C7N-Accept Revised Recommendation Unarmed Security Guard Servicesl..:UMMI:S:SIUN II tM :SUMMAKY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida Accepting The
Recommendation Of The City Manager To Reject All Proposals Received Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP)
No. 01-2013ME For Unarmed Security Guard Services; Authorizing A Month· To-Month E-xtension With The Current
Contractor; And Requesting The Administration To Submit A New RFP For_~proval To Issue On December 11, 2013.
Ke Intended Outcome Su orted:
Increase resident rating of public safety services; and maintain crime rates at or below national rates.
Since April2, 2007, the City has been under contract agreement No.34-05/06 with Security Alliance LLC (Security Alliance),
to provide Unarmed Security-Guard Services at locations around the City, as shown in Appendix "A". The-current contract
also allows for as-needed security guard services City-wide. The provision of security guard services City-wide is managed by
the Police Department. The contract was set to expire on April 30, 2012. However, at its July 18, 2012, the City Commission
approved a month-to-month extension of the contract to allow for time to rebid the services.
On December24, 2012, RFP No. 01-2013ME was issued with an opening date of March 1, 2013. The Evaluation Committee
convened on May 17, 2013 to evaluate proposals received and shortlist the proposers forfurtherconsideration in accordance
with the criteria set forth in the RFP. The Committee shortlisted five (5) top-ranked companies for further consideration
through presentations and interviews: G4S Secure Solutions, McRoberts Protective Agency, 50 State Security, Allied Barton,
and Kent Security.
On June 24, 2-Q13, the Evaluation Committee met to receive presentations from the short-listed firms. Details of the
Evaluation Committee recommendation are included in the attached memo. However, after carefully reviewing the RFP
requirements and the results of the Committee evaluation process, the City Manager finds that the Committee may have
acted outside of its authority {as dictated by the RFP). Additionally, the City Manager also finds as follows:
1. Cost. The costs proposed .by the top-ranked proposers exceed the City's current rates, as well as the rates paid by
Miami-Dade County.
2. RFP. The RFP released may have contained some irregularities and lack of clarity in the minimum requirements,
which may have caused confusion, prevented some bidders from participating, or prevented a thorough evaluation
of respondents. For example, addendums had to be issued clarify licensure requirements which, at one point, listed
Class D Licenses issued by the State of Florida, which are only required by armed security guards, although the
RFP was clearly for unarmed security guards. Additionally, the RFP asked that proposers submit their Standard &
Poor's (S & P) or Moody's ratings, which are only available for publically traded companies. For non-publically
traded companies, the RFP required financial statements to be submitted, which had to be evaluated by City staff
and represent only a small, somewhat subjective, perspective of financial capacity rather than the more
comprehensive and objective perspective available through a D & B Supplier Qualifier Report (currently utilized by
the City for evaluating, in part, financial capacity).
3. Scoring of Costs. The City has moved to an objective methodology for evaluating cost proposals that removes
subjectivity and inconsistencies by Evaluation Committee members. However, this RFP was issued prior to those
changes. As a result, it appears that certain inconsistencies may have arisen from a subjective evaluation of cost by
Evaluation Committee members.
Based on the aforementioned, the City Manager believes it is in the best interest of the City to reject all proposals received
and release a subsequent RFP for security guard services after considering revisions to the solicitation for the issues noted
above, including possible reasons for the higher rates.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida accept the revised
recommendation of the City Manager to reject all proposals received pursuant to request for proposals (RFP) No. 01-2013ME
for unarmed security guard services; further authorizing a month-to-month extension with the current contractor; and submit a
revised RFP for a roval to issue on December 11, 2013.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
INA
Financial Information·
Source of
Funds:
Amount
1 N/A
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
City Clerk's Office Legislative Tracking:
Alex Denis, Extension 6641
Sign-Offs:
,-~partment Director
N/A
Assistant C~Manager
KGB .#If) v
Account
JLM / ~
I
T:\AGEI llf1A\2013\0ctober 16\Procurement\RFP-01-2013 ME Unarmed Security -Summary.doc
MIAMI BEACH 378
AGENDA ITEM C 7 f./
DATE /0-/6-/3
-----------------------
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Me bers of th4kity Commission
FROM: Jimmy L Morales, City Manager .J;:sa--
DATE: October 16, 2013
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAY AND CITY ..COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCE TING THE REVISED RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PURSUAN TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO.
01-2013ME, FOR UNARMED SECURITY GUARD SERVICES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Increase resident rating of public safety services; and maintain crime rates at or below national
rates
FUNDING
The annual cost associated with City-wide security guard services is subject to funds
availability approved through the annual budgeting process. The funding and accounts for
the FY 2014 are appr-oximately $3,153,000.00.
BACKGROUND
Since April 2, 2007, the City has been under contract agreement No.34-05/06 with Security
Alliance LLC (Security Alliance), to provide Unarmed Security Guard Services at locations
around the City, as shown in Appendix "A". The current contract also allows for as-needed
security guard services City-wide. The provision of security guard services City-wide is
managed by the Police Department. The contract was set to expire on April 30, 2012.
However, at its July 18, 2012, the City Commission approved a month-to-month extension of
the contract to allow for time to rebid the services.
On December 24, 2012, RfP No. 01-2013ME was issued with an opening date of March 1,
2013. The RfP resulted in the receipt of the following twelve proposals:
1. 50 State Security Service, Inc
2. Allied Barton Security Services
3. FPI Security Services
4. G4S Secure Solutions (USA) Inc.
5. Kent Security
6. McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc.
7. Navarm Group Lld. Inc.
8. Ocasa Logistics Solutions
9. Platinum Group Security
10. Responsible Security Inc.
11. SFM Security
12. US Security
On April 18, 2013, the City Manager via Letter to Commission {LTC) No. 135-2013, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") for the purpose of evaluating the proposals
379
Commission Memorandum -RFP # 01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
October 16, 2013
Page2
received in accordance with the criteria established in the RFP. Subsequent to the
appointment of the Committee and resulting from scheduling and other conflicts experienced
by certain Committee members, changes to the Committee composition were required which
resulted in the final list of Committee members:
• Mickey Minagorri, Committee Chair, Resident and Leadership Academy
Graduate
• John Bowes, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
• Tony Kanieswski, Director, Property Management, City of Miami Beach
• Julio Magrisso, Assistant Director, Parks and Recreation Department, City of
Miami Beach
• Michael Silverman, Resident and Leadership Academy Graduate
The Committee convened on May 17, 2013 to evaluate proposals received and shortlist the
proposers for further consideration in accordance with the criteria set forth in the RFP as
follows: ·~~~~~~~~~~~~~~========~~~~==~~~=-~~~ ;iJff6ta 1 :,;~oints: ~ • ·~~,;~2•i;~J1~~!~1~1tiii;!!Iitlii:fUlt,!,l!l3jl~IJ!ili\19rH¢tJtitiil!/i1iBH;xJ:;;f:~ist~i~;:: :~, 'i: ,:::;>2': ;:;
35
20
10
10
Experience and qualifications of the Contractor
Experience and qualifications of the Management Team
Past performance based on Performance Evaluation Surveys
Financial Strength as evidenced by the CPA reviewed/audited
financial statements, third-party reports.
25 Cost
Additional points, over the aforementioned potential points were to be allocated, if applicable
and in accordance to following ordinances.
LOCAL PREFERENCE: The Procurement personnel assigned 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. Two (2) proposers, G4S Secure Solutions
and SFM Security, were eligible for Local preference.
VETERANS PREFERENCE: The Procurement personnel assigned 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. Two (2) proposers, 50
State Security Service, Inc. and McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc., were eligible for Veterans
preference.
380
Commission Memorandum -RFP # 01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
October 16, 2013
Page3
The Committee individually evaluated the proposers' qualifications, experience, and
competence, and further scored and ranked the proposers accordingly. The Committee's
preliminary rankings pursuant to the proposal evaluation short-listing phase were as follows:
Following the initial evaluation of proposals, the Committee recommended shortlisting the five
(5) top-ranked companies for further consideration through presentations and interviews: G4S
Secure Solutions, McRoberts Protective Agency, 50 State Security, Allied Barton, and Kent
Security.
On June 24, 2013, the Committee met to receive presentations from the short-listed firms.
After presentations and question and answer sessions with each firm, the Committee
individually scored each firm on the criteria outlined in the RFP as a basis for deliberations.
The Committee's preliminary rankings after the presentations and Q&A session were as
follows:
Following the preliminary scoring of presentations and Q&A session, the Committee
deliberated extensively on individual perceptions of the proposers' qualifications, experience,
and competence. In deliberating the Committee discussed, in general, the following
advantages and disadvantages of each proposal. The Committee discussed that G4S Security
Solution offered the highest quality proposal overall, but had submitted the highest cost out of
the five (5) shortlisted proposers. The Committee discussed that Kent Security offered cutting-
edge technology that would be beneficial to the City, including point of view cameras on the
guards and installation of cameras in all supervisor patrol vehicles which will report images via
internet to the dispatch command center. However, the Committee discussed that Kent
Security did not offer uniforms and guard appearance at the same level of quality as had other
proposers. Finally, the Committee discussed that 50 State Security Service offered a good
proposal, but offered less technological innovation and a higher cost than Kent Security.
381
Commission Memorandum-RFP # 01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
October 1u, 2013
Page4
Following the deliberation process, a motion was presented by Julio Magrisso, seconded by
Michael Silverman, and unanimously approved by all Committee members, to recommend the
following final ranking of proposers:
The Committee recommended that Administration engage in negotiations with G4S Security
Solutions, as the top-ranked firm, providing that G4S Security Solution was willing to lower its
costs to the City by 10%. In the event that the Administration was unable to negotiate an
agreement with G4S Security Solution, the Committee recommended that the Administration
engage in negotiations with Kent Security, as the second-ranked firm, providing that Kent
Security included the proposed technological innovations and improved the quality and
appearance of its uniforms .. In the event that the Administration was unable to negotiate an
agreement with Kent Security, the Committee recommended that the Administration engage in
negotiations with 50 State Security Service, as the third-ranked firm, providing that 50 State
Security Service lowered its costs to the City.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE AND REVISED RECOMMENDATION
After carefully reviewing the RFP requirements and the results of the Committee evaluation
process, the City Manager finds that the Evaluation Committee may have acted outside of its
authority (as dictated by the RFP). Additionally, the City Manager also finds as follows:
1. Cost. The costs proposed by the top-ranked proposers exceed the City's current rates,
as well as the rates paid by Miami-Dade County.
2. RFP. The RFP released may have contained some irregularities and lack of clarity in
the minimum requirements which may have caused confusion, prevented some
bidders from participating, or prevented a thorough evaluation of respondents. For
example, addendums had to be issued clarify licensure requirements which, at one
point, listed Class D Licenses issued by the State of Florida, which are only required by
armed security guards, although the RFP was clearly for unarmed security guards.
Additionally, the RFP asked that proposers submit their Standard & Poor's (S & P) or
Moody's ratings, which are only available for publically traded companies. For non-
publically traded companies, the RFP required financial statements to be submitted,
which had to be evaluated by City staff and represent only a small, somewhat
subjective, perspective of financial capacity rather than the more comprehensive and
objective perspective available through a D & B Supplier Qualifier Report {currently
utilized by the City for evaluating, in part, financial capacity).
3. Scoring of Costs. The City has moved to an objective methodology for evaluating cost
proposals that removes subjectivity and inconsistencies by Evaluation Committee
members. However, this RFP was issued prior to those changes. As a result, it
appears that certain inconsistencies may have arisen from a subjective evaluation of
cost by Evaluation Committee members.
382
Commission Memorandum -RFP # 01-2013 Unarmed Security Guards
October 16, 2013
PageS
Based on the aforementioned, the City Manager believes it is in the best interest of the City to
reject all proposals received and release a subsequent RFP for security guard services after
considering revisions to the solicitation for the issues noted above, including possible reasons
for the higher rates.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida accept the revised recommendation of the City Manager to reject all proposals
received pursuant to request for proposals (RfP) No" 01-2013ME for unarmed security guard
services; further authorizing a month-to-month extension with the current contractor; and
submit a revised RfP for approval to issue on December 11, 2013.
T:\AGENDA\2013\0ctober 16\Procurement\RFP-01-2013 ME Unanned Security Guards -Memo-FINAL.doc
383
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
384
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
385