleged that a conflict of interest "tainted" the
RFP process, inasmuch as the City's current manager at the Convention Center, Global
Spectrum, had provided the City with input in the initial stages of the RFP preparation process,
and that Global Spectrum and Ovations Food Service, one of the proposers, were affiliated, in
that they were owned by the same parent company, Comcast Corporation (Note: A more
detailed discussion of the conflict of interest issues alleged by Centerplate, including the City's
analysis and subsequent actions taken to address same, is addressed later in this
Memorandum, under separate heading).
At the September 12, 2012 City Commission meeting, the City Commission adopted
Resolution No. 2012-28006, and exercised its right under the RFP to reject all proposals
received pursuant to the 2012 RFP. Concurrent with the rejection, the Administration
recommended that the Centerplate Agreement be extended, to ensure continuation of service
during peak usage of the Convention Center and to provide the City with sufficient time to draft
and issue a new solicitation and complete that process. The Administration also
recommended that the Mayor and City Commission refer discussion of the new solicitation
process to the Finance and Citywide Projects Committee.
The Finance and Citywide Projects Committee met on November 9, 2012 and discussed the
new solicitation process. The Committee recommended proceeding with the issuance of a new
Request for Proposals which would give proposers the option of responding 1) for the overall
management of the Convention Center; and/or 2) for the provision of catering/concession
services at the Convention Center. At the same time, City staff explored the possibility of
issuing the new solicitation not as a Request for Proposals, but as an Invitation to Negotiate
{ITN), reasoning that the ITN process permits simultaneous negotiations with the selected,
short listed proposers (as opposed to the RFP process, which only permits negotiations with
one proposer at a time). In this regard, it allows for more comprehensive negotiations that can
result in better overall results for the City, and provides needed flexibility for complex
negotiations.
At the December 12 2012 City Commission meeting, the Administration presented a
Resolution seeking authorization to issue an RFP, or an ITN, for the management and
operation of the Miami Beach Convention Center, and/or to provide catering and concession
services for the Convention Center. The City Commission approved the issuance of an ITN,
but limited it to the provision of catering and concession services for the Convention Center.
With regard to the overall management of the Convention Center, the City Commission
directed the Administration to enter into negotiations with the City's current manager, Global
573
Commission Memorandum -ITN # 59-2013ME Food and Beverage for MBCC
April17, 2013
Page 3
Spectrum and, if successful, to bring the proposed new agreement back to the City
Commission, for consideration and approval pursuant to a waiver of competitive bidding.
ITN PROCESS
On December 12, 2012, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of Invitation
to Negotiate No. 059-2013ME For Food and Beverage for the Convention Center (the ITN).
The ITN was issued on February 4, 2013, with an opening date of March 121h, 2013. A pre-
proposal conference and a site visit to the facility was held on February 13, 2013.
Twelve (12) prospective proposers downloaded the solicitation from The Public Group.
Additionally, the Procurement Division notified another eleven (11) additional proposers via e-
mail to expand the pool of prospective proposers. On March 12, 2013 proposals from the
following four (4) firms were received:
1. Aramark;
2. Centerplate;
3. Ovations; and
4. Levy Restaurant.
On March 4, 2013, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No. 076-2013, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
• Stuart Blumberg Chairperson Convention Center Advisory Board;
• Georgie Echert Assistant Director City of Miami Beach Finance Department;
• Steven Haas Chairperson Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau and
Owner of City Hall the Restaurant;
• Ita Moriarty Sr Vice President Convention Sales Greater Miami Convention and
Visitors Bureau and Resident;
• Jeff Lehman General Manager Betsy Hotel and Chairperson of the Miami Beach
Visitor and Convention Authority;
• Kenneth Lyon Owner Operator Lyon and Lyon;
• Cathy RickJoule Southern Regional Manager National Marine Manufacturers
Association Miami International Boat Show;
• Judy Stein Executive Director Swimwear Association of Florida Swim Show; and
• Alex Tonarelli General Manager Loews Miami Beach Hotel.
The City Manager also appointed the following alternate committee member:
• Jeffrey Klein Vice President of Food Beverage Fontainebleau Miami Beach.
The Committee convened on March 26, 2013 to consider proposals received, and interview
proposing teams. The Committee was provided with an overview of the project, information
relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The
Committee was also provided with general information on the scope of services, Performance
Evaluation Surveys, and additional pertinent information from the proposers. Additionally, the
Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the presentation of each proposer.
Stuart Blumberg was unanimously elected as chairperson of the Committee. Committee
member Cathy RickJoule was unable to attend.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation
574
Commission Memorandum -ITN # 59-2013ME Food and Beverage for MBCC
April17, 2013
Page4
criteria established in the ITN, as follows:
Evaluation Criteria/Factors:
Evaluation Criteria
Rroposer Experience & Qualifications and past performance based on
client surveys: (Experience and qualifications of the Proposer in providing
food and beverage concession and catering services in comparable size
facility(ies) (as defined in the ITN); List of events serviced in 2011 for each
comparable size facility; Management team's (including Executive Chef's)
experience and qualifications; and Volume and quality of surveys submitted
by clients. Financial Capability to perform the services outlined in the ITN).
Approach & Methodology: (Staff training/manual procedures; Approach
to customer service and maintenance of quality standards; Proposed plan
to improve food quality and service; Approach to providing/improving
concession services; Ability to provide back-up management expertise on
short notice; Cash control computer system and interfaces to be provided;
and Operational service plan(s)).
Business and Creative Marketing Plan: (Business and marketing plans
as presented for the food and beverage program, including social/gala and
other catering services and concession services; Approach to enhancing
social catering opportunities; Corporate Responsibility Plan and approach
to community integration).
Financial Factors: (Proposed Commissions, Other Financial
Considerations, including Capital Reserve, Marketing Reserve, Capital
Investment, Scholarship Contribution).
Sub-Total Maximum Possible Points:
Weight
Maximum
Roints
35
30
15
20
100
The Committee discussed its individual perceptions of the proposers' qualifications,
experience, and competence, and further scored and ranked the proposers accordingly.
Additional points, over the aforementioned potential points were to be allocated, if applicable in
accordance to following ordinances:
LOCAL PREFERENCE: The Procurement Division may assign an additional five
(5) points to Proposers, which are, or include as part of their proposal team, a
Miami Beach-based vendor as defined in the City's Local Preference Ordinance.
VETERANS PREFERENCE: The Procurement Division may assign an
additional five (5) points to Proposers, which are, or include as part of their
proposal team, a small business concern owned and controlled by a veteran(s)
or a service-disabled veteran business enterprise, as defined in the City's
Veterans Preference Ordinance.
However, none of the proposers were deemed eligible for either of the aforestated
preferences.
575
Commission Memorandum -ITN # 59-2013ME Food and Beverage for MBCC
April 17, 2013
Page 5
FINAL RANKINGS
A motion was presented by Steve Hass and seconded by Ita Moriarty to recommend entering
into negotiations with the three (3) top-ranked proposers: 1 )Ovations; 2)Centerplate; and
3)Aramark. Six (6) committee members were in favor of the motion presented; two (2)
committee members, Jeff Lehman and Stuart Blumberg, opposed the motion. The motion
passed.
Attachment "A" provides an overview of the financial proposal submitted by all proposers.
DISCUSSION OF ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST ISSUES
Following the City's receipt of the two letters from Centerplate (on May 22, 2012 and June 7,
2012, respectively), which initially raised the possibility of a conflict of interest with regard to
the relationship between Ovations, as a proposer to the 2012 RFP (and later to the ITN), and
Global Spectrum, as the City's manager at MBCC, the City Attorney's Office and City
Administration reviewed the issues raised therein.
With respect to the 2012 RFP, the City Attorney's Office and City staff did, in fact, share
Centerplate's concerns with regard to what, if any, participation Global had in the preparation
of the 2012 RFP specifications. Upon further review, the City confirmed that Global did
provide minor input during the preparation of the 2012 RFP. The City Attorney's Office and
City Staff concluded that 1) Global's input was requested at the behest of the City; 2) the input
itself was minor and non-prejudicial; and 3) there was certainly no intent and/or attempt by
Global to influence the process by providing the input (i.e. it was acting at the City's direction).
However, because it was still early enough in the RFP process (proposals had been received
but not yet evaluated), the City Attorney's Office and City Staff recommended that if, in the
interest of full transparency, the City Commission determined that a "course correction" was
appropriate, it would be in the City's best interest now, rather than later, to reject all proposals
and re-issue a new competitive solicitation. Accordingly, the City Commission exercised its
right to reject all proposals received pursuant to the 2012 RFP, and start over with a new
solicitation (which resulted in the issuance of the current ITN).
At that time, as well, in addressing the other conflict of interest issue raised by Centerplate
(that is, the issue of whether or not it was appropriate for Ovations to submit a proposal due to
its affiliation with Global), the City Attorney's Office indicated that, given that concern, it would
be appropriate for Ovations to request an opinion from the Miami-Dade County Ethics
Commission on this issue; particularly, should it seek to bid on any subsequent solicitation that
the City might issue for the MBCC food and beverage service.1
1 Chief Deputy Raul Aguila's subsequent February 20, 2013 e-mail to Ovations, attached as Attachment "B" hereto,
576
Commission Memorandum-ITN # 59-2013ME Food and Beverage for MBCC
April17, 2013
Page 6
In conjunction with its submittal of a proposal in response to the ITN, Ovations did, in fact,
submit its request for an opinion to the Ethics Commission and, on March 20, 2013, the
Commission issued a non-binding, advisory opinion (See Request for Advisory Opinion (RQO)
13-03, attached as Attachment "D" hereto). Having determined that Ovations was an affiliate
of Global Spectrum which, as the City's manager at MBCC, is also contractually charged with
the duty of overseeing and evaluating performance of the MBCC food and beverage contract,
the Ethics Commission concluded, "It is evident from the aforestated facts that, based upon
prior opinions issued by the COE [Commission on Ethics], that there is an inherent conflict of
interest where Global would be supervising, evaluating and overseeing the performance of its
sister affiliate, Ovations." [Brackets supplied].
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
After considering the recommendation of the Evaluation Committee, I have also exercised my
due diligence. This review necessarily included consideration of the conflict of interest issues
discussed above, and their potential impact, in determining whether or not to recommend the
short-listing of Ovations pursuant to the ITN, as well as acknowledging that Ovations was the
number one ranked firm by the Evaluation Committee while the other two (2) firms were a
distant second and third.
There exists a legitimate concern as to whether the relationship between Global Spectrum and
Ovations would create a recurring conflict of interest, and impair (or, at a minimum, create the
appearance of impairing) the objective administration and evaluation of the food and beverage
service contract. Under its current agreement with the City, Global Spectrum is not only
charged with administering, managing, and assuring compliance with the MBCC food and
beverage contract but, more significantly, with the responsibility of providing periodic status
reports as to the food and beverage service vendor's performance, as well as with providing
recommendations for improvements under the food and beverage contract. Because the latter
responsibility requires subjective input and judgment, there is the potential for (or at least the
potential for the appearance of) impaired objectivity. In other words, where Global is required
under its contract with the City to perform tasks (in this case, tasks specifically relating to the
oversight of the food and beverage contract) that require certain objective assessments, can it
be truly objective?
It should be noted, however, that in assessing this concern, and in making the
recommendation herein, at no time should there be any question of either Global's integrity, or
its superlative performance and service as a vendor to the City thus far. That is certainly not
the issue. However, the written opinions of the City Attorney's office with respect to the
conflict of interest, plus the non-binding (but certainly persuasive) opinion of the Miami-Dade
Ethics Commission cannot be ignored. I do note that at the Palm Beach Convention Center,
Global operates the facility and Ovations handles the food and beverage services. But I cannot
get comfortable with the conflict, and certainly cannot recommend that approach to the City
Commission.
notes that, given the City's reliance on a previously issued binding advisory opinion by the Ethics Commission on a
similar conflicts issue (Request for Advisory Opinion (RQO) 08-19, which is also included as part of Attachment
"8"), the City might not have any choice but to disqualify Ovations, should it elect to submit a proposal in response
to a subsequent solicitation. However, upon further communication with counsel for Ovations, and upon being
informed that Ovations intended to submit a request for opinion to the Ethics Commission, but that the Commission
would not be able to hear same until after the ITN opening date, Ovations was ultimately permitted to submit a
proposal in response to the ITN (See Mr. Aguila's March 5, 2013 e-mail to Ovations' counsel, attached hereto as
Attachment "C").
577
Commission Memorandum -ITN # 59-2013ME Food and Beverage for MBCC
April17, 2013
Page 7
If the City Commission is interested in having Ovations, in light of its superior ranking by the
Evaluation Committee, provide the food and beverage services at the Convention Center, the
only way to do that would be to have Global be directly responsible for all of the management
and operation, including the catering and concession services. They could then utilize
Ovations as a subcontractor. But Global would be directly responsible and liable for the food
and beverage operation at the Convention Center.
As such, for the reasons set forth herein, I hereby recommend that the Mayor and the City
Commission enter into negotiations with the second and third ranked proposers, Centerplate,
and Aramark, or, in the alternative, that the City Commission reject all proposals in response
to the ITN, and further authorize the Administration to include the provision of food and
beverage services for the Miami Beach Convention Center as a component of the scope of
services in the new Convention Center management and operation agreement being
negotiated with Global.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida approve Option A and accept the recommendation of the City Manager,
pursuant to Invitation to Negotiate No. 059-2013ME for Food and Beverage for the Convention
Center (ITN), and authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the second and
third ranked proposers, Centerplate, and Aramark; or in the alternative, that the Manager and
City Commission approve option "B," rejecting all proposals in response to the ITN, and further
authorizing the Administration to include the provision of food and beverage services for the
MBCC as a component of the scope of services in the new MBCC management and operation
agreement being negotiated with Global Spectrum.
T:\AGENDA\2013\Aprii17\ITN-59-013ME Food and Beverage MBCC -Memo.doc
578
U'l ....... <0 Capital Investment Three (3) years commencing on or about July 1, 2013, Plus one (1) two (2) year renewal option to be exercised by the mutual agreement of the parties. $750,000 for equipment and leasehold improvements for the term of the contract. If the term expires or the agreement is terminated by either party for any reason prior to the full amortization of the investment, the City shall pay to ARAMARK an amount equal to the unamortized balance of the investment (as ofthe date of termination) on or before such date of expiration or termination. Three (3) years plus a two (2) year mutual option. ,000 into the Food and Beverage operations. Three (3) years commencing on the award date, Plus one (1) two (2) year options to be exercised at the City of Miami Beach's sole discretion. as follows: i) $1,250,000 towards food and beverage capital projects as outlined during the first contract year. 2) $250,000 into a one time marketing fund (in addition to the required marketing accrual). Investment will require industry standard buy-back protection in case of early termination for any reason. ) years commencing on the award date, Plus one (1) hvo (2) year extension option at the mutual agreement of both parties $800,000 toward capital foodservice projects; to be mutually agreed upon. The Investment will be amortized and for depreciated on a three-year schedule from tile date of the term, deployment, or installation whichever is later. If the agreement expires or terminates for any reason whatsoever, prior to the amortization of the investment, the unamortized portion will be reimbursed to Ceterplate by the City of the successor concessionaire. Three (3) years commencing on the award date, plus one (1) two (2) year extension option at the mutual agreement of both parties. $800,000 toward capital foodservice projects; to be mutually agreed upon. The Investment will be amortized and !or depreciated on a three-year schedule from the dale of the term, deployment, or installation whichever is later. If the agreement expires or terminates for any reason whatsoever, prior to the amortization ofthe investment, the unamortized portion will be reimbursed to Ceterplate by the City of the successor concessionaire.
U'l 00 0 Commission Rates ARAMARK wi:l pay commissions to the City in accordance with the below commission schedule. Ail Gross Receipts (as defined below) t!er levels for commission calculations set forth herein wiil be increased at the end of each contract year in accordance with the applicable Consumer Price Index. Aggregate (Commissions & Catering) Annual Gross Receipts Commission Rate $0-$4,000,000 28% $4,000,001 -$5,000,000 30'?~ (on the increment) $5,000,001 -$6,000,000 32% (on the increment) $6,000,001 -$7,000,000 34% (on the increment) $7,000,001 -$8,000,000 36% (on the increment) Over $6,000,000 38% (on the increment) ,"Jotwithstanding the terms and conditions set forth herein, ifthe City desires a minimum commission guarantee, ARAMARK welcomes the opportunity to discuss a minimum commission guarantee and financial arrangement that would be mutually acceptable to ARl\MARK and the City. Revenue Share Compensation: City to receive the following Revenue Share Compensaiions: Ail Sales $0 -$6,000,000 25.0% $6,000,001 -$8,000,000 27.5% (on the increment) Greater than $8,000,000 30.0% (on the increment) Guaranteed minimum of $1,500,000 will Gross Receipts from food and Base Management Fea be pa!d at the close of each year should beverage Centerplate shall receive a Base commissions on gross sales paid to the Zero $4,000,000 20.0% \11anagement Fee i .0% of Gross City of Miami Beach not exceed th!s $4,000,001 $5,000,000 25.0% Receipts during each contract amount. If for any reason the show Art $5,000,001 $6,000,000 30.0% year, payable in twelve monthly Basei-M!ami Beach shall cease to be $6,000,001 $7,000,000 35.0% instal!ments. hosted at the Miami Beach Convention $7,000,001 $8,000,000 36.0% Center, Ovations reser1es the right to $8,000,001 sg,ooo,ooo 37.0% Incentive Fee negotiate an adjustment commensurate $9,000,001 and greater 38.0% Centerplate's Incentive with the show's value to food ser1ices Management Fee shall equal Commissions-Percentage of 5.0% of the Net Operating Profit, Concessions Food and Alcohol Gross Receipts payable in 12 monthly Beverages Calculated on the increment and insta!!ments. $0-$660,000.00 26% all tiers as shown are adjusted by $660,001 -$990,000 27.5% CP! Net Operating Profits: Gross $990,001 and up 29% Receipts less the actual out-of-Catering Food, Non Alcohol and [1 J Centerplate proposes the pocket costs of the food and Alcohol Beverages same percentage rent for branded beverage concession and catering $0 • $2,320,000 26% foods as the rates for Concession services from the total Gross $2,320,001 -$3,480,000 27.5% Food and Beverage, provided the Receipts. These costs include but $3,480,001 and up 29% commissions due to the City are are not limited to the actual Catering Supplemental Fee (Service decreased dollar for dollar for the expense of the product, on-site Charge) royalty fee (typically at 5.0% to payroll, payroll taxes, fringe $0-$360,000 26% 6.0% of sales) associated with benefits, depreciation of $360,001 -$540,000 27.5% the branded food concepts. investment as outlined above, on-$540,001 and up 29% site operating expenses such as Net Paid to Ovations From repair and maintenance, cleaning, Subcontractors office supplies, advertising and $0 -$248,000 65% marketing, Reserve Funds, $248,001 -$372,000 68.75% Scholarships and Management $372,001 and up 72"50% Fee as out!ined above.
U'l 00 ~ Reserve Funds Marketing Scholarship • Capital Reserve Fund: ARAMARK I 1.5% cf All Sales proposes to contribute an amount equal to 1% of annual Gross Receipts to a capital reserve fund for the repair, maintenance and replacement of food and beverage service equipment, small wares, and other leasehold improvements directly associated with the Ser<ices. fviarketing Fund: ARAMARK proposes to I 1.0% cf Catering Sales contribute an amount equal to 1% of annual Gross Receipts to a marketing fund for the marketing and promotion of the Services at the Facility. ARL>,MARK proposes to contribute $20,000 annually to the City of Miami Beach Scholarship Fund. Additionally, ARAMARK proposes to contribute $30,000 annually as follows: • $20,000 to the Miami Beach High AOHT-Hospitality/Tourism department • $10,000 annual to multiple Miami Beach Senior living Facilities SiO,OOO per year Annuai Capital Reserve Fund As a % of Gross Receipts i .5% Annuai Marketing Reser.;e Fund As a %of Gross Receipts 1.5% • Annual Hospitaiity Scholarship Fund $20,000 Note: The City has the option to utilize the additional $250,000 marketing grant in any way it deems. A community grant can be establIshed using a portion of or ali of these funds and should be weighed in final bid evaluation. Percentage of Gross Receipts In order to maximize the visitor and Percentage of Gross Receipts In order to maximize the visitor customer's experience at the and customer's experience at the Center, we believe an annual food Center, we be!ieve an annual food and beverage capital and beverage capita! reinvestment program and a reinvestment program and a promotional program is prudent: promotional program is prudent; scope and nature to be mutually scope and nature to be mutually agreed upon by both parties. agreed upon by both parties. Centerplate is proposing to fund a Centerplate is proposing to fund a Capita! Repair and Replacement Capital Repair and Replacement Reserve as per the RFP, and Reser<e as per the RFP, and Marketing and Promotional Marketing and Promotional Reserve based on percentage of Reserve based on percentage of the Gross Receipts as fo!lows: the Gross Receipts as follows: • Capital Repair and Replacement'• Capital Repair and Replacement Reserve 0.5% Reserve 0.5% Marketing and Promotional Reserve* 1.0% Marketing and Promotional Reserve* 1.0% *The Marketing and Promotional ,. The Marketing and Promotional Reserve shall be the greater of Reserve shall be the greater of $20,000 or 1.0% of Gross $20,000 or 1.0% of Gross Receipts, Centerplate proposes to contribute $20,000 per annum towards a scholarship fund (the "Scholarship Fund") for qualifying in-need Miami Beach residents pursuing a career in facility management and/or the hospitality and tourism industry Receipts. Centerplate proposes to contribute $20,000 per annum toward a scholarship fund (the "Scholarship Fund") for qualifying in-need Miami Beach residents pursuing a career in facility management and! or the hospitality and tourism industry.
U'l 00 f\) Notes Gross Receipts 1. All Sales shall refer to the total As used herein, "Gross Receipts" shall amount of money received by levy in mean the total revenue received by conjunction with the operations of ARM•1ARK from its provision of the Food and Beverage services, Services at the Facility less (a) sales including the net amount received by taxes and other direct taxes imposed levy from subcontractors and upon receipts collected from consumers, specifically excluding sales and other (b) creditidebitigift card transaction fees taxes, credit card fees, amounts not and charges, (c) discounted sales, (d) received from bad debts or cash sales by subcontractors, (e) shortages, discounted sales, gratuity administrative charges, and (f) and service charges. gratuities paid to employees. The portion Z. The Investment shall be of revenue received by ARAI'v1!\RK from on a straight-line basis subcontractors will be included in Gross aver five (5) years, and should the Receipts. Agreemertt terminate for any reason, the unamortized portion of the Investment shall be reimbursed to Levy. 3. This proposal assumes full operational capabilities throughout the Terrn. Should the Convention Center larnpomri!y be closed for renovation, both parties will mutually agree in good faith upon a revised economic modeL 4. Sales Tiers shall increase annually by the CPl. 5. This proposal assumes levy is provided a Tum-Key Facility throughout the Term. Ovations has reviewed the terms and conditions included in the RFP. Recognizing that now is not the appropriate time to negotiate the final agreement, Ovations wishes to reserve the right to mc;JOtiete the terms end conditions of the food and baverage agreement if it is selected by the Miami Beach Convention Center as the successful bidder.
U'l 00 w Other Considerations • The above commissions for the food and beverage services shall be paid as a percentage of Gross Receipts (total revenues less sales or other taxes, service charges/catering supplemental fees, employees meals and reduced or at cost items). Gross Receipts wiil include the amount received by Ovations from third party subcontractors and not the gross receipts generated by the subcontractors. • Ovations proposes the same percentage commission for branded foods as rates for concession food and beverage sales provided the commissions are decreased dollarfor dollar for the royalty fee (typically 5-6% of sales) associated with the branded food concepts. There are no royalty fees on Ovations' intemaliy created brands. Hurricane/Natural Disaster/Emergency Ovations agrees to all of the terms and services required as outlined in the ITN. Our plan for Hurricane!Natural Disaster/Emergency is included in our response.
Aguila, Raul
w
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject:
Attachments:
Importance:
Dear Mr. Lawrence:
Attachment "B"
Aguila, Raul
Wednesday, February 20, 2013 12:33 PM
'charles.lawrence@ovationsfs.com'
Smith, Jose; Sklar, Max; Denis, Alex; Estevez, Maria
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE 059-2013-ME/ FOOD AND
BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER (the ITN)
ATTODamE_Opinion_2013-02-20_11-37-03.pdf
High
I was advised by Asst. City Manager Max Sklar that a representative of Ovations attended the Proposer's Conference on
February 13, 2013.
Again, as with Ovations' submittal of a proposal in response the City's prior Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
Convention Center food and beverage contract (which RFP, as you know, was rescinded by the City), it is still the
City's opinion that, given Ovations' continuing "sister company" affiliation with the City's current manager for the
Convention Global Spectrum, such relationship creates an inherent conflict of interest. This is especially true
where Global is charged (as of its contractual duties under its Management Agreement with the City) with
administering, managing, and assuring compliance with the Convention Center food and beverage contract. This also
includes, without limitation, making periodic reports and recommendations to the City with regard to the food and
beverage contractor's performance and quality standards.
The City's opinion is supported by the precedent set in the attached Miami Dade County Commission on Ethics
Opinion. As in the attached opinion, were Ovations to submit a proposal in response to the above referenced ITN, a
significant conflict of interest would exist if Ovations were to be awarded the contract in that its affiliated company,
Global, would be tasked with the responsibility of overseeing and supervising Ovations.
In keeping with the Ethics Commission's recommendation in the attached opinion that "certain contractual
arrangements create an inherent conflict of interest and should be determined prior to award," were Ovations' to
submit a proposal in response to the current ITN, the City would-absent other authority-have no choice but
to disqualify such proposal from consideration. That being said, we have consistently urged Ovations on numerous
occasions--following the rescission of the prior RFP and prior to issuance of this ITN-that should it wish to obtain
another opinion, it may request a formal opinion from the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission, as to
whether (given the specific facts in this case) Ovations may submit a proposal in response to the ITN. However, so as
not to unnecessarily delay and/or hinder the City's timeline, as set forth in the ITN, such opinion must be requested and
issued by the Commission PRIOR to the proposal submittal deadline in the ITN, or no later than March 6, 2013.
Please don't hesitate to e-mail me should you have any questions and/or comments regarding the above.
Thank you.
MIAMIBEACtl
Aguila, Chief Deputy City Attorney
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
1700 Convention Center Drive-Fourth Floor, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7470 or 305-673-7000 I Fax: 305-673-7002 I www.raulaquila@miamibeachfl.gov
584
~TH£CSCOMMISSIONJ1lRS
Kerry E. :Riltfillllu!l., Clullr:plli'IIOII
l>liiWii E. Addy, Vke Ckairpci'SI}Il
.Magdi!Abdo-Gloiilllll
Re~ne Mo11esll!ile
&ymllll!'Gelber
ROBEtn A. ME:\'Erul
l!XECIJ'l'IVE lliiii:CTOR
MlC~AELP. MtJRAWSKI
A!!VOCA'I'!
AMVT.U WALKER
STAfF «lEI!EIIAI.COUN5EL
VIA FACSIMILE (305) 461-3383
AND :REGULAR MAIL
April 25, 2008
Leah Miller
Art, Design and Construction, Inc.
4111 LeJeune
Coral Gables, FL 33146 " " ··. ·• ·
FOR ADVISORY
Dear Ms. Miller:
·· The Commission on Ethics and Publ Trust
your request for an,advisory
opinion at its meeting on April 24, 2ooe and
its opinion on the
in your letter.
You requested an opinion regarding whether
Art, Design and Construction (ADC) may bid on
a construction contract where a
company performed des work.
In your , you advised the Commission
that the Seaport Department reaently issued a
solicitation a construction contract
a at Cruise Terminal D. The
project a story parking garage and
includes sidewalks, roadways, signage,
utility connections, landscaping and
Bruno-Elias Ramos is the principal of Art,
Design Construction (AOC) and Sruno~El
(BEA) . BEA currently has a
contract with the Seaport to provide Capital
Development ~ursuant to that
agreement, BEA was with the
585
f /
I
responsibil providing design
for two parking garages including the parking
garage for Cruise D. The scope of
work under work includes bidding
and negotiating services for construction
. As Engineer for the
project, BEA will
construction phase project.
The Commission found ADC may not serve as
construction company on a eat a
is serving as Engineer of Record
on the project and will provide bidding 1
.negot and construction phase
on the project. Ethics Commisa
· · ·:previously opined ·t·hat:. "a firm may not
services where an liate1 or
subsidiary firm ·will provide oversight,
management or selection services related to
the contract.
In a series of opinions, the Ethics
Commission has opined that certain
contractual arrangements an inherent
confl of and should be
to award. For example, a conflict
exists if a contractor has overlapping
ities on different phases of the
same project (i.e. AE on one of
project as value , .CIS or
CM on another of
supervisor or
project subcontractor on or
related phase or project) .
conflict may exist if
roles or responsibilities two related
. These arrangements create conflict
they lead to disclosure of
ial information
independent judgment by the contractor the
its contractual obligations.
BEA and ADC a common management. In
feot, ADC serves as the construction arm of
EEA. As such, potent
conflict where one company
is tasked li of
586
' '
1 ...
evaluating construction bids and
iaipating on a contract
whe~e the other firm is bidding on
cont~aot. any potential conflict
will continue award since BEA has
construction phase responsibilities
capital development contract. Aooordingly,
ADC may not ·serve as construction company for
the Cruise Terminal D Parking
contract,
This opinion construes the MiamiwDade
conflict .Interest and Code of Ethics
ordinance only and is not applicable to any
conflict tmder state' law. contact the
· , .. ··State· of F:lodda: ·Comm:l:srsion on Ethics· if ycnr
have any questions regarding
.conflicts under state law.
If have any regarding this
opinion, please call undersigned at (305)
· 5'79~2594 Ardyth Walker, Staff General
Counsel at (3·05) 350·0616'.
Sincerely Yours~
' ,..,, '
..... [. 1 v[_,_,ft. ' ·----·-
ROBERT MEYERS
Executive Director
oc: Maria Cerna, Seaport
587
Attachment "C"
Raul
From: Aguila, Raul
Sent:
To:
Tuesday, March 05, 2013 4:24 PM
'Benedict P. Kuehne'
Subject: RE: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE 059-2013-ME/ FOOD AND
BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER (the ITN)
Dear Mr. Kuehne:
I appreciated the opportunity to speak with you today regarding your e-mail of February 27, 2013. Notwithstanding,
the concerns cited by the City in my 2/20/13 e-mail (that is, the City's concern that, should Ovations be recommended
for award pursuant to the ITN, there may be an inherent, recurring conflict of interest as a result of its sister company,
Global Spectrum, being charged with the duty of managing the Convention Center food and beverage contract), it is not
our intent to preclude Ovations from participating in this competitive bidding process.
Thank you,
Raul Aguila
I J. Aguila, Chief Deputy Attorney
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
1700 Convention Center Drive -Fourth Floor, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7470 or 305-673-7000 f Fax: 305-673-7002 I www.raulagulla@miamlbeachf!.gov
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work and play In aur vibrant, tropical, historic community.
from: Benedict P. Kuehne [mailto:Ben.Kuehne@kuehnelaw.com]
Sent: friday, March 01, 2013 11:20 AM
To: Aguila, Raul
Subject: RE: CITY OF MIAMI BEACH INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE 059·2013-ME/ FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR
THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER (the ITN)
Raul-
Thank you for your email. I am generally available most of today (Friday) for a telephone conference. l do intend to attend
a Judicial Investiture at the Miami-Dade Courthouse from Noon to about 2 pm.
Benedict P. Kuehne
Law Office of Benedict P. Kuehne, P.A.
100 S.E. 2d Street, Suite 3550
Miami, FL 33131-2154
305.789.5989 x7 Tel
305.789.5987 Fax
ben.kuehne@kuehnelaw.com
bkuehne@bellsouth. net www. kuehnelaw.com
from: Aguila, Raul [mailto:Rau!Aguila@miamibeachfl.gov]
Sent: Wednesday, February 27 1 2013 4:34PM
To: Benedict P. Kuehne
Cc: Sklar, Max; Denis, Alex; Estevez, Maria; Smith, Jose; 'TOM.MARCHffiO@OVATIONSFS.COM'; 'Charles Lawrence'
RE: CITY Of MIAMI BEACH INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE 059-2013-ME/ FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR
THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER (the ITN)
1
588
Dear Mr. Kuehne:
Thank you for your e-mail. I too regret that we have been playing phone tag, and would welcome the opportunity to
speak with you personally on this matter.
I am tied up today and tomorrow with our Convention Center expansion/renovation project. Is there a convenient time
that we can speak more about the ITN (and Ovations' proposed bid in response thereto) sometime on Friday?
Please let me know of your availability.
Thanks,
Raul
MIAMI BEACH
Raul J. Aguila, Chief Deputy City
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
1700 Convention Center Drive-Fourth Floor, Miami Seach, Fl33139
Tel: 305-673-7470 or 305-673-7000 I Fax: 305-673-7002 I www.raulaguila@miamibeachfl.gov
We are comm/Ued to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work and ploy In our vibrant, tropical, historic community.
From: Benedict P. Kuehne [mailto:Ben.Kuehne@kuehnelaw.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 2013 3:23AM
To: Aguila, Raul
Cc: Sklar, Max; Denis, Alex; Estevez, Maria; Smith, Jose; 'TOM.MARCHETTO@OVATIONSFS.COM'; 'Charles Lawrence'
......... ,~-..... CITY OF MIAMI BEACH INVITATION TO NEGOTIATE 059-2013-ME/ FOOD AND BEVERAGE SERVICES FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER (the ITN)
J. Aguila, Chief City Attorney
Office City
City Miami
1700 Convention Center
33139
Raul,
I been recently engaged as counsel Ovations Food Services in connection
with its response to the City's ITN # 059-2013ME for the management and
provision of food and beverage services at the Miami Beach Convention Center. I
have left a number of phone messages for you over the past few days, but we have
not yet connected to discuss pending matters. Thus, I am corresponding in writing.
2
589
Ovations received your February 20 1 2013 email and your follow up email dated
February 21, each of which was addressed to Charles Lawrence. Your February
20th email notified Ovations that it is the City's opinion there is an "inherent
conflict of interest" in any bid to be submitted by Ovations in response to the
ITN. This opinion is apparently based· on the fact that Global Spectrum, a
separate but related company to Ovations, manages the Convention Center. Your
email suggested that Ovations must request from the Miami-Dade County
Commission on Ethics & Public Trust a formal opinion as to whether Ovations may
submit a bid in response to the ITN, and further required that the opinion must be
requested and issued by the Ethics Commission prior to the proposal deadline of
March 6. Your February 20th email was the first formal notification Ovations
received of the City's position on this matter. Your February 21 email then
extended the period by which you are requiring Ovations to obtain the opinion to
March 11.
First, Ovations does not believe any conflict of interest exists. Rather, it is
Ovations' considered opinion that one of its competitors has suggested a conflict in
an attempt to eliminate Ovations from bidding for the contract, thus giving this
competitor an advantage in the bid process. This attempt to limit competition only
harms the City and defeats the purpose of soliciting competitive bids. The facts of
this matter are easily distinguishable from those on which the 2008 opinion-the
one cited in your emails to Mr. Lawrence -was decided. In fact, Global Spectrum
currently manages over 10 facilities at which Ovations provides the food and
beverage service, including the Palm County Convention Center. Concerns
of a conflict have never been raised or materialized at any of these facilities.
Second, it is unreasonable for Ovations to be required to secure an opinion merely
to participate in the I'rN application process. No part of the ITN requires a conflict
of interest opinion as a precondition to applying. Nor any provision in Miami
Beach's procurement require an advance conflict opinion merely as a
qualification to apply or submit a bid.
Nevertheless, in order to alleviate any concerns the City may have, Ovations is in
the process seeking an opinion from the Ethics Commission. We are currently in
the process of drafting the Request for an Opinion to submit to the Commission
this week. The timing of the Commission's response and opinion is out of our
hands, however. It is unlikely the Commission will be in a position to issue any
formal opinion prior to your March 11 deadline, since no March Commission
meeting has yet been set. The Commission's timing is a matter for its own exercise
of governmental authority, and one which Ovations cannot be held responsible.
If the Commission requires a public hearing for issuance of a formal opinion (as is
its standard practice for requests for an opinion), that can only occur at a
3
590
scheduled public hearing that has not yet been set or noticed. Ovations does not
have the power to require the Commission alter established method of
responding to opinion requests, nor to expedite timetable for responding. Thus,
your requirement that an opinion issued prior to March 11 effectively bars
Ovations from responding. We do not see the merits, or authority, in mandating
such an arbitrary deadline -one that is well in advance the date on which
determination to award the contract will be made. It certainly not included as a
requirement of the ITN. Therefore, we ask you to reconsider your self-imposed
deadline and allow Ovations to submit its bid together with our request for a
Commission on Ethics opinion.
In sum, Ovations intends to submit a competitive bid to manage and provide the
food and beverage service the Center. Prior to bid submission, Ovations intends
to request an opinion from the Ethics Commission regarding the alleged
conflict. We expect that our bid will be considered on its merits, and look forward
to receiving from the City a fair opportunity to have our bid received and
evaluated.
Respectfully submitted,
Benedict Kuehne
Benedict P. Kuehne
Law Office of Benedict P. Kuehne, P.A.
1 00 S. E. 2d Street, Suite 3550
Miami, FL 33131-2154
305.789.5989 x7 Tel
305.789.5987 Fax
ben. kueh ne@kuehne!aw .com
bkuehne@bellsouth.net www.kuehnelaw.com
591
4
March 20,2013
Benedict P. Kuehne, Esq.
Miami Tower, Suite 3550
1 00 2nd Street
131-2154
Re: RQO 13-03
Attachment "D"
MIAMI-DADE COUNTY
COMMISSION ON ETHICS & PUBLIC TRUST
Request Advisory Opinion on behalf of
Ovations Food Services LP
Dear Mr. Kuehne:
You have requested an advisory opinion from the Miami-Dade Commission on Ethics and Public
Trust (COE) in connection with the bid of your client, Ovations Food Services LP ("Ovations"),
to City of Miami Beach Invitation to Negotiate the Food Beverage Services contract for the
Miami Beach Convention Center (ITN-059-2013-ME). This request has been made upon the
suggestion of the City of Miami Beach Attorney's Office to Ovations in connection with its
intent to bid on. the aforesaid contract. The basis of the request is to seek, an advisory opinion
the COE concerning whether your client may participate in this contract considering that its
sister company, Global Spectrum LP (''Global"), is the holder of the existing contract for the
management Convention Center.
We have reviewed your letter supporting documentation submitted on behalf ofyom· client's
position that there is no prohibited conflict of interest You have taken the position that the two
companies, while sharing a substantially common ownership, are corporations with
separate management, and, therefore, there should not be any prohibited conflict of interest in
connection with their involvement i~ the two contracts in question.
The City of Miami Beach Attorney's Office has opined that there is an inherent conflict of
interest inasmuch as Global is charged, pursuant to duties under management
contract with the City, with "administering, managing, and assuring compliance with the
Convention Center food and beverage contract," which "includes, without limitation, making
periodic reports and recommendations to the with regatd to the food and beverage
cont1:actor's perfom1ance and quality standards."
592
In support of its position, the has relied upon a prior COB opinion (RQO 08~19), which
cited prior COB opinions for the proposition that "a finn may not provide services where an
affiliate, parent or subsidiary firm will provide oversight, management or selection services
related to the contract" '
It is clear that Ovations is an affiliate of Global because of the common o\.vnershlp they share.
Based upon the organizational chart provided materials submitted by you on behalf of
Ovations, Comcast Spectacor Ventures, LLC (PA) owns 81.76% of Ovations and 94.0625% of
Global. Additionally, two other subsidiaries of Comcast Spetacor Ventures --Ovations Food
Inc. (PA) and Global Spectrum, Inc. (P A)--each have a minor share .in one of the two
subsidiaries involved in this scenario. Comcast Spectacor Ventures, LLC (P A) is itself the
subsidiary ofthe parent company, Comcast Specacor, L.P. (PA) to the extent of95% ofits value.
It is evident from the aforesaid facts that, based upqn prior opinions issued by the COB; that
there is an inherent conflict of interest where Global would be supervising, evaluating and
overseeing the performance of sister affiliate, Ovations.
This opinion is a non-binding advisory opinion issued in response to your request and that of the
City of Miami Beach. For the COB to exercise binding authority over the issue of whether your
client, a private contractor, may be awarded this contract, one of three conditions would have to
be present: 1) the issue involving the private contractor or subcontractor is explicitly subject to
the Miami-Dade Conflict of Interest and Code of Ethics Ordinance ("the Ordinance"); 2) the
ITN(or RFP or RFQ), or the terms of the proposed contract or subcontract explicitly provide the
COE with the authority to make a binding determinatibn of the presented; or 3) pursuant to
Section 2-11.1(13) of the Ordinance, the contract staff of the private contractor or subcontractor
has been designated by the Manager or the Manager's designee as being required to comply with
the provisions of the Ordinance denoted in the latter section. Inasmuch as none of the aforesaid
conditions is applicable in this instance, the COE is unable to provide a binding opinion on this
matter.
This opinion does not address whether any conflict exists under state law. Please contact the
State of Florida Commission on Ethics if you have any questions regarding. possible ,conflicts
under state law.·
~ ' u have any questions regarding this opinion, please call the undersigned or Senior Staff
1 Attotney Victoria Frigo at 305-579-2594.
cc: Raul Aguila, Assistant City Attorney, City of Miami Beach
RQO 13-03 Kuehne, on behalf of Ovations 2
593
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
594