20140730 BMMIAMIBEACH
Gity Commission Meeting
City Hall, Gommission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Genter Drive
July 30, 2014
Mayor Philip Levine
Vice-Mayor Michael Grieco
Commissioner Joy Malakoff
Commissioner Micky Steinberg
Commissioner Edward L. Tobin
Commissioner Deede Weithorn
Commissioner Jonah Wolfson
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Raul Aguila
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Vlsrt us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Chapter 2, Article Vll, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach, entitled "Lobbyists,"
requires the registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying
activity with the Gity Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined
in the subject Code sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are
available in the City Clerk's Office. Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance
should be directed to the Office of the City Attorney.
Call to Order - 5:00 p.m.
Pledge of Allegiance
Special note: ln order to ensure adequate public consideration, if necessary, the Mayor and City
Commission may move any agenda item to the alternate meeting date, which will only be held if needed.
ln addition, the Mayor and City Commission may, at their discretion, adjourn the Commission Meeting
without reaching all agenda items.
Presentations and Awards Reqular AqendaPA Presentations and Awards R2 Competitive Bid Reports
R5 Ordinances
Consent Aqenda R7 ResolutionsC2 Competitive Bid Reports R9 New Business/Commission RequestsC4 Commission Committee Assignments R10 City Attorney ReportsC6 Commission Committee Reports
C7 Resolutions Reports and lnformational ltems
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic community
1
Commission Agenda, July 23,2014
Presentations and Awards
PA1 Home Rule Hero Presentation By The Florida League Of Cities.
(City Manager's Office)
PA2 Certificate Of Recognition To Captain Mark Causey To Recognize That Within 24 Hours He Was
Able To Coordinate And Ensure A Safe And Enjoyable Experience For The Community During
The FlFAWorld Cup FinalAt The Bandshell ln North Beach.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PA3 Certificate Of Recognition To The GAP Flagship Store To Welcome Them To Their New Location
On Lincoln Road.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
CONSENT AGENDA
Action:
Moved:
Seconded:
Vote:
C2 - Gompetitive Bid Reports
C2A Request For Approval To Authorize The lssuance Of A Request For Qualifications (RFQ) No.
201 4-316-J R For General Build i n g Contractor Reha bi I itation Services.
(Community DevelopmenUProcurement)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
C2B Request For Authority To lssue An lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) For Use Of The City's Right-Of-
Ways For Water Taxi Service.
(Tra nsportation/Procurement)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
C6 - Gommission Committee Reports
COA Report Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee Meeting Of July 16, 2014:1) General
Fund CSL Update And Proposed Millage Rate. 2) Review Of Proposed Capital Budget. 3) Sunset
1 & 2 Guardhouse. 4) Proposed Uses Of Law Enforcement Trust Funds.
2
Commission Agenda, July 23,2014
C6 - Commission Committee Reports (Continued)
COB Report Of The Special Finance And Citywide Projects Committee Meeting Of July 18,2014: 1)
Discussion Regarding Financial lmpact Of The Proposed Roadway Closure Applications For 87
Street And 87 Terrace Filed By 8701 Collins Development. 2) Discussion Regarding The Greater
Miami Convention And Visitors Bureau lnterlocal Agreement. 3) Discussion Regarding Adoption
Of An Updated Strategic Plan For The Cultural Affairs Program, To lnclude Utilization Of Fillmore
Community Benefit Fund, Cultural Arts Council Endowment, And Cultural Affairs Program Fund
Balance Funds For Greater Cultural Benefits For Residents And Visitors. 4l Discussion
Regarding A Resolution Rescinding The Prior Action Taken By The City Commission On June 6,
2012, Pursuant To Resolution No. 2012-27917, Which Accepted The Recommendation Of The
City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of Firms, Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP)
No. 27-11112, For Disaster Recovery Services And Which Authorized The Administration To
Enter lnto Negotiations With The Top Ranked Firms Of Ceres Environmental Services, lnc.,
Asbritt, lnc., Tag Grinding Services, lnc. Byrd Brothers Environmental Services, lnc., D&J
Enterprises, Inc. And Phillips And Jordan, lnc. And To Execute Agreements Upon The
Conclusion Of Successful Negotiations By The Administration With Ashbritt, lnc. As The Primary
Firm; And Further Rejecting All Proposals Received Resulting From RFP No. 27-11112. 5l
Discussion Regarding Referral To The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee To Discuss The
Schedule Of User Fees For Various Parks And Recreation Programs And Services, Facility
Admissions And Rentals. 6) Discussion Regarding The Purchase And Sale Agreement For 226-
87th Terrace To Permit The Development Of A Parking Garage To lnclude At Least 100 Public
Parking Spaces.
C7 - Resolutions
C7A A Resolution Exempting Sidewalk Caf6s Located North Of 63rd Street With An Application Date
Between October 26, 2013 And September 30,2015 From The Concurrency Requirements Of
Chapter 122 Of The City Code.
(City Manager's Office)
C7B A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Neighborhood/Community Affairs
Committee At lts July 25,2014 Meeting And Adopting The Selected Water Feature Concept For
The Replacement Of The Existing, lnoperable Water Feature At The Washington Avenue Entry
Of South Pointe Park.
(Capital I mprovement Projects)
C7C A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A Settlement
Agreement And Mutual Release Between The City Of Miami Beach (City) And Coastland
Construction, lnc. (Contractor) ln The Amount Of $50,274.02 To Settle All Outstanding Claims
Pertaining To The Biscayne Bay 10th Street Bayfront Street End Seawall And Waterway Access
Enhancement Project And The Public Works Yard Office Project.
(Capital I m provement Projects/Publ ic Works/City Attorney's Office)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
3
Commission Agenda, July 23,2014
C7 - Resolutions (Continued)
C7D A Resolution Approving The Recommendation From The Florida Department Of Transportation
(FDOT), To Place Landscape Material ln Medians At Certain Locations, As Part Of The State
Road 907/Alton Road Project From Sth Street To Michigan Avenue.
(Public Works)
C7E A Resolution Authorizing The City Manager To Approve The Phase lll Work Order For The
Normandy Shores Fountain Project Utilizing The Competitively Bid National Joint Powers Alliance
(NJPA) Cooperative Contract For Construction Services With The Gordian Group.
(Public Works)
C7F A Resolution Approving The Extension Of Hours For Certain Alcoholic Beverage Establishments
With A 5:00 A.M. Liquor License, Under Certain Specified Conditions Pursuant To Chapter 6 Of
The City Code, For Winter Party 2015 (March 6, 7, 2015) As Recommended By The Gay,
Lesbian, Bisexual, And Transgender (GLBT) Business Enhancement Committee.
(Requested by Commissioner Micky Steinberg)
(Legislative Tracking: City Attorney's Office)
C7G A Resolution Urging The Florida Legislature To Enact Legislation To Criminalize The
Nonconsensual Disclosure Of Sexually Explicit lmages.
(Requested By Vice-Mayor Michael Grieco)
(Continued from July 23,2014)
End of Consent Agenda
4
Commission Agenda, July 23,2014
REGULAR AGENDA
R2 - Competitive Bid Reports
R2A Request Approval To lssue A Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-278-ME For Owners
Representative Services For The Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation And Expansion.
(City Manager's Office/Procurement)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
R2B Request Approval To lssue A Request For Proposals (RFP) No.2014-294-ME For Design Builder
Services For The Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation And Expansion.
(City Manager's Office/Procurement)
R7 - Resolutions
R7A A Resolution Adopting The Sixth Amendment To The Capital Budget For Fiscal Year (FY)
2013114. 5:25 p.m. Public Hearinq
(Budget & Performance lmprovement)
R7B A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking
Of Proposals, Pursuant To Request For Proposals No. 2014-051-Sr, For Design/Build Services
For Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 & 4 Right-Of-Way lnfrastructure lmprovements (The
RFP); Authorizing The Administration To Enter lnto Negotiations With The Top Ranked Proposer,
RIC-Man lnternational, lnc; And Should The Administration Not Be Successful ln Negotiating An
Agreement With The Top-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing The Administration To Enter lnto
Negotiations With The Second Ranked Proposer, David Mancini & Sons, lnc.; And Should The
Administration Not Be Successful In Negotiating An Agreement With The Second-Ranked
Proposer, Authorizing The Administration To Enter lnto Negotiations With The Third Ranked
Proposer, Central Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc; And Should The Administration Not Be
Successful ln Negotiating An Agreement With The Third-Ranked Proposer, Authorizing The
Administration To lssue A New RFP; And Further Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To
Execute An Agreement Upon Conclusion Of Successful Negotiations By The Administration.
(Capital lmprovement Projects/Procurement)
R7C A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The Finance And Citywide Projects Committee,
And Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Contracts With Tyler
Technologies, lnc., ln Connection With The Replacement Of The City's Current Enterprise
Resource Planning (ERP) System, Known As Eden, With Munis ERP; And The Replacement Of
The City's Current Permitting/Licensing Systems, Known As Permits Plus, With Energov; And To
Further Execute A Contract With EMA, lnc. For A Business Process Review, As Well As Project
Management Services, Related To The lmplementation Of The Munis ERP And ENERGOV
Replacement Systems; For A Total Project Amount Not To Exceed $7,200,000.
(City Manager's Office)
5
R7D
R9D
Commission Agenda, July 23,2014
R7 - Resolutions (Continued)
R7E
A Resolution Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 1 (Amendment)
To The Contract Between The City And Limousines Of South Florida, lnc., Executed As Of May
8, 2014, For Turnkey Trolley Operations And Maintenance Services; Said Amendment Approving
An lncrease ln The Contract Price, ln An Amount Not To Exceed $150,000, ln Connection With
The Acquisition And Maintenance Of Optional Equipment, lncluding Automatic Passenger
Counters, Automated Voice lnformation Systems, Wi-Fi Services, GPS Tracking Services, And
Additional Automated Stop Announcement Equipment (With The Capability Of Displaying Public
Advertisements) During The lnitial Five (5) Year Term Of The Contract.
(Transportation/City Attorney's Office)
A Resolution Calling For An November 4,2014 Special Election, For The Purpose Of Submitting
To The Electorate Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida A Question Asking Whether City Charter
Section 1.03 Governing "Powers Of City" Should Be Amended To Require Approval By 417 Yote
Of Members Of Planning Board And 6/7 Vote Of City Commission Prior To City Entering lnto Any
Management Or Concession Agreement With A Private Party For 10 Years Or Longer (lncluding
Option Periods) For The Management, Operation And/Or Use Of City Property (lncluding Public
Beaches) Or A City-Owned Facility, Exempting Therefrom City Agreements With Federal, State
Or Local Governmental Entities.
(Requested by Commissioner Edward L. Tobin)
(Legislative Tracking: City Attorney's Office)
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
RgA Update On The Miami Beach Convention Center Project.
(City Manager's Office)
RgB Presentation On Transportation lnitiatives.
(Transportation)
R9C Presentation By The Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT) On The State Road (S.R.)
907/Alton Road Reconstruction Project From 43rd Street To Allison lsland Bascule Bridge.
(Transportation)
Discussion Regarding Muss Park And The Best Option Available To Provide Better Weather
Protection For The Young Children Who Attend Our Programs There.
(Requested by Commissioner Micky Steinberg)
(Continued from July 23,2014 - RgT)
6
End of Reqular Aqenda
6
7
2014 Schedule of City of Miami Beach
City Commission/Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Meetings
and the Presentations & Awards Meetings
The City Commission/RDA meetings will begin at 8:30 a.m., and the Presentation & Awards meetings
will begin at 5:00 p.m. All meetings will be held in the City Commission Chambers, Third Floor, City
Hall, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida.
Commission/RDA Meetings Presentations & Awards Meetings
January 15 (Wednesday) January 22 (Wednesday)
February 12 (Wednesday) February 26 (Wednesday)
March 5 (Wednesday) March 12 (Wednesday)
April 23 (Wednesday) April 30 (Wednesday)
May 21 (Wednesday) May 28 (Wednesday)
June 11 (Wednesday) No Meetings
July 23 (Wednesday) July 30 (Wednesday)
August - City Commission/RDA in recess
September 10 (Wednesday) September 17 (Wednesday)
October 22 (Wednesday) October 29 (Wednesday)
November 19 (Wednesday) November 20 (Thursday)
December 17 (Wednesday) December 18 (Thursday)
F:\CLER\$ALL\a City Commission\2014 Schedule of City of Miami Beach.docx
8
PA
PRESENTATIONS
AND
AWARDS
9
Presentations and Awards
PA1 Home Rule Hero Presentation By The Florida League Of Cities.
(Ciiy Manager's Office)
PA2 Certificate Of Recognition To Captain Mark Causey To Recognize That Within 24 Hours
He Was Able To Coordinate And Ensure A Safe And Enjoyable Experience For The
Community During The FIFA World Cup Final At The Bandshell ln North Beach.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
PA3 Certificate Of Recognition To The GAP Flagship Store To Welcome Them To Their New
Location On Lincoln Road.
(Requested by Commissioner Deede Weithorn)
Agenda ltem
Date 7-3o-U10
THIS PAGE INTENTTONALLY LEFT BLANK
11
c2
COMPETITIVE BID REPORTS
12
C2 - Gompetitive Bid Reports
C2A Request For Approval To Authorize The lssuance Of A Request For Qualifications (RFQ)
No. 2014-316-JR For General Building Contractor Rehabilitation Services.
(Community DevelopmenUProcurement)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda ttem CAA
Date 1-30-ll13
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
14
G2 - Competitive Bid Reports
C2B Request For Authority To lssue An lnvitation To Negotiate (lTN) For Use Of The City's
Right-Of-Ways For Water Taxi Service.
(Transportation/Procurement)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda ttem CeBoateido_15
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
16
G6
COMMISSION COMMITTEE REPORTS
17
# AAIAMI*EACH
City of Miomi Beoch, .l700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: July 30, 2014
I the City
SUBJECT:REPORT OF THE SPECIAL F \ANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS
COMMITTEE MEETING ON JULY 18,2014
The agenda is as follows:
OLD BUS!NESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. General Fund CSL Update and Proposed Millage Rate
ACTION
The Committee recommended Administration set the fiscal year 2014115 proposed
miflage at 6.0929, which represents a slight decrease from the fiscal year 2013114
adopted millage rate of 6.1163 due to the decrease in the debt service portion of
the millage rate. Per the TRIM guidelines discussed above, the proposed rate
could remain the same or be decreased later in the budget process once the
Commission has assessed other proposed enhancements and efficiencies to the
fiscal year 2014115 budget.
2. Review of Proposed Capital Budget
ACTION
The Commiftee motioned to accept the proposed Gapital Budget with the
following amendments:
. Add funding for three projects in Renewal & Replacement from the R&R
Contingency: Historic City Hall HVAG Ductwork Gleaning ($30,000), Police
Station HVAC Ductwork Cleaning ($30,000), North Shore Youth Center
HVAC Ductwork Cleaning ($30,000). Move two projects from Pay-As-You-Go funding to Quality of Life-North
Beach funding: Byron Carlyle Renovation ($145,000) and Allison Park
Redesign ($235,000)
18
. Add two projects to be funded from Pay-As-You-Go funds: Muss Park
($200,000) and Sunset 1&2 Guardhouse ($200,000). Carve out funding from the FYI5 Sidewalk Repairs Program for a Sidewalk
Assessment project-cost to be determined by Public Works. Add $50,000 to the South Pointe Drive Median Planters project
The Committee motioned to memorialize that former South Pointe RDA Capital
funds that may be spent outside the former RDA per the pending agreement with
the County should be used exclusively for stormwater and sea-level rise projects.
The Committee directed the Budget Advisory Committee to bring back a proposal
for dedicated Seawall funding similar to the Renewal & Replacement millage rate.
3. Sunset 1 &2 Guardhouse
ACTION
The Committee recommended funding $200,000 for this project in fiscal year 2015
from Pay-as-you-go fu nds.
4. Proposed Uses of Law Enforcement Trust Funds
ACTION
The Gommittee recommended accepting the proposed Confiscation Budget for
the fiscal year 2014115 uses of Law Enforcement Trust Funds.
19
* fiNIAr\rtIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, ,l700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,l39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMITTEE MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of th
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: July 30, 2014
SUBJECT: REPORT OF THE SPECIAL FINANCE AND CITYWIDE PROJECTS
COMMITTEE MEETING ON JULY 18,2014
The agenda is as follows:
OLD BUSINESS
1. Discussion regarding Financial lmpact of the Proposed Roadway Closure
Applications for 87 Street and 87 Terrace Filed by 8701 Gollins
Development
ACTION
The Committee moved to continue the discussion of this item at the July 30,2014
Commission meeting with no recommendation.
NEW BUSINESS
2. Discussion regarding The Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau
lnterlocal Agreement
ACTION
The Committee recommended moving this item to the August 13, 2014 Budget
meeting and then finalized at the September 10, 2014 Commission meeting with
no recommendation.
3. Discussion regarding Adoption of an Updated Strategic Plan for the
Gultural Affairs Program, to include utilization of Fillmore Community
Benefit Fund, Cultural Arts Council Endowment, and Gultural Affairs
Program Fund Balance Funds for Greater Gultural Benefits for Residents
and Visitors
Agenda nem Lk b
oate 7-3o-U20
ACTION
The Committee recommended that the GAC Endowment use be scaled back to
one event (Sleepless Night) and brought to the Budget Committee meeting on
August 15,2014.
The Committee recommended that Administration cap the Fund Balance at its
current level of $2,640,184 to include an increase for inflation. lf necessary, these
funds could adequately cover the expenses of the Cultural Affairs Program for two
years. Funds remaining at the end of each fiscal year will be added to the GAC's
grants budget for the following fiscal year.
The Commiftee recommended the addition of a new community Benefit Fund
Grant requirement that all future rent waiver recipients be required to offer free or
discounted tickets to Miami Beach residents. Also, to increase the number of
annual rental fee waivers trom 12 to 24. The additional grants (12 annually), will
be specifically for live theater in the Gity. The Community Benefit Fund Grant
when used at the Fillmore 'backstage" would require grantees to offer tickets at
$19, including all house and Ticketmaster surcharges.
4. Discussion regarding A Resolution Rescinding the prior action taken by
the Gity Commission on June 6, 2012, pursuant to Resolution No. 2012-
27917, which accepted the recommendation of the Gity Manager pertaining
to the ranking of firms, pursuant to request for Proposals (RFP) No. 27-
11112, for Disaster Recovery Services and which authorized the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked firms of Ceres
Environmental Services, lnc., Asbritt, lnc., Tag Grinding Services, !nc. Byrd
Brothers Environmental Services, lnc., D&J Enterprises, lnc. and Phillips
and Jordan, lnc. and to execute agreements upon the conclusion of
successful negotiations by the Administration with Ashbritt, lnc. as the
Primary Firm;And further rejecting all proposals received resulting from
RFP No. 27-11112
ACT!ON
The Gommittee recommended moving forward with the execution of contracts
with Ceres Environmental Services, lnc., Ashbritt, lnc., Tag Grinding Services,
lnc., D&J Enterprises, lnc. and Phillips and Jordan, Inc. to provide disaster
recovery services in the event of a declared emergency that is of the magnitude to
utilize said professional services.
5. Discussion regarding referral to the Finance and Gitywide Projects
Gommittee to discuss the Schedule of User Fees for Various Parks and
Recreation Programs and Services, Facility Admissions and Rentals
ACTION
The Gommittee recommended moving this item to the August 13, 2014 Budget
meeting with no recommendation.
21
6. Discussion regarding the Purchase and Sale Agreement for 226-87th
Terrace to permit the Development of a Parking Garage to include at least
100 Public Parking Spaces
ACTION
The Committee moved to continue the discussion of this item at the July 30,2014
Commission meeting with no recommendation.
22
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
23
c7
RESOLUTIONS
24
g MIAMI BEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, I 200 Convenlion Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,l 39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City
DATE: July 30, 2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION EXEMPTING SIDEWALK CAFES FROM CONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENTS IN THE NORTH BEACH AREA.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Approve a Resolution authorizing Sidewalk Caf6s located north of 63'd Street with an
application date between October 26,2013 and September 30, 2015 to be exempt from
the concurrency requirements Chapter 122 of the City Code.
BACKGROUND
On July 23, 2014, the City Commission adopted an Ordinance amending Section 122-5
of the City Code, pertaining to "Exemptions from Concurrency", to include temporary
uses in the public right of way as an additional exemption from concurrency
requirements. The adopted ordinance requires a resolution of the City Commission
specifying geographic areas, criteria, and duration of exemption.
The concurrency fee is a one-time fee and is not assessed yearly, but runs with the use
as long as it continues. The concurrency fee is based on the number of peak-hour trips
the establishment generates; in the case of sidewalk cafes, the calculation is based on
the number of seats. The concurrency fee is based on the costs to the City to mitigate
each additional trip in three geographical areas: South Beach, below Dade Boulevard;
Middle Beach, between Dade Boulevard and 63'd Street; and North Beach, between 63'd
Street and City Line at 87th Terrace.
ln an effort to encourage economic development, the City Commission approved
Ordinance 2013-3824, on October 16,2013, authorizing the abatement of Sidewalk Caf6
Square Footage Fees for businesses north of 63'd Street. The timeframe for such
abatement is from the applicability date of October 26, 2013 through and including
September 30, 2015. As this resolution is for similar purposes as the aforementioned
ordinance, it is suggested that the resolution be consistent and contain similar
geographic boundaries, criteria, and duration period.
ANALYSIS
Side walk caf6 permits are temporary uses in the public rights-of way, which are
renewed annually through the Public Works Department. Presently, the concurrency fee
is $415.15 per seat in the North Beach Transportation Concurrency Management Area,
plus administration fees, which are typically $ZZS to $400. For a small business, this
can be a substantial investment.Agenda,tem C7A
Date 7-30-tt/25
Commission Memorandum
Resolution - Norlh Beach Concurrency Exemption
July 30, 2014 Page 2 of 2
The proposed resolution, would positively impact the areas where it is proposed to be
enacted by incentivizing and encouraging economic growth. The Planning Department
believes that the further activation of storefronts and sidewalks will create more activity
on the street, which cuts down on petty crime and provides a more walkable area that
promotes destination dining and shopping.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the atatched
Resolution exempting Sidwalk Caf6s located north of 63'd Street with an application date
between October 26,2013 and September 15,2015 from the concurrency requirements
of Chapter 122 of the City Code.
,.,,#*r/Mcs/MM
T:\AGENdAUOl4UulyUuly 3o\Noil Beach Sidwalk Caf6 Concurrency Exemption Resolution - MEM.docx
26
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CIry GOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, EXEMPTING SIDEWALK CAFES LOCATED
NORTH OF 63RD STREET WITH AN APPLICATION DATE BETWEEN
OCTOBER 26,2013 AND SEPTEMBER 30,2015 FROM THE GONCURRENCY
REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTERl22 OF THE CITY CODE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach Land Development regulations contains a chapter
for concurrency management, which provides for certain exemptions from concurrency; and
WHEREAS, the section for exemptions from concurrency lists the types of
developments that are not required to obtain a preliminary concurrency determination or a final
concurrency reservation certificate; and
WHEREAS, on July 23, 2014, the City Commission adopted an Ordinance that modifies
the list of exemptions from concurrency to include temporary uses in public rights-of-way as
determined by the City Commission by resolution, specifying geographic areas, criteria, and
duration of exemption; and
WHEREAS, Sidewalk Caf6s are temporary uses permitted and located in public rights-
of-way; and
WHEREAS, on October 16, 2013, the City Commission approved ordinance 2013-3824,
which abates Sidewalk Caf6 square footage fees from its effective date of October 26, 2013
through and including September 30, 2015; and
WHEREAS, the City Commission finds consistent with the allowable exemptions from
concurrency it is appropriate to waive concurrency fees for sidewalk cafes north of 63'd Street,
and that it is beneficial to have consistent applicability dates for the North Beach fee
exemptions; and
WHEREAS, this proposed resolution does not decrease the quality of life for the
residents.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that Sidewalk Caf6s located north
of 63'd Street with an application date between October 26,2013 and September 30, 2015 be
exempt from the concurrency requirements of Chapter 122 of the City Code.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this
ATTEST:
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM & LANGUAGE
day of 2014.
Philip Levine, Mayor
ffifE&TF-_-,Y\r\-..-\_dt., al -
gitrflllqr:y #^. ^ qaled
t+
T:\AGENDAVOl4UflyUuly 3O\North Beach Sidewalk Caf6 Concurrency Exemption Resolution - RES.doc
27
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
28
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Item Summary/Recommendation:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida Accepting The Recommendation
Of The Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee At lts July 25, 2014 Meeting And Adopting The Selected Water
Feature Concept For The Replacement Of The Existing, lnoperable Water Feature At The Washington Avenue Entry Of
South Pointe Park.
Ensure value and of
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc
The Washington Avenue at South Pointe Park Water Feature was completed in May 18, 2009. Following the completion
of the Water Feature, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) issued a Stop Work/Use Order on July 13, 2009, due to
several violations, the most critical being the lack of a permit for use as an interactive water feature.
On October 15, 20'12, three remediation alternatives to the plaza were presented to the Neighborhood/Community Affairs
Committee (NCAC). The Committee unanimously moved to the City Commission the approval for the reconstruction of the
water feature as a non-interactive amenity.
On April 2,2014, the CIP Department contracted the firm of EDSA lnc., (EDSA) to develop options that would follow the
recommendations from the October 15,2012 NCAC.
On July 16,2014, the two options were presented to the Parks Advisory Board and a motion was passed to proceed to
present to the Commission and the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Committee.
On July 23, 2014, the two options were brought back to the Commission Meeting as "old business" for referral to the
Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee. The Commission referred the options to the July 25,2014 NCAC Meeting.
On July 25, 2015, the two options were presented to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs Commission (a copy of the
presentation is provided as an attachment).
After careful consideration, the NCAC voted to recommend Option 1. Option 1 is described as follows:
OPTION 1: This option re-purposes and utilizes as much of the existing water feature as possible and maintains the
overall intent of the plaza, but modifies it to address the major concems. The water cannons have been re-purposed as
misting stations for cooling-off and the at-grade fountains have been converted to elevated water components. All of the
existing mechanical systems will be re-used and the fountains will remain in the existing locations. The brick floor pavers
have been replaced with concrete that contains sea shells as aggregate in order to incorporate materials which are already
in use throughout the Park. Landscaped areas have been increased and enhanced.
The cost of Option 1 is estimated at $1,235,443 and the construction duration will not exceed 6 months.
The Administration recommends that the City Commission approve the resolution to adopt Option 1, for the replacement
of the water feature at the Washi Avenue entry of South Pointe Park.
Affairs Committee meeting of July 25, 2014, to adopt the proposed Option 1 water feature
Financial lnformation:
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1
2
OBPI Total
Financial Impact Summary:
David Marti nez, exl:697 2
AGEN9A fiEn C7 B8 MIAMIBEACH D,r,E '7-30-lL{29
g MIAMIBEACH
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
City of Miomi Beoch, I200 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City Colnmiss!-on
Jimmy L. Morates, city Manag ", +rr.Lffi
July 30, 2014
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAM! BEACH, FLORIDA ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE NEIGHBORHOOD/COMMUNITY AFFAIRS COMMITTEE AT ITS JULY
25, 2014 MEETING AND ADOPTING THE SELECTED WATER FEATURE
CONCEPT FOR THE REPLACEMENT OF THE EXISTING, INOPERABLE
WATER FEATURE AT THE WASHINGTON AVENUE ENTRY OF SOUTH
POINTE PARK.
BACKGROUND
The Washington Avenue at South Pointe Park Water Feature was completed in May 18, 2009.
Following the completion of the Water Feature, the Florida Department of Health (DOH) issued
a Stop Work/Use Orderon July 13,2009, due to several violations, the most critical being the
lack of a permit for use as an interactive water feature.
Consequently, the City entered into litigation against the Park's designer and the contractor, for
defects and deficiencies including the City's inability to utilize the water feature as intended.
On October 15, 2012, three remediation alternatives to the plaza were presented to the
Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee (NCAC). The Committee unanimously moved to
the City Commission the approval for the reconstruction of the water feature as a non-interactive
amenity. The reconstruction of the plaza could incorporate the water fountains and water
cannons into a non-interactive environment that would physically prevent pedestrians from
accessing the water but still maintain the original design aesthetic and provide the same
amenity for users of the park.
On April 2, 2014, the CIP Department contracted the firm of EDSA lnc., (EDSA) to develop
options that would follow the recommendations from the October 15,2012 NCAC. After various
meetings and presentations between EDSA and City Staff, two (2) options were developed.
On July 16, 2014, the two options were presented to the Parks Advisory Board and a motion
was passed to proceed to present to the Commission and the Neighborhoods/Community
Affairs Committee.
On July 23, 2014, the two options were brought back to the Commission Meeting as "old
business" for referral to the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee. The Commission
referred the options to the July 25, 2014 NCAC Meeting.
30
Commission Memorandum - South Pointe Water Feature - Referral to the Neighborhood/Community Affairs Committee
July 30, 2014
Page 2 of 2
On July 25, 2015, the two options were presented to the Neighborhoods/Community Affairs
Commission (a copy of the presentation is provided as an attachment). The two options are
briefly described below;
OPTION 1: This option re-purposes and utilizes as much of the existing water feature as
possible and maintains the overall intent of the plaza, but modifies it to address the major
concerns. The water cannons have been re-purposed as misting stations for cooling-off and the
at-grade fountains have been converted to elevated water components. All of the existing
mechanical systems will be re-used and the fountains will remain in the existing locations. The
brick floor pavers have been replaced with concrete that contains sea shells as aggregate in
order to incorporate materials which are already in use throughout the Park. Landscaped areas
have been increased and enhanced.
The cost of Option 1 is estimated at $1,235,443 and the construction duration will not exceed 6
months.
OPTION 2: This option echoes the original intent and form of the park, but departs somewhat
from its original structure. The design re-works the existing at-grade water fountains into raised,
elongated and elevated water components at the center of the plaza and eliminates the water
cannons completely. The new water component arrangement presents a linear extension
leading the attention towards the Government Cut inlet. The landscape areas are expanded,
with more coconut palms. Existing benches are strategically relocated under the shade of
coconut palms and the floor brick pavers are replaced with concrete and coral stone paths in
order to incorporate materials that are already in use throughout the park.
The cost of Option 2 is estimated at $1,503,844. The construction duration will not exceed 6
months.
After careful consideration, the NCAC voted to recommend Option 1.
CONCLUS!ON
A presentation was provided to the NeighborhoodiCommunity Affairs Committee at their July
25,2014 meeting. The Committee voted in favor of Option 1 and recommended that the item
be presented to the City Commission. The Administration recommends that the City
Commission approve the resolution to adopt Option 1, for the replacement of the existing,
inoperable water feature at the Washington Avenue entry of South Pointe Park.
Attachment
T:\AGENDA\2014\July\ClP\July 30th Commission meeting\South Pointe Water Feature Referral to NCAC\Commission Memo -
Water Feature authorization OPTION l.docx
31
>;;;
ivruo-
oY
ot
^,f
oI
Y
x.
o_
tuFZ
o
o_
-Ffroa
T
-i-i)
<{
UJ
fll
€l32
("ilm,ffiw
1,lE
".
a:
fl,
$H
m
{- i^... ",: !I ; : i :'l :
''lr' ,{r
,.' -r '." r :
',.' : ;:. , - :,1, .ii ,
5r'*" ;:..1..r:
girL,) t$-. !,: r.- .' .i lr, ,+.' ..t, i
L-J..r;.i; ;1
t.t',I''i:i' .',:
ffi
ffi
ilffi
,ffi
ffi
U'
;
!
:
?
w
€)
gt
B.33
!-N-:t".'",
i,; ';ii"li
o
C
o)()(g
o-L
- io.t
frgo- o)
a_al- c)
C)}r
AL
oo_o
1t
krM
r-=j\--1,-!
W
W
ffi
';ffiilI
ffiffifi
I
:
FE
1i
I
E
I
r
I64
i I i l'
'i i i l'j
I -.<, l
-. o; --J !"'i--/@,'*o .-t'r.; '
i ',,t
: ';.{ l
:J !i fr
:d
E6
s
: -*/
--.,-.-^rL r;q -J-r?--r
" t * l\-/,)
/--5\=-.- )
'-- -
'1gP1os'
tuH
I
\
-
a
a
L
;. €)
o,$-q6 :; q
oe ; F
rr5 = 6
-; o :.-[ ?vii
=E:eIS
>-g:dz
d?f=te
a
34
(^
(
t'\,
a
o r:iii{;11 !EE5l!:6;;Eif!6E,o t i!:iiit;a - :Ei!'ii;qo z- ii!51;e;o- UJ B:;!j;!iL r'.' iii!:!i:I t * :i!i;ii:i: < : :i:Ei;r!Yo i
91
;2
ET
E
i3ii';
3:
ta
3Jd3
odf
:t'
ri>
'.-1
it
fz
azc
0
=u
5
1
c
c'6
&
3-! €,
ratft.
35
v
,t,i:!
1f
(s^/Jr$"..1
./
\-
zo
EII-!rr:'E;a EiEIEiIEiZ i?i!q::IeuJ Ei;iiii:iL- :l[:r€iE!Ex iEiii;iiiiu
'EiiiiiiE:
| 3t9E:6; -Y.7 ;tilreEiii
5 A iiEi:iii::' Bc0 Ei:*i:;$:;;1 :.t {i$;EtilIiirU-9. t) A
rl'1.-3Lt+
^r?i,Y'
-\'l-
\
II
rl-.-4,'-I
E
OE
PI
ILitr
I
C'6
L
3i €)
N
Co;
()_o 36
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
37
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
38
C7 - Resolutions
C7C A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A
Settlement Agreement And Mutual Release Between The City Of Miami Beach (City)
And Coastland Construction, lnc. (Contractor) ln The Amount Of $50,274.02 To Settle
All Outstanding Claims Pertaining To The Biscayne Bay 1Oth Street Bayfront Street End
Seawall And Wateruay Access Enhancement Project And The Public Works Yard Office
Project.
(Capital I m provement Projects/Publ ic Works/City Attorney's Office)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplemental)
Agenda ttem C7 C
Date 7-30-/f39
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
40
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Approving The Recommendation
From The Florida Department Of Transportation (Fdot), To Place Landscape Material ln Medians At Certain Locations, As
Part Of The State Road 907/Alton Road From Sth Street To Michiqan Avenue.
lntended Outcome Su
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
Item Summarv/Recommendation :
Concerns related to the State Road 907/Alton Road project from 5"'street to Michigan Avenue have been raised by the
Alton Road Alive Group, and as a result, various meetings have taken place with the Public Works and Planning
Departments. Concerns are listed as follows:
Request: Placing conduit in the intersections where we would like the ability to retrofit traffic signals at gth, 13th and 14th
Streets in the future.
Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this suggestion and has recommended no action at this time because placement of
lights is unknown. Directional drilling will be utilized to place electrical conductors at future locations, if lights were deemed
necessary.
Request: Evaluate the cosUbenefit of stamped asphalt crosswalks at each intersection.
Recommendation: The cost to place stamped asphalt in crosswalks being constructed is estimated at approximately
$250,000 and would be installed during the final lift of asphalt near the end of the project. Commission would need to give
direction and money budgeted for this work.
Request: Review of Landscape material to make sure that we are creating long term benefit for users of Alton.
Recommendation: FDOT is reviewing planting material list with potential modifications to select more salt tolerant
vegetation. City staff will review this new list when available and make recommendations, should we not agree with the
selection. Staff will also make nursery visits with FDOT staff to select actual plants to be used in the landscaping.
Request: Evaluate lighting that is being installed to make sure it is consistent with both pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Recommendation: FDOT is furnishing special aluminum light poles coated in a gray power coating. Light heads have
been designed to meet proper illumination of street and sidewalks.
Request: Most importantly we were going to sketch out some alternatives for landscaping nodes at the center of blocks to
be able to increase landscape presence on the street.
Recommendation: FDOT has proposed locations to place landscape material in median.
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT
oF TRANSPORTATTON (FDOT), TO PLACE LANDSCAPE MATERTAL tN MEDIANS AT CERTATN LOCATIONS,
PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED BY THE TRANSPORTATION, PUBLIC WORKS, POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS, AS
PART OF THE STATE ROAD 907/ALTON ROAD PROJECT FROM 5TH STREET TO MICHIGAN AVENUE.
Board Recommendation:
Financial lnformation :
Source of Funds:
OBPI
Amount Account
1
Total
Financial lmpact Summary:
Clerk's Office lative Tracki
Department Director
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
c7D{B MtrAMIBTACH 7-30-/r41
g MIAMI BEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Members of thp City
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
July 30,2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATTON (FDOT), TO PLAGE
LANDSCAPE MATERIAL IN MEDIANS AT CERTAIN LOCATIONS, AS PART OF
THE STATE ROAD 907/ALTON ROAD PROJECT FROM sTH STREET TO
MICHIGAN AVENUE.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDAT!ON
The Administration recommends approving the recommendation from the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT), to place landscape material in medians at certain locations, previously
reviewed by the Transportation, Public Works, Police and Fire departments, as part of the State
Road 907/Alton Road Project from Sth Street to Michigan Avenue.
BACKGROUND
Concerns related to the State Road 9O7iAlton Road project from Sth street to Michigan Avenue
have been raised by the Alton Road Alive Group, and as a result, various meetings have taken
place with the Public Works and Planning Departments. Concerns are listed as follows:
Request: Placing conduit in the intersections where we would like the ability to retrofit traffic
signals at 9th, 13th and 14th Streets in the future.
Recommendation: Staff has reviewed this suggestion and has recommended no action at this
time because placement of lights is unknown. Directional drilling will be utilized to place
electrical conductors at future locations, if lights were deemed necessary.
Request: Evaluate the cosUbenefit of stamped asphalt crosswalks at each intersection.
Recommendation: The cost to place stamped asphalt in crosswalks being constructed is
estimated at approximately $250,000 and would be installed during the final lift of asphalt near
the end of the project. Commission would need to give direction and money budgeted for this
work.
FROM:
DATE:
42
A Resolution accepting the recommendation of the Alton Road Alive group
Page 2 of 2
July 30, 2014
Request: Review of Landscape material to make sure that we are creating long term benefit for
users of Alton.
Recommendation: FDOT is reviewing planting material list with potential modifications to
select more salt tolerant vegetation. City staff will review this new list when available and make
recommendations, should we not agree with the selection. Staff will also make nursery visits
with FDOT staff to select actual plants to be used in the landscaping.
Request: Evaluate lighting that is being installed to make sure it is consistent with both
pedestrian and vehicular traffic.
Recommendation: FDOT is furnishing special aluminum light poles coated in a gray power
coating. Light heads have been designed to meet proper illumination of street and sidewalks.
Request: Most importantly we were going to sketch out some alternatives for landscaping
nodes at the center of blocks to be able to increase landscape presence on the street.
Recommendation: FDOT has proposed locations to place landscape material in median at the
foltowing locations: 9th Street, 13th Street, 14th Street, between 14th Street and 14th Ct., 14th
Court, 1Sth Terrace, between 16th and Lincoln, and between Lincoln and 17th.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approving the Resolution.
Attachment: Plans for landscape
wrfiner,t
t:\agenda\2014\june\87th terrace vacation setting public hearing memo.docx
43
(;
I
tltt
$r
I fat
lertu;
"Jl!Iis
i$rE
lut
bi"
1-
44
i:o l,;r
i-.r I{
d/l\i:'/;g@ffi.J
i t 'J i
* lltrx
_rwF'I$k
!F
H$
I
3
.
.) ',,}
,-.Hi i
),,'
J*l
I/i
iIt:E_t.
sl::
{,/
I
F"ttl l,
tiit)'
ti{il
45
A t rFrr
b,: t
fi*1
tl ,
t .{
Ita.l
I
L
{'
$s
(m
_i*\ , {i5t\-
,I
:l
,f
(
)
,
.
tr
tt
\.
*
J
,IDiSr,a
-n{n-
,l,, \r +jL-@
tlL- 'r5 t ]'
46
rrt f a. -
;,
-Jlfl'YI
, SlS{Sffi.SSi*$tffi:.ffi
v.J-rJ
il'*""
, [\.,
' rtl
ffir("'
l'
!
TST.:J
.l
.1. .l
a
I
I
a
,. I
.it.,
a;i;
tri$lr
I
I
.i
I
3a ^r'a:l ,lt)
II)
:
rl ..--i
f1
r
I
I
:
I
t
rt
li
'r1
ai
rlt \
T
tr(d
't{r
47
--f4
V4
-$
lr'/
VA
!
,$
*f'
i
i-{
E
t
&
d
t
' .-l
*?
,*r\
=u3
' \':z\-\i\\"
l.; \ t
!au-* * I-- .\lr{
\
5O-6l16lIH,t(
t'
t'
{
h
.t
t
t*.tI
t*t
:iL
{
48
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
49
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
50
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The MayorAnd City The City Of MiamiBeach, Florida, Authorizing The City Manager
To Approve The Phase lll Work Order For The Normandy Shores Fountain Project Utilizing The Competitively Bid
National Joint Powers Alliance Contract For Construction Services With The Gordian
Maximize Miami Beach as a World Class Destination. Streamline the Delivery of Services through all
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation :
the fall of 2012, the City has been without a methodology for expediting construction and infrastructure projects.
This is especially problematic for smaller projects and projects related to unplanned emergency work for which
releasing independent solicitations is not operationally feasible and causes unnecessary delays. To address this
problem, as authorized by Florida Statutes, the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee (the "Committee") endorsed
a recommendation by the Administration to utilize the indefinite quantity contract (lQC) for construction services to
expedite the delivery of construction projects under $250,000 or for emergency projects as approved by the City
Manager. The Committee's endorsement of the IQC process for small and emergency projects was approved by the
City Commission on April 23,2014. The IQC process is similarto the JOC process previously used bythe City butwith
tighter controls, including a limit on design, additional competition on certain items and a small project threshold that
limits exposure.
The IQC process is used extensively by the local, state and federal govemmental agencies throughout the United
States to expedite the delivery of construction projects. The City, as a governmental agency member, is authorized to
utilize the IQC contract for construction services competitively awarded by the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) to
the Gordian Group.
ln an effort to expedite the restoration of the Miami Beach Normandy lsle Fountain, located at7802 Rue Vendome,
which is a part of a North Beach revitalization initiative, the NJPA IQC contract was utilized to procure the necessary
construction services because this project was originally estimated below the $250,000 threshold. To further expedite
the project, it was divided into phases as follows:. Phase I - Demolition Phaser Phase ll - Materials Ordering Phaseo Phase lll - Final Construction Phase
However, during the process of demolishing parts of the existing structure (Work Order Phase l- Demolition Phase)to
make way for the renovations, it was revealed that much of the original infrastructure, specifically the plumbing and
electrical systems, were deteriorated beyond repair, and new electrical, plumbing, structural and tile work needed to be
replaced. The tile work alone, which has been ordered pursuant to Work Order ll (Materials Phase), is historic and had
to be custom made to match the existing.
Therefore, this project is now expected to exceed the $250,000 threshold limit approved by the City Commission for
projects through the NJPA IQC contract award. Accordingly, in orderto move forward with the completion of this project
and in efforts to meet the proposed completion date of October 1,2014, approval is required to exceed the $250,000
project threshold limit by $100,000, which includes $90,000 of additional work and $10,000 for project contingency, for
a project total not to exceed $350,000. The current project budget of $300,000 would be increased by $50,000 in the
Sixth Capital Budget Amendment (ltem R7B) for a new project budget total of $350,000.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approving the Resolution authorizing the City Manager to approve Work Order lll
(Final Construction Phase) for the final phase of the Normandy Shores Fountain renovation project.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends aoorovino the Resolution.
Advisorv Board Recommendation :
Financial lnformation :
Source of
Funds:,r.--1ffi
Amount Account
1 350,000.00 307-2850-000676 - 71"' Fountain Renovation
2OBI -/Total
Financial lmpact Summarv:
T:\AGENDA\201 4Uul$Procurement\Normandy Fountain NJPA -
AGEilIDA ITENil c7E# MIAAAIBTACH oxza 73o-//51
@ MIAMIBEACH
Cify of Miomi Beoch, I200 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,l39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Members of Commission
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Man
DATE: July 30, 2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE
THE PHASE ItI WORK ORDER FOR THE NORMANDY SHORES FOUNTAIN
PROJECT UTILIZING THE COMPETITIVELY BID NATIONAL JOINT POWERS
ALLTANCE (NJPA) COOPERATTVE CONTRACT FOR CONSTRUCTION SERVICES
WITH THE GORDIAN GROUP.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approving the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME
Maximize the Miami Beach brand as a world class destination. Streamline the delivery of
services through all departments.
FUNDING
307-2850-000676 - 7 1"1 Fountain Renovation - $350,000
BACKGROUND
ln an effort to expedite the restoration of the Miami Beach Normandy lsle Fountain, located at
7802 Rue Vendome, part of a North Beach revitalization initiative, the National Joint Powers
Alliance's (NJPA) lndefinite Quantity Contract was utilized in order to procure the necessary
construction services. The cost of this project was estimated at $250,000 and to further
expedite the project, it was divided into 3 phases:
o Phase I - Demolition Phaseo Phase ll - Materials Ordering Phase. Phase lll - Final Construction Phase
However, during the demolition process, parts of the existing structure (Work Order Phase I -
Demolition Phase) to make way for renovations, it was revealed that much of the original
infrastructure, specifically the plumbing and electrical systems, were deteriorated beyond repair,
and new electrical, plumbing, structural and tile work needed to be replaced. The tile work
alone, which has been ordered pursuant to Work Order Phase ll - Materials Phase) is historic
52
Commission Memorandum -Normandy lsle Fountain NJPA
Page 2 of 2
and had to be custom made in order to match the existing tile. At the July 23,2014 Commission
meeting, the contract was authorized to exceed the $250,000 cap on the NJPA by $50,000.
Upon further review, this project is now expected to cost $350,000. Accordingly, in order to
move forward with the completion of this project and in efforts to meet the proposed completion
date of October 1,2014, additional approval is required to exceed the $250,000 cap by
$100,000, which includes $90,000 of additional work and $10,000 for project contingency, for a
project total not to exceed $350,000. The cost of the project will exceed the budget by $50,000
and will require accompaniment by a funding authorization.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends approving the
approve Work Order lll - Final Construction
renovation project.
JLM/MTiMIJJF/AD/TK
T:\AGENDAd,/ilfUuly\Public Works\Normandy Fountain. Memo.docx
Resolution authorizing the City Manager to
Phase of the Normandy Shores Fountain
53
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
54
g MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jimmy Morales, City Manager
FROM: Micky Steinberg, Commissioner
DATE: July 241h,2014
SUBJECT: Agenda item for July 30th, 2014 City Commission Meeting
Please add to the July 30, 2014 City Commission agenda a resolution for the
extension of hours for the March 6 and 7,2015, Winter Party Events as per the
recommendation of the LGBT Enhancement Committee.
Thank you.
lf you have any questions please do not hesitate to call our office.
Tathiane Trofino
MIAMIBf;,ECM
On behalf of Commissioner Micky Steinberg
OFFICE OF MAYOR AND COMMISSION
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7 103 I F ax: 305-673-7096 / www.miamibeachfl .oov
We are committed to providing excellent public service and safety to all who live, work and play in our vibrant, tropicat, historic
community.
We ore commilled to providing excellent public service ond sofe,.y to oll who live, work, ond ploy in our vrbront, tropical hi,rnrie enmmtnitu
Agenda ltem C7 F
Date 1-9-1155
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CIry OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE EXTENSION OF
HOURS FOR CERTAIN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS
WITH A 5:00 A.M. LIQUOR LIGENSE, UNDER CERTAIN SPECIFIED
CONDITIONS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 6 OF THE CITY CODE, FOR
WINTER PARTY 2015 (MARCH 6, 7, 20151 AS RECOMMENDED BY
THE GAY, LESBIAN, BISEXUAL, AND TRANSGENDER (GLBT)
BUSINESS ENHANCEMENT COMMITTEE.
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach is an international tourist destination known for its
many attributes including its vibrant nightlife; and
WHEREAS, the festivities during major event days and weekends in the City carry over
into the early hours of the morning; and
WHEREAS, in order to address the special circumstances for celebration which occur
on New Year's Eve, and during other major event days and weekends within the City of Miami
Beach, the Mayor and City Commission codified, in Section 6-3(7) of the City Code, an
established policy of allowing alcoholic beverage establishments with a 5:00 a.m. liquor license
to continue to sell and serve alcoholic beverages for on-premises consumption until 7:00 a.m.
during designated major event days or weekends; and
WHEREAS, the City's Major Events Plan and Special Event Guidelines designates
Winter Party as a "major event period" which makes this event eligible for the extension of hours
subject to the conditions established in the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the GLBT Business Enhancement Committee considered this matter at its
July 8, 2014 meeting and recommended the extension of hours for the Winter Party 2015.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE Clry OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the extension of hours for certain alcoholic
beverage establishments with a 5:00 A.M. liquor license, under certain specified conditions
pursuant to Chapter 6 of the City Code, is hereby approved for Winter Party 2015 (March 6, 7,
2015), as recommended by the GLBT Business Enhancement Committee.
PASSED and ADOPTED this _ day of _,2014.
ATTEST:
PHILIP LEVINE, MAYOR
RAFAEL E. GRANADO, CITY CLERK
F:\ATTO\TURN\RESOS\Hours Extension for Winter Party 201 5 GLBT Enhancement 2014.docx
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOREXECUTION'& :l-fA
@ -6iFr
56
&
-OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
RAULJ. AGUILA, CITY ATTORNEY
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
MAYOR PHILIP LEVINE
MEMBERS OF THE GITY COMMISSION
CIry MANAGER JIMMY MORALES
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
crry ATToRNEY RAUL J. AGUTLAz ^il-(). .t1-----'\,- uJF. r
July 30, 2014
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND GITY COMMISSION OF
THE CIry OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, URGING THE
FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO ENACT LEGISLATION TO
CRIMINALIZE THE NONCONSENSUAL DISCLOSURE OF
SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES.
Pursuant to the request of Commissioner Michael Grieco, the attached Resolution was
considered by the Mayor and City Commission at the July 23, 2014 City Commission Meeting.
The Resolution is submitted for formal action at the July 30, 2014 City Commission Meeting.
RJA/DT/da
Agenda ltem L7G
Date l-p4V
F:\ATTO\TURN\COMMMEMo\Revenge Porn Reso
57
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, URGING THE FLORIDA LEGISLATURE TO
ENACT LEGISLATION TO CRIMINALIZE THE NONCONSENSUAL
DISCLOSURE OF SEXUALLY EXPLICIT IMAGES.
WHEREAS, due to the ease with which images can be transmitted by cellphones,
websites, and other forms of electronic and social media, the growing and generally unregulated
activity of nonconsensual pornography, also known as "revenge porn," which is the
nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit images, has emerged locally and worldwide; and
WHEREAS, a vengeful ex-partner or malicious hacker can upload an explicit image of a
victim to a website on the internet where thousands of people can view it and other websites
can share it for profit, and that image can quickly dominate the first several pages of "hits" on
the victim's name in a search engine, as well as being emailed or otherwise exhibited to the
victim's family, employer, co-workers, and peers; and
WHEREAS, according to a survey of revenge porn victims conducted by the Cyber Civil
Rights lnitiative, lnc., 93% of victims reported significant emotional distress due to being a
victim; 82o/o said they suffered significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important
areas of functioning; and 42o/o have sought psychological services due to being a victim;
moreover, victims of revenge porn are routinely threatened with sexual assault, stalked,
harassed, fired from jobs, and forced to change schools, some victims have committed suicide,
and nonconsensual pornography can destroy victims' personal relationships as well as their
educational and employment opportunities; and
WHEREAS, nonconsensual pornography is also frequently a form of domestic violence
and the threat to expose intimate pictures is often used to prevent a partner from exiting a
relationship or from reporting other forms of abuse, and is also used by sex traffickers to trap
unwilling individuals in the sex trade; and
WHEREAS, as of May 16, 2014, only thirteen states (Alaska, Arizona, California,
Colorado, Georgia, Hawaii, ldaho, Maryland, New Jersey, Texas, Utah, Virginia, and Wisconsin)
have enacted laws criminalizing nonconsensual pornography; and
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach support the
criminalization of nonconsensual pornography by the State of Florida to protect the rights of
sexual privacy while safeguarding the right to freedom of expression and providing for limited
exemptions for laMul practices relating to medical treatment, law enforcement, and public and
commercial purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE !T DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Florida Legislature is
hereby urged to enact legislation to criminalize the nonconsensual disclosure of sexually explicit
images.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of Ju|y,2014.
ATTEST:
RAFAEL E. GRANADO, CITY CLERK
F:\ATTO\TU RN\RESOS\Criminalize Revenge Porn.docx
8i,lB,
& FOR EXECUTIONwla-C-; ,lt
Citv Attornev 'rX/Dote58
R2
COMPETITIVE BID REPORTS
59
R2 - Competitive Bid Reports
R2A Request Approval To lssue A Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 2014-278-ME For
Owners Representative Services For The Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation
And Expansion.
(City Manager's Office/Procurement)
(Memorandum to be Submitted in Supplementa!)
Agenda ltem fl4 A
Date 7-fu-l(60
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
61
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
Request for approval to issue Request For Proposal RFP 2014-294-ME for Design Builder Services for The Miami
Beach Convention Center Renovation and Expansion
Expeditiously Upgrade the Convention Center to be Smart, Modern, Energy Efficient, and which fits Local
Su Data (S Environmental Scan, etc.): N/A
lssue:
Shall the Citv Commission the issuance of the RFP?
Item Summarv/Recommendation :
The City is seeking a Design-Builder for the renovation and expansion of the Miami Beach Convention Center
(MBCC or Convention Center). The Design-Builder shall be led by a construction firm (Prime Respondent). All
other team members shall be a subcontractor to the Prime Respondent, and shall not be in contractual privitywith
the City.
The City plans to renovate and expand the MBCC to "Class A" standards. The Project is to include allexhibit halls,
meeting rooms, pre-function, and support spaces such as loading docks, kitchens, bathrooms, MEP systems, and
exterior areas. ln addition, the MBCC is to be expanded to accommodate a new ballroom and meeting space. The
Project will also include the conversion of approximately 880 surface parking spaces into a 6.5 acre public park and
refurbishment of the Convention Center Drive and the Collins Canal seawall. New parking replacing the existing
spaces will be incorporated on the roof of the building.
The City plans to renovate and expand the Miami Beach Convention Center under a design-build contract. The
City has hired Fentress Architects as its Design Criteria Professional ("DCP'), to create a Design Criteria Package
documenting the City's intent of the renovation and expansion that allows potential design-builders (i.e. proposers)
to submit proposals on a common basis.
The DCP's team also includes exteriorfagade architect Arquitectonica; landscape architect West 8; civil engineer
Kimley Horn; structural engineers Martin & Martin; mechanical, electrical & plumbing engineers M-E Engineers,
lnc.; acoustical engineers D.L. Adams; code consultant Rolf Jensen & Associates, lnc.; traffic engineer The
Corradino Group; lighting designer lllume; signage consultant TKD; vertical transportation consultant Lerch Bates,
lnc.; food service consultant William Caruso Associates; cost estimator Rider Levett Bucknall; and parking
consultant Walker Parking.
The project will be overseen by a dedicated City Project Manager, and augmented by the Owner's Representative
team.
Fentress has completed the schematic design for the project. This schematic design will be further developed
through the DCP's design development phase.
RECOMMENDATION
the issuance of the RFP.
Financial lnformation:
Financial lmpact Summary: N/A
Alex Denis, Director Ext # 6641
l-qrs:
Debartment Director Assistant Gitv Manaqer City Manager n
ooVO MH t'*KGB_ Mr(w rrm--=sk{
T:\AGENDAYOl4\July\Procurement July 30\MBCC\RFP-2O14-294-ME Design Builder - SUMMARY.doc
RzBAGENDA ITEME MIAMIBEACH D^re 1- L3-lLl62
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, I 700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33.l 39, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Members of rsston
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Ma
DATE: July 30, 2014
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP)
2014.294.ME FOR DESIGN.BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE M!AM! BEACH
CONVENTION CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
BACKGROUND / ANALYSIS
The City is seeking a Design-Builder for the renovation and expansion of the Miami Beach Convention Center (MBCC or
Convention Center). The Design-Builder shall be led by a construction firm (Prime Respondent). The Prime Proposer
shall be the entity which shall enter into a contract with the City, should this RFP result in award. All other team members
shall be a subcontractor to the Prime Respondent, and shall not be in contractual privity with the City.
The City is seeking proposals from capable Design-Build firms interested in submitting a proposal for the Project. The
Prolect includes: 1) the complete renovation of the Convention Center with an expansion of a ballroom and auxiliary
spaces; 2) parking above portions of the Convention Center; 3) exterior landscaping and a 6.5 acre public park; 4) a
renovation of Convention Center Drive, including relocation of utilities; and 5) replacement of the seawall along the south
side of the Collins Canal.
The City plans to renovate and expand the MBCC to "Class A" standards, in a manner that best meets the needs of the
target market, within the available funds for the Project. ln general, the Project is to include all exhibit halls, meeting
rooms, pre-function, and support spaces such as loading docks, kitchens, bathrooms, MEP systems, and exterior areas.
ln addition, the MBCC is to be expanded to accommodate a new ballroom and meeting space. The Prqect will also
include the conversion of approximately 880 surface parking spaces into a 6.5 acre public park and refurbishment of the
Convention Center Drive and the Collins Canal seawall. New parking replacing the existing spaces will be incorporated
on the roof of the building.
Design Criteria Package
The City plans to renovate and expand the Miami Beach Convention Center under a design-build contract. The City has
hired Fentress Architects as its Design Criteria Professional ("DCP'), to create a Design Criteria Package documenting
the City's intent of the renovation and expansion that allows potential design-builders (i.e. proposers) to submit proposals
on a common basis. The DCP will be responsible for designing and documenting the renovation and expansion
program through the design development stage (30% drawings), commonly referred to as "bridging documents". The
DCP will also assist with the evaluation of the proposals, and monitoring compliance to designs and specifications
throughout the Pqect construction documents phase and construction process.
The DCP's team also includes exterior fagade architect Arquitectonica; landscape architect West 8; civil engineer Kimley
Horn; structural engineers Martin & Martin, mechanical, electrical & plumbing engineers M-E Engineers, lnc.; acoustical
engineers D.L. Adams; code consultant Rolf Jensen & Associates, lnc.; traffic engineer The Corradino Group; lighting
designer lllume; signage consultant TKD; vertical transportation consultant Lerch Bates, lnc.; food service consultant
William Caruso Associates; cost estimator Rider Levett Bucknall; and parking consultant Walker Parking.
The City has engaged Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) to act as its Project Consultant.
63
RFP 2014-294-ME for Design Builder Services for The Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation and
Expansion - July 30,2014
Page 2
Project Oversight
The project will be overseen by a dedicated City Prolect Manager, and augmented by the Owner's Representative team.
The City and Owneds Representative will be assisted by a dedicated on-site architect from the Design Criteria
Professional team (Fentress Architects) The primary role of the Owner's Representative will be to ensure the City
receives a Center renovation and expansion consistent with the Design Criteria Package in a timely manner for the
agreed upon price. The Owner's Representative will have on-site dedicated staff to monitor the Design-Builder. The
Design-Builder will be responsible for managing the project and the owner's representative will monitor. The City and
Owner's Representative will be assisted by a dedicated on-site architect from the Design Criteria Professional's team.
Concept Program and Schematic Design
Fentress has completed the schematic design for the prolect. This schematic design will be further developed through
the DCP's design development phase.
Phasing and Schedule
Prolect Phasing will be a critical component of the selected Design-Builder's services. The City has adopted a
Construction Booking Policy, whereby half of the Convention Center is to remain open at any given time to
accommodate certain Convention Center events. Phase One will focus on renovating the north half of the MBCC
exhibition hall and eastern concourse, while beginning construction of the new ballroom. During this period the southem
half of the MBCC exhibition hall, western concourse, and meeting rooms will remain open for events. Once completed,
the new northern facility will open and the southern portion and western concourse will be closed for renovation.
Under an idealschedule, Phase One would be completed by November 16, 2016, to enable Art Baselto utilize the entire
Convention Center (with the exception of the new ballroom). Until the new ballroom is available, the City desires to
reserve an area of the P-Lot for use as temporary exhibit space, of up to 60,000 square feet, for a tented structure.
Phase Two would begin on December 10, 2016, and would be completed by November 21,2017, to host the next Art
Basel. ln any event, the entire Convention Center must be available for the Art Basel events and construction will halt
during that event and its move in/out period. Site work and other exterior renovations will likely begin in 2015, prior to
the 2015 Art Basel event. Moreover, landscaping, the park, and Convention Center drive will likely occur after the 2017
event.
MAJOR RFP REQUIREMENTS
1. MINIMUMQUALIFICATIONS
Please Reference Section 0500, RFP 2014-294-ME.
2. SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS
Please Reference Section 0300, RFP 2014-294-ME.
3. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION
Please Reference Section 0400, RFP 2014-294-ME.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends the issuance of RFP 2014-294-ME for Design Builder Services for the
Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation and Expansion.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and Commission authorize the issuance of the RFP 2014-
2294-ME for Design Builder Services for the Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation and Expansion.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A: RFP 2014-294-ME for Design Builder Services for the Miami Beach Convention Center
July 30\MBCC\RFP-2014-294-ME Design Builder - MEMO.doc
64
ATTACHIIE!\IT A
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
FOR DESIGN.BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE MIAM! BEACH
CONVENTION CENTER RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
RFP No. 2O[4-294-ME
RFP ISSUANCE DATE: WEDNESDAY, JUIY 31, 2Ol4
PRE-PROPOSAI TVIEETING DATE: THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2014, l:3O PM
PROPOSAT DUE DATE: FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2014 BY 3:OO PM
ISSUED BY:
i'tril/-i.,lni,,"l i Sf AC H
Morio Estevez, Assistonf Director
DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT,l700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, FL 33,l39
305.673.7000 x 7490 | MorioEstevez@miomibeochfl.gov
www.miomibeochfl.gov
65
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
00100. GENERAL TNSTRUCTTONS TO PROPOSERS ............ ..............4
00200. DEF|N|T|ONS............. (omitred)
00300. TNSTRUCTTONS TO PROPOSERS............ ............13
00305. EVALUATTON PROCESS ............... ......17
00315. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS ........19
APPENDIXES:
A. PROPOSAL CERTIFICATION, QUESTIONNAIRE & REQUIREMENTS AFFIDAVIT
B. MBCC SCHEMATIC DESIGN
C. MBCC SCHEMATIC DESIGN NARRATIVE
D. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
RFP 2014-294-ME
66
E MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beach, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139,
wwlv. miamibeachfl. gov
DEPARTMENT OF PROCUREMENT MANAGEMENT
Tel: 305.673.7490, Fax: 786.394.4006
PUBLIC NOTICE
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFp) No.2014-294-ME (the "RFp")
FOR DESIGN-BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER RENOVATION AND
EXPANSION (THE "PROJ ECT',)
Miami Beach, Florida
The City is seeking proposals from capable design-build firms interested in submitting a proposal for the Project. The
Project includes: 1) the complete renovation of the Miami Beach Convention Center with an expansion of a ballroom
and auxiliary spaces, 2) parking above portions of the Convention Center; 3) exterior landscaping and a 6.5 acre
public park; 4) a renovation of Convention Center Drive, including relocation of utilities; and 5) a replacement of the
seawall along the south side of the Collins Canal. A Design Criteria Package is being prepared and shall include
specifications and plans for the Project.
A Non-Mandatory Pre-Proposal Conference is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on August 14, 2014 at the following
location:
Miami Beach Convention Center
1901 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Hall C, 2na Floor - Room AC223/C224
Attendance (ln person or via telephone) to this meeting is not mandatory but strongly encouraged.
Proposers interested in participating in the meeting via telephone must follow these steps:
Web Address:
https://qlobal.ootomeetinq.com/meetinq/ioin/282566237
To join the conference call:
United States: +1 (786)358-5420
Access Code', 282-566-237
Additionally, interested parties are encouraged to visit the site, scheduled immediately following the Pre-
Proposal Conference.
Sealed in response to the Phase I of this RFP will be received by the City of Miami Beach Department of
Procurement Management,3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, until 3:00 p.m.
on September 19,2014.
Sincerely,
Alex Denis
Director, Procurement Management Department
*{ )\.i
l- r
s I RFP 2014-294-ME
67
OIOO. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS:
1. General. This Request for Proposals (RFP) is issued by the City of Miami Beach, Florida (the "City") as the means
for prospective Proposers to submit their qualifications, proposed scopes of work and cost proposals to the City, for
the City's consideration, as an option in achieving the required scope of services and requirements as noted herein.
All documents released in connection with this RFP, including all appendixes and addenda, whether included herein
or released under separate cover, comprise the solicitation, and are complementary to one another and, together,
establish the complete terms, conditions and obligations of the Proposers and, subsequently, the successful
Propose(s) if this RFP results in an award.
The City utilizes PublicPurchase (www,oublicpurchase.com) for automatic notification of competitive solicitation
opportunities and document fulfillment, including the issuance of any addenda to this RFP. Any prospective Proposer
who has received this RFP by any means other than through PublicPurchase must register immediately with
PublicPurchase to assure it receives any addendum issued to this RFP. Failure to receive an addendum may
result in disqualification of a Proposal.
2. Scope of Work:
The City is seeking a Design-Builder for the renovation and
expansion of the Miami Beach Convention Center (MBCC or
Convention Center). The Design-Builder shall be led by a
construction firm (Prime Respondent). The Prime Proposer
shall be the entity which shall enter into a contract with the
City, should this RFP result in award. All other team members
shall be a subcontractor to the Prime Respondent, and shall
not be in contractual privity with the City.
The City is seeking proposals from capable design-build firms
interested in submitting a proposal for the Project. The Project
includes: 1) the complete renovation of the Convention Center with an expansion of a ballroom and auxiliary spaces;
2) parking above portions of the Convention Center; 3) exterior landscaping and a 6,5 acre public park; 4) a
renovation of Convention Center Drive, including relocation of utilities; and 5) replacement of the seawall along the
south side of the Collins Canal.
This RFP will be issued and awarded through a competitive proposal selection process, in accordance with the
applicable requirements of the Florida Consultant Competitive Negotiation Act ("CCNA"). The selected Design-
Builder will agree to a guaranteed maximum price and guaranteed completion date.
The RFP shall follow a two-step, phased process. The competitive proposal selection process for will include:
Design-Builder Selection - Phase I - Qualificationsr The qualification and selection of no fewer than three (3) design-build firms as the most qualified based on
the qualifications, availability, and past work of the firms, including the partners or members thereof,. The short-listed proposers are anticipated to be selected in late Octoberharly November, and be considered
by the City Commission on November 19, 2014.. The short-listed Proposers in Phase l, and only those Proposers, shall be authorized to proceed to Phase ll
of the RFP.
Design-Builder Selection - Phase ll - Proposals. The Design Criteria Package is anticipated to be completed in mid-November 2014, and present for. consideration and approvalby the City Commission on December 17,2014.
r,#$
4 I RFP 2O14-2e4-ME
68
. The Design Criteria Package, form of contract, and other requirements are anticipated to be issued to the
Phase I short-listed Proposers on December 22, 2014.. The Phase ll proposals are anticipated to be due on Februarv 2l ,2015.. City staff, City consultants, the Design Criteria Professional (Fentress Architects) and the City's Owne/s
Representative will complete the technical review of the Phase ll proposals in March and early April 2015.o The short-listed Proposers will be interviewed by a selection committee in early April 2015. The criteria,
procedures and standards forthe evaluation of the Phase ll proposals will be based on schedule, technical
and design aspects, and price of the Project, weighted for the Project. (See Section V for the points allowed
for each criteria). The selected Phase ll proposal is anticipated to be approved by the City Commission in mid-April2015.
Background
Owned by the City of Miami Beach, the Convention Center (or MBCC) is a significant economic generator for the
City, and the region. Originally built in 1957, the MBCC encompassed 108,000 square feet. ln 'tg68, an additional
130,500 square feet of exhibit space was added, with additional support facilities subsequently constructed in 1g74.
ln 1986, as the demand for exhibition space increased, the facility underwent a $92 million renovation and doubled in
size to its current footprint of approximately 1.2 million square feet, including approximately 502,000 square feet of
exhibition space and 126,000 square feet of meeting space. Since that time, the facility has received over $50 million
in continuing upgrades.
The MBCC currently hosts approximately 145 events, annually, including internationally recognized events such as
Art Basel Miami Beach. lt also hosts rotating conventions, meetings, and a number of annual trade shows.
The City plans to renovate and expand the MBCC to "Class A" standards, in a manner that best meets the needs of
the target market, within the available funds for the Project. ln general, the Project is to include all exhibit halls,
meeting rooms, pre-function, and support spaces such as loading docks, kitchens, bathrooms, MEP systems, and
exterior areas. ln addition, the MBCC is to be expanded to accommodate a new ballroom and meeting space. The
Project will also include the conversion of approximately 880 surface parking spaces into a 6.5 acre public park and
refurbishment of the Convention Center Drive and the Collins Canal seawall. New parking replacing the existing
spaces will be incorporated on the roof of the building.
For a complete narrative of the scope of the project, refer to Appendix C.
Design Criteria Package
The City plans to renovate and expand the Miami Beach Convention Center under a design-build contract. The City
has hired Fentress Architects as its Design Criteria Professional ('DCP'), to create a Design Criteria Package
documenting the City's intent of the renovation and expansion that allows potential design-builders (i.e. proposers) to
submit proposals on a common basis. The DCP will be responsible for designing and documenting the renovation
and expansion program through the design development stage (30% drawings), commonly referred to as "bridging
documents". The DCP will also assist with the evaluation of the proposals, and monitoring compliance to designs
and specifications throughout the Project construction documents phase and construction process.
The DCP's team also exterior fagade architect Arquitectonica; landscape architect West 8; civil engineer Kimley
Horn; structural engineers Martin & Martin; mechanical, electrical & plumbing engineers M-E Engineers, lnc.;
acoustical engineers D.L. Adams; code consultant Rolf Jensen & Associates, lnc.; traffic engineer The Corradino
Group; lighting designer lllume; signage consultant TKD; vertical transportation consultant Lerch Bates, lnc.; food
service consultant William Caruso Associates; cost estimator Rider Levett Bucknall; and parking consultant Walker
Parking.
The DCP has completed the conceptual and schematic design and a construction design narrative for the Project.
(See Appendix B and C). The design will be further developed through the DCP's design development process.
RFP 20t 4-294-ME
69
Project Oversight
The City has engaged Strategic
Advisory Group (SAG) to act as its
Project Consultant.
The Project will be overseen by a
dedicated City Project Manager, and
augmented by the Owne/s
Representative. The City is issuing an
RFP for Owne/s Representative
services, and it is the City's goal to
have the Project Owne/s Representative in place by late October 2014. The prlmary role of the Owne/s
Representative will be to ensure that the City receives a Project consistent with the Design Criteria Package, in a
timely manner and for the agreed upon price. The Owne/s Representative will have on-site dedicated staff to
monitor the selected Design-Builder. The City and Owne/s Representative will be assisted by a dedicated on-site
architect from the Design Criteria Professional's team.
Phasing and Schedule
Project Phasing will be a critical component of the selected Design-Builder's services. The City has adopted a
Construction Booking Policy, whereby half of the Convention Center is to remain open at any given time to
accommodate certain Convention Center events. The Phase One will focus on renovating the north half of the MBCC
exhibition hall and eastern concourse, while beginning construction of the new ballroom. During this period the
southern half of the MBCC exhibition hall, western concourse, and meeting rooms will remain open for events. Once
completed, the new northern facility will open and the southern portion and western concourse will be closed for
renovation.
Under an idealschedule, Phase One would be completed by November 16,2016, to enable Art Baselto utilize the
entire Convention Center (with the exception of the new ballroom). Until the new ballroom is available, the City
desires to reserve an area of the P-Lot for use as temporary exhibit space with a tented structure. Phase Two would
begin on December '10, 2016, and would be completed by November 21, 2017 , to host the next Art Basel. ln any
event, the entire Convention Center must be available for the Art Basel events and construction will halt during that
event and its move in/out period. Site work and other exterior renovations will likely begin in 20'15, prior to the 2015
Art Basel event. Moreover, landscaping, the park, and Convention Center drive will likely occur after the 2017 event.
Miamt Beach Convention Center
Phasing Schedule
1 I 3 4 5 5 7 8 9 101112131415151718t9202!2223242526272A29 3031323334
No(h Erhlbtim Hall Rmovalon
o
6&t.(E
--
sel
South €rhbtion Hall Rsovaton
se lll
I/4wstLon(ourseRendatro ---.-----...----
li v of Miami Beach
City Staffl_ StrategkAdvisryGroup,
East Comouse Reovatron
NEw galfoom (:.n+nrdion
o
m
@t
o
Gdt
a
odt
3/4 Wst Concour.eRenovahm
P'Lot Park
Con!stion hterOrive
o I nre 2ot4-294-ME
70
6. Concept Design Cost Estimate
The DCP and its cost estimator have estimated the Project hard costs, based on the conceptual design drawings and
narratives, to total $349 million, excluding mark-ups for general conditions, contractor/design-builder
fees, insurance/bonds, contingencies, and any other soft costs.
7. Minimum Requirements: ln order for proposals to be deemed responsive, Proposers must meet the minimum
requirement set forth herein. Non-responsive proposers will be disqualified from consideration.
ProposalTeam Members
1. Phase I - Team members for the Phase I submittal must include the Prime Respondent (who shall be the
entity entering into contract with the City), and, at a minimum, the following subcontractors: Convention
Center Designer; and Landscape Designer. Other design subcontractons may be included but are not
required.
L Phase ll - ln addition to those required under Phase l, the Phase ll submittal must include key construction
subcontractors representing 10% or more of the hard cost budget.
3. Prime Respondenta. The Prime Respondent, as the General Contractor for the Project, must have completed at least two
(2) projects with Hard Construction Costs of at least $250 million within the last 10 (ten) years. ln
addition, the Prime Respondent, as a general contractor under design-build or other form of
construction contract, must have built or renovated at least two (2) convention centers with at least
250,000 square feet of exhibition within the last 10 (ten) years.
b. The Prime Respondent must be licensed to work in Florida as a General Contractor by the Proposal
Due Date.
4. Lead Project Manager - The Prime Respondent's lead project manager for this Project must have managed
one (1) project with Hard Construction Costs of at least $250 million under a design-build contract within the
last 10 (ten) years, and must have managed the construction or renovation of at least one (1) convention
center with at least 250,000 square feet of exhibition space within the last 10 (ten) years.
5. The Convention Center Designer must have been the architect of record and completed construction
documentation for at least two (2) convention centers with at least 250,000 square feet of exhibition space
within the last ten (10) years.
6. Landscape Deslgner - ldentify firm or entity.
For purposes of this RFP, "Hard Construction Costs" shall be defined as the cost of work, excluding mark-ups for
general conditions, contractor/design-builder fees, insurance/bonds, and any other soft costs.
8. Anticipated RFP Timetable. The tentative schedule for this solicitation is as follows:
Phase I - Qualifications
RFP lssued July 31, 2014
Pre-Submittal Meeting August 14, 2014 @ 1:30 PM
Deadline for Receipt of Questions September 9,2014
Responses Due September 19,2014
Selection Committee Meeting to Shortlist October 9,2014
Selection Committee Meeting to lnterview October 23124,2014
z I nre 2014-294-ME
71
Commission Approval to Shortlist November 19,2014
Phase ll - Proposals
Solicitation lssued to Short-Listed Proposers December 22,2014
Pre-Submittal Meeting January 8, 2015
Deadline for Receipt of Questions January 18, 2015
Proposals Due February 27 ,2015
Selection Committee Meeting to lnterview March 26, 2015
Commission Approval of Final Proposer April 15, 2015
9. Proposal Submission: One (1) unbound original proposal must be received on or before the date
stipulated herein for the receipt of proposals. Additionally, twenty (20) bound copies as well as a CD or flash
drive copy of the complete proposal are to be submitted to the City. The original proposal and all copies must
be submitted to the Department of Procurement Management in a sealed envelope or container stating on the
outside, the Proposer's name, address, telephone number, RFP number, title, and due date. Any proposals
received after time and date specified will be returned to the Proposer unopened. The responsibility for
submitting a proposal before the stated time and date is solely and strictly the responsibility of the Proposer.
The City is not responsible for delays caused by mail, courier service, traffic, weather or any other
occurrence.
10. Procurement Contact: Any questions or clarifications concerning this solicitation shall be submitted to the
Procurement Contact named herein, in writing, with a copy to the City Clerk's Office, Rafael E. Granado via e-
mail: RafaelGranado@miamibeachflqov ; or facsimile: 786-394-4188. The RFP title/number shall be referenced on
all correspondence. All questions or requests for clarification must be received no later than ten (10) calendar days
prior to the date Proposals are due as scheduled in the Solicitation Timeline. All responses to questions/clarifications
will be sent to all prospective Proposers in the form of an addendum.
Procurement Contact:
Maria Estevez
Telephone:
305-673-7490
Email:
mestevez@miami beachfl. gov
11. Pre-Proposal Conference: A Pre-Proposal Conference is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. on Auqust 14,2014 al'.
Miami Beach Convention Center
1901 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, Florida 33139
Hall C, 2nd Floor - Room AC2231C224
Attendance (in person or via telephone) to this meeting is not mandatory but strongly encouraged.
Proposers interested in participating in the meeting via telephone must follow these steps:
Web Address:
httos:/lqlobal,qotomeetinq.com/meeti nq/ioin/282566237
To join the conference call:
United States: +1 (786)358-5420
Access Code: 282-566-237
Additionally, interested parties are encouraged to attend the site visit scheduled immediately following the
Pre-Proposal Conference.
s I RFP 2014-294-ME
72
12. Pre-Proposal lnterpretations: Oral information or responses to questions received by prospective Proposers
are not binding on the City and will be without legal effect, including any information received at pre-submittal
meeting or site visit(s). Only questions answered by written addenda will be binding and may supersede terms noted
in this solicitation. Addendum will be released through PublicPurchase. Any prospective Proposer who has received
this RFP by any means other than through PubticPurchase must regisier immediately wilh PublicPurchase to
assure it receives any addendum issued to this RFP. Failure to receive an addendum may result in
disqualification of proposal.
13. DCP Documents: The DCP for this Project shall be available in digltal format on CDs, Please call Maria Estevez
at 305.673.7000 ext. 7490, or e-mail mestevez@miamibeachfl.oov to secure a CD. The cost for these CDs is $20.
One may purchase a CD through the Finance Cashier located on the 1d Floor in City Hall. Please make reference of
the RFP and project number and name to the Finance Cashier. After purchase, CDs are to be collected by the
Proposer at the Procurement Office located on the 3rd Floor in City Hall with presentation of receipt from the Finance
Cashier.
14. Cone Of Silence. Pursuant to Section 2-486 of the City Code, all procurement solicitations once advertised and
until an award recommendation has been forwarded to the City Commission by the City Manager are under the"Cone of Silence." The Cone of Silence ordinance is available at
http://library.municode.com/index.aspx?clientlD=13097&statelD=9&statename=Florida. Any communication or
inquiry in reference to this solicitation with any City employee or City official is strictly prohibited with the of exception
communications with the Procurement Director, or his/her administrative staff responsible for administering the
procurement process for this solicitation providing said communication is limited to matters of process or procedure
regarding the solicitation. Communications regarding this solicitation are to be submitted in writing to the
Procurement Contact named herein with a copy to the City Clerk at rafaelgranado@miamibeachfl.gov.
15. Modification / Withdrawals Of Responses
A proposer may submit a modified response to replace all or any portion of a previously submitted response up until
the due date and time. Modifications received after the response due date and time will not be considered.
Responses shall be irrevocable until contract award unless withdrawn in writing prior to the due date, or after
expiration of 120 calendar days from the opening of responses without a contract award. Letters of withdrawal
received after the response due date and before said expiration date, and letters of withdrawal received after contract
award will not be considered.
1 6, RFP PostponemenUCancellation/Rejection
The City may, at its sole and absolute discretion, reject any and all, or parts of any and all, responses; re-advertise
this RFP; postpone or cancel, at any time, this RFP process; or waive any irregularities in this RFP, or in any
responses received as a result of this RFP.
17.Costs Incurred by Proposers
All expenses involved with the preparation and submittal of responses, or any work performed in connection
therewith, shall be the sole responsibility (and shall be at the sole cost and expense) of the respondent, and shall not
be reimbursed by the City.
18. Exceptions to RFP
Proposers must clearly indicate any exceptions they wish to take to any of the terms in this RFP, and outline what, if
any, alternative is being offered. All exceptions and alternatives shall be included and clearly delineated, in writing, in
the response, The City, at its sole and absolute discretion, may accept or reject any or all exceptions and
alternatives. ln cases in which exceptions and alternatives are rejected, the City shall require the proposer to comply
r I nre 2014-294-ME
73
with the particular term and/or condition of the RFP to which proposer took exception to (as said term and/or
condition was originally set forth on the RFP).
19. Florida Public Records Law:
Proposers are hereby notified that all responses including, without limitation, any and all information and
documentation submitted therewith, are exempt from public records requirements under Section 119.07(1), Florida
Statutes, and s. 24(a), Art. 1 of the State Constitution until such time as the City provides notice of an intended
decision or until thirty (30) days after opening of the responses, whichever is earlier. Additionally, in the event an
agreement is entered into with a proposer pursuant to this RFP, proposer agrees to be in full compliance with Florida
Statute 119,0701 including, but not limited to, agreement to (a) Keep and maintain public records that ordinarily and
necessarily would be required by the public agency in order to perform the services; (b) provide the public with
access to public records on the same terms and conditions that the public agency would provide the records and at a
cost that does not exceed the cost provided in this chapter or as otherwise provided by law; (c) Ensure that public
records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements are not disclosed
except as authorized by law; (d) Meet all requirements for retaining public records and transfer, at no cost, to the
public agency all public records in possession of the contractor upon termination of the contract and destroy any
duplicate public records that are exempt or confidential and exempt from public records disclosure requirements. All
records stored electronically must be provided to the public agency in a format that is compatible with the information
technology systems of the public agency.
20. Negotiations:
The City reserves the right to enter into further negotiations with the selected respondent. Notwithstanding the
preceding, the City is in no way obligated to enter into a contract with the selected proposer in the event the parties
are unable to negotiate a contract. lt is also understood and acknowledged by proposers that by submitting a
response, no property interest or legal right of any kind shall be created at any time until and unless a contract has
been agreed to; approved by the City; and executed by the parties.
21. Protest Procedure:
Proposers that are not selected may protest any recommendation for selection of award in accordance with the
proceedings established pursuant to the City's bid protest procedures (Ordinance No. 2002-3344), as codified in
Sections 2-370 and 2-371 of the City Code. Protests not timely made pursuant to the requirements of
Ordinance No. 2002-3344 shall be barred.
22. Observance Of Laws:
Proposers are expected to be familiar with, and comply with, all Federal, State, County, and City laws, ordinances,
codes, rules and regulations, and all orders and decrees of bodies or tribunals having jurisdiction or authority which,
in any manner, may affect the scope of services and/or project contemplated by this RFP (including, without
limitation, the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title Vll of the Civil Rights Act, the EEOC Uniform Guidelines, and all
EEO regulations and guidelines). lgnorance of the law(s) on the part of the proposer will in no way relieve it from
responsibility for compliance.
23. Default:
Failure or refusal of the selected proposer to execute a contract following approval of such contract by the City
Commission, or untimely withdrawal of a response before such award is made and approved, may result in forfeiture
of that portion of any surety required as liquidated damages to the City. Where surety is not required, such failure
may result in a claim for damages by the City and may be grounds for removing the proposer from the City's vendor
list.
24. Conflict Of lnterest:
All proposers must disclose, in their response, the name(s) of any officer, director, agent, or immediate family
member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an employee of the City of Miami Beach. Further, all
ro I RFP 2014-294-ME
74
proposers must disclose the name of any City employee who owns, either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten
(10%) percent or more in the proposer entity or any of its affiliates.
25. Respondent's Responsibility:
Before submitting a response, each proposer shall be solely responsible for making any and all investigations,
evaluations, and examinations, as it deems necessary, to ascertain all conditions and requirements affecting the full
performance of the contract. lgnorance of such conditions and requirements, and/or failure to make such
evaluations, investigations, and examinations, will not relieve the proposer from any obligation to comply with every
detail and with all provisions and requirements of the contract, and will not be accepted as a basis for any
subsequent claim whatsoever for any monetary consideration on the part of the respondent.
26. Relationship to The City:
It is the intent of the City, and proposers hereby acknowledge and agree, that the selected Proposer is considered to
be an independent contractor, and that neither the respondent, nor the respondent's employees, agents, and/or
contractors, shall, under any circumstances, be considered employees or agents of the City.
27. Public Entity Crime:
A person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for public entity crimes
may not submit a bid on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public entity, may not submit a bid on a
contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a public building or public work, may not submit bids on
leases of real property to public entity, may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, sub-contractor,
or consultant under a contract with a public entity, and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of
the threshold amount provided in Sec. 287.017, for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months from the date of
being placed on the convicted vendor list.
28. Compliance with The City's Lobbyist Laws:
This RFP is subject to, and all proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, all City lobbyist laws.
Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that all City lobbyist laws are complied with, and shall be subject to
any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein, including, without limitation, disqualification of their responses, in the
event of such non-compliance.
29. Cone of Silence:
This RFP is subject to, and all proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the City's Cone of Silence
requirements, as codified in Section 2-486 of the City Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for ensuring that
all applicable provisions of the City's Cone of Silence are complied with, and shall be subject to any and all sanctions,
as prescribed therein, including rendering their response voidable, in the event of such non-compliance.
30. Debarment Ordinance:
This RFP is subject to, and all proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the City's Debarment Ordinance
(as adopted pursuant to Ordinance No, 200-3234, and as codified in Sections 2-397 through 2-406 of the City Code).
31. Compliance with the City's Campaign Finance Reform Laws:
This RFP is subject to, and all proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the City's Campaign Finance
Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the City Code. Proposers shall be solely responsible for
ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws are complied with, and shall be
subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein, including disqualification of their responses, in the event of
such non-compliance.
32. Code of Business Ethics:
Pursuant to City Resolution N0.2000-23879, the proposer shall adopt a Code of Business Ethics ("Code") and submit
that Code to the Procurement Division with its response or within five (5) days upon receipt of request. The Code
rr IRFP 2O\4-294-ME
75
shall, at a minimum, require the respondent, to comply with all applicable governmental rules and regulations
including, among others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of the City of Miami Beach and Miami
Dade County.
33. American with Disabilities Act (ADA):
Call 305-673-7490 to request material in accessible format; sign language interpreters (five (5) days in advance when
possible), or information on access for persons with disabilities. For more information on ADA compliance, please
callthe Public Works Department, at 305-673-7000, Extension 2984.
34. Acceptance of Gifts, Favors, Services
Proposers shall not offer any gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value to any official, employee, or agent of
the City, for the purpose of influencing consideration of this response. Pursuant to Sec. 2-449 of the City Code, no
officer or employee of the City shall accept any gift, favor or service that might reasonably tend improperly to
influence him in the discharge of his official duties.
35. Soecial Notices. You are hereby advised that this solicitation is subject to the following ordinances/resolutions,
which may be found on the City of Miami Beach website:
http://web. miamibeachfl.qov/procurement/scroll. aspx?id=2351 0
. CONE OF SILENCE . .. CITY CODE SECTION 2-486. PROTEST PROCEDURES. CITY CODE SECTION 2-371. DEBARMENT PROCEEDINGS CITY CODE SECTIONS 2-397 THROUGH 2-485.3. LOBBYIST REGISTMTION AND DISCLOSURE 0F FEES..... CITY CODE SECTIONS 2481 THROUGH 2-406
o CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY VENDORS CITY CODE SECTION 2487. CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY LOBBYISTS 0N PROCUREMENTISSUES......... CITYCODESECTION24SS. REQUIREMENT FOR CITY CONTMCTORS TO PROVIDE EQUAT
BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS . . . CITY CODE SECTION 2-373
. LIVING WAGE REQUIREMENT CITY CODE SECTIONS 2-407 THROUGH 2-410
o PREFERENCE FOR FLORIDA SMALL BUSINESSES OWNED AND
CONTROLLED BY VETEMNS AND TO STATE.CERTIFIED SERVICE-
DISABLED VETEMN BUSINESS ENTERPRISES. CITY CODE SECTION 2.374. FALSE CLAIMS 0RD|NANCE.... CITY CODE SECTION 70-300. ACCEPTANCE 0F GIFTS, FAVORS & SERVICES.... ... CITY CODE SECTION 2449
Note: Ordinances may be amended any time prior to the receipt of bids. The most recently approved ordinance or
version shall apply.
12 | RFP 2014-2e4-ME
76
OO2OO. DEFINITIONS:
Omitted.
OO3OO. INSTRUCTIONS TO PROPOSERS:
1. Pre-Prooosal lnteroretations: Only questions answered by written Addenda will be binding and may
supersede terms noted in this RFP. Oral and other interpretations or clarifications will be without
legal effect. All questions about the meaning or intent of the RFP are to be directed to the City's
Procurement Director or designated representative in writing. lnterpretations or clarifications considered
necessary by the City in response to such questions will be issued by the City by means of Addenda mailed
or delivered to all parties recorded by the City's Procurement Director as having received the Bidding
Documents. Written questions should be received no less than ten (10) calendar days prior to the
date of the opening of proposals. There shall be no obligation on the part of City or the City's
Procurement Director to respond to questions received less than ten (10) calendar days prior to
original proposal opening date stipulated in this solicitation.
2. Joint Ventures: Joint Ventures are not allowed. The City will contract with the Prime Contractor only.
Proposals shall be submitted by the Prime Contractor only. However, proposals may include other sub-
contractors or sub-consultants to the Prime Contractor, provided, however, that, at a minimum proposers
must include and identified the Convention Center Designer and Landscape Designer as part of their Phase
lsubmittal.
3. Printed Form of Proposal: All proposals must be made upon the blank Proposal Tender Form herein and
must give the price in strict accordance with the instructions thereon. The proposal must be signed and
acknowledged by the Proposer in accordance with the directions on the proposal form.
4. Acceptance or Reiection of Prooosals: (-) Subject to Paragraph 8 on page 11 thereof, the City reserves the
right to reject any or all proposals prior to award. Reasonable efforts will be made to either award the
Contract or reject all proposals within one-hundred twenty (120) calendar days after proposal opening date.
A Proposer may not withdraw its proposal unilaterally nor change the Contract Price before the expiration of
ninety (90) calendar days from the date of proposal opening. A Proposer may withdraw its proposal after
the expiration of one hundred twenty ('120) calendar days from the date of proposal opening by delivering
written notice of withdrawal to the Department of Procurement Management prior to award of the Contract
by the City Commission.
5. Determination Of Award: Pursuant to F,S. 2Bl .055, the City shall first consider the qualifications of firms
through the process outlined in Section 0305, Evaluation of Process. The Evaluation of proposals shall
proceed in a two-phase process:
A. Phase I - Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established in Section 0305 for
Phase I Evaluation. Following the Phase I Evaluation Process, the City Manager may recommend to
the City Commission on or more respondents to be considered in Phase ll. The number of respondents
recommended to be short-listed for consideration in Phase ll is solely at the discretion of the City
Manager.
B. Phase ll - Short-listed Proposals will be evaluated in accordance with the criteria established in Section
0305 for Phase ll Evaluation.
The results of both Phase I and Phase ll evaluations will be considered by the City Manager who may
recommend to the City Commission the respondent(s) he deems to be in the best interest of the City, or may
recommend rejection of all responses. The City Manager's recommendation need not be consistent with the
scoring results identified herein and takes into consideration Miami Beach City Code Section 2-369, including
the following considerations:
rs I RFP 2O|4-294-ME
77
6.
a) The ability, capacity and skill of the proposer to perform the contract,
b) Whether the proposer can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or interference.
c) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the respondent.
d) The quality of performance of previous contracts.
e) The previous and existing compliance by the proposer with laws and ordinances relating to the contract.
The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation for each phase and may approve
such recommendation. The City Commission may also, at its option, reject the City Manager's
recommendation and select another proposer (or proposers) which it deems to be in the best interest of the
City, or it may also reject all responses.
Once the Phase ll ranking is approved by the City Commission, the City will enter into contract negotiations
with the top ranked firm. lf the City and selected firm cannot agree on contractual terms, the City will
terminate negotiations and begin negotiations with the next ranked firm, continuing this process with each
firm in rank order until agreeable terms can be met or the procurement is terminated. Contract negotiations
and execution will take place as quickly as possible after selection.
Performance Evaluation: An interim performance evaluation of the successful proposer may be submitted
by the Contract Administrator during construction of the Project. A final performance evaluation shall be
submitted when the Request for Final Payment to the construction contractor is fonruarded for approval. ln
either situation, the completed evaluation(s) shall be forwarded to the City's Procurement Director who shall
provide a copy to the successful proposer. Said evaluation(s) may be used by the City as a factor in
considering the responsibility of the successful proposer for future proposals with the City.
Postoonement of Date for Presentinq and Ooeninq Proposals: The City reserves the right to postpone the
date for receipt and opening of proposals and will make a reasonable effort to give at least five (5) calendar
days written notice of any such postponement to each prospective proposer.
Qualifications of Proposers: Proposals shall be considered only from Proposers which submit their proposal
by the proposal's due date; proposers who meet the "Minimum Requirements"; and proposers that submit
all required documentation as requested under this solicitation.
ln determining a proposer's responsibility and ability to perform the Contract, City has the right to investigate
and request information concerning the financial condition, experience record, personnel, equipment,
facilities, principal business location and organization of the proposer, the propose/s record with
environmental regulations, and the claims/litigation history of the proposer. The City reserves the right to
consider third-party information (e.9., Dun & Bradstreet's Supplier Reports or similar) in determination of
capacity.
Addenda and Modifications: The City shall make reasonable efforts to issue addenda within seven (7)
calendar days prior to proposal opening. All addenda and other modifications made prior to the time and
date of proposal opening shall be issued as separate documents identified as changes to the Project
Manual.
Occupational Health and Safety: ln compliance with Chapter 442, Florida Statutes, any toxic substance
listed in Section 38F-41.03 of the Florida Administrative Code delivered as a result of this proposal must be
accompanied by a Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) which may be obtained from the manufacturer.
8.
I
10.
rr I nre 2o14-294-ME
78
11.Environmental Requlations: The City reserves the right to consider a proposer's history of citations and/or
violations of environmental regulations in investigating a propose/s responsibility, and further reserves the
right to declare a proposer not responsible if the history of violations warrant such determination in the
opinion of the City. Proposer shall submit with its proposal, a complete history of all citations and/or
violations, notices and dispositions thereof. The non-submission of any such documentation shall be
deemed to be an affirmation by the Proposer that there are no citations or violations. Proposer shall notify
the City immediately of notice of any citation or violation which proposer may receive after the proposal
opening date and during the time of performance of any contract awarded to it.
"Or Equal" Clause: Whenever a material, article or piece of equipment is identified in the RFP including
plans and specifications by reference to manufacturers' or vendors' names, trade names, catalog numbers,
or othenrvise, City, will have made its best efforts to name at least three (3) such references. Any such
reference is intended merely to establish a standard; and, unless it is followed by the words "no
substitution is permitted" because of form, fit, function and quality, any material, article, or equipment of
other manufacturers and vendors which will perform or serve the requirements of the general design will be
considered equally acceptable provided the materials, article or equipment so proposed is, in the sole
opinion of City, equal in substance, quality and function.
ANY REQUESTS FOR SUBSTITUTION MUST BE MADE TO THE CITY'S PROCUREMENT DIRECTOR.
Protested Solicitation Award: Proposers that are not selected may protest any recommendation for contract
award in accordance with City of Miami Beach Code Section 2-371, which establishes procedures for
resulting protested proposals and proposed awards. Protest not timely pursuant to the requirements of the
City Code shall be barred.
Veteran Business Enterprises: Pursuant to City of Miami Beach Code Section 2-374, lhe City shall give a
preference to a responsive and responsible Proposer which is a small business concern owned and
controlled by a veteran(s) or which is a service-disabled veteran business enterprise, and which is within
five percent (5%) of the lowest responsive, responsible proposer, by providing such proposer an opportunity
of providing said goods or contractual services for the lowest responsive Proposal amount. Whenever, as a
result of the foregoing preference, the adjusted prices of two (2) or more Proposers which are a small
business concern owned and controlled by a veteran(s) or a service-disabled veteran business enterprise
constitute the lowest proposal pursuant to an RFP or oral or written request for quotation, and such
proposals are responsive, responsible and otherwise equal with respect to quality and service, then the
award shall be made to the service-disabled veteran business enterprise.
Eoual Benefits Code Provision: Proposers are advised that this RFP and any contract awarded pursuant to
this procurement process shall be subject to the applicable provisions of City Code Section 2-373, entitled
"Requirement for City Contractors to Provide Equal Benefits for Domestic Partners (the "Code Provision")."
The Code Provision applies to all employees of a Contractor who work within the City limits of the City of
Miami Beach, Florida; and the Contracto/s employees located in the United States, but outside of the City
of Miami Beach limits, who are directly performing work on the contract within the City of Miami Beach.
B. On contract amounts of $500,000 or less, the bond provisions of Section 287.0935, Florida
Statutes (1985) shall be in effect and surety companies not otherwise qualifying with this paragraph
may optionally qualify by:1. Providing evidence that the surety has twice the minimum surplus and capital
required by the Florida lnsurance Code at the time the solicitation is issued;2. Certifying that the surety is otherwise in compliance with the Florida lnsurance Code;
and
12.
't3.
14.
15.
rs t nre 2014-294-ME
79
C.
D.
E.
3. Providing a copy of the currently valid Certificate of Authority issued by the United
States Department of the Treasury under SS. 31 USC 9304-9308.
Surety insurers shall be listed in the latest Circular 570 of the U.S. Department of the Treasury
entitled "Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds", published annually. The bond amount
shall not exceed the undenrrrriting limitations as shown in this circular.
For contracts in excess of 500,000 the provisions of Section B will be adhered to plus the company
must have been listed for at least three consecutive years, or holding a valid Certificate of Authority
of at least 1.5 million dollars and on the Treasury List.
Surety Bonds guaranteed through U.S. Government Small Business Administration or Contractors
Training and Development lnc. will also be acceptable.
ln lieu of a bond, an irrevocable letter of credit or a cash bond in the form of a certified cashie/s
check made out to the City of Miami Beach will be acceptable. All interest will accrue to the City of
Miami Beach during the life of this contract and/or as long as the funds are being held by the City
of Miami Beach.
The attorney-in{act or other officer who signs a contract bond for a surety company must file with
such bond a certified copy of power of attorney authorizing the officer to do so. The contract bond
must be counter signed by the surety's resident Florida agent.
F.
16 I RFP 2O|4-294-ME
80
OO3O5. EVALUATION PROCESS
PHASE I EVALUATION PROCESS
1.
2.
Two Step Evaluation. The evaluation of responsive proposals will proceed in a two-step process. The first
step (Step 1) will consist of the qualitative criteria listed below to be considered by the Evaluation
Committee. The second step (Step 2) will consist of quantitative criteria established below to be added to
the first step scores by the Procurement Management Department.
Evaluation Committee. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate
each response in accordance with the requirements set forth in this solicitation. lf further information is
desired, proposers may be requested to make additional written submittals and/or oral presentations to the
Evaluation Committee. The evaluation of responses will proceed in a two-step process, as set forth below,
Step 1 will consist of the qualitative criteria listed below to be considered by the Evaluation Committee. Step
2 will consist of the quantitative criteria established below, to be added to the Evaluation Committee results
by the Department of Procurement Management.
Phase I / Step 1 Evaluation (100 Points). The Evaluation Committee shall meet to evaluate each response
in accordance with the qualifications criteria established below for Step 1, Qualitative Criteria. ln doing so,
the Evaluation Committee may:
a. Review and score all responses received utilizing the Weighted Criteria
b, Short-list proposers to be further considered in oral presentations
c. lnterview selected proposers
d. Re-score interviewed proposers utilizing the Weighted Criteria
e. Recommend to City Manager no less than three (3) proposers to be short-listed for Phase ll
Proposers will be evaluated on the following Weighted Criteria
. Organization Plan (10 points). Prime Proposer experience and qualifications (20 points). Prime Proposer experience with maintaining operations during the construction process (25
points)
o Convention Center Designer experience and qualifications (15 points). Landscape Designer experience and qualifications (10 points). Financial capability (15 points). Responses to forms (5 points)
Phase I / Step 2 Evaluation (10 Points). Following the results of Step 1 Evaluation Qualitative criteria, the
proposers may receive additional points to be added by the Department of Procurement Management to
those points earned in Step 1, as follows.
o Veterans and State-Certified Service-Disabled Veteran Business Enterprise (5 points)
3
rr I nre 2014-294-ME
81
4. Determination of Phase I Ranking. At the conclusion of the Evaluation Committee Step 1 scoring, Step 2
Points will be added to each Evaluation Committee member's scores by the Department of Procurement
Management. Step 1 and 2 scores will be converted to rankings in accordance with the example below:
Committee
Member'1
Step 1
Points 82 76 80
Step 2
Points 10 7 5
Total 92 84 85
Rank 1 3 2
Committee
Member2
Step 1
Points 90 B5 72
Step 2
Points 10 7 5
Total 100 92 79
Rank 1 2 3
Committee
Member 2
Step 1
Points 80 74 bb
Step 2
Points 10 7 5
Total 90 81 72
Rank 1 2 3
PHASE II EVALUATION PROCESS
Evaluation (100 points). An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each
short-listed response in accordance with the criteria established herein. In doing so, the Evaluation Committee will:
a. lnterviewshort-listed proposers
b. Score proposers utilizing the Weighted Criteriac. Recommend to City Manager the top ranked respondent
Proposers will be evaluated on the following Weighted Criteria:. Project Schedule - shortest duration while meeting event requirements and within reasonable parameters
as acceptable and at the sole discretion of the City. (40 points). Lowest Guaranteed Maximum Price - strictly adhering to the Design Criteria Package and including any
City accepted Voluntary Alternate Proposals (35 points). Construction Logistics Plan that best accommodates MBCC and minimizes impact on surrounding area (10
points)o Organization Plan / Personnel (5 points). Key Construction Subcontractor Experience (5 points). Approach & Methodology Plan (5 points)
Following the Phase ll Evaluation Process, the City Manager may recommend to the City Commission on or more
respondents with whom to commence negotiations. The number of respondents recommended to be short-listed for
consideration rn Phase ll is solely at the discretion of the City Manager.
rE I RFP 2014-294-ME
82
00315. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS
L FORMAT FOR SUBMITTAL. Proposal packages must contain all the information requested in the following
documents, each fully completed, and signed as required, Proposal packages which do not include all
required documentation, or are not submitted in the required format, or do not have the appropriate
signatures on each document, may be deemed non-responsive. The City reserves the right to request any
documentation omitted, with exception of the Proposal Price form. Proposer must submit the
documentation within three (3) calendar days upon request from the City, or the proposal may be deemed
non-responsive, Non-responsive proposal packages will receive no further consideration.
Proposers may not dictate the circumstances under which the documents are deemed to be confidential.
Only the State Legislature may determine which public records are subject to disclosure and which are not.
Moreover, a private party cannot render public records exempt from disclosure merely by designating as
confidential the material it furnishes to the City. The desire of the private party to maintain privacy of certain
materials filed with the City is of no consequence unless such materials fall within a legislative created
exemption to Chapter 119, Florida Statutes.
2. CONTENTS AND FORMAT OF PROPOSAL. To facilitate review of proposals, proposers are requested to
submit proposals in the format stipulated in this section, including clearly identifying each proposal section
(tab).
PHASE I RESPONSE FORMAT
ln order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process, and assist the Evaluation Committee in review of
responses, it is recommended that responses be organized and tabbed in accordance with the sections and manner
specified below. Hard copy submittals should be bound and tabbed as enumerated below and contain a table of
contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed and contain a table of contents with page
references. Proposers should prepare their submittal on 8.5 x 11 paper. Please feel free to include other materials,
such as covers, appendices, brochures, etc. at your discretion. The recommended number of pages the City desires
for each submittal item is indicated below. These are recommendations only and actual pages may exceed the
recommendation.
The City reserves the right to require additional information to determine financial capability. Proposer shall have ten
('10) calendar days respond to such a request.
1. Cover Page, Letter, and Table of Contents. The cover letter must indicate Prime Proposer and be signed by
same.
2. Proposal Overview. Provide a brief summary describing your firm's, experience and qualifications, staff that will
be assigned to this project, and any other relevant information. (recommend 2-3 pages)
3. Minimum Requirements: Submit verifiable information documenting compliance with the Minimum
Requirements in Section 0100, Paragraph 7, Pages 7-8 of the RFP.
a. Prime Respondent (recommend 1 page)
b. Convention Center Designer (recommend 1 page)
c, Convention Center Landscape Designer (recommend 1 page)
d. Prime Respondent's Lead Project Manager (recommend 1 page)
Prime Proposer shall submit a design-build team organizational structure that has a sufficient number of professionals
and other personnel to perform the work, including:
r? | RFP 2ot4-294-ME
83
An organizational chart depicting the structure and lines of authority and communication. A narrative that
describes the intended structure regarding project management, accountability and compliance with the terms of
the RFP.
ldentify all key personnel, including the Project Manager, who will be assigned to the Project and their intended
functions and responsibilities. Also indicate the percentage of time commitment of each key person on this
Project.
Resumes of the team's key personnel who will be assigned to the Project that demonstrate their experience and
qualifications, education and performance record.
Prime Experience & Qualifications
Qualifications of Proposing Firm. Describe experience and qualifications of the Prime Respondent in providing the
services detailed herein.
1. Company lnformation: Provide background information, including company history, years in business, number
of employees, and any other information communicating capabilities and experience. (recommend '1 page)
2. Company's List of Similar Experience and Qualifications: Provide a list of the company's experience and
qualifications with the services detailed herein. Provide a table that includes the following information: project
name, type of project (convention center, airport, etc.), convention center square feet if applicable, the years
constructed, hard costs, and whether a design-build project for your flrm or construction only. (recommend 1
page)
3. Relevant Experience: Summarize '10 (ten) of the company's most similar projects of comparable size and
scope where similar services to those described in this RFP have been provided. Please list similar convention
center projects first followed by other relevant propct experience. (Recommend 'l page per project) For each
project include:
a. Project name and location
b. Project description
c. Years project constructed (or "Under Construction")
d. Project hard cost
e. lf convention center, indicate gross square feet constructed, exhibit hall square feet, ballroom square feet,
meeting room square feet
f. lndicate whether your role was construction manager (no risk), construction manager at risk, GMAX
contract, or design-builder
g. lf applicable, a brief description of how the Prime Proposer maintained operations while under construction
h. The names of the key project managers, highlighting any individuals who will also work on this prolect
i. Reference contact information
Qualifications of Proposing Firm. Describe experience and qualifications in providing construction documentation
for convention centers.
L Company lnformation: Provide background information, including company history, years in business, number
of employees, and any other information communicating capabilities and experience. (recommend 1 page)
2. Company's List of Similar Experience and Qualifications: Provide a list of the company's experience with
preparing construction documentation for convention centers. Provide a table to include the following
information: convention center name, exhibit square feet, ballroom/meeting square feet, renovation or new build,
year design completed, and the hard cost budget. (recommend 1 one page)
20 I RFP 2014-294-ME
84
3. Florida Registration: Provide evidence of professional registration pursuant to Chapter 287,055, Florida
Statues, the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA).
4. Experience: Summarize five (5) of the company's most similar convention center projects where construction
documentation was provided. (recommend 1 page per project) For each project include:
a. Convention center name and location
b. Project description
c. Convention center exhibit square feet, ballroom square feet, meeting square feet
d. Project hard cost
e. Architect of record (firm name)
f. lndicate whether project was a new build and/or renovation
g. Years project designed (or "Under Design")
h. The names of the key project architects, highlightlng any individuals who will also work on this project
i. Reference contact information
Qualifications of Proposing Firm. Describe experience and qualifications in providing construction
documentation for parks and large landscape areas.
1. Company Information: Provide background information, including company history, years in business, number
of employees, and any other information communicating capabilities and experience. (recommend I page)
2. Company's List of Similar Experience and Qualifications: Provide a list of the company's experience with
preparing construction documentation for parks and other significant landscape projects. Provide a table to
include the following information: park name, square feet of pro1ect, year design completed, and the hard cost
budget. (recommend 1 page)
3, Relevant Experience: Summarize five (5) of the company's most similar landscape prolects where construction
documentation was provided. (recommend 1 page per project) For each project include:
a. Project name and location
b. Project description
c. Park size (square feet)
d. Architect of record (firm name)
e. Years project designed (or "Under Design")
f. The names of the key project architects, highlighting any individuals who will also work on this project
g. Reference contact information
h. Project hard cost
Provide a list of any other key team members, For each team member provide a description of their role and a
summary of the relevant qualifications and experience (recommend 3 pages per team member).
Audited Financial Statement: Provide the Prime Respondent's most recent annual reviewed/audited financial
statement with the audito/s notes. Such statements should include, as a minimum, balance sheets (statements
of financial position) and statements of profit and loss (statement of net income).
2r I RFP 2014-294-ME
85
Bonding Capacity: Provide evidence that the Prime Respondent has adequate bonding capacity for
construction of the Project. Proposers shall provide proof of its bonding capacity by a statement from a Surety
firm rated by AM Best as to be no less than A- (Excellent). The statement of bonding capacity shall be directly
from the Surety firm on its official letterhead and signed by an authorized agent of the firm.
Dun & Bradstreet: The Prime Proposer shall pay D&B to send the Supplier Qualifier Report (SQR) to the City
through electronic means, emailing to MariaEstevez@miamibeachfl.gov. The cost of the preparation of the D&B
report shall be the responsibility of the Respondent, The proposer can request the reportfrom D&B at:
https://supplierportal.dnb.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servleUsupplierPortal?storeld=11696
Provide Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit (Appendix A). Attach Appendix A fully completed and
executed. The Certification, Questionnaire & Requirements Affidavit (Appendix A) must be signed by the Prime
Respondent.
Other
Provide any other information the Prime Proposer believes will help the City understand the team's capabilities.
PHASE II RESPONSE FORMAT
Following City Commission selection of the short-listed proposers pursuant to Phase ll of the RFP, the short-listed
proposers will be required to prepare a detailed proposal for the Project. The Design Criteria Package is to be
completed in mid-Novemberand planned to be approved by City Commission on December 17,2014. The Design
Criteria Package, form of contract, and other requirements are planned to be issued to the Phase I short-listed
proposers on December 22,2014, and proposals are planned to be due on February 27,2015.
ln order to maintain comparability, facilitate the review process, and assist the Evaluation Committee in review of
responses, it is recommended that responses be organized and tabbed in accordance with the sections and manner
specified below. Hard copy submittals should be bound and tabbed as enumerated below and contain a table of
contents with page references. Electronic copies should also be tabbed and contain a table of contents with page
references. Proposers should prepare their submittal on 8.5 x 11 paper. Please feel free to include other materials,
such as covers, appendices, brochures, etc. at your discretion. The recommended number of pages the City desires
for each submittal item is indicated below. These are recommendations only and actual pages may exceed the
recommendation.
Due Diliqence and Site lnsoections: lt is the responsibility of each Proposer, before submitting the Phase ll proposal,
to:
. Visit the site or structure to become familiar with conditions that may affect costs, progress, performance or
furnishing of the Work;. Take into account federal, state and local (City and Miami-Dade County) laws, regulations, permits, and
ordinances that may affect costs, progress, performance, furnishing of the Work, or award;. Study and carefully correlate Proposer's observations with the RFP; and
The submission of a proposal shall constitute an incontrovertible representation by proposer that proposer has
complied with the above requirements and understands all terms and conditions for performance and furnishing of the
Work,
The City reserves the right to require additional information to determine financial capability. Proposer shall have ten
(10) calendar days respond to such a request.
22 | RFP 2014-294-ME
86
Prime Proposer shall submit an updated design-build team organizational structure that has a sufficient number of
professionals and other personnel to perform the work, including:
1. An organizational chart depicting the structure and lines of authority and communication. A narrative that
describes the intended structure regarding project management, accountability and compliance with the terms of
the RFP.
2. ldentify all key personnel who will be assigned to the Project and their intended functions and responsibilities.
Also indicate the percentage of time commitment of each key person on this Project.
3. Resumes of the team's key personnel who were not provided in the Phase I response to this RFP.
Qualifications of Proposing Firm(s). For each key construction subcontractor representing 10% or more of the hard
cost budget, describe experience and qualifications as detailed below.
1. Company lnformation: Provide background information, including company history, years in business, number
of employees, and any other information communicating capabilities and experience. (recommend 1-2 pages)
2. Company's List of Similar Experience and Qualifications: Provide a list of the company's experience and
qualifications with the Services detailed herein. Provide a table to include the following information: project
name, type of project (convention center, airport, etc.), convention center square feet if applicable, the years
constructed, and subcontractor hard costs. (recommend 1 page)
3. Relevant Experience: Summarize 5 (five) of the company's most similar projects of comparable size and scope
where similar construction services have been provided. Please list similar convention center projects first
followed by other relevant project experience. (recommend 1 page per project) For each project include:
a. Project name and location
b. Project description
c. lf convention center, indicate gross square feet constructed, exhibit square feet, ballroom square feet,
meeting square feet
d. Years project constructed (or "Under Construction")
e. Reference contact information
f. Subcontractor hard cost
Describe the plan for designing, managing, monitoring, coordinating and constructing the Project,
Provide a Project schedule and describe the plan for adherence to the critical path schedule defined therein. Also
describe how the proposer will work with the MBCC manager and staff to ensure all schedule events are
accommodated, and that the entire facility is available for the Art Basel dates,
Describe plan on understanding the importance of the daily operation of the MBCC and address how construction
staging areas, pedestrian paths, vehicular traffic patterns, etc. will be handled in order to mitigate disruption.
Submit a Guaranteed Maximum Price (GMP) for delivering the completed Project consistent with the Design Criteria
Package, on a date certain, while accommodating Art Basel and other events under the Construction Booking Policy.
Submission of the GMP shall be included in a Pricino and Draw Schedule Form that will be
23 I RFP 2Ot4-294-ME
87
December 2014 as an addendum to this RFP. All GMP's shalltake into account that construction workers will not be
allowed to park on site and shall be bussed in from a remote location.
Any notice to proceed of the ultimate contract will be subject to City Commission budget appropriation.
Alternate
It is the goal of the City for the Prime Proposer to develop the Project consistent with the Design Criteria Package.
Nevertheless, Prime Respondent is also encouraged to submit suggested alternates or "Voluntary Alternate
Proposals" for the Prolect which may result in cost and/or time savings to the City. Voluntary Altemate Proposals
may only be submitted in relation to alternative materials, equipment or building systems, and must maintain the
design intent. The City reserves the right to utilize any Voluntary Altemate Proposal in the design and construction of
the Project even though it may be a Voluntary Altemate Proposal proposed by an unsuccessful proposer.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City will only utilize that portion of a Voluntary Alternate Proposal of an
unsuccessful proposer which is not subject to a copyright or other intellectual property right of such Proposer.
24 I RFP 2O14-2e4-ME
88
APPENDIX A
b
.:=?MIAMIBEACH
Proposo I Certificotion,
auestionnoire &
Req uirements Affid ovit
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
1700 Conveniion Center Drive
Miomi Beoch, Florido 331 39
:s I nre 2014-294-ME
89
Solicitation No.
2014-294-l\AE
Solicitation Title:
Design-Builder Services for the Miami Beach Convention Center Renovation and
Expansion
Procurement Contact:
Maria Estevez
Tel:
305-673-7490
Email:
mestevez@miamibeachfl.qov
PROPOSAL CFRTIFICATION, QUESTIONNAIRE & REQUIRTMENTS AFFIDAVIT
Purpose: The purpose of this Proposal Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is to inform prospective Proposers of
certain solicitation and contractual requirements, and to collect necessary information from Proposers in order that certain portions of
responsiveness, responsibility and other determining factors and compliance with requirements may be evaluated. This Proposal
Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit Form is a REQUIRED FORM that must be submitted fully completed and
executed.
1. General Proposer lnformation.
FIRM NAME:
No of Years in Business:No ofYears in Business Locally: I No. of Employees.
OTHER NAME(S) BIDDER HAS OPEMTED UNDER IN THE LAST 1O YEARS
FIRM PRIMARY ADDRESS (HEADQUARTERS):
CITY:
STATE:
IELEPHONE NO.:
TOLL FREE NO.:
FM NO.:
FIRM LOCAL ADDRESS
CITY:
STATE:
PRIMARY ACCOUNT REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS ENGAGEMENT:
ACCOUNT REP TELEPHONE NO,:
ACCOUNT REP TOLL FREE NO.:
ACCOUNT REP EMAIL:
FEDERAL TAX IDENTIFICATION NO.:
The City reserves the right to seek additional information from Proposer or other source(s), including but not limited to:
any firm or principal information, applicable licensure, resumes of relevant individuals, client information, financial
information, or any information the City deems necessary to evaluate the capacity of the Proposer to perform in
accordance with contract requirements.
26 I RFP 2014-2e4-ME
90
2.
Veteran Owned Business. ls Proposer claiminq a veteran owned business status?f-l vis [-l *o
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers claiming veteran owned business status shall submit a documentation
proving that firm is certified as a veteran-owned business or a service-disabled veteran owned business by the State of
Florida or United States federal government, as required pursuant to ordinance 2011-3748,
Conflict Of lnterest. All Proposers must disclose, in their proposal, the name(s) of any officer, director, agent, or
immediate family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an employee of the City of Miami Beach.
Further, all proposers must disclose the name of any City employee who owns, either directly or indirectly, an interest
of ten (10%) percent or more in the proposer entity or any of its affiliates.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposers must disclose the name(s) of any officer, director, agent, or immediate
family member (spouse, parent, sibling, and child) who is also an employee of the City of Miami Beach. Proposers
must also disclose the name of any City employee who owns, either directly or indirectly, an interest of ten (10%)
percent or more in the proposer entity or any of its affiliates
References & Past Performance. Proposer shall submit at least three (3) references for whom the proposer has
completed work similar in size and nature as the work referenced in solicitation.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: For each reference submitted, the following information is required: 1) Firm Name, 2)
Contact lndividual Name & Title, 3) Address, 4) Telephone, 5) Contact's Email and 6) Narrative on Scope of Services
Provided,
Suspension, Debarment or Contract Cancellation. Has proposer ever been debarred, suspended or other legal
violation, or had a contract cancelled due to non-performance by any public sector agency?
[__l vrs T_l r'ro
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: lf answer to above is "YES," proposer shall submit a statement detailing the reasons
that led to action(s).
Vendor Campaign Contributions. Proposers are expected to be or become familiar with, the City's Campaign
Finance Reform laws, as codified in Sections 2-487 through 2-490 of the City Code. Proposers shall be solely
responsible for ensuring that all applicable provisions of the City's Campaign Finance Reform laws are complied with,
and shall be subject to any and all sanctions, as prescribed therein, including disqualification of their proposals, in the
event of such non-compliance.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Submit the names of all individuals or entities (including your sub-consultants) with a
controlling financial interest as defined in solicitation. For each individual or entity with a controlling financial interest
indicate whether or not each individual or entity has contributed to the campaign either directly or indirectly, of a
candidate who has been elected to the office of Mayor or City Commissioner for the City of Miami Beach.
Code of Business Ethics. Pursuant to City Resolution N0.2000-23879, each person or entity that seeks to do
business with the City shall adopt a Code of Business Ethics ("Code") and submit that Code to the Procurement
Management Depa(ment with its response or within five (5) days upon receipt of request. The Code shall, at a
minimum, require the proposer, to comply with all applicable governmental rules and regulations including, among
others, the conflict of interest, lobbying and ethics provision of the City of Miami Beach and Miami Dade County.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: Proposer shall submit firm's Code of Business Ethics. ln lieu of submitting Code of
Business Ethics, Proposer may submit a statement indicating that it will adopt, as required in the ordinance, the City of
Miami Beach Code of Ethics, available at www.miamibeachfl.gov/procuremenU.
3.
4.
o.
2r I RFP 2014-294-ME
91
7.
'10. Have you ever failed to complete any work
[__l vrs
8
I
Prevailing Wage: City of Miami Beach Ordinance No, 94-2960 provides that in all non-federally funded construction
contracts in excess of one million dollars to which the City of Miami Beach is a party, the rate of wages and fringe
benefits, or cash equivalent, for all laborers, mechanics and apprentices employed by any contractor or subcontractor
on the work covered by the contract, shall not be less than the prevailing rate of wages and fringe benefit payments or
cash equivalence for similar skills or classifications of work, as established by the Federal Register, in the City of Miami
Beach, Florida. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to the following projects:a. water, except water treatment facilities and lift stations;b. sewer, except sewage treatment facilities and lift stations'c. storm drainage;d. road construction, except bridges or structures requiring pilings; ande. beautification prolects, which may include resurfacing new curbs, gutters, pavers, sidewalks,
landscaping, new lighting, bus shelters, bus benches and signage.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this affidavit document,
proposer agrees to the prevailing wage requirement.
Equal Benefits for Employees with Spouses and Employees with Domestic Partners. lntentionally Omitted.
Public Entity Crimes. Section 287.133(2)(a), Florida Statutes, as currently enacted or as amended from time to time,
states that a person or affiliate who has been placed on the convicted vendor list following a conviction for a public
entity crime may not submit a proposal, Proposal, or reply on a contract to provide any goods or services to a public
entity; may not submit a proposal, Proposal, or reply on a contract with a public entity for the construction or repair of a
public building or public work; may not submit proposals, Proposals, or replies on leases of real property to a public
entity; may not be awarded or perform work as a contractor, supplier, subcontractor, or consultant under a contract
with any public entity; and may not transact business with any public entity in excess of the threshold amount provided
in section. 287.017 for CATEGORY TWO for a period of 36 months following the date of being placed on the convicted
vendor list.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: No additional submittal is required. By virtue of executing this affidavit document,
Proposer agrees with the requirements of Section 287.133, Florida Statutes, and certifies it has not been placed on
convicted vendor list.
awardedr to you? lf so, where and why?
NO
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: lf yes, submit information on project, agency, agency contact and reason why
contractor failed to complete work.
11. Has a surety company ever intervened to assist a governmental agency or other client of the proposer in completing
work that the proposer failed to complete?
l--_l ves [__l rrro
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: lf yes, submit owner names, addresses and telephone numbers, and surety and project
names, for all projects for which you have performed work, where your surety has intervened to assist in completion of
the project, whether or not a claim was made.
12. Bankruptcy. Has the proposer filed any bankruptcy petitions (voluntary or involuntary) which have been filed by or
against the Proposer, its parent or subsidiaries or predecessor organizations during the past five (5) years. lnclude in
the description the disposition of each such petition.
f-_l vrs [__l ruo
?s I RFP 2O14-2e4-ME
92
'13.
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: lf yes, list and describe all bankruptcy petitions (voluntary or involuntary) which have
been filed by or against the Proposer, its parent or subsidiaries or predecessor organizations during the past five (5)
years. lnclude in the description the disposition of each such petition.
Litigation History. Has proposer or any principal or employee of the Proposer (relating to professional endeavors
only) been the subject of any claims, arbitrations, administrative hearings and lawsuits brought by or against the
Proposer or its predecessor organization(s) during the last five (5) years.f-l vgs ''[l
r.ro
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: lf yes, list all case names; case, arbitration or hearing identification numbers; the name
of the project over which the dispute arose; a description of the subject matter of the dispute; and the final outcome of
the claim.
Has the Corporation, Officers of the Corporation, Principal Stockholders, Principals of the Partnership or Owner of Sole
Proprietorship ever been indicted, debarred, disqualified or suspended from performing work for the Federal
Government or any State or Local Government or_subdivision or agency thereof?l-_l vrs [__l r,ro
SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENT: lf yes, list the specific cases and the charging agency.
Principals, Provide the names of all individuals or entities (including your sub-consultants) with a controlling financial
interest. The term "controlling financial interest" shall mean the ownership, directly or indirectly, of 10% or more of the
outstanding capital stock in any corporation or a direct or indirect interest of 100/o or more in a firm. The term "firm" shall
mean any corporation, partnership, business trust or any legal entity other than a natural person.
Acknowledgement of Addendum. After issuance of solicitation, the City may release one or more addendum to the
solicitation which may provide additional information to proposers or alter solicitation requirements. The City will strive
to reach every proposer having received solicitation through the City's e-procurement system, PublicPurchase.com.
However, proposers are solely responsible for assuring they have received any and all addendum issued pursuant to
solicitation. This Acknowledgement of Addendum section certifies that the proposer has received all addendum
released by the City pursuant to this solicitation. Failure to obtain and acknowledge receipt of all addendum may result
in proposal d isqualification.
lnitialto
Confirm
Receiot
lnitialto
Confirm
Receiot
lnitialto
Confirm
Receiot
Addendum 1 Addendum 6 Addendum
11
Addendum 2 Addendum 7 Addendum
12
Addendum 3 Addendum 8 Addendum
13
Addendum 4 Addendum 9 Addendum
14
Addendum 5 Addendum
10
Addendum
15
lf additional confirmation of addendum is required, submit under separate cover,
17. Art in Public Places (AIPP): By virtue of submitting a proposal to this RFP, Proposer affirms that is will comply with
the Art in Public Places (AIPP) requirements of the City pursuant to Sections 82-536 lo 82-612 of the City Code without
limitation and that any resulting project plans, designs and guaranteed maximum price (GMP) shall be fully compliant
with the AIPP requirements.
14.
15.
16
?e I RFP 2014-294-ME
93
The solicitation referenced herein is being furnished to the recipient by the City of Miami Beach (the "City") for the recipient's convenience.
Any action taken by the City in response to Proposals made pursuant to this solicitation, or in making any award, or in failing or refusing to
make any award pursuant to such Proposals, or in cancelling awards, or in withdrawing or cancelling this solicitation, either before or after
issuance of an award, shall be without any liability or obligation on the part of the City.
ln its sole discretion, the City may withdraw the solicitation either before or after receiving Proposals, may accept or rgect Proposals, and
may accept Proposals which deviate from the solicitation, as it deems appropriate and in its best interest. ln its sole discretion, the City may
determine the qualifications and acceptability of any party or parties submitting Proposals in response to this solicitation.
Following submission of a Bid or Proposal, the applicant agrees to deliver such further details, information and assurances, including
financial and disclosure data, relating to the Proposal and the applicant including, without limitation, the applicant's affiliates, officers,
directors, shareholders, partners and employees, as requested by the City in its discretion.
The information contained herein is provided solely for the convenience of prospective Proposers. lt is the responsibility of the recipient to
assure itself that information contained herein is accurate and complete. The City does not provide any assurances as to the accuracy of any
information in this solicitation.
Any reliance on these contents, or on any permifted communications with City officials, shall be at the recipient's own risk. Proposers should
rely exclusively on their own investigations, interpretations, and analyses. The solicitation is being provided by the City without any warranty
or representation, express or implied, as to its content, its accuracy, or its completeness. No warranty or representation is made by the City
or its agents that any Proposal conforming to these requirements will be selected for consideration, negotiation, or approval.
The City shall have no obligation or liability with respect to this solicitation, the selection and the award process, or whether any award will be
made. Any recipient of this solicitation who responds hereto fully acknowledges all the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer, is totally
relying on this Disclosure and Disclaimer, and agrees to be bound by the terms hereof. Any Proposals submitted to the City pursuant to this
solicitation are submitted at the sole risk and responsibility of the party submitting such Proposal.
This solicitation is made subject to correction of errors, omissions, or withdrawal from the market without notice. lnformation is for guidance
only, and does not constitute all or any part of an agreement.
The City and all Proposers will be bound only as, if and when a Proposal (or Proposals), as same may be modified, and the applicable
definitive agreements pertaining thereto, are approved and executed by the parties, and then only pursuant to the terms of the definitive
agreements executed among the parties. Any response to this solicitation may be accepted or rejected by the City for any reason, or for no
reason, without any resultant liability to the City.
The City is governed by the Governmenlin{he-Sunshine Law, and all Proposals and supporting documents shall be subject to disclosure as
required by such law. All Proposals shall be submitted in sealed proposal form and shall remain confidential to the extent permitted by
Florida Statutes, until the date and time selected for opening the responses. At that time, all documents received by the City shall become
public records.
Proposers are expected to make all disclosures and declarations as requested in this solicitation. By submission of a Proposal, the Proposer
acknowledges and agrees that the City has the right to make any inquiry or investigation it deems appropriate to substantiate or supplement
information contained in the Proposal, and authorizes the release to the City of any and all information sought in such inquiry or investigation.
Each Proposer certifies that the information contained in the Proposal is true, accurate and complete, to the best of its knowledge,
information, and belief.
Notwithstanding the foregoing or anything contained in the solicitation, all Proposers agree that in the event of a final un-appealable
judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction which imposes on the City any liability arising out of this solicitation, or any response thereto, or
any action or inaction by the City with respectthereto, such liability shallbe limited to $10,000.00 as agreed-upon and liquidated damages.
The previous sentence, however, shall not be construed to circumvent any of the other provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer which
imposes no liability on the City.
ln the event of any differences in language between this Disclosure and Disclaimer and the balance of the solicitation, it is understood that
the provisions of this Disclosure and Disclaimer shall always govern. The solicitation and any disputes arising from the solicitation shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida.
30 | RFP 2014-294-ME
94
I hereby certify that: l, as an authorized agent of the Proposer, am submitting the following information as my firm's
Proposal; Proposer agrees to complete and unconditional acceptance of the terms and conditions of this document,
inclusive of this solicitation, all attachments, exhibits and appendices and the contents of any Addenda released hereto,
and the Disclosure and Disclaimer Statement; Proposer agrees to be bound to any and all specifications, terms and
conditions contained in the solicitation, and any released Addenda and understand that the following are requirements
of this solicitation and failure to comply will result in disqualification of Proposal submitted; Proposer has not dlvulged,
discussed, or compared the Proposal with other Proposers and has not colluded with any other Proposer or party to any
other Proposal; Proposer acknowledges that all information contained herein is part of the public domain as defined by
the State of Florida Sunshine and Public Records Laws; all responses, data and information contained in this Proposal,
inclusive of the Certification, Questionnaire and Requirements Affidavit are true and accurate.
Name of Proposer's Authorized Representative:Title of Proposer's Auhorized Representative:
Signafu re of Proposer's Auttronzed Representative:Date:
State of FLORIDA )
)
On this _day of _, 20_, personally
appeared before me whoCountyof_) stated that (s)he is the
a corporation, and that the instrument was
signed in behalf of the said corporation by authority of its board of
directors and acknowledged said instrument to be its voluntary act
and deed. Before me:
of
3r I RFP 2ot4-294-ME
95
APPENDIX B
g MIAMIBEACH
MBCC
Schemotic Design
RFP 2014-2g4-ME
DESIGN-BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER
RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139
sz I nre 2014-294-ME
96
'1..'
,1,
o
: $:09i&0'
:', 'l
rt
o
(I,
4
i
t;
,5
5;
U
(I,
I
o
(I,I
(I,I
J ir'7,i
I
'/.
:-
'/,
t:o J.
'- .-
r-l
(u
. ;.. (L,iJ
' ,,.' I
C3:(o,o-
bo
Cut)x
IJ.J
,, :.1
33 I RFP 2014-294-ME
97
t:
l'
z
I
JU
UJo2oouoozFt6'x,u-5i
t
i-
/.
v
r.
N
o
o
I
C(o
o-
oo
C.F
tn
x
LU
il
i:
lui! .1 ? ;'ri I
.. -, tr
5
si6tNii Y8;* s$
ig
6
u{utt
f;&
d
d ..i1-
t
7:
" .t:tt
':
"
-i
a, ."..
- :1 "
;-D
ir-r'I
:--j
-2 ..
E
6."
;
I
E'
3
n
..9,.
.p I
ti "
*
!..4
'-.5
"8
6 i,- :l
:l
l. li
h
-1d E.p -,
6
_1't
. .. .t,
8 -. :.i! i,:t ;:-t
t'
s
t(AEt ..
:F
l.
B.*?
;rp3
i,
3
a5
I
t
p
&
34 | RFP 2014-294-ME
98
17h Street
ts+,rtr I
:'l
{_!
a-
" iiF'
f ! I r
r,.r . -. :=:.
i
ra
!
ir
-szshL' o-
"l=(o :f
CL-*.tf-
t.-
Hi'
&
l-o
EEqrc
cL)o(J
II
i
I rl r
htfr
i-l
Ilr!i
[1tt
l'l i
0,
o
o
Eo
c... o
.O
rC o
,tr{
i a+;: - .;ti
lrr ! !ii:t t;t
EU!-|@ofi: _c
-s86
ho q')cuo,JM
Efi
(EIbo
UILb.gr(UEo):j
iIF
0/
=cob{co
'tro
E
@(I,
(tJo(JFOE.:O)
T2
C(l)E
L(c
an
(I,(J
Eg
CA
C(u
o-
o
.tsv,
s5 | RFP 2014-294-ME
99
r-{
o
UJ
I
(I'
o-
l-oo
II
o)I
EDc.g
fit
I
EI
u0
C
=o
o_
36 | RFP 2014-294-ME
100
r{
o
oJ
I
C
ro
o-
t-osII
37 | RFP 2Ot4-294-ME
101
cn
o
oJ
I
C(o
o-
l-oo
II
o
ss I RFP 2014-294-ME
102
@
sr
(u
o
I
C
(tr
E
l-oo
LL
3? | RFP 2Ot4-294-ME
103
lft
o
oJ
I
C
IE
o-
l-oo
LI
40 I RFP 2Ot4-2e4-ME
104
.t, I
't
t ,,
. '".1 |
bo
t-'a
fEr
CL
CoE(J
JL-Pvl-oU
ZZZ999tsFF
UOUlll!trtr
FFFooqtz22ooouoo
rNeduuoOtt)
ItIn0"o:t
4r I RFP 2014-294-ME
105
APPENDIX C
g MIAMIBEACH
MBCC
Schemotic Design
Norrotive
RFP 2014-294-ME
DESIGN.BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER
RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
PROCUREMENT DEPARTMENT.l700 Convention Center Drive
Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139
ez I nre 2014-294-ME
106
lNTRODUCTION:
Owned by the City of Miami Beach, the Miami Beach Convention Center (MBCC or Convention Center) is a significant
economic generator for the City and the region. Originally built in 1 957, the MBCC encompassed 108,000 square feet.
ln 1968, an additional 130,500 square feet of exhibit space was added, with additional support facilities subsequently
constructed in 1974, ln 1986, as the demand for exhibition space increased, the facility undenivent a 992 million
renovation and doubled in size to its current footprint of approximately 1.2 million square feet, including approximately
502,000 square feet of exhibition space and 126,000 square feet of meeting space.
The expanded MBCC opened in 1989. Since that time, the facility has received over 950 million in continuing
upgrades. ln general, the renovation is to include all exhibit, meeting rooms, pre-function and support spaces such as
loading docks, kitchens, bathrooms, systems, and exterior areas.
SCOPE OF WORK:
Convention Center Facility: The MBCC is to be expanded to accommodate a new ballroom and meeting space as
follows:
1. New 80,000t square foot Ballroom divisible into meeting room spaces;
2. Breakout meeting space - renovated ballroom and meeting space totaling 200,0001 square feet;
3. New Rooftop Pavilion and Outdoor Function Space;
4. Parking on top of the building in two levels to accommodate at least 880 spaces;
5. Existing Building lmprovements as listed below:
The specific scope of the renovation and expansion will be finalized in the Design Criteria Document
Package.
A minimum of 500,000 sf of Exhibit Hall space will be renovated as follows:a. Halls will be reconfigured so they can be subdivided with moveable partitions into four halls from east to
west. The skywalk may be removed and a new bridge in the truss spaces above will be constructed;
b. The completed Exhibit Halls A and B will be subdivided east to west with moveable partitions to create a
125,000 square foot general assembly function (similar to Old Exhibit Hall D);
c. Each subdivided exhibit hall needs access to approximately nine (9) loading docks (36 in total);
d. Each subdivided exhibit hall shall include the appropriate freight doors as specified by the City's
operator;
e. Replace exhibit hall floor to provide for the 350 pounds per square foot live load;
f. Replace exhibit hall floor utility boxes and infrastructure under exhibit halls (plumbing, electrical and
data/telecomm) to Class A standards;
g. Replace exhibit hall air handlers and install new VFD's.
6. Existing Meeting Rooms/Pre-Function:
a. Provide a general renovation of existing meeting spaces and pre-function areas including all finishes
(carpet, wall coverings, ceiling, etc.) and fixtures, lighting and lighting controls, sound systems, rigging
points, etc.;
b. lnstallfloorpowerin C123-126 and D 128-131.
43 | RFP 2014-2e4-ME
107
7 . Existing Support Areas:
a. Replace carpet throughout facility;
b. Add new restrooms and expand existing to achieve the appropriate number of facilities;
c. Replace all existing finishes in toilet rooms to remain;
d. Construct new main kitchen facilities to meet Class A standards;
e. Provide for a business center with approximately 1,500 square feet;
f. Locate engineering shops and their offices in best location given hall reconfiguration;
8. lnteriorlnfrastructure lmprovements:
a. Replace existing escalators;
b. Replace existing elevators, including relocating/installing freight elevators driven by hall reconfiguration;
c. Replace buss duct on west side interior;
d. Replace exterior building envelope including exterior fagade. Provide new exterior doors and windows to
withstand hurricane wind loads and impacts;
e. Reroof entire convention center;
f. Replace all air handlers;
g. Replace roof drains to meet cunent codes;
h. Replace 4 existing 1200 ton chillers and add one 1200 ton chiller;
i. Refurbish existing cooling towers;
j. Replace chilled water piping;
k. Assess and replace/improve all life safety function's including fire sprinkler pump replacement, fire
sprinkler valve room replacement, and fire panel replacement to include strobe lighting;
l. Replace emergency generator;
m. Replace cooling tower piping;
n. Chilled water insulation replacement;
o. Chilled water valve replacement;
p. Upgrade compressed air system;
q. Reduce humidity and condensation problems within the building;
r. Replace exhaust fans,
s. Replace exterior sidewalk, stairs and handrails;
t. Replace all existing interior doors and hardware, including card swipe locking system;
u. Replace electrical gear.
9. Sustainability lmprovements - Attain LEED Silver certification per City code. Advise on and implement viable
sustainability measures within the facility.
44 | RFP 2014-294-ME
108
10. Technology:
a. Add a Distributed Antenna System (cell phones);
b. Add 800 HTZ first responder radio reinforcement system;
c. Expand Wi-Fi to entire facility;
d. Add digital read boards throughout facility for meeting rooms, exhibit halls;
e. Add exterior signage;
f. Ensure facility is compliant with all ADA requirements, including push button door openers.
1 1. Exterior lnfrastructure lmprovements:
a, Address storm water issues including the demolition of existing drainage utilities and re+outing building
connections and pipes toward proposed stormwater lift stations. New curb inlets and drainage
structures will be installed as needed along with new drainage pipes due to changes in road geometry.
Other utilities, particularly within the Preferred Parking lot site, will require relocation.
b. Seawall - The existing Collins Canal seawall will be restored and reconstructed.
c. Flood Control - Exhibit hall floor elevation to remain at current elevation. Relocate critical building
systems and equipment to be above proposed future FEMA flood elevation. Elevation - 10 to 1 1 NGVD.
12. Prefened Lot (P-Lot) Park:
The existing 6.5 acre parking lot directly west of the Convention Center will be converted to a public park
containing flexible green spaces, a plaza space, and a food pavilion. Ornamental landscape and shade trees
combined with seating, lighting, and custom shade structures will be included in the design.
13. Carl Fisher Open Space:
Directly to the north of the Convention Center is a historic structure and adjacent green spaces abutting the
Collins Canal. The open space will be renovated with open lawns for passive uses and resilient landscapes
and new walkways next to the Collins Canal.
14. The 21st Street Community Center:
The existing Community Center located on Washington Avenue and 21't street will be demolished as part of
Phase 1. The existing Banyan tree located within the courtyard of the Community Center must be preserved.
15. Convention Center Drive:
This street will be re-designed and converted to a "boulevard" type design with trees and a mosaic of paving
materials.
16. Art ln Public Places:
Areas within the building and on the site will be identified to comply with the City's Art in Public Places
program. These areas will be provided with infrastructure (structural support, power, lighting, lT/data)to
work with the selected art pieces. Detailed coordination for the installation of each art piece will be managed
with City staff.
45 J RFP 2014-294-ME
109
APPENDIX D
AAIAMIBEACH
I nsuro nce Requirements
RFP 2014-294-ME
DESIGN-BUILDER SERVICES FOR THE
MIAMI BEACH CONVENTION CENTER
RENOVATION AND EXPANSION
PROC UREMENT DEPARTMENT
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miomi Beoch, Florido 33.l39
co I ere 20:r4-2s4-ME
110
b
:MIAMIBTACH
INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
lnsurance Requirements will be provided under Phase ll.
*r I nre 2o14-294-ME
111
R7
RESOLUTIONS
112
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution of the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, Adopting the
Sixth Amendment to the Capital Budoet for Fiscal Year 2013114.
Ensure Value and Timely Delivery of Quality Capital Projects, lmprove Storm Drainage Citywide,
and Maintain City's lnfrastructure
Data (Surveys, EnvironmentalScan, etc.): N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation :
Planning for capital improvements is an ongoing process; as needs change within the City, capital
programs and priorities must be adjusted. The Capital lmprovement Plan ('ClP') serves as the
primary planning tool for systematically identifying, prioritizing and assigning funds to critical City
capital development, improvements and associated needs.
The City's capital improvement plan process begins in the spring when all departments are asked to
prepare capital improvement updates and requests on the department's ongoing and proposed capital
projects. lndividual departments prepare submittals identifying potential funding sources and
requesting commitment of funds for their respective projects.
The CIP is updated annually and submitted to the City Commission for adoption. The 2013114 -
2017118 Capital lmprovement Plan and FY 20'13114 Capital Budget were adopted on September 30,
2013, by resolution 2013-28354. The First Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget was
approved on December 11, 2013, by resolution 2013-28442. The Second Amendment to the FY
2013114 Capital Budget was approved on January 15, 2014 by resolution 2014-28470. The Third
Amendment to the FY 2013fi4 Capilal Budget was approved on March 5,2014, by resolution 2014-
28524. The Fourth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capilal Budget was approved on April 23,2014, by
resolution 2014-28565. The Fifth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget was approved on
June 1 1,2014, by resolution 2014-28625.
Section 166.241(4)(c.), Florida Statutes, requires that a municipality's budget amendment must be
adopted in the same manner as the original budget. Administration recommends adopting the
resolution for the Sixth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget.
The Sixth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget totals an increase of $6,193,000 and re-
alignment of $711,000 between projects in order to provide additional funding to the following nine
capital projects.
'1. Munis/ Energov lT Project 5. 1100 Block Lincoln Road Updates
2.71s|Street Fountain Renovation 6. Bass Museum HVAC Controls lntegration
3. Tatum Park Outdoor Sand Volleyball 7. Pennsylvania Garage Roof Renovation
4. Normandy Shoes Park Fitness Circuit 8. Bass Museum Heat Pump Replacement
9. Botanical Gardens Window
Financial lnformation:
Source of
Funds:
(m
\'
Amount Account
1 $4,000,000 011- General Fund Balance (Building Department Reserve) to
Fund 301 Capital Proiects Not Financed bv Bonds
2 $1,700,000 601-7000-229253 Building Training & Technology to Fund 301
Capital Proiects Not Financed by Bonds
3 $50,000 Fund 307- NB OOL
4 $443,000 365- City Center RDA
OBPI Total $6,193,000
Financial lmpact Summary:
ASEIrIDA trEii flrl A(s MIAMIBTACH o*ze 7-3o-t\113
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISGAL YEAR 2013114.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution for the Sixth Amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013114 Capital Budget.
BACKGROUND
Planning for capital improvements is an ongoing process; as needs change within the City,
capital programs and priorities must be adjusted. The Capital lmprovement Plan ("ClP") serves
as the primary planning tool for systematically identifying, prioritizing and assigning funds to
critical City capital development, improvements and associated needs.
The City's capital improvement plan process begins in the spring when all departments are
asked to prepare capital improvement updates and requests on the department's ongoing and
proposed capital projects. lndividual departments prepare submittals identifying potential
funding sources and requesting commitment of funds for their respective projects.
The CIP is updated annually and submitted to the City Commission for adoption. The 2013114 -
2017118 Capital lmprovement Plan and FY 2013114 Capital Budget were adopted on September
30,2013, by resolution 2013-28354. The First Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capitd Budget
was approved on December 11,2013, by resolution 2013-28442. The Second Amendment to
the FY 2013114 Capital Budget was approved on January 15,2014 by resolution 2014-28470.
The Third Amendment to the FY 2013/14 Capital Budget was approved on March 5,2014, by
resolution 2014-28524. The Fourth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget was
approved on May 21,2014, by resolution 2014-28565. The Fifth Amendment to the FY 2013114
Capital Budget was approved on June 1 1, 2014, by resolution 2014-28625.
Section 166.241(4)(c.), Florida Statutes, requires that a municipality's budget amendment must
be adopted in the same manner as the original budget. Administration recommends adopting
the resolution for the Sixth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget.
Mayor Philip Levine and Members of the City Qommission
Jimmy L. Morales, City
July 30, 2014
114
Resolution Adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Capital Budget for FY 2013114
July 30, 2014
Page 2 of 4
SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2013/14 CAPITAL BUDGET
The Sixth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget totals an increase of $6,193,000 and
re-alignment of $71 1,000 between projects.
1. Munis/Energov Technology project - The City implemented the Eden ERP System
("Eden ERP") in October, 2004. The Eden ERP system integrates and provides
necessary functionality across all of the City's core business processes, including
financials, budgeting, procurement and human resources. Since the time the Eden ERP
was implemented, the City has advanced its technological platform and offerings to
ensure business process efficiencies and maximum service to constituents. However,
Tyler Technologies, the parent company of Eden, has instructed the City that the system
is end of life and that Tyler will no longer dedicate development resources to achieve
significant improvements to its functionality. As a result, many of the current functional
requirements of the City can no longer be supported by Eden ERP. Tyler Technologies
has also instructed the Administration that its development resources will be dedicated
to the Munis ERP, its flagship ERP solution for municipalities. Several of Eden ERP
using municipalities have already completed or begun the transition from Eden ERP to
Munis ERP. This project would also improve the City's permitting and licensing modules
through EnerGov, a Tyler Technologies solution for this functionality which integrates
seamlessly with its Munis ERP solution.
The budget for the project would also include a full business process review (BPR) of all
functional areas of the new systems prior to the commencement of implementation
activities. The goal of the BPR is two-fold: (1) make business operations more efficient
and effective; (2) and more effectively utilize technological investments. ln this manner,
the new systems will be aligned with improved processes offering the greatest
opportunity to improve the City's business operations. The BPR's as well as project
management services would be provided by EMA, a multi-national service provider with
over 30 years of experience, which includes assisting public agencies with their
technological, best practices, and strategic plan ning req uirements.
The Sixth Amendment would appropriate funding for the Munis and Energov information
technology solutions. The Energov project budget is $3.7 million including a 10o/o
contingency and would be fully funded from the Building Training and Technology ($1.7
million) and from Building Reserves in the General Fund ($2.0 million). The Munis
project budget is $3.5 million including a 2Qo/o contingency and would be partially funded
for $2.0 million from accumulated Building Reserves in the General Fund related to
Elevator permit revenue that can be used for any general purpose. The remainder of the
Munis project budget, $1.5 million, will be funded in FY 2014115 or FY 2015116 from one-
time funds.
Prior Years' Appropriations $0
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $5.700.000
Proposed Tota! Appropriations $5.700.000
115
Resolution Adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Capital Budget for FY 2013114
July 30, 2014
Page 3 of 4
z. 71't Street Fountain Renovation project - The original project budget was estimated
at $300,000 to fund refurbishment of the fountain, including plumbing and electrical
infrastructure as well as painting and sealing of the concrete structure. The final cost of
the project came in higher by $50,000. Funding for the project would come from 307 -
North Beach Quality of Life funds.
Prior Years' Appropriations $300.000
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $50,000
Proposed Tota! Appropriations $350,000
Normandy Shores Park Fitness Circuit and Tatum Park Outdoor Sand Volleyball
projects - The Sixth Amendment would realign $76,000 of funding to the Normandy
Shores Park Fitness Circuit ($64,000) and Tatum Park Outdoor Sand Volleyball
($12,000) projects to cover higher than anticipated costs. The additional funding would
be realigned from projected savings in the Fisher Park lrrigation System Restoration and
Stillwater Park Sports Field Landscape and lrrigation projects.
Norm Shores Park Fitness Circuit
Prior Years' Aoorooriations $13s,500
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $64,000
Proposed Total Appropriations $199.s00
Tatum Park Outdoor Sand V
Prior Years' Appropriations $90.751
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $12,000
Proposed Total Appropriations $102.751
4. Redevelopment District Area Projects - The Sixth Amendment would fund five
renewal and replacement projects in the City Center RDA, including the 1 100 Block of
Lincoln Road Updates ($133,000); Bass Museum HVAC Controls lntegration ($50,000);
Pennsylvania Garage Roof Renovation ($60,000); Bass Museum Heat Pump
Replacement ($t00,000); and the Botanical Gardens Window Replacement ($t00,000).
This amendment would also fund the repayment of funding previously appropriated in
the amount of $634,530, for the Collins Park Streetscape project to the Parking fund.
Funding would come from 365- City Center RDA funds.
1100 Block of Lincoln Road
Prior Years' Aoorooriations $0
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $133,000
Prooosed Total Aoorooriations $133.000
3.
116
Resolution Adopting the Sixth Amendment to the Capital Budget for FY 2013114
July 30, 2014
Page 4 o'f 4
Bass Museum HVAC Controls
Prior Years' Appropriations $0
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $50,000
Prooosed Total Aooropriations $50.000
Roof Renovation
Prior Years' Aoorooriations $0
Julv 30. 2014 Budqet Amendment $60.000
Proposed Total Appropriations $60.000
Bass Museum Heat
Prior Years' Aoorooriations $0
Julv 30, 2014 Budqet Amendment $100.000
Prooosed Total Appropriations $100.000
Botanical Gardens Window
Prior Years' Aoorooriations $0
Julv 30. 2014 Budoet Amendment $100.000
Proposed Total Appropriations $100.000
117
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTTON OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAM! BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE SIXTH AMENDMENT TO THE
CAPITAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2013114.
WHEREAS, the Miami Beach Capital Budget for FY 2013114 was approved and
appropriated via Resolution No. 2013-28354 on September 30, 2013; and
WHEREAS, the First Amendment to the Miami Beach Capital Budget for FY 2013114 was
approved and appropriated via Resolution No. 2013-28442 on December 11,2013; and
WHEREAS, the Second Amendment to the Miami Beach Capital Budget for FY 2013114 was
approved and appropriated via Resolution No.2014-28470 on February 12,2014; and
WHEREAS, the Third Amendment to the Capital Budget for FY 2013114 was approved and
appropriated on March 5,2014, with the adoption of Resolution No. 2014-28524; and
WHEREAS, the Fourth Amendment to the Capital Budget for FY 2013114 was approved and
appropriated on April 23,2014, with the adoption of Resolution No. 2014-28565; and
WHEREAS, the Fifth Amendment to the Capital Budget for FY 2013114 was approved and
appropriated on June 11,2014, with the adoption of Resolution No. 2014-28625; and
WHEREAS, it is recommended the FY 2013114 Capital Budget be amended to add
appropriations totaling $6,193,000 as outlined in "Attachment "C" - Capital Budget Projects"; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Sixth Amendment to the FY 2013114 Capital Budget is included in
"Attachment A - Source of Funds" and "Attachment B - Program".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby adopt the Sixth
Amendment to the Capital Budget for Fiscal Year 2013114 as shown in Aftachment A (Source of
Funds), Attachment B (Programs) and Attachment C (Projects).
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 30th day of July, 2014.
Attest:
Philip Levine, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk w
118
ATTACHMENT A
FY 2013114 CAPITAL BUDGET
SOURCE OF FUNDS
Amended 07130114
NOTE: The Normandy Shores Park Fitness Circuit and Tatum Park Outdoor Sand Volleybail projects will be
funded by funds previously appropriated for the Fisher Park lrrigation System and Stillwater Park Sports Field
Landscape and lrrigation projects. Funding for the Collins Park Streetscape project will be transferred from the
City Center RDA Fund 365 to the Parking Fund 48O.
Fundinq Source Amended 6111114 Amended 7130/,14 Revised
1997 Parking Sys. Rev. Bonds $ 217,000 $ 217,000
2OO3 GO Bonds - Neighborhood lmprovement 148,000 148,000
2003 GO Bonds - Parks & Beaches 633,000 633,000
2OlO Parking Bonds Reso. 2010-27491 160,000 160,000
7th Street Garage 1,900,000 1,900,000
Capital Projects Not Financed by Bonds 89,000 5,700,000 5,789,000
City Center RDA Capital Fund 15,073,000 443,000 15.516,000
Capital Reserve 691,355 691,355
Communications Fund 40,000 40,000
Convention Center 3,701,000 3.701,000
Equipment Loan/Lease 4,644,000 4,644,000
Fleet Management Fund 160,000 160,000
Gulf Breeze 2006 (83,7s9 (83,759
Half Cent Transit Surtax - County 1,582,000 1,582,000
lnfo & Communications Technology Fund 486,000 486,000
Local Option Gas Tax 544,000 544,000
Lowes Royal Palm Proceeds 14,000,000 14,000,000
MB Quality of Life Resort Tax Fund - 1%1,607,000 1,607,000
MDC CDT lnterlocal-CDT/Resort Tax Eligib 4,000,000 4,000,000
Miami-Dade County Bond 2,933,581 2,933,581
NB Quality of Life Resort Tax Fund - 1%'1,603,000 50,000 1,653,000
Parking Operations Fund 1,109,000 1,109,000
Pay-As-You-Go 1,946,000 1,946,000
RDA - Anchor Garage Fund 485,000 485,000
Renewal &.Replacement Fund 2,746,OOO 2,746.000
SB Quality of Life Resort Tax Fund - 1%980,000 980,000
South Pointe Capital 8,868,000 8,868,000
South Pointe RDA 1.636.000 1,636,000
Storm Water Bnd Fund 431 RESO#2O11-27782 529,000 529,000
Stormwater Bonds 20005 (256,000 (256,000
Stormwater LOC Reso. No 2009-27076 24,899,419 24.899.419
W&S GBL Series 20'10 CMB Reso 2009-27243 81,759 81,759
HUD Section 108 Loans 17,391 17,391
Water and Sewer Bonds 2O00s 34,000 34,000
NSP3 Grant 711,669 711,669
EDI Grant 119,743 119.743
HOME Grants 1,603,419 1,603,419
Communitv Develooment Block Grants 618,188 618,188
Total Aoorooriation as ot 7l3ol14 $ 100,2s6,76s $ 6,193,000 $ 106,449,765
119
ATTACHMENT B
FY 2013114 CAPITAL BUDGET
PROGRAMS
Amended 07130114
NOTE: The Normandy Shores Park Fitness Circuit and Tatum Park Outdoor Sand
Volleyball projects will be funded by funds previously appropriated for the Fisher Park
lrrigation System and Stillwater Park Spods Field Landscape and lnigation projects.
Funding for the Collins Park Streetscape projectwill be tansferred from the City Center
RDA Fund 365 to the Parking Fund 48O.
Program Area Amended 6111114 Amended 7l3ll14 Revised
Art in Public Places $381.000 $381.000
Bridges 185,000 185,000
Conrrention Center 17,700,000 17,700,000
EnMronmental 2,275,OOO 2,275,000
Equipment 8,626,000 8,626,000
General Public Buildings 6,973,019 6,973,019
Golf Courses 967,000 967,000
lnformation Technology 493,000 5,700,000 6,193,000
Mnuments 489,000 50,000 539,000
Parkino 204,000 204,000
Parking Garages 12,525,OOO 12.525.000
Parking Lots 459,000 459,000
Parks 6,068,000 6,068,000
Renewal & Replacement 6,003,000 443,000 6,446,000
Seawalls 121,000 121,OOO
Streets/ Sidewalk lmps 21,242,746 21,242,746
Trans iU Trans portation 3,432,000 3,432,000
Utilities 12,1 13,000 12,1 13,000
Total Appropriation as of 7l3ol14 $ 100,256,765 $ 6,193,000 $ 106,449,76s
120
ATTACHMENT C
CAPITAL BUDGET
PROJECTS
Amended 07130114
Gapital Project Name
uurrenf
Capital
Budoet
Amended
07130114
Kevtseq
Gapita!
Budoet
Munis/ Enerqov lT Proiect $0 $ 5,700,000 $ 5,700,000
71st Street Fountain Renovation 300,000 50,000 350,000
Tatum Park Outdoor Sand Vollelball 90,751 12,000 102,751
Normandy Shoes Park Fitness Circuit 135,500 64,000 199,500
Stillwater Pk Sports Field Landscape &
lrrioation 1 15,450 (70,000)45,450
Fisher Pk lrriqation System Restoration 49,800 (6,000)43,800
1 100 Block of Lincoln Road Updates 0 133,000 133,000
Bass Museum HVAC Controls
lnteqration 0 50,000 50,000
Pennsylvania Garage Roof Renovation 0 60,000 60,000
Bass Museum Heat Pump
Reolacement 0 100,000 100,000
Botanical Gardens Window
Replacement 0 100,000 100,000
Collins Park Streetscape Project from
RDAFund 0 (634,530)(634,530)
Collins Park Streetscape Project to the
Parkinq Fund 0 634,530 634,530
Total $ 691,501 $ 6,193,000 $ 6,884,501
121
TT}IE I 5UHDAY, JULY IO, IOS
UIT OF UIIMI BETCH
I{OIICEffiP|JBUCHHRIIIO
il0n[E E HEIEY given tnt a Public Hmrirq wiil be hsld by tln lilafr ard CiS Commrsion 0f the City 0l l\{iami Bmch, Florida, in
Sre Commision Chambers, 3rd ll00r, City Hall, 1 700 Contrentim Center Driue, lvliami Bea$, Flori&, m Wednesday, Juty 30, 2014, t0
comiderfrnfollowing:
5:25pm.
ARemlulionAdrytinglhe SixhAnendmmtTolhe CapitalBudget Fm FiscalYear(FYi 2013|i4.
lrquiilm rny M directed t0 lhe Budget & Peformame lmpovement Deparlmml at 305,673,7510.
lntereshd patie,sar+ invitedbapparatthis meeting, orbe represmtedbyanagent, ortoexprwtheirdews inwritirig addrssedto
fir City Commision, clo the Cig Clerk, 1700 Convention Cenler 0rius, 1st Flmr, CilJ Hail, [iiami Baauh, Horlda 33139. Copim nl fiis
ite* h alai$le {or public impection during rurnal business hrurs in lhe Cig Clerkl 0ffiss, 1 700 Cmwntim 0enter Drive, lst Floor,
Cr'g Hall, il,liami Bmch, Rorida 33139.Ihis meeting, w any item tiurein, nny k continued, and un&r sdi cirmrnstares, additiuul
lqa mtire *md not be provrded.
Pursuant ta Section 286.01ffi, Fla. Stat., fie Crty hereby a&lsw fie p$lh ftat if a person decides to appea arry decision made by fie
Ci$ 0ommis,wr wifr respect to any matler considered at ih m**ting or rts heaing, swh person must msre that a vetbatim remrd ol
fte prmeedings is made, which rscord imlude$ the testimony and widence upon which ilu appeal is t0 br baM. Ihis rnthe dces not
cmstMe consent by tte City lor fie inlducthn or adnkion of ofierwiw inadmissible or ineiolant evidence, nor does it autltsize
challenges m appeais not ofienpiso allowed by lau
To reque$ this materlal in amessible lortnal, $p language intupreters, informatim m mcms lor persons with dimbililius an$or aty
accommdatisrto review anydwmentorpartcipatein myCily*pnssed procmding, pleme cmtmtus{ivedapinadunceat
305,673.i41 1 {wicei u TIY u*rs may alsn call tte Florida Relay Sa{ce at 71 1 .
Ralael E. Granado, Cig Clerk
Cityof hliairtiBeach
Ad 916
122
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Accepting The
Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of Proposals, PursuantTo Request For
Proposals No. 2014-051-SR (The RFP), For Design/Build Services For Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands
3 & 4 RiohlOf-Way lnfrastructure ents.
Ensure Reliable Stormwater Management By lmplementing Select Short And Long- Term Solutions lncluding
Sea-Level Rise.
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summary/Recommendation :
On December 11,2013, the City Commission approved to issue the subject Request for Proposals (RFP).
On May 16,2014, the RFP was issued. A pre-proposal conference to provide information to the proposers
submitting a response was held on June 2,2014. RFP responses were due and received on July 16,2014.
The City received a total of three (3) proposals.
On June 17 ,2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No.244-2014, appointed an Evaluation
Committee (the "Committee"). The Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The Committee also provided
general information on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal. Additionally, the
Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the presentation of each proposer.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP. The results of the evaluation committee process were presented to the City Manager
for his recommendation to the City Commission.
After reviewing all the submissions and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager recommends
that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the administration to enter into negotiations with the top
ranked proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.; and, should negotiations fail, authorize negotiations with the
second ranked proposer, David Manchini & Sons, lnc.; and, should negotiations failwith the second ranked
proposer, authorize negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc.
Further, should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the
administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
RECOMMENDATION
the Resolution.
Advisorv Board Recommendation :
Financial lnformation :
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 $636,364.00 302-2318-069357 - Pay-As-You-Go - Capital Fund
2 $2,296,126.26 429-2318-069357 - Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
3 $2,306,987.00 431 -231 8-069357 201 1 - Stormwater Bonds - Reso No. 201 1
27782
4 $2,195,211.00 420-2318-069357 W&S GBL Series 2010 CMB Reso 2009-
27243
5 50,279.25 425-2318-069357 Water and Sewer Fund
OBPI 6 $290,000.00 429-231 8-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
Total $7,774.967.51
Financial lmpact Summary:
-051-SR Sunset lslands
AGE,',DA rrena R78{s fiArAAArsHAcH axz* 7 -3bll123
4 MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, .l700 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members of
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City
DATE: July 30,2014
SUB]ECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEAGH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO.2014-051-SR (THE RFP), FOR DESIGN/BUILD
SERVICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS 3 & 4 RIGHT-OF-
WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOME SUPPORTED
Ensure Reliable Stormwater Management By lmplementing Select Short And Long- Term
Solutions lncluding Sea-Level Rise.
FUND!NG
Funding for this project will be as follows:
$ 636,364.00 302-2318-069357 Pay-As-You-Go - Capital Fund
$2,296,126.26 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso. 2009-27076
$2,306,987.00 431-2318-069357 2011 Stormwater Bonds - Reso No. 2011-27782
$2,195,211.00 420-2318-069357 W&S GBL Series 2010 CMB Reso 2009-27243
$ 50,279.25 425-2318-069357 Water and Sewer Fund
$ 290.000.00 429-2318-069357 Stormwater LOC Reso 2009-27076
$7,774,967.51
BACKGROUND
On May 16, 2001, the City of Miami Beach (City) adopted Resolution No. 2001-24387,
approving and authorizing the execution of an agreement with CH2M HILL, lnc. (CH2M HILL)
for professional services for the Right-of-Way (ROW) lnfrastructure lmprovements Program for
Neighborhood No. 8 - Bayshore and Sunset lslands project pursuant to Request for
Qualifications (RFO) No. 134-99/00. The agreement included planning, design, and
construction administration services for the collective Bayshore Neighborhoods which was
originally one (1) project and was subsequently separaied into five (5) individual projects via
amendments to the original agreement. These five projects included Central Bayshore
Neighborhood (Package 8A), Lower North Bay Road Neighborhood (Package 8B), Lake
Pancoast Neighborhood (Package 8C), and the Sunset lslands (Packages 8D and 8E).
On April 9, 2003, the City Commission approved the Basis of Design Report (BODR),
completed and submitted by CH2M HILL for the Neighborhood No. 8 Bayshore / Sunset
lslands Project. This BODR was the culmination of a comprehensive planning effort that
included input from and reviews by residents, various City Departments, and the Design
124
Commission Memorandum - RFQ # 2014-206-5R Design/Build Services for the London House
Rehabilitation & Restoration Project
July 23,2014
Page 2
Review Board (DRB).
RFP PROCESS
On December 11 , 2013, the City Commission approved to issue the Request for Proposals
(RFP) No.2014-206-SR. On May 16,2014, the RFP was issued. A pre-proposal conference
to provide information to the proposers submitting a response was held on June 2,2014. RFP
responses were due and received on July 16,2014.
The City received proposals from the following firms:
Central Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc.
David Mancini & Sons, lnc.
Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.
On June 17,2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No.244-2014, appointed
an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee") consisting of the following individuals:
. Mina Samadi, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement
Projects Department, City of Miami Beach. Jose Velez, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects, City of
Miami Beach. Bruce Mowry, City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Miami Beacho Peter Luria, Resident, City of Miami Beach. Michael Alvarez, lnfrastructure Division Director, Public Works Department, City
of Miami Beach
The following individual was appointed as alternates:
. Carla Dixon, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach. Douglas Seaman, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
Miami Beach
The Committee convened on July 22, 20141o consider proposals received and interview the
proposers. The Committee was provided an overview of the project, information relative to the
City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The Committee also
provided general information on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each
proposal. Additionally, the Committee engaged in a question and answer session after the
presentation of each proposer. The Committee was instructed to score and rank each
proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
The evaluation process resulted in the ranking of proposers as indicated in the next page.
125
Yz
E,
J
ztr
N o
G
oF
E
g
(J
lr)
F(o
Or-
r+t-F.
FJ@
oqo
o-oo6l
e
to
oq
@
c.)
O)-
roo,
o)_
@
oooo.oLo
oE
(E
o
(,c
oc
c(!
o
E
U)
o
C;c
u;
oa€.E
c(o
E
(oo
c
ld(o
cot
cIco'=(,u
(oro
o
l'L
(E
0)O
Yz
&
(f)6t
UIFI<tfl|,
613
3lp
=l9t
o N o)
oc
=c
Gg.
N N
EEo;o oo oo)
:
(!u
N (o
o
J
o
o(L
No)F
O)
lr)N
oc
=c
mtr
(f)N
a;
o)
f
m
o)
oo lr)o,
cc
=C
t
N CO
N
0)
0)
q)a
-
ro o F-o
oc
=cot
EE
26 a
o
O)
oo,o
O)
IEo-
u
tU
LO9cl"r--
IYGccooo(
oC
!;co
U)
od
.E
co
P. (/)
e=o3
oc
j
(6
o
(Ec
I
;
o
E
zoF
:)
u.t(\
IIJo
o-
zIF
lJ
IIJ
IIJo
o-
126
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE & RECOMMENDATION
After reviewing all the submissions and the results of the evaluation process, the City Manager
recommends that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the administration to enter into
negotiations with the top ranked proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc. Should negotiations fail,
the City Manager recommends that the administration be authorized to enter into negotiations
with the second ranked proposer, David Manchini & Sons, lnc. Should negotiations fail with
the second ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the administration be
authorized to enter into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment
Rentals, lnc. Should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager
recommends that the administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
GONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida: accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of
proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2014-051-SR for Design/Build
Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 & 4 Right-of-Way lnfrastructure
Improvements; and, authorize the administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked
proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc.; and further authorize the City Manager to execute an
Agreement upon conclusion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
JLM/MTIDMIAD/YG
T:\AGENDA\2014\July\July 30\ RFP-2014-051-SR Sunset lslands 3 & 4 - Memo.doc
127
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEAGH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PROPOSALS,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2014.051.SR, FOR
DESIGN/BUILD SERVICES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 8: SUNSET ISLANDS
3 & 4 RIGHT-OF-WAY TNFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS (THE RFP);
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE TOP RANKED PROPOSER, RIC-MAN INTERNATIONAL, INC;
AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOP.RANKED PROPOSER,
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE SECOND RANKED PROPOSER, DAVID MANCINI & SONS, ING.;
AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE SUCCESSFUL IN
NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND.RANKED PROPOSER,
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS
WITH THE THIRD RANKED PROPOSER, CENTRAL FLORIDA EQUIPMENT
RENTALS, INC; AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE
SUCGESSFUL IN NEGOTIATING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE THIRD.
RANKED PROPOSER, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ISSUE A
NEW RFP; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON CONCLUSION OF SUGCESSFUL
NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, Request for Proposals No. 2014-206-SR (the RFP) was issued on May 16,
2014, with an opening date of July 16, 2014; and
WHEREAS, a mandatory pre-proposal meeting was held on Tuesday June 3, 2014; and
WHEREAS, the City received a total of three (3) proposals; and
WHEREAS, on June 17, 2014, the City Manager via Letter to Commission (LTC) No.
244-2014, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
. Mina Samadi, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach. Jose Velez, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects, City of
Miami Beach. Bruce Mowry, City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of Miami Beach. Peter Luria, Resident, City of Miami Beach. Michael Alvarez, lnfrastructure Division Director, Public Works Department, City
of Miami Beach
The following individuals were appointed as alternates:
Carla Dixon, Capital Projects Coordinator, Capital lmprovement Projects
Department, City of Miami Beach
Douglas Seaman, Assistant City Engineer, Public Works Department, City of
128
Miami Beach
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on July 21, 2014 to consider the proposals
received; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was provided an overview of the project; information relative
to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law; general information
on the scope of services, references, and a copy of each proposal; and engaged in a question
and answer session after the presentation of each proposer; and
WHEREAS, the Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to
the evaluation criteria established in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Committee's ranking was as follows: Ric-Man lnternational, lnc., top
ranked; David Mancini & Sons, lnc., second highest ranked; and Central Florida Equipment
Rentals, lnc., third ranked; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing all the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's and
rankings, the City Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the
Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm, Ric-Man
lnternational, lnc; and should negotiations fail with the top-ranked firm, the City Manager
recommends that the Administration be authorized to enter into negotiations with the second
ranked proposer, David Mancini & Sons, lnc; and should negotiations fail with the second
ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the Administration be authorized to enter
into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc; and
should negotiations fail with the third ranked proposer, the City Manager recommends that the
Administration be authorized to issue a new RFP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking
of proposals, pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 2014-051-SR (the RFP), for Design/Build
Services for Neighborhood No. 8: Sunset lslands 3 & 4 Right-Of-Way lnfrastructure
lmprovements; authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top ranked
proposer, Ric-Man lnternational, lnc; and should the Administration not be successful in
negotiating an agreement with the top-ranked proposer, authorizing the Administration to enter
into negotiations with the second ranked proposer, David Mancini & Sons, lnc.; and should the
Administration not be successful in negotiating an agreement with the second-ranked proposer,
authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations with the third ranked proposer, Central
Florida Equipment Rentals, lnc; and should the Administration not be successful in negotiating
an agreement with the third-ranked proposer, authorizing the Administration to issue a new
RFP; and further authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon conclusion
of successful negotiations by the Administration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014.
129
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Philip Levine, Mayor
T:\AGENDA\2014\July\July30\RFQ-2014-051-SRSunsetlslands3&4-Resolution.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
z/w{v
-l
W'RAWW( Dote
130
A Resolution Of The Mayor And City Gommission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Authorizing The
City Manager To Finalize Negotiations And Execute Contracts With Tyler Technologies, lnc., For
Replacement Of The Gity's Current Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) And Permitting/Licensing
Systems, Munis And EnerGov Respectively; And With EMA, lnc., For A Business Process Review And
Project Management Services Related To The ERP System Replacements; For A Tota! Project Amount Not
To Exceed $7
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
At the May 28, 2014, City Commission meeting, the City Commission authorized a referral to the Finance and
City-Wide Projects Committee (the "Committee") for a discussion on upgrading the City's current enterprise
resource planning (ERP) system, known as Eden, as well as a discussion on Permits Plus, the City's system for
permitting and licensing. The replacement of these systems are a key part of the Administration's goal of re-
engineering core business process to maximize efficiencies and service to constituents, as well as improve
internal controls.
At its June 20,2014, meeting, the Committee considered the Administrations recommendation that the City
replace its ERP system, its system for permitting and licensing, and, prior to implementation of the new systems,
conduct a full business process review with the goal of maximizing operational performance, assuring internal
controls, and improving service to constituents. The Committee also considered the Administration's
recommendation for project management and implementation services to assure a successful implementation of
the project. The Committee has endorsed and recommended that the project be considered by the City
Commission.
The proposed project is comprised of four (4) major project components with the following associated cost
estimates:
1. Upgrading the City's current ERP system from Eden to Munis.
2. Upgrading the City's current system for permitting and licensing from Permits Plus to EnerGov.
3.Completing a full business process review (BPR) of all business processes impacted by either Munis or
EnerGov, prior to implementation of the new systems.
4. Engaging a dedicated project manager to oversee implementation of the new systems in accordance with the
results of the BPR.
Additional detail is included in the attached memorandum.
To maximize operational performance, assure internal controls, and improve service to constituents, the
Administration recommends that the Committee endorse the recommendations for transitioning from Eden ERP to
Munis ERP, implementing EnerGov for permitting and licensing, and engaging EMA to assist the City with a
review of its business processes, as well as provide implementation services (project management) throughout
the project implementation, and authorize the City Manager to negotiate contracts with all respective parties in a
grand total amount not to exceed $7,200,000.
RECOMMENDATION
the Resolution.
lntended Outcome Su
Strealntine ttre detivery of services through all departments. Strengthen internal controls to achieve more accountability.
Data Environmental Scan, etc.: N/A
Financia! lnformation:
Source of
Funds:
Amount Account
1 $5,700, 000 Fund 301 - Capital Proiects Not Financed By Bonds*
@
*Subielb.ardoror
f-Luoo,ooo I ruture fiscal year funding contingent on approved budget
rr'"-l appropriations.
'al of sixth budqet amendment for FY201312014.
Financial lmpact Summary:
Alex Denis, ext. 7490 or Mark Taxis, ext. 6829
July 3O\Tyler Ema ERP
AGEf'IDA ITEM R?C# MIAMIBHACH DAYE ?-3o - lq131
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, lZO0 Conveniion Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33 I 39,
www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO:Mayor Philip Levine and Mem ity Commission
FROM: Jimmy Morales, City Manager *S'sA
DATE: July 30, 2014
SUBIECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CIry
MANAGER TO FINALIZE NEGOTIATIONS AND EXECUTE
CONTRACTS WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FOR
REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CURRENT ENTERPRISE RESOURCE
PLANNING (ERp) AND PERMITTTNG/L|CENSING SYSTEMS, MUNIS
AND ENERGOV RESPECTIVELY; AND WITH EMA, INC., FOR A
BUSINESS PROCESS REVIEW AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES RELATED TO THE ERP SYSTEM REPLACEMENTS; FOR
A TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $7,2OO,OOO.
FUNDING
Fund 301 - Capital Projects Not Financed by Bonds
(Subject to approval of sixth budget amendment for FY201312014)
Future fiscal year funding contingent upon approved budget
appropriation.
Project Total $7,200,000
BACKGROUND
At the May 28, 2014, City Commission meeting, the City Commission authorized a referral to
the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee (the "Committee") for a discussion on
upgrading the City's current enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, known as Eden, as
well as a discussion on Permits Plus, the City's system for permitting and licensing. The
replacement of these systems are a key part of the Administration's goal of re-engineering
core business process to maximize efficiencies and service to constituents, as well as
improve internal controls.
At its June 20, 2014, meeting, the Committee considered the Administrations
recommendation that the City replace its ERP system, its system for permitting and
licensing, and, prior to implementation of the new systems, conduct a full business process
review with the goal of maximizing operational performance, assuring internal controls, and
improving service to constituents. The Committee also considered the Administration's
recommendation for project management and implementation services to assure a
successful implementation of the project. The Committee has endorsed and recommended
that the project be considered by the City Commission.
$5,700 ) 000
$1,500,000
132
Commission Memorandum - July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 2 of 7
The proposed project is comprised of four (4) major project components:
1. Upgrading the City's current ERP system from Eden to Munis.
2. Upgrading the City's current system for permitting and licensing from Permits Plus to
EnerGov.
3. Completing a full business process review (BPR) of all business processes impacted
by either Munis or Enercov, prior to implementation of the new systems.
4. Engaging a dedicated project manager to oversee implementation of the new
systems in accordance with the results of the BPR.
1. UPGRADING THE CITY'S CURRENT ERP SYSTEM FROM EDEN TO MUNIS.
The City implemented the Eden ERP System in October,2OO4. At the time, the Eden ERP
system integrated and provided necessary functionality across many of the City's core
business processes, including finance, budget, procurement and human resources.
However, the system is more than 10 years old and is not keeping pace with the current
functional requirements of the City. Additionally, Tyler Technologies, who recently acquired
Eden, has informed the City that the systems is end of life; and, that it will continue to
support the system in its current state, but will no longer dedicate development resources to
achieve any significant improvements to its functionality.
Given the cross-functional impact and magnitude of an ERP system, it was necessary to
complete a high level due diligence before recommending any option to replace the aging
Eden ERP system. Therefore, to better understand the functional deficiencies of the Eden
ERP being reported by City departments, as well as identifying possible options that the City
may consider in addressing the aging Eden ERP system, the Administration engaged EMA
to conduct a full gap analysis of functional deficiencies of the system and provide options for
moving fonryard.
EMA is a multi-national service provider with over 30 years of experience in assisting public
agencies with their technological, best practices and strategic planning requirements. EMA
has assisted other localjurisdictions in similar projects and has been awarded several large
cooperative agreements with federal and state governments, including the State of Florida.
EMA has completed the ERP Gap Analysis (the "Report"), which is attached for your perusal
(Appendix A). The Report includes many of the specific gaps identified by City departments
as barriers to maximizing performance, internal controls and service to constituents, as well
as the following three options for addressing the deficiencies:
1. Remain with the Eden ERP, but engage Tyler Technologies to address the functional
gaps through City-specific customizations; or
2. Transition from Eden ERP to Munis ERP; or
3. Release a Request for Proposals (RFP) to consider other ERP options.
Option 1 (remaining with the Eden ERP) is not recommended since this option would require
the City to contract with Tyler Technologies to implement the necessary changes through
City-specific system modifications. ln the long run, this option creates a multitude of issues
with supporting a system that deviates so significantly from the baseline system.
Additionally, at time of implementation, Eden ERP was deployed utilizing past business
processes that the Administration is seeking to re-engineer in a continuing effort to
streamline and enhance the delivery of services, improve building/development processes,
strengthen internal controls, and maximize innovation and performance.
133
Commission Memorandum - July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 3 of 7
Option 3 (releasing an RFP) is not recommended due to the City's size and functional
requirements and Tyler Technologies' role in the public sector ERP market, possible viable
candidates for replacing the system would only include Tyler Technologies and, possibly,
one or two other ERP providers. Additionally, an RFP would delay the beginning of
upgrading of the current ERP by, at least, I - 12 months, over the expected 36 month
period for implementing a new system.
The Report recommends that the City proceed with Option 2 - transition from Eden ERP to
Munis ERP. This recommendation is primarily based on: the heavily discounted costs
proposed by Tyler Technologies; the ability of the Munis ERP to serve the City's needs now
and into the foreseeable future; and Tyler's experience in the public sector. The Report
notes that significant discounts proposed by Tyler Technologies makes a compelling
financial case for the upgrade. Additionally, given Tyler Technologies' client base and Munis'
flagship status within the company, the City will benefit from current and emerging
technologies and transitioning from Eden ERP to Munis ERP, given that both systems are
owned by Tyler Technologies, is expected to minimize potential problems with-data
conversion and other implementation tasks. Finally, Tyler Technologies' extensive client
public sector base and user community will benefit the City in terms of future product
development and opportunities to work with similar public sector agencies on solutions and
system upgrades. According to the Report, a transition from Eden ERP to Munis ERP will
provide the City with the functionality it requires at discounted pricing without delays from an
extended selection process.
ln addition to the benefits of Option 2 included in the Report, giye#he when considering
Eden ERP's end-of-life status, the Administration has concerns that, as current Eden ERP
clients transition to Munis or other ERP systems, the City may be faced with limited
enhancements and support to the current Eden system, and anticipates possible impacts on
to maintenance costs resulting from a reduced client pool and other functional issues related
to the continued use of a system that is end of life.
ln response to the City's need for greater functionality, Tyler Technologies has offered to
transition the City from the Eden ERP to its flagship ERP, Munis, at a significant cost
savings by discounting the complete cost of any module license in the Munis ERP that the
City currently owns in the Eden ERP. This amounts to approximately $1,138,150 in license
fee discounts, as well as a 50% discount in data conversion costs totaling $63,150, for a
total discount of approximately $1,201,300.
The costs associated with the Eden to Munis conversion are included in Appendix C.
2. UPGRADING THE CITY'S CURRENT SYSTEM FOR PERMITTING AND LICENSING
FROM PERMITS PLUS TO ENERGOV.
ln 2010 the Building Department started a project to replace the Permits Plus system,
currently in use, with Accela Automation. The project attempted to provide full integration
with the permitting, automated approvals workflows, and interface with other City's key
applications for financials and customer service. The goal was to have a solution with the
highest data accuracy, quality of service, system and user security standards and
integration between the department's applications.
134
Commission Memorandum - July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 4 of 7
The City experienced significant challenges with the implementation of the Accela product.
Many of the issues with the implementation of Accela Automation were related to the City's
complex business processes which were not analyzed or refined prior to implementation in
order to streamline the burdensome procedures that cause bottlenecks and duplicity of
efforts. Other issues were related to the configuration of an intricate fee structure for
services, as well as Accela's integration with Eden in the context of Finance and Code
Enforcement. Additionally, the implementation of Accela Automation did not incorporate
critical Planning processes and left much of that department's functions to be conducted
utilizing outdated and ineffective manual processes.
The EnerGov option provides out of the box solutions for Building, Planning, and Code
Enforcement without the need for significant scripting. Processes such as Plans Review,
lnspections, Code Enforcement and Cashiering are all processed within EnerGov.
Additionally, Business License (Tax Receipts) is also managed in EnverGov which will
facilitate and simplify the issuance and renewal of Business Tax Receipts.
The proposed EnerGov package includes a Citizen Access Portal for online BTR
submission and renewal, Permit & Plans Submission as well as lnspection Scheduling,
Complaint Submission and the ability to check status.
EnerGov provides a seamless interface with Munis (Eden's replacement) and the Tyler
Cashiering component will provide a continuous interface that will allow for real time
cashiering in both Munis and EnerGov. All permit applications and board orders will be
associated to its corresponding address supported through Geographic lnformation System
(GlS) which creates a historical record of approvals and permits to each parcel.
The costs associated with the Permits Plus to EnerGov conversion are included in Appendix
C.
3. COMPLETTNG A FULL BUSTNESS PROCESS REVTEW (BPR) OF AtL BUSINESS
pRocEssEs TMPACTED BY ETTHER MUNrS OR ENERGOV, PRrOR TO
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW SYSTEMS.
A critical component of any ERP implementation is the corresponding review, streamlining
or other improvements to the organization's business processes. A commonly held
viewpoint in the business literature is that ERP implementations alone will not resolve
significantly deficient business processes; and, that to do so, ERP implementations must
begin with a business process review first. Othenruise, the organization runs the risk of re-
implementing deficient, outdated or cumbersome business processes leftover from the prior
ERP, incurring significant costs in system customization to accommodate legacy processes,
and not achieving the quality improvements intended to be achieved as a result of the
implementation of the new system. ln short, streamlining of processes musf occur before
any ERP implementation begins for the organization to avoid a continuation of unnecessarily
complex or outdated processes.
135
Commission Memorandum - July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 5 of 7
Therefore, to assure that the City's business processes reflect the aforementioned goals of
streamlining, process improvements, strengthening of internal controls, and maximizing
innovation and performance, the Administration is recommending that a full business
process review (BPR) of all functional areas of the new systems be completed prior to the
commencement of implementation activities. The goal of the BPR process is two-fold: 1)
make business operations more efficient and effective; 2) and, more effectively utilize
technological investments. ln this manner, the new systems will be aligned with improved
processes offering the greatest opportunity to improve the City's business operations.
The statement of work for the BPR is included in Appendix B. The associated costs are
included in Appendix C.
4. ENGAGING A DEDICATED PROJECT MANAGER TO OVERSEE IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE NEW SYSTEMS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE RESULTS OF THE BPR.
The business literature is filled with examples of failed ERP and other lT system
implementations. Understanding the complexity of this project and in order to prevent
complications, the Administration has sought to understand some of the reasons why many
implementations fail. Some of which include:
r Lack of ownership and accountability. lf team members do not understand their
role and the degree to which they are accountable for the success of the project, it is
nearly impossible to be successful.e Poor change management processes. The goal of an ERP implementation, insofar
as practical, is to assure that business processes are fitted to the system and not the
reverse. lt is understood that there will be some processes that will require system
modifications; however, these should be the exception and not the rule. The change
management process must be carefully controlled to engage leadership, as
necessary, to make decisions between possible costly modifications to the system or
enact the necessary changes in business processes to accommodate system
design.. Getting bogged down by daily responsibilities. Without dedicated project
management empowered by leadership, it is all too easy for stakeholders to get
bogged down by daily responsibilities rather than completing implementation tasks.
This may result in project delays and escalation of costs.. Lack of communication. Clear communications and understanding between
internal and external stakeholders, including project staff, implementation staff,
software developers and leadership, is a critical component for successful project
implementation. Project communications must also assure that system configuration
is considered through a holistic perspective rather than through functional silos.. Underestimating the magnitude of the project. lt is all too often that organizations
feel that "we can do it ourselves" and fail to secure the necessary resources to
successfully complete major system implementations. The Administration
understands the magnitude of a project such as this and wants to assure that the
resources necessary for success are allocated from the start. Dedicated project
management is necessary for the success of a project of this magnitude.
With the above in mind, the Administration is seeking the assistance of an experienced
implementation consultant to act in the capacity of owner's representative, to provide project
management and avoid potential pitfalls to assure the success of the project.
136
Commission Memorandum - July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
Page 6 of 7
As depicted below, the implementation consultant, under the direction of the Project
Steering Committee, will manage all implementation activities and tasks, as well as
communications between stakeholders, to assure the results of the business practice review
and gained process efficiencies are translated into a successful implementation of the ERP
investment. The implementation consultant will manage, on a fulltime basis, configuration,
testing, system documentation (manuals), training and the creation of performance metrics,
as well as assure that only costs related to completed deliverables are incurred by the City.
This will assure that departmental subject matter experts (SMEs) are used to the fullest
extent necessary, and will avoid the need to reassign staff permanently and backfill with
temporary positions, (another option for implementation). Backfilling with temporary
positions is an expensive approach that may impede operational effectiveness of many
departments with limited staffing resources. The implementation consultant will be the
primary liaison between SMEs and Tyler Technologies to assure that configurations are
consistent with organizational requirements resulting from the BPR, and that the project
remains on schedule and within budget. Additionally, the proposed approach will ensure
constant coordination with leadership on project status and change management
requirements.
Proiect Orqanizational Chart m*
f u*.rnaotrr l
I cSmmlr:ion-
I*--r---
f qtyu.nrq" I
[ ,.m:ra, I-r--Fffi\I ::'"*[J3 I
l--reeldrsLj+
G@ffiffi mffimffi
Given their experience in the public sector, the completed GAP Analysis, current contracts
with the State of Florida, as well as the knowledge of the City's requirements gained from
the business process review, the Administration is recommending that EMA be engaged to
assist with implementation consultant services (project management).
The statement of work for the project management services is included in Appendix B. The
associated costs are included in Appendix C.
137
Commission Memorandum - July 30, 2014
Munis, EnerGov, BPR and Project Management
PageT of7
GONCLUS!ON
To maximize operational performance, assure internal controls, and improve service to
constituents, the Administration recommends, as endorsed by the Finance and City-Wide
Projects Committee, transitioning from Eden ERP to Munis ERP, implementing EnerGov for
permitting and licensing, and engaging EMA to assist the City with a review of its business
processes, as well as provide implementation services (project management) throughout the
project implementation.
It is recommended that the licenses and services pursuant to the Munis and EnerGov
projects be acquired pursuant to the National Joint Powers Alliance (NJPA) cooperative
agreement number 113011-TTl, for technology solutions. ln addition to the discounts
available through the NJPA agreement, Tyler has offered the City an additional discount
over the NJPA discounted pricing. lt is also recommended that the services of EMA be
acquired pursuant to the State of Florida term contract number 973-561-10-1 , for information
technology services.
RECOMMENDATION
The Administration recommends approval of a Resolution of the Mayor and City
Commission of the City of Miami Beach, Florida, authorizing the City Manager to
finalize negotiations and execute contracts with Tyler Technologies, lnc., for
replacement of the City's current enterprise resource planning (ERP) and
permitting/licensing systems, Munis and EnerGov respectively; and with Ema, lnc.,
for a business process review and project management services related to the ERP
system replacements; for a total project amount not to exceed $7,200,000.
ATTACHMENTS
Appendix A - ERP Gap Analysis Report
Appendix B - EMA Statement of Work for Business Process Review and Project
Management
Appendix C - Project Costs and Funding Plan
JLM/MT/AD
T:\AGENDA\2O14Uuly\Procurement July 3O\Tyler Ema ERP - MEMO.docx
138
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE FINANCE AND CITY.
WIDE PROJECTS COMMITTEE, AND APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS WITH TYLER TECHNOLOGIES, INC., IN
CONNECTION WITH THE REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CURRENT ENTERPRISE
RESOURCE PLANNING (ERP) SYSTEM, KNOWN AS EDEN, WITH MUNIS ERP; AND THE
REPLACEMENT OF THE CITY'S CURRENT PERMITTING/LICENSING SYSTEMS, KNOWN
AS PERMITS PLUS, WITH ENERGOV; AND TO FURTHER EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH
EMA, INC. FOR A BUSINESS PROCESS REVIEW, AS WELL AS PROJECT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES, RELATED TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MUNIS ERP AND ENERGOV
REPLAGEMENT SYSTEMS; FOR A TOTAL PROJECT AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$7,200,000.
WHEREAS, the City implemented the Eden Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
System in October,2004, to provide functionality across many of the City's core business
processes, including finance, budget, procurement and human resources; and
WHEREAS, the Eden ERP system is more than 10 years old and is not keeping pace
with the current functional requirements of the City; and
WHEREAS, given the cross-functional impact and magnitude of an ERP system, the
Administration engaged EMA, lnc., to conduct a full gap analysis of functional deficiencies of the
Eden ERP system in order to ascertain the best course of action; and
WHEREAS, the gap analysis completed by EMA recommended that the City move
foruvard with a project to replace the Eden ERP system with the Tyler Munis ERP system; and
WHEREAS, the Administration ls also recommending the replacement of the City's
current system for permitting and licensing, known as Permits Plus, through Accela Automation,
with Tyler EnerGov, a permitting and licensing system that interfaces seamlessly with the Tyler
Munis ERP system; and
WHEREAS, at the May 28, 2014 City Commission meeting, the Mayor and City
Commission authorized a referral to the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee (the
"Committee") for a discussion on upgrading the Eden ERP system and the City's system for
permitting and licensing; and
WHEREAS, the replacement of these systems are a key part of the Administration's
goal of re-engineering core business processes to maximize efficiencies and service to
constituents, as well as improve internal controls; and
WHEREAS, at its June 20, 2014 meeting, the Committee recommended consideration
of the Project by the City Commission, based upon the following recommendations from the
Administration: 1. the replacement of the City's Eden ERP system with Tyler Munis ERP
system; 2. The replacement of the City's permitting and licensing system (Permits Plus) with the
Tyler EnerGov; and 3. the engagement of the services of Ema, lnc., in connection with
conducting a full business process review, as well as assisting the City with project
management and implementation services to assure a successful implementation of the
systems; and
139
WHEREAS, the Administration has recommended that the licenses and services
required for the Munis ERP and EnerGov projects be acquired pursuant to the National Joint
Powers Alliance (NJPA) Cooperative agreement number 113011-TTl, for technology solutions,
although Tyler has offered the City an additional discount over the NJPA discounted pricing; and
WHEREAS, the Administration has recommended that the services of EMA lnc. be
acquired pursuant to the State of Florida term contract number 973-561-10-1, for information
technology services.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby accept
the recommendation of the Finance and City-Wide Projects Committee, and approve and
authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute contracts with Tyler Technologies, lnc., in
connection with the replacement of the City's current enterprise resource planning (ERP)
system, known as Eden, with Munis ERP; and the replacement of the City's current
permitting/licensing systems, known as Permits Plus, with Energov; and to further execute a
contract with Ema, lnc. for a business process review, as well as project management services,
related to the implementation of the Munis ERP and Energov replacement systems; for a total
project amount not to exceed $7,200,000.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this _ day of 2014.
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Philip Levine, Mayor
T:\AGENDA\2014\July\Procurement July 30\Tyler Ema ERP - RESO.doc
APPROVED AS TO
rONU & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTIONfur
140
APPENDIX A
d
CD
--
:
City of Miami Beach
ERP
Gap Analysis
&
Plannitrg, Permitting,
and Licensing Software
f9EM^
June 2014
2355 Highway 36 West, Suite 200
Saint Paul, MN 551 13H,
141
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ERP Gap Analysis.... .............. 1-1
Why Eden to Munis? ..............1-2
Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Software.............. ..............1-z
Why Permits Plus/Accela Automation to EnerGov? .............. .........1-2
2. ERP GAP ANALYSIS
Current State......... ..................2-1
Project Approach.. ...................2-2
Stakeholder lnterviews ...........24
GAP List..... ..........2-s
Munis ERP Solution Demonstrations........... ................2-7
Tyler Connect Conference .............. ........2-10
Cross-Functional lnvolvement........... ......2-11
Munis ERP Solution Quote...... ................2-11
Summary.. ............2-12
3. PLANNING, PERMITTING, & LICENSING
Current State......... ..................3-1
Energov.... ..............3-1
Tyler Connect Conference .............. ..........3-3
Energov Quote ....34
4. THIRD PARry SOFTWARE
Software Demonstrations......... ................4-1
5. SOFTWARE VENDOR MARKETPLACE
Software Solution Options..... ...................5-1
ERP Software Vendor Marketplace ..........5-1
CIS Software Vendor Marketplace ............5-7
142
PIanning, Permitting, and Licensing Software Vendor Marketplace ..................5-8
6. RECOMMENDATION
ERP Options............. ..............6-1
Option #1: Eden (Not Recommended)..... ....................6-1
Option #2: Munis (Recommended)........... ...................6-1
Option #3: Full Request for Proposal (Not Recommended) ...........6-2
Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Software Recommendation ................6-2
EnerGov (Recommended) ........... .............6-2
Software lmplementation Risks ................6-2
Next Step ...............6-2
143
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ERP GAP ANALYSIS
The City of Miami Beach has outgrown the capabilities of its current Enterprise Resource Planning
(ERP) system. This ERP Gap Analysis report captures the findings and analysis specific to the gap
between their needs and what their current ERP system (a product named Eden) can provide. This
analysis was conducted through a series of interviews with key City of Miami Beach stakeholders.
Figure 1.1 is a graphical chart of a summary of the gaps by priority by department. The entire gap
analysis is included in Appendix A.
Figure 1.1: ERP Gaps by Functional Area
ERP Gaps by Functional Area
35
30aa.
6es
o-
frzo
3rsolt
E10a-
5
0 Human Pro@remenl Budget
Resoures
Ilopartmont
rHigh rMedium rlou/
Property
Managenent
This report will help the City of Miami Beach understand and quantifo the gaps that exist between its
ERP future state and its present state. By understanding these gaps, management can create
specific action plans to move the organization forward toward its goals and close the gaps identified in
the gap analysis report.
While there are many ERP software vendors, only a subset of these vendors focus on the public
sector. Tyler is a leading ERP software vendor in the public sector. A2012 Gartner study stated that
Tyler is exclusively focused on the state and local government market, with more than 98% of its
revenue coming from this sectorl. The firm serves a broad cross section of government clients, and
the majority of those clients are cities of similar size to City of Miami Beach.
Eden was acquired by Tyler, but Tyler's flagship product is Munis. Tyler considers Eden to have
reached an "End-of-Life" status. While the software may still be useable, Tyler made the decision
several years ago to focus their development resources on Munis. Other public sector entities that
' Gartner lnc. G00227887, The Nofth American Local Government tT Solution Vendor Landscape, 2012
144
also used Eden software have migrated to Munis including the City of Bradenton, FL and Rockingham
County, VA. Tyler has provided a quote to the City for the Munis ERP Solution. This quote reflects
heavily discounted license costs from Tyler's "Clients for Life" program.
Why Eden to Munis?
The City has three main options to consider:
1. Eden (Not Recommended). Remain on Eden ERP and request some enhancements that
will require development time. These enhancements may never be available as Eden is in
"End-of-Life" status and it is not Tyler's focus for development.
2. Tyler Munis (Recommended). We recommend that the City take advantage of Tyler's
"Clients for Life" program which offers discounts on Munis license fees and negotiate a
contract for the purchase of Munis.
3. Request for Proposal (Not Recommended). Develop and issue a Request for Proposal for
an ERP solution that would likely result in a response from one or two vendors in addition to
Munis. lt is already clear that, with Tyler's "Clients for Life" discount, the other vendors are
very likely to be challenged to compete with Tyle/s proposed pricing for the ERP solution.
EMA recommends Option #2 - Tyler Munis. This option provides the City with the desired
functionality at a competitive price without the delay of the RFP process. The next step is for the City
Manager to utilize the Tyler price quote in Appendix B and negotiate a contract. This contract will
include a detailed Statement of Work that outlines the professional services that Tyler will deliver
when implementing the Munis solutions.
PLANNING, PERMITTING AND LICENSING SOFTWARE
The City currently utilizes the Permits Plus application for plan review, permitting, inspection, and
many other processes; however, the processes are not fully automated and are paper-intensive. ln
2010, the Watson Rice Report reviewed the Permits Plus system and found that it did not have proper
audit controls and security weaknesses. The report directed the City to replace Permits Plus. There
were plans to upgrade to Accela Automation and replace Permits Plus, but there have been many
challenges over the last two years that have prevented the City from implementing Accela
Automation.
Why Permits Plus/Accela Automation to EnerGov?
City personnel have reviewed the functionality of Accela Automation versus EnerGov and find
EnerGov to be a superior product. EnerGoVs functionality includes integrated permitting workflows,
electronic plan review capabilities, a G|S-centric design, a citizen portal that provides transparency to
citizens to access status of requests or payment, and mobile applications for field personnel.
EnerGov has "out-of-the-box" capabilities that Accela Automation does not. Tyler was asked to
demonstrate EnerGov and City personnel found that the system meets their requirements, and as
such, Tyler has provided a quote for EneGov.
EMA, INC.
145
ERP GAP ANALYSIS
CURRENT STATE
The City of Miami Beach (the City) is a full service local government with more than 25 departments
providing municipal services to 90,000+ citizens. The City employs approximately 1,917 full time
employees and 246 parttime/seasonal employees on a 2013/14 operating budget of about $450
million. The City of Miami Beach is a destination city that attracts over 10 million tourists a year.
The City relies daily on an ERP system to perform administrative business functions such as
financial accounting, procurement, human resources, payroll, budget management, asset
management, and other tasks. Although the City might be considered a small- to medium-sized city
in terms of the number of citizens, it has unique circumstances and needs. The high level of tourism,
economic development, and growth requires the city to operate with an ERP software solution that
will meet the City's current needs along with the future needs as it grows and evolves. The new ERP
solution should improve the citizen's customer experience, enable operational efficiency gains,
ensure accountability, and provide transparency.
ln June of 2004, the City selected Eden Systems (Eden) for its ERP software solution. Eden was
purchased by Tyler Technologies just six months before that in December 2003. Tyler Technologies
(Tyler) also has another ERP software called Munis ERP Solution (Munis), which it acquired in 1999.
!n2004, the City ERP selection process considered both Eden and Munis functionality and cost and
ultimately selected Eden.
Several years ago, Tyler made the decision to focus primary development resources on Munis and
not Eden. Today, there are stillapproximately 240 customers utilizing Eden Systems; however, since
Munis is Tyler's flagship product, emerging technologies and capabilities have been added and will
continue to be added to Munis and not Eden. As a result, several Eden customers have migrated to
Munis. These include the city of Bradenton, FL and Rockingham County, VA.
Tyler recognizes that cities such as the City of Miami Beach have business requirements that are not
met with the Eden solution. Tyler operates under a unique approach in the ERP solution market with
a program they call "Clients for Life". This program offers clients an option to convert from the
product they have outgrown to a product that is more suited to their needs at a heavily discounted
price. Clients migrating from Eden to Munis are not required to pay software license fees for
modules that they currently have. An Eden to Munis migration requires professional services,
hardware, license costs for modules the City does not currently have with Eden, and other costs.
The fact that Tyler does not require the City to pay for software license fees creates a discounted
price that is difficult if not impossible for other ERP vendors to compete with.
146
PROJECT APPROACH
The City engaged EMA to conduct an ERP gap analysis and this report is a culmination of that effort.
The project commenced on March 11 , 2014 with a series of functional area stakeholder interviews.
From these interviews a gap list by functional area was drafted for the stakeholders to review,
confirm, and prioritize. The gap list was then provided to Tyler in preparation for a demonstration of
the Munis ERP Solution on April 10-11,2014. During two days of software demonstrations, Tyler
addressed the gap list items and demonstrated where Munis had the capability and also identified
where it did not (i.e., a modification or enhancement would be required to fulfill the requirement).
Additionally, a team of cross-functional representatives from the city attended the Tyler Connect
Annual Conference on April 13 -16, 2014 with the specific goal of learning more about Munis
capabilities. Tyler also provided demonstrations for the Finance department. These included more
in-depth demonstrations of Munis modules such as Tyler Cashiering, Cash Management, and Utility
Billing.
Several third party software packages have been reviewed and demonstrated as well. These third
party software packages include PatternStream for automated publishing, SymPro for debt
management, and Skyline Sofhruare for leasing administration. Refer to Section 4 for additional
information on third party software. Table 2.1 below describes the project activities.
EMA, INC
147
Table 2.1: Project Activities Table
On-site interviews conducted 3111114 - 3114114
21 stakeholders representing Management, lnformation Technology,
Procurement, Human Resources, Finance, and Budget
Focus on current ERP system deficiencies
a
a
a
Compiled gap list as captured in stakeholder interviews
Stakeholders reviewed and prioritized gap list
Final gap list sent to Tyler Technologies on 41212014
Munis ERP
Solution
Demonstration
Tyler provided an Eden ERP to Munis ERP module mapping table
Tyler conducted an on-site demonstration of Munis ERP Solution on
4110114 and 4111114
Demonstration specifically addressed gap list
Items that require software modifications or interfaces were noted
Tyler conducted additional demonstrations for Finance of the Munis
Cash Management and Utility Billing modules, Tyler Cashiering on
5122t14
Tyler Connect
Conference
Team of 14 individuals representing Management, lT, Procurement,
Budget, Human Resources, Finance, Planning, Building, and GIS
attended the conference
Team members attended Munis ERP sessions
Attendees further expanded knowledge of Munis ERP
Munis ERP
Solution Quote
Munis ERP Solution initial quote provided on 3131114, 5126114,
6113114; final quote provided onOl17l14
EMA and the City reviewed the initial quote and noted items for
correction or addition on 412114
Tyler Technologies provided a revised Munis ERP Solution revised
quote that addressed items noted during initial review and during
demonstrations
Quote reviewed by the City and EMA on 5122114
Conducted on-site Stakeholder review of draft gap analysis report on
June 16, 2014
148
Stakeholde r I nterviews
EMA conducted stakeholder interviews with 21 staff members representing the following
departments: Management, lnformation Technology, Procurement, Human Resources, Finance, and
Budget, See Table 2.2 below for a detailed list of stakeholders. The interview questions focused on
understanding business processes, process inputs/outputs, reporting requirements, system
interfaces, process cycle time, and ERP system deficiencies.
Table 2.2: Stakeholder lnterviewee Listing
Mark Taxis Mark Taxis Assistont City Mdnager City Manager Project Sponsor
Francis Frances Executive Office Associote I Support
Ariel Sosa Director lnformation
Technology
IT SME
Nydia Gutierrez,
PMP Project Monoger Project
Monoqer
Alex Denis Director Procurement SME-Lead
Maria Estevez Assistont Director SME
Sylvia Crespo-
Tabak Svlvia Cresoo-Tabak Director Human
Resou rces SME-Leod
Samantha Hester HR Administrotor SME
Sue Radis HR Administrotor I SME
lnes Ferreiro HR Speciolist SME
Yesenia Alvarez HRTech ll SME
Jose del Risco Lo bo r Relotio ns S pecio I i st SME
Trish Walker Trish Walker Ch ief Fi no ncio I Office r Finance SME-Leod
Georeie Echert Assistont Director SME
Allison Williams Chief Accountont SME
Ramon Suarez Finance Monager SME
Frank Estevez Financiol Anolyst SME
Mannv Marouez Revenue Monager SME
Juan Rodriguez Treosury Monoger SME
John
Woodruff John Woodruff Director Budget
SME-Leod
MichaelHoward Budget Officer SME
149
Gap List
The goal of the stakeholder interviews was to capture deficiencies with the current ERP system
Eden in order to develop a gap list versus a complete list of functional requirements. lt should be
noted that the stakeholders do not want to lose functionality that currently exists in Eden. . The entire
gap list is included in Appendix A. ln total, 159 items were identified. Table 2.3 lists the number of
gaps by department.
Every department is experiencing limitations with Eden. The Finance Department is most
experienced with Eden as many of their staff were with the City during the Eden installation.
Consequently, the Finance staff reported more involvement with the selection and implementation of
Eden. Other department stakeholders reported they were either not with the City at that time or had
little involvement in the implementation.
lnterviews with stakeholders from every department revealed specific gaps. These were captured in
draft form and then returned to the stakeholders for review and clarification. Additionally, each
department was asked to prioritize the gaps as high, medium, and low. Figure 2.1 is a graphical
chart of the functional area gaps by priority.
Table 2.3: Gaps by Department
EMA, INC
150
ERP Gaps by Functional Area
35
30o
CLO.Eo.r
o-
fr20
3rsotl
E10fz
5
0
Finance Human
Resources
r High
Procurement Budget
Department
r Medium r Low
Property
Management
Figure 2.1: Graph of ERP Gaps by Functional Area
The Finance Department identified the greatest number of gaps; the department identified 62 total
gaps, comprised of 33 high, 19 medium, and l0lowgaps. The Finance Departmentgaps are further
broken down by areas within that department. Table 2.4 lists the Finance gaps by area.
Table 2.4: Finance Gaps by Area
General Ledger 11 4 2 17
Utility Billing 12 2 2 16
Accounts Payable 6 4 10
Project Accounting 4 2 6
Accounts Receivable &
Misc. Billinq 5 5
Cashiering 3 1 4
SpecialAssessments &
Licensino 2 2
Fixed Asset Accounting 2 2
Total 33 19 10 62
151
The Human Resources Department identified the second greatest number of gaps; the department
identified 47 total gapscomprised of 27 high,12 medium, and S lowgaps. The Human Resources
Department gaps are further broken down by areas within that department. Table 2.5 lists the
Human Resource gaps by area.
Table 2.5: Human Resources Gaps by Area
Compensation & Payroll 13 2 3 18
Recruitment & Position
Control 7 2 3 12
Training 5 2 7
Labor Relations 2 2 1 5
Benefits & Leave 4 4
Other 1 1
Total 27 12 8 47
Munis ERP Solution Demonstration
The prioritized gap list was provided to Tyler prior to the on-site Munis demonstration. The
demonstration was conducted in two full-day sessions. Tyler began by providing a high level
overview that included Dashboards, General Navigation, Self Service, Workflow, Document
Management, and Reporting.
The City's ERP business processes are performed utilizing Eden modules and a separate third party
cashiering system called Core Cashiering. Some of the Eden modules have a comparable module in
Munis and, in some cases, Tyler has a separate comparable Tyler software module. Tyler provided
a mapping of the Eden modules to the Munis modules. Table 2.6 contains that mapping.
EMA, INC.
152
Description - Existinq Eden Confiouration Descrinlion - TvlerlMunis
Core Cashierino Reolace Wth Tvler Cashierino - Reolace with SA|U Cost
Administration - DD/EM Suooort NiA
GUAP/PG Munis Accountinq/GUBudoeVAP
LaserFiche lnterface Suooort TBD - Replace with Tvler TCM SE - Replace with SA/i/ Cost
State Packaoe Suooort N/A - lncluded with Munis
GASB Suooort Upqrade to Tvler CAFR Statement Builder
Accounts Receivable Munis Accounts Receivable & General Billinq Module
lnterface Suooort (Real Time lnterface -Querv)N/A - Applies to Core Cashierinq Product
Human Resources Munis HR Manaoement
lnterface Suooort (Real Time lnterface - Uodate)N/A - Applied to Core Product
Contract Manaoement Munis Contract Manaoement
Special Assessment Munis Utility Billinq with Assessments lncluded
Fixed Assets Munis Fixed Assets
Parcel Manaoer Munis Central Prooertv
Tyler Payments - Hostinq Fee N/A
Advanced Budoetino Munis Accounti no/GUBudoeUAP
Aoolicant Trackino Munis Aoolicant Trackino
Licensino EnerGov - for Business Licensino
Position Budoetino Munis Pavroll
Proiect Accountino Munis Proiects & Grants
Tvler Outout Processino N/A
Emolovee Trainino Munis Payroll
Utilitv Billino Munis Utilitv Billino CIS
Handhelds Munis UB lnterface
Payroll Munis Payroll with Employee Self Service
Requisitions Munis Purchasino
lnventory Munis lnventorv
Bid & Quote Munis Bid Manaoement
Accounts Pavable Suooort Web Munis - eProcurement
Accounts Receivable Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Applicant Trackinq Supoort Web Munis Aoolicant Trackino
Bid & Quote Support Web Munis -eProcurement
Human Resources Support Web Munis Pavroll with Emolovee Self Service
Licensinq Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Special Assessment Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Emplovee Trainino Support Web Munis Pavroll Emolovee Self Service
Utilitv Billinq Support Web Munis Citizen Self Service
Table 2.6: Mapping of Eden Modules to Munis Modules
The on-site demonstration of Munis took place on April 10-11,2014. EMA was on-site for the
demonstration session. John White, the Tyler representative leading the demonstration, took care to
EMA, rNC. 2-8
153
review each gap item. The session was well attended by the City's personnel. Representatives from
every department attended, the session allowed time for question and answer, and there was good
participation. Table 2.7 lists the staff represented in the Munis demonstration sessions by
department.
Table 2.7: Munis Demonstration Aftendees
Glester Edwards
Linda Blanco
Kathie Brooks
Allison Williams
Benjamin Nussbaum
Frank Estevez
Georgie Echert
Ginette Luxama
Jimmy McMillion
Juan Rodriguez
Lidia Cristobal
Manny Marquez
Ramon Suarez
Raul Soria
Rubylle Liberty
Sara Patino
Scott Wagner
Tonda Shaw
Tracey Hejl
Trish Walker
lnes Ferreiro
Samantha Hester
Sylvia Crespo-Tabak
Yasenia Alvarez
Nydia Gutierrez
Georgette Daniels
John Woodruff
Judy Hoanshelt
Mike Howard
Tameka Stewart
Steven Greene
Alex Denis
Maria Estevez
RaquelAieta
Sandra Rico
Shirley Thomas
Steven Williams
Yolanda Centado-Seiglie
@
Bldg
Bldg
cMo
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
Finance
HR
HR
HR
HR
IT
OBPI
OBPI
OBPI
OBPI
OBPI
Planning
Procurement
Procurement
Procurement
Procurement
Procurement
Procurement
Procurement
154
Lourdes Rodriquez
Sue Radig
Natasha Diaz
Lynne Powers
John \Mite
Todd Cloutier
Tim Vickers
Purchasing
Risk Benefits
TCED
EMA
Tyler
Tyler
Tyler
After the demonstration session the gap list was updated to note if the item was demonstrated fully,
partially, or could not be demonstrated. ltems that could not be demonstrated were noted as
requiring a modification or an enhancement to fulfill that requirement.
Tyler Connect Conference
Tyler holds an annual users conference that the City, as an Eden user, has attended in the past.
This year the City sent 14 representatives and asked them to attend Munis classes so they could
more fully understand the software's capabilities. Additionally, the users conference allows
attendees to connect with public sector peers utilizing Munis as well as Tyler staff that support
Munis.
Attendees included representatives from Management, lT, Procurement, Budget, Human
Resources, Finance, Planning, Building, and GlS. ln addition to Munis ERP sessions, attendees
were able to learn more about Tyler products such as Tyler Cashiering. Table 2.9 lists Tyler
conference attendees.
Mark Taxis
Ariel Sosa
Nydia Gutierrez
Alex Denis
Maria Estevez
MichaelHoward
Tameka Ofto-Stewart
Samantha Hester
Katherine Gonzalez
Ramon Suarez
Frank Estevez
Carmen Sanchez
Linda Blanco
Keary Cunningham
Prior to the conference, EMA provided a list of educational sessions applicable to the City. The team
reviewed the session list and planned their time accordingly during the conference. The insights
gained during the conference were valuable and strengthened the team's knowledge of Munis
capabilities.
Table 2.9: Tyler Connect Conference Attendees
Executive
IT
Procurement
Budget
Human Resources
Finance
Planning - EnerGov
Building - EnerGov
GIS
EMA, INC 2-10
155
Cross'Fu nctional lnvolvement
The ERP Gap Analysis process included strong cross-functional involvement at the City. Over the
course of the last few months, from stakeholder interviews through software demonstrations, the City
experienced strong participation from every department in each step. Getting people involved and
making sure their voices are heard are important steps in ensuring long-term engagement with the
ERP project.
Often times Finance and lT departments take the lead role in a city's ERP selection and
implementation. While these departments certainly have key roles in the project, they cannot specify
system requirements for other functional areas. At the City of Miami Beach, all stakeholders
understand how the system will improve the operations of their area.
Munis ERP Solution Quote
Tyler provided the City with an initial quote for the Munis ERP Solution on March 31,2014. EMA and
the City reviewed the initial quote with Tyler on April 2, 2014 and it was noted that the quote should
be revised after the demonstration.
Tyler Technologies provided a revised quote that addressed items noted during initial review and
during demonstration. Table 2.10 summarizes the Munis quote. Appendix B contains the full Tyler
quote. The quote reflects Tyler's "Client for Life" discount on licensing for the City's existing Eden
modules.
EMA, INC
156
Table 2.10: Munis Quote
tunb Quote
Software License
Munis Software License
Less: License Discount*
Total Munis Software License
Professional Services
Munis Services
Munis lmplenentation Cost
Munis Data Conrcrsion Cost
Less: Data Conrersion Discount
Other Services
3rd Party lnterface Testing Assistance
AP/PR Check Recon lmport
AP Positiw Pay Erport Format
25% of Dedicated Project Manager (12 Months)
50o/o ol Dedicated Project Manager (12 Months)
Dedicated Full 'Time Project Mlanager (12 Months)
End User Training - Muttiple Sessions
Estimated Trarel Erpenses
E{ended Analysi9Funclional Lead Training
lnplernentation Day
lnstall Fee - t,lew Serrer lnstall-WlN
Munis Admin & Security
P-Card lmport Format WO Encumbrances
Potential SW Modificaitons Bucket & lnterfaces - TBD if llleeded
Project Planning Services
PR Positirc Pay Eport Format
Munis -Tyler Forns Library
Total Professional Services
Small Hardware
Munis Small Hardware - Scanners, Printers
Tota! Hardware Cost
* - Purchased ftom Munb
Total lmplementation Cost
SUMMARY
$ 1,511,600
$ (1,138,150)
$ 373,450
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
478,225
126,300
(63,150)
17,625
1,000
3,000
90,000
144,000
249,000
210,298
sz,its
12,000
8,225
7,500
124,300
3,000
16,200
$ 1,/40,398
$ 41,800
$ 41,800
$1,895,648
The City has identified the current gaps with its ERP solution Eden. Tyler has demonstrated that its
Munis sofhryare provides a strong solution for the City's ERP requirements.
EMA, INC.2-12
157
Table 2.10: Munis Quote
lUlunb Quote
Software License
Munis Software License
Less: License Discount*
Total Munis Software License
Professiona! Services
Munis Services
Munis lmplernentation Cost
Munis Data Conrcrsion Cost
Less: Data Conversion Discount
Other Services
3rd Party lnterface Testing Assistance
AP/PR Check Recon lmport
AP Positive Pay Export Format
25% ol Dedicated Project Manager (12 Montrs)
50o/o ol Dedicated Project Manager (12 Months)
Dedicabd Full Time Project Manager (12 Months)
End User Training - Multiple Sessions
Estimated Travel Expenses
Efended Analysis/Functional Lead Training
lnplenentation Day
lnstall Fee - ilew Sener lnstall-WlN
Munis Admin & Security
P-Card lmport Format WO Encumbrances
Potential SW ttlodificaitons Bucket & lnErfaces - TBD if l.leeded
Project Planning Services
PR Positiw Pay Eport Format
Munis -Tyler Forms Library
Total Professional Services
Small Hardware
Munis Small Hardware - Scanners, Printers
Total Hardware Cost
* - Purchased ftom Munb
Total Implementation Cost
SUMMARY
$ 1,511,600
$ (1,138,150)
$ 373,450
$ 478,225
$ 126,300
$ (63,150)
$ 17,625
$ 1,000
$ 3,000
$ 90,000
$ 12t4,000
$ 249,000
$-
$ 210,298
$-
$ 52,875
$ 12,000
$ 8,225
$ 7,500
$ 124,300
$-
$ 3,000
$ 16,200
$ 1,/40,398
$ 41,800
$ 41,800
$1,895,548
The City has identified the current gaps with its ERP solution Eden. Tyler has demonstrated that its
Munis software provides a strong solution for the City's ERP requirements.
EMA, INC.2-13
158
PLANNING, PERMITTING, & LICENSING
CURRENT STATE
As a municipality, the City requires workflow management and transparency for a variety of building
and business functions. These functions include planning and zoning, building permits and
inspections, code enforcement, fire permits and inspections, and business tax receipts (licensing). lt
is also vital that citizens are provided with access to the status of their permits and requests to
provide transparency to the public. Currently, the City is experiencing a high degree of building
growth which creates more demand and work for the permitting, plan review, and licensing functions.
Additionally, the licensing process is in large part managed through manual workflows today. The
Ci$'s licensing entails an annual notification to businesses that their license renewal is due along
with payment for license fees and any outstanding city invoices and liens. lf a business does not
renew or pay their fees, field enforcement personnel are then required to physically visit the location
to determine if the business is still in existence, has changed hands, or just simply has not paid.
While the Building Department may be the main owner of these permitting and associated
processes, there are other departments that are involved including: Planning, Public Works, Fire,
Code Compliance, City Clerks, Parking, Finance, Sanitation, and the Special Events Division of the
Tourism and Cultural Development Department.
The Building Department is currently utilizing the Permits Plus application for plan review, permitting,
inspection, and many other processes. However, the processes are not fully automated and are
paper intensive. For a city with such high economic growth, the inefficient process aggravates
citizens, builders, and developers. ln 2010, the Watson Rice Report, reviewed Permits Plus and
found that it did not have proper audit controls and security weaknesses and directed the City to
implement a system with proper audit and security controls. There were plans to upgrade to Accela
Automation and replace Permits Plus, but there have been many challenges over the last two years
that have prevented the city from implementing Accela Automation.
ENERGOV
City personnel have reviewed the functionali$ of Accela Automation versus EnerGov and find
EnerGov to be a superior product. EnerGov's functionality includes integrated permitting workflows,
electronic plan review capabilities, a G|S-centric design, a citizen portal that provides transparency to
citizens to access to review status of requests or payment, and mobile applications for field
personnel.
EnerGov has "out-of-the-box" capabilities that Accela Automation does not. Specifically, City
personnel noted that EnerGov offers the following "out-of-the-box" capabilities:
159
o Workflow that is inclusive of the planning process thereby allowing important information
captured in the planning process to flow through to the permitting and other processes
o lntegrated cross-functional workflows to enable notifications and tasks to be sent to code
enforcement and other field personnel
. Ability to handle fee calculations.
. Cross-functional visibility to allow a single field visit to accomplish multiple tasks
o Mobile application designed for mobile and tablet devices to allow field personnel to manage
caseloads, inspections, code enforcement, and the plan review process remotely
o GIS map sources that allow users to have a comprehensive view of an area or parcel. This
comprehensive view includes individual assets, code violations easements, and other
applicable information.
Tyler was asked to demonstrate EnerGov and City personnel found that the system meets their
requirements and as such Tyler has provided a quote for EnerGov. Table 3.1 describes the EnerGov
project activities.
The demonstration of EnerGov was conducted on
attended by city personnel as well. Table 3.2
demonstration sessions by department.
2014. This demonstration was well
staff represented in the EnerGov
May 7,
lists the
Table 3.1: Project Activities Table
Tyler conducted a demonstration of EnerGov on 512114
Tyler Connect
Conference
Team of 14 individuals representing Management, lT, Procurement,
Budget, Human Resources, Finance, Planning, Building, and GIS
attended the conference
Building and Planning team members attended EnerGov sessions
Attendees further expanded knowledge of EnerGov
Table 3.2: EnerGov Demonstration Attendees
Brad Mosher
Glester Edwards
Linda Blanco
Cynthia Neves
George Castell
Heman Cardeno
Manny Villar
Rafael Granapo
Robert Santos-Alborna
Lynne Powers
Georgie Echert
Trish Walker
Brdg
Bldg
Bldg
City ClerUS. Master Oflice
Code
Code Compliance
Code
Code
Code
EMA
Finance
Finance
160
Tyler Connect Conference
Planning and Building department attendees were able to learn more about Tyler products such as
EnerGov Planning, Permitting, and Licensing Solutions at the Tyler Connect Conference on April 13-
16, 2014. The insights gained during the conference were valuable and strengthened the team's
knowledge of EnerGov capabilities. Table 3.3 lists Tyler Planning and Building department
conference attendees.
Elena Tellez
Jorge Waulio
Juan Meizosa
MrgilFemandez
Betty Mui
Laurent Yamen
Nydia Gutierrez
Carmen Sanchez
Michael Belush
Rogello Madan
Steven Williams
Carey Osbourne
DemarWoodson
GabrielForthne
Adriana Centro
Keary Cunningham
Rhonda McPherson
Natasha Diaz
Raul Gonzalez
Matt Kesler
Tim Vickers
Fire
Fire
Fire
IT
IT
IT
Planning
Planning
Planning
Planning
PublicWorks
Public Woks /Engineering/Road
Public Works /Engineering
Public Works /GlS
PublicWorks /GlS
Public Works/Sanitation
TCED
TCED
Tyler
Tyler
Carmen Sanchez
Linda Blanco
Table 3.3: Tyler Connect Conference Attendees
Planning - EnerGov
Building - EnerGov
EMA. INC
161
EnerGov Quote
Tyler Technologies provided a revised quote that addressed items noted during initial review and
during demonstrations. Table 3.4 summarizes the EnerGov quote. Appendix B contains the full Tyler
quote.
Table 3.4: EnerGov Quote
EnerGov Quote
Software License
EnerGov Software License
Less: Discount
Total EnerGov Software License
Professional Services
Ener@v Professional Services
EnerC;ov Esti mated Trawl
Total Professiona! Services Cost
Total lmplernentataon Cost
$ 1,244,955
$ (239,545)
$ 1,005,410
$ 859,100
$ 54,400
$ 913,500
$ 1,918,910
162
THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE
During the gap analysis review, stakeholders identified requirements for functionality that are not
typically included in an ERP software package; therefore, ancillary third party software has been
identified, and while not part of the ERP software, their installation and configuration should be
managed as part of the implementation project.
These ancillary third party software requirements include the following:
o Automated Publishing - The City's Budget Department requires the ability to rapidly compile and
publish materials from various sources including spreadsheets, PDF documents, word files,
XML, and other formats. This functionality is critical to streamlining the production of the annual
budget book. Tyler recommends PatternStream for this function and the City budget personnel
have experience with PatternStream.
. Debt Management - The City's Finance Department requires a tool to manage debt service,
redemptions, service providers, compliance, and reporting for debt or bonds. Tyler referred
SymPro Debt Manager for this function as it is utilized by some of their other clients and offers
an open architecture that integrates with Munis.
o Real Estate The City's Real Estate Department requires a comprehensive lease
administration, tenant, propefi, and facilities database. Tyler referred Skyline Software for this
function as it is known as a software package that meets requirements of other municipalities
with similar realestate management requirements and those municipalities are satisfied with it.
SOFTWARE DEMONSTRATIONS
The Budget Department has experience with PatternStream and attended a demonstration of the
software. Budget Department management considers the software critical for production of the
annual budget book and believe it should reduce the annual budget book production time from three
months to one month as well as greatly improve the look and feel of the document. PatternStream
will also effectively overcome current reporting shortcomings of the City's performance management
sofhruare Active Strategy.
The Finance Department attended the SymPro debt management software demonstration on May
23,2014 and found the functionality to meet its requirements. The software is relatively low cost,
provides needed functionality, and integrates with Munis.
The Finance and Real Estate Departments attended the Skyline real estate management software
demonstration on June 12, 2014 and found the functionality to meet their requirements. The
software is relatively low cost and provides needed functionality.
Table 4.1 reflects the third party sofhrare quote.
163
Table 4.1: Third Party Quote
Thild,Party Quote
Software Licenses
PatternStream Software License
SymPro Debt Management License
Sky li ne Softvnre ( Property ManagemenULeasi ng) Esti rnate
TotalThird Party Software License Cost
Professional Services
PafiernSfeam Services
SymPro lmplementation/Conrcrsion Services
Skyline Softvuare Services
Total Professiona! Services Cost
Total Cost
Yellow highlights reflect estimates or areas where quotes are impending
$
$
$
75,528
35,000
10,000
120,528
13,900
13,900
134,428
EMA, INC
164
SOFTWARE VENDOR MARKETPLACE
SOFTWARE SOLUTION OPTIONS
The City has a number of options in the public sector ERP software vendor marketplace.
Additionally, since ERP systems are modular, the City has the option to select a separate stand-
alone software package for some functions such as a Customer lnformation System (ClS)/Utility
Billing system. This section of the report provides the city with information on the ERP vendor
marketplace. Also, per the CFO's request, there is a section regarding the C|S/Utility Billing
marketplace.
This information is based on EMA's experience and knowledge of the sofhruare vendors most
often serving the public sector. The marketplace and sofhruare vendor capabilities are always
changing as companies continue development efforts, vendors are acquired by competing
vendors, and other influences. There are other software vendors in the ERP and CIS market and
vendors with solutions for individual ERP functions; therefore, this information is intended as an
overview of the landscape versus all options available to the City.
ERP Software Vendor Marketplace
The ERP software market includes hundreds of vendors; however, vendors tend to differentiate
themselves on the basis of industry-specific business functionalities and essentially focus on a
vertical market. One of these vertical markets is government or public sector. ERP vendors who
focus on the public sector do this not only with specific functionality, but they also employ
application consultants, trainers, and other staff with public sector business process knowledge.
ERP vendors focused on the public sector can be categorized into Tiers, as seen in Figure 5-1.
Tier 1 vendor packages are the most expensive and rely on third party system integrators for
implementation. Tier 2 vendor packages are less costly and are generally implemented by the
vendor themselves. Lastly, Tier 3 vendor packages are least costly but generally do not have as
many capabilities and options.
ffindonaly known ERP wndors wih 3d
party s!,sbfir fegrabrs dealirq wih larger
mr*dpdslflDlic sedor entities wih a Total
Coddotrnerhip wer 5 years of >$10M
aLsrr r€S known ERPverdors
wih medium lo small
sedorenlities wih a
d Ornership over 5 years of
bqrsed on small
secb6nt[es wih a Tohl
orer 5 years of <-$3M
Figure 5-1: CIS Vendor Tiers
165
Figure 5-2 categorizes some of the more well-known ERP vendors focused on the public sector
into the tiers.
tyler
@oRru@
!lr,raubrid.sror",.,..$rr,tuNrs
workdoy$fftcAm'
P[lnnoprise rCogsdale
l,fpringbrook
Figure 5-2: ERP Vendors Categorized in Tiers
Tier 1 ERP Vendors
Tier 1 vendors provide ERP software that is able to scale and serve billion-dollar enterprises that
have multiple facilities or may be international. These systems are well equipped to support
global operations of large enterprises to meet requirements such as multi-locations, multi-
currency, multi-languages, and complex compliance issues.
Tier 1 ERP vendors are internationally known and generally require the client to engage a third
party system integrator. These third pafi system integrators tend to focus on or specialize in
vertical markets or the larger consulting firms have specialized groups within their company that
focus on the public sector. Some of the third party system integrators that specialize in public
sector implementations of Tier 1 software packages include: Accenture, Deloitte Consulting,
lBM, OptimalSolutions, and Ciber.
EMA, INC
166
Figure 5.3 provides more detail on the Tier 1 vendors' strengths and weaknesses. ln general, a
strength is that these software packages are feature-rich with many "out-ofthe-box" features and
processes. These systems are very customizable to meet the entity's needs. These vendors
generally market themselves through Value Added Resellers (VARs) that sell the software and
act as a third party system integrator. A weakness or drawback of these Tier 1 vendors is their
high cost to implement, Total Cost of Ownership (TCO), and longer implementation times.
Vendor Strengths Waaknasses Platform Cloud / SeaS
Optlons Tler
{,1 .rr .*anlhr
r.r . afrufuJritlmd
; hrrtrrcrr,r.
::. ibtyoubofdre.bor, .riltdrrdpocrlos.
',: ,,,'1,',
Frwcr intcrfae
options or partnerc
thrn Orude/ SAP/ MS.
Cen bc lcss
dstomizebl6.
Smrll numberof
public sector
impbmcntetions,
Erponsivo.
Rrquirose 3d partyto
dcploy.
Oreclc / SQL
Server/ IBM
D82
Yes 1
.. flo&lEyulth
hltsdrornd
rfrE.r..
' Srhrdrnr.rmbrrof
VAnrpwldrrrblllty
no trortvfth rtronj
ffryLm.llbr.
Dorrnot hrvoutility
billin3; Pryroll/HR ie
not wcll euitrd for
union complcxitirs.
Rcquires r 3d party to
dcy'oy.
Windows
Client/Scrvcr Yes 1
frpdrd*dbu
ofh*mgrttonr
ttrrryfro&h-elnra
t0Io$mizrbb.
CustomizeHe options
elsomean h is
.xp€n3iveto buy, to
customizc, andto
rupport.
Rcquircsa 3d partyto
dcploy.
Oracle Yes 1
flrol| Pryroll/HR
fur.doni
. CwtomizaHeoptions
.bom.an it is
rxponrivcto buy, to
orstomirc, and to
tupport.. Roquiresr3dpartyto
doplov.
Oraclc / SQL
Scrvcr Yes t
',,!qrdr$oyrdbrrr
cf }rphnentrtionr.
lkyf,odbb-rlmoc
IS*orfinrizrbh.
. Priwtrc.ctorfocus-
notvcryfocuscd on
municipelor public
saclor.. Raquiregr3dpertyto
dcploy.
SAP Web
Application
Server
Yes L
EMA. INC
Figure *3: Tier 1 ERP Vendors
167
Tier 2 ERP Vendors
fier 2 vendors provide ERP software at a lower TCO and their primary target market is mid-size
public sector entities. These vendors utilize their own application consultants for implementation
services and do not generally rely on third party system integrators to configure the system.
The Tier 2 vendors listed below in Figure 5.4 are established vendors in the public sector ERP
software market. ln general, a strength of these vendors is that their software packages are
designed to meet unique public sector requirements without extensive customizations. Another
strength is that since these vendors are focused primarily on the public sector their
implementation teams have a strong understanding of public sector business processes for mid-
size entities. ln summary, these Tier 2 vendors have a lower cost to implement and Total Cost of
Ownership (TCO) than Tier 1 vendors but still have strong functionality.
It should be noted that the average five year TCO for Tier 2 ERP systems is between $3M and
$10M. The City's quote from Tyler for Munis has a five year TCO of $3.8, which is at the bottom
of the range while still delivering the City's desired functionality. This low cost is due to Tyler's
unique "Clients for Life" discount program.
EMA, INC
168
Vrndor Sbrngthr Woknou Plrtform Cloud/SuS TLr
'.;.:. tylef
";i"nllur.rrs
llN*rwrd.!i!ire',,.s
brrdl
Supports muhiple
productswhich
spreads development
and support resources
thin.
Longdeployment
windows.
Success ofthe proiect
is nery depcndent on
the who PM is.
.NET/SQL
Server Yes 2
offtyH|Stg
poft!
rfs.trh
. lmplementation
challenges-many
failed
implementations.. weakutilitybilling.. Strongpresencein
Midwest states.
Microsoft
browser-
based
Yes 2
SUI{GARD
lFsr3rl: - -ffimarWrpnt
{E?s,:.ii,.
f,,:.:Q$offiocuson ERP.
i*- ,{qe*offeriq,
uti.r..l@ofi rt'ron,has
i" Sodplchariry ard
1,'.;. 6lri&sncinb.
of
. Verydelayedin
offeringnewversion -
5 years into
development.. Very small number of
ONESolution
implementations .. Docsnothaveutility
billing. Partofaverylarge
company. Not
focused on ERP.
.Nfi Yes 2
*Jfii,
obicctdata
t bl€t
*pto
t}.
. Offlineoperational
capabilhies.. Financialsoftware
system is less mature
than HR system.. TheWorkdaysoftware
is not nearly as broad
asother ERP software
suhes; will require
Workday customers to
pursue a muhi-vendor
lT.
lntegration
Cloud
Yes 2
Figure 5-4: Tier 2 ERP Vendors
EMA. INC
169
Tier 3 ERP Vendors
Tier 3 vendors provide ERP software generally at an even lower TCO, but their primary target
market is mid-size to small public sector entities. These vendors also utilize their own application
consultants for implementation services.
The Tier 3 vendors listed below in Figure 5.5 are established vendors in the public sector ERP
software market. ln general, a strength of these vendors is that their implementations are
shorter, but this is in part due to their smaller-sized customer base. A weakness is that the
software is not as capable and does not offer as many options across all modules. ln summary,
these Tier 3 vendors may lack functionality that the City requires.
Figure 5-5: Tier 3 ERP Vendors
Vrndor Stnrn3ttr Wrrknerrlr Phtform Cloud/SrrS Thr
ffiffiffiiiiot".r
ffiffifiafrh
ffiittcntttt"tta.tp#+nrrauvnoth
ff*il*rurtg!rudEty
il,;shc& rQdyopnroximate[
1,,:.:aUtistrfiEdon$
YVlndorrs
ClbntlServer No 3EIS&A
lotrw^t
Microsoft
BnamicsGP/
SQLScruer
Yes 3r Cogsdale
iii"i
a-:glrrttcdbyHani3
*lSdr hac 25 differert
grr *&tiso
rdEirclopmeat and
3qBPOrt resources are
spttidthin.. vcryfcw
implementations.. lffimoduleb not
Oracle/sQt
Server Yes 3
Iltllnn6pli5s
(t!p,'irr gt'rrook
. Westcoast3upport
hours.. HR firnctionsarenot
al (trbustas some
ERP3.. tltilitybilling
functionalityis
averaSB.
.NET Yes 3
EMA, INC
170
CIS Software Vendor Marketplace
There are dozens of CIS vendors in the
marketplace. Similar to ERP system
vendors, CIS vendors can be
categorized into 3 Tiers. Also like ERP
packages, Tier 1 CIS products are the
most expensive with costs declining at
Tier 2 and then again at Tier 3. Tier 1
CIS firms are nationally known and
typically deal with larger utilities. Tier 2
includes regional or less well known
nationalfirms who work with utilities of less
than 100,000 accounts. Tier 3 is typically comprised
of small ERPs with CIS modules.
Nationally knorn CIS firms
dealing wih larger utilities
Regional or less nell known
national fi rms typically
dealirg with utilities of
<100,000 accounb
SmdlERPs with CIS module
Figure *6: CIS Vendor Tiers
Figure 5-7 categorizes some of the more well-known CIS vendors into the tiers.
3ri7fl
ORACL€'{I HANSEN
I I TECHtrOLOGIES
UTILTNES
,it i!il.
:'Cogsdale
rts
'.$ tylgr,
!{x*,rya4{},sr'rts
Figure 5-7: CIS Vendors Categorized in Tiers
l.?.y,l r : :: t$ mn*F,',f['
r nrfole- HANSENS
'.$n,tuNrs
!|$Innoprise
*y
3vrtme --eSdtrrr
171
Tier 1 vendor products are the most expensive and rely on third party system integrators for
implementation. Tier 2 CIS vendors are less costly and are generally implemented by the vendor
themselves. Lastly, Tier 3 vendor packages are least costly but generally are not as capable.
Tier 1 CIS products represent the most flexibility, "out-of-the-box" functionality, and ability to
interface with partners. Tier 2 products are fairly flexible and functional and will interface with
most partners but are less expensive than Tier 1 products. Tier 3 CIS products will be markedly
less flexible and functional than Tier 1 and Tier 2 CIS products and less costly.
Both Tier 1 and Tier 3 CIS products are often applications or modules within ERP systems,
although not always. A number of Tier 2 CIS products are considered best-of-breed. ln other
words, although they may integrate with some products, their primary functionality is utility billing
and they are not developed as part of an ERP system or suite of software. Best-of-breed
products often require more interfaces, but they are designed with this is mind and their utility
billing functionali$ is often more developed than that of ERP utility billing modules.
Planning, Permitting and Licensing Software Vendor Marketplace
Municipalities have traditionally relied on a combination of stand-alone databases or systems
along with manual processes to manage their planning, permitting, and licensing. As
municipalities strive to more effectively manage workflow and provide improved public
transparency, software vendors are developing and delivering products to meet these needs.
Therefore, there are many software vendors in the planning, permitting, and licensing software
vendor market but not all are full-service providers.
EnerGov is a full-service provider of planning, permitting, and licensing, software for local and
state governments. As such, EnerGov is experiencing fast growth and has over 5,000 licensed
users in the government sector. The product is comprised of Permitting, lnspections, Licensing,
Code Enforcement, Planning/Zoning, Mobile, and Online modules.
Other providers are expanding their software functionality to meet this full-service requirement.
Specifically, Accela has upgraded the Permits Plus software (a client-server system) to Accela
Automation (a new web-based system). The City utilizes Permits Plus today and was planning to
implement Accela Automation. Although Accela Automation delivers services via the web and
automates critical tasks associated with permitting and licensing, many of the City's requirements
require modifications. Some of these can be accomplished within the existing software
framework; still, other needs are beyond what can be accomplished with either one of the Accela
software solutions.
There are other sofhruare vendors that provide planning, permitting, and licensing solutions for
local government, including HdL Permits, lworq.net, CRW Trakit, Permit Soft, and CAA-File
Maker.
EMA, INC
172
Table 5.1 shows a listing of some other vendors that provide permitting and license software
along with their applicable software name.
City personnel have evaluated the software vendor offerings for permitting, planning, and
licensing. Through software demonstrations and information gathered at the Tyler Connect
Conference, City personnel find EnerGov to be a premier provider that meets the City's critical
planning, permitting, and licensing needs that are lacking/limited in other software offerings.
Table 5.1 : Permifting and License Software Vendor Listing
Tempo 12.5
lnforl0 Public Sector Enterprise
Microsoft CRM 2011
Siebel 8.2.2, Oracle Policy Automation 10.3, Oracle E-
Business Suite 12.1
CRM 7.0, SAP ERP 6.0 EhP4
Tempest 71500, Vadim 1 .38.00, Diamond 9.00.0131 ,
WorkTech 6.0, Pacific Alliance 3.06
ONESolution CDR, NaviLine, Plus Series
EMA, INC
173
REGOMMENDATION
ERP OPTIONS
The ERP system is a mission critical application for the City. lt is a vital system enabling the City to
perform administrative business functions such as financial accounting, procurement, human resources,
payroll, budget management, asset management, and other tasks.
The cunent ERP system gaps must be addressed. The City has three options for addressing these gaps
that should ultimately improve the constituent's customer experience, enable operational efficiency gains,
ensure accountability, and provide transparency. Each of these options is described below.
Option #1: Eden (Not Recommended)
The City remains on Eden for their ERP softvvare solution and requests that Tyler add the required system
functionality through a series of formal system enhancement requests. Tyler would review and scope these
requests and provide quotes and implementation timelines for the City to review and approve. ln some
cases, the desired functionality may not be available, or it may take months or years for Tyler to provide this
functionality.
Tyler considers Eden to have reached an "End-of-Life" status. While the softryare may still be useable, Tyler
made the decision several years ago to focus their development resources on Munis. Since Tyler is largely
focusing their development resources on Munis, it is likely that some of the desired functionality may not be
available or have a long development window.
Option #2: Munis (Recommended)
Take advantage of Tyler's "Clients for Life" program which offers discounts on Munis license fees and,
working with Tyler's quote, negotiate a contract for the purchase of Munis. Tyler has demonstrated that
the Munis solution will provide the majori$ of the functional requirements. Some requirements listed in
the gap analysis are noted by Tyler as requiring a modification and the quote assumes professional
service hours for those modifications.
Tyler considers Eden to have reached an "End-of-Life" status. While the software may still be useable,
Tyler made the decision several years ago to focus their development resources on Munis. Other public
sector entities who have used Eden software have migrated to Munis including the City of Bradenton, FL
and Rockingham County, VA. Tyler has provided a quote to the City for the Munis ERP Solution. This
quote reflects heavily discounted license costs from Tyle/s "Clients for Life" program.
It should be noted that the average five year TCO for fier 2 ERP systems is between $3M and $10M.
The City's quote from Tyler for Munis has a five year TCO of $3.8, which is at the bottom of the range
while still delivering the City's desired full functionality. This low cost is due to Tyler's unique "Clients for
Life" discount program.
174
Option #3: Full Request for Proposa! (Not Recommended)
The City conducts a formal selection process in which it further refines functional and technical
requirements, writes and issues an RFP, assesses the vendor proposals, develops vendor
demonstration scripts, conducts scripted vendor demonstrations, and selects a vendor or vendors that
meet the City's requirements. This selection process would add an additional I - 12 months to the
solution delivery timeline and add additional costs. As described in this report, there are a number of
vendor solutions available to the City; however, given the City's size and requirements, it is likely that
the viable RFP respondents would be Tyler and one or two other vendors. Tyler's heavily discounted
licensing would allow them to compete very favorably against the other vendors.
The disadvantage is that it extends solution delivery by 9-12 months and it is highly possible that Tyler
would provide the most compelling proposal and the City would select Tyler anyway.
PLANNING, PERMITTING, AND LICENSING SOFTWARE
RECOMMENDATION
EnerGov (Recommended)
City personnel have reviewed the functionality of Accela Automation versus EnerGov and find EnerGov
to be a superior product. EnerGov's functionality includes integrated permitting workflows, electronic plan
review capabilities, a G|S-centric design, a citizen portal that provides transparency to citizens to access
status of requests or payment, and mobile applications for field personnel. Tyler was asked to
demonstrate EnerGov and City personnel found that the system meets their requirements and as such
Tyler has provided a quote for EnerGov.
The recommendation is to move fonruard with negotiating a contract with Tyler for the purchase of
EnerGov.
SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION RISKS
The City should be aware that software implementations are a significant endeavor. lt is anticipated that
this effort will take at least three years followed by a six month stabilization period for each major
module. Any system implementation has risks. These risks can include lack of organizational
commitment to the project, lack of alignment on project goals, unclear system requirements, lack of
user commitment to the project for activities such as testing, and lack of commitment to the project
schedule. The City will be required to manage risks that threaten to delay or jeopardize the
implementation of the ERP system in order to reap the benefits of the recommendation.
NEXT STEP
lf the Commission approves recommendation for Munis and EnerGov, the next step is for the City
Manager to utilize the Tyler price quote contained herein and negotiate a contract. This contract will
include a detailed Statement of Work that outlines the professional services that Tyler will deliver when
implementing the Munis / EnerGov solutions.
EMA, INC
175
APPENDI)( B
STANDARD FORM OF AGREEMENT
BETWEEN CITY OF MIAMI BEACH AND EMA, INC.
FOR
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
THIS IS AN AGREEMENT effective as of ("Effective Date") between
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH FLORIDA ("Client") and
("EMA").EMA,Inc. dAla EMA of Minnesota, Inc.
Client intends to contract for assistance in BUSINESS PROCESS ANALYSIS AND PROJECT MANAGEMENT
FOR CITY OF MIAMI BEACH ENTERPRISE RESOURCE PLANNING SYSTEM ("ERI,,'; PROJECT
("Project").
Client and EMA agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1 - SERVICES OF EMA
1.01 Scope
A. EMA shall provide, or cause to be provided, the
services set forth herein and in Exhibit A ("Services").
ARTICLE 2 - CLIENT'S RESPONSIBILITIES
2.01 General
A. Client shall have the responsibilities set forth
herein and in Exhibit B.
B. Client shall pay EMA as set forth in Exhibit C.
C. Client shall be responsible for, and EMA may
rely upon, the accuracy and completeness of all
requirements, programs, instructions, reports, data, and
other information furnished by Client to EMA pursuant to
this Agreement. EMA may use such requirements,
programs, insffuctions, reports, data, and information in
performing or furnishing services under this Agreement.
ARTICLE 3
SERVICES
SCHEDULE FOR RENDERING
3.01 Commencement
A. EMA shall begin rendering the Services as of
the Effective Date of the Agreement.
3.02 Time for Completion
A. EMA shall complete the Services within a
reasonable time. Specific periods of time for rendering
specific Services are set forth, or specific dates by which
Services are to be completed, are provided in Exhibit A.
B. If, through no fault of EMA, such periods of
time or dates are changed, or the orderly and continuous
progress of EMA's Services is impaired, or EMA's
Services are delayed or suspended, then the time for
completion of EMA's Services, and the rates and amounts
of EMA's compensation, shall be adjusted equitably.
C. If Client authorizes changes in the scope, extent,
or character of the Project, then the time for completion of
EMA's Services, and the rates and amounts of EMA's
compensation, shall be adjusted equitably.
D. Client shall make decisions and carry out its
other responsibilities under this Agreement in a timely
manner so as not to delay EMA's performance of the
Services.
ARTICLE 4 - INVOICES AND PAYMENTS
4.01 Invoices
A. Preparation and Submittal of Invoices. EMA
shall prepare invoices in accordance with its standard
invoicing practices and the terms of Exhibit C. EMA shall
submit its invoices to Client on a monthly basis. Invoices
are due and payable within 30 days of receipt.
4.02 Payments
A. Failure to Pay. If Client fails to make any
payment due EMA for Services and expenses within 30
days after receipt of EMA's invoice, then EMA may, after
giving seven days written notice to Client, suspend
performance of the Services under this Agreement, until
Page I of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12109109
176
Client has paid in full all amounts due for Services,
expenses, and other related charges.
B. Disputed Invoices. lf Client contests an invoice,
Client may withhold only that portion so contested, and
must pay the undisputed portion.
C. Legislative Actions. If after the Effective Date
of the Agreement any governmental entity takes a
legislative action that imposes taxes, fees, or charges on
EMA's services or compensation under this Agreement,
then EMA may invoice such new taxes, fees, or charges
as a Reimbursable Expense to which a factor of 1.0 shall
be applied. Client shall pay such invoiced new taxes, fees,
and charges. Such payment shall be in addition to the
compensation to which EMA is entitled under the terms of
Exhibit C.
ARTICLE 5 -
NOT USED
ARTICLE 6 - GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS
6.01 Standards of Performance
A. The standard ofcare for all professional services
performed or fumished by EMA under this Agreement will
be the care and skill ordinarily used by members of the
subject profession in the State of Florida. EMA makes no
warranties, express or implied, under this Agreement or
otherwise, in connection with EMA's Services.
B. Client shall not be responsible for discovering
deficiencies in the technical accuracy of EMA's Services.
EMA shall correct any such deficiencies in technical
accuracy without additional compensation, except to the
extent such corrective action is directly attributable to
deficiencies in Client-furnished information pursuant to
paragraph 2.0 l(c) hereof.
C. EMA may employ such Consultants as EMA
deems necessary to assist in the performance or furnishing
of the Services, subject to Client's prior written approval,
which shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or
delayed.
D. EMA and Client shall comply with applicable
Laws and Regulations and Client-mandated standards that
Client has provided to EMA in writing. This Agreement is
based on these requirements as of its Effective Date.
Changes to these requirements after the Effective Date of
this Agreement may be the basis for modifications to
Client's responsibilities, or to EMA's Scope of Services,
times of perfornance, and compensation.
F. EMA shall not be responsible for the acts or
omissions of any conffactor, subcontractor, or supplier, or
ofany oftheir agents or employees or ofany other persons
(except EMA's own employees and its Consultants) at the
Site or otherwise furnishing or performing any Work; or
for any decision made by Client without consultation and
advice of EMA.
6.02 Design without Construction Phase Services
NOT USED
6.03 Use of Documents
A. All Documents are instruments of service in
respect to this Project, and EMA shall retain an ownership
and property interest therein (including the copyright and
the right of reuse at the discretion of the EMA) whether or
not the Project is completed. Client shall not rely in any
way on any Document unless it is in printed form, signed
or sealed by the EMA or one of its Consultants.
B. A party may rely that data or information set
forth on paper (also known as hard copies) that the party
receives from the other party by mail, hand delivery, or
facsimile, are the items that the other party intended to
send. Files in electronic media format of text, data,
graphics, or other types that are furnished by one party to
the other are furnished only for convenience, not reliance
by the receiving party. Any conclusion or information
obtained or derived from such electronic files will be at the
user's sole risk. If there is a discrepancy between the
electronic files and the hard copies, the hard copies govern.
C. Because data stored in electronic media format
can deteriorate or be modified inadvertently or otherwise
without authorization of the data's creator, the party
receiving electronic f,rles agrees that it will perform
acceptance tests or procedures within 60 days, after which
the receiving party shall be deemed to have accepted the
data thus transferred. Any transmittal enors detected
within the 60-day acceptance period will be corrected by
the party delivering the electronic files.
D. When transferring documents in electronic
media format, the transferring parly makes no
representations as to long term compatibility, usability, or
readability of such documents resulting from the use of
software application packages, operating systems, or
computer hardware differing from those used by the
documents' creator.
E. Client may make and retain copies of
Documents for information and reference in connection
with use on the Project by Client. EMA grants Client a
license to use the Documents on the Project, extensions of
the Project, and other projects of Client, subject to the
following limitations: (l) Client acknowledges that such
Documents are not intended or represented to be suitable
for use on the Project unless completed by EMA, or for
use or reuse by Client or others on extensions of the
Project or on any other project without written verification
or adaptation by EMA; (2) any such use or reuse, or any
modification of the Documents, without written
verification, completion, or adaptation by EMA, as
Page 2 of 1
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and ENIA for Professional Services
Revised 12109109
177
appropriate for the specific purpose intended, will be at
Client's sole risk and without liability or legal exposure to
EMA or to EMA's Consultants; (3) such limited license to
Client shall not create any rights in third parties.
F. If EMA at Client's request verifies or adapts the
Documents for extensions of the Project or for any other
project, then Client shall compensate EMA at rates or in an
amount to be agreed upon by Client and EMA.
6.04 Insurance
A. EMA shall procure and maintain insurance as
set forth in Exhibit D, "Insurance." EMA shall cause
Client to be listed as an additional insured on any
applicable general liability insurance policy carried by
EMA.
B. EMA shall each deliver to Client certificates of
insurance evidencing the coverages indicated in Exhibit D.
Such certificates shall be furnished prior to commencement
of EMA's Services and at renewals thereafter during the
life of the Agreement.
C. At any time, Client may request that EMA or its
Consultants, at Client's sole expense, provide additional
insurance coverage, increased limits, or revised deductibles
that are more protective than those specified in Exhibit D.
If so requested by Client, and if commercially available,
EMA shall obtain and shall require its Consultants to
obtain such additional insurance coverage, different limits,
or revised deductibles for such periods of time as requested
by Client, and Exhibit D will be supplemented to
incorporate these requirements.
6.05 Suspension and Termination
A. Suspension.
By Client: Client may suspend the Project upon
30 days written notice to EMA.
By EMA: If EMA's services are substantially
delayed through no fault of EMA, EMA may, after giving
30 days written notice to Client, suspend Services under
this Agreement.
B. Termination. The obligation to provide further
Services under this Agreement may be terminated:
l. For cause,
a. By either party upon 30 days written
notice in the event of substantial failure by the
other party to perform in accordance with the
terms hereof.
b. By EMA:
1) upon 30 days written notice if
EMA's Services for the Project or the
Project, are suspended for more than 90
days, through no fault of EMA..
2) EMA shall have no liability to
Client on account of such termination.
c. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this
Agreement will not terminate under paragraph
6.05.B.1.a if the party receiving such notice
begins, within seven days of receipt of such
notice, to correct its substantial failure to
perform and proceeds diligently to cure such
failure within no more than 30 days of receipt
thereof; provided, however, that if and to the
extent such substantial failure cannot be
reasonably cured within such 30 day period, and
if such party has diligently attempted to cure the
same and thereafter continues diligently to cure
the same, then the cure period provided for
herein shall extend up to, but in no case more
than, 60 days after the date of receipt of the
notice.
2. For convenience,
a. By Client, effective upon EMA's
receipt of written notice from Client.
b. Except for Payments UPon
Termination as specified in paragraph 6.05.D.1.
Client shall have no liability to EMA on
account of such termination.
C. Effective Date of Termination. The terminating
party under paragraph 6.05.8 may set the effective date of
termination at a time up to 30 days later than otherwise
provided to allow EMA to demobilize personnel and
equipment from the Site, to complete tasks whose value
would otherwise be lost, to prepare notes as to the status of
completed and uncompleted tasks, and to assemble Project
materials in orderly files.
D. Payments Upon Termination.
l. In the event of any termination under
paragraph 6.05, except a termination for cause by the
City pursuant to paragraph 6.05.8.1.a, EMA will be
entitled to invoice Client and to receive fulI payment
for all Services performed or furnished and all
Reimbursable Expenses incurred through the
effective date of termination. Upon making such
payment, Client shall have no further liability to
EMA on account of such termination, and shall have
the limited right to the use of Documents, at Client's
sole risk, subject to the provisions of paragraph
6.03.E.
2. In the event of termination by Client for
convenience or by EMA for cause, EMA shall be
entitled, in addition to invoicing for those items
identified in paragraph 6.05.D.1, to invoice Client
and to payment of a reasonable amount for Services
and expenses directly attributable to termination, both
before and after the effective date of termination,
such as reassignment of personnel, costs of
Page 3 of 7
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09109
178
terminating contracts with EMA's Consultants, and
other related close-out costs, using methods and rates
for Additional Services as set forth in Exhibit C.
6.06 Controlling Law
A. This Agreement is to be governed by the law of
the state in which the Project is located.
6.07 Successors, Assigns, and Beneficiaries
A. Client and EMA each is hereby bound and the
partners, successors, executors, administrators and legal
representatives of Client and EMA (and to the extent
permitted by paragraph 6.07.B the assigns of Client and
EMA) are hereby bound to the other party to this
Agreement and to the partners, successors, executors,
administrators and legal representatives (and said assigns)
ofsuch other party, in respect ofall covenants, agreements,
and obligations of this Agreement.
B. Neither Client nor EMA may assign, sublet, or
ffansfer any rights under or interest (including, but without
limitation, moneys that are due or may become due) in this
Agreement without the written consent of the other, except
to the extent that any assignment, subletting, or transfer is
mandated or restricted by law. Unless specifically stated to
the contrary in any written consent to an assignment, no
assignment will release or discharge the assignor from any
duty or responsibility under this Agreement.
C. Unless expressly provided otherwise in this
Agreement:
l. Nothing in this Agreement shall be
construed to create, impose, or give rise to any duty
owed by Client or EMA to any Contractor,
Contractor's subcontractor, supplier, other individual
or entity, or to any surety for or employee of any of
them.
2. All duties and responsibilities undertaken
pursuant to this Agreement will be for the sole and
exclusive benefit of Client and EMA and not for the
benefit ofany other party.
6.08 DisputeResolution
A. Client and EMA agree to negotiate all disputes
between them in good faith for a period of 30 days from
the date of notice prior to invoking the procedures of
Exhibit E or other provisions of this Agreement, or
exercising their rights under law.
B. If the parties fail to resolve a dispute through
negotiation under paragraph 6.08.4, then either or both
may invoke the procedures of Exhibit E. If Exhibit E is
not included, or if no dispute resolution method is specified
in Exhibit E, then the parties may exercise their rights
under law.
6.09 Environmental Condition of Site
NOT USED
6.10 Indemnification and Mutual Waiver
A. Indemnification by EMA. EMA shall indemnify
and hold harmless Client, and Client's officers, directors,
partners, agents, consultants, and employees from and
against any and all claims, costs, losses, and damages
(including but not limited to all fees and charges of
Consultants, architects, attorneys, and other professionals,
and all court, arbitration, or other dispute resolution costs)
arising out of or relating to the Project, provided that any
such claim, cost, loss, or damage is attributable to bodily
injury, sickness, disease, or death, or to injury to or
destruction of tangible property (other than the Work
itselfl, including the loss of use resulting therefrom, but
only to the extent caused by any negligent act or omission
of EMA or EMA's officers, directors, partners, employees,
or Consultants.
B. Indemnification by Client. To the fullest extent
permitted by Florida law, and subject to the limitations on
Client's liability pursuant to Section 76F.28, Florida
Statutes, as same may be amended from time to time,
Client shall indemnifu and hold harmless EMA, EMA's
officers, directors, partners, agents, employees, and
Consultants from and against any and all claims, costs,
losses, and damages (including but not limited to all fees
and charges ofConsultants, architects, attorneys, and other
professionals, and all court, arbitration, or other dispute
resolution costs) arising out of or relating to the Project,
provided that any such claim, cost, loss, or damage is
attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death or
to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other than
the Work itself), including the loss of use resulting
therefrom, but only to the extent caused by any negligent
act or omission of Client or Client's officers, directors,
parlners, agents, consultants, or employees.
C. Environmental Indemnification. In addition to
the indemnity provided under paragraph 6.10.B of this
Agreement, and to the extent permitted by law, Client shall
indemniff and hold harmless EMA and its officers,
directors, partners, agents, employees, and Consultants
from and against any and all claims, costs, losses, and
damages (including but not limited to all fees and charges
of Consultants, architects, attorneys and other
professionals, and all court, arbitration, or other dispute
resolution costs) caused by, arising out of, relating to, or
resulting from a Constituent of Concern at, on, or under the
Site, provided that (D any such claim, cost, loss, or damage
is attributable to bodily injury, sickness, disease, or death,
or to injury to or destruction of tangible property (other
than the Work itself), including the loss of use resulting
therefrom; provided however, that nothing in this
paragraph shall obligate Client to indemnify any individual
or entity from and against the consequences of that
individual's or entity's own negligence or omission.
D. Mutuql ll'aiver. Client and EMA waive against
each other, and the other's employees, officers, directors,
agents, insurers, partners, and consultants, ary and all
Page 4 of 1
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised l2l09/O9
179
claims for or entitlement to special, incidental, indirect, or
consequential damages arising out of, resulting ftom, or in
any way related to the Project.
6.1I MiscellaneousProvisions
A. I,,lotices. Any notice required under this
Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the appropriate
party at its address on the signature page and given
personally, by facsimile, by registered or certified mail
postage prepaid, or by a commercial courier service. All
notices shall be effective upon the date ofreceipt.
B. Survival. All express representations, waivers,
indemnifications, and limitations of liability included in
this Agreement will survive its completion or termination
for any reason.
C. Severability. Any provision or part of the
Agreement held to be void or unenforceable under any
Laws or Regulations shall be deemed stricken, and all
remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding
upon Client and EMA, who agree that the Agreement shall
be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part
thereof with a valid and enforceable provision that comes
as close as possible to expressing the intention of the
stricken provision.
D. Waiver. A party's non-enforcement of any
provision shall not constitute a waiver of that provision.
nor shall it affect the enforceability ofthat provision or of
the remainder of this Agreement.
E. Accrual of Claims. To the fullest extent
permitted by law, all causes of action arising under this
Agreement shall be deemed to have accrued, and all
statutory periods of limitation shall commence, no later
than the date of Substantial Completion.
ARTICLE 7 - DEFINITIONS
7.01 Defined Terms
A. Wherever used in this Agreement (including the
Exhibits hereto) terms (including the singular and plural
forms) printed with initial capital letters have the meanings
indicated in the text above or in the exhibits; in the
following provisions:
l. Additional Services--The services to be
performed for or fumished to Client by EMA in
accordance with Exhibit A, Part 2, of this Agreement.
2. Basic Semices--The services to be
performed for or furnished to Client by EMA in
accordance with Exhibit A, Part l, of this Agreement.
3. Constituent of Concern--Any substance,
product, waste, or other material of any nature
whatsoever (including, but not limited to, Asbestos,
Petroleum, Radioactive Material, and PCBs) which is
or becomes listed, regulated, or addressed pursuant to
[a] the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. $$9601 et
seq. ("CERCLA"); tb] the Hazardous Materials
Transportation Act, 49 U.S.C. $$1801 et seq.; [c] the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, 42 U.S.C.
556901 et seq. ("RCRA"); [d] the Toxic Substances
Control Act, l5 U.S.C. $52601 et seq.; [e] the Clean
Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 5$1251 et seq.; [f] the Clean
Air Ac| 42 U.S.C. $$7401 et seq.; and [g] any other
federal, state, or local statute, law, rule, regulation,
ordinance, resolution, code, order, or decree
regulating, relating to, or imposing liability or
standards of conduct concerning, any hazardous,
toxic, or dangerous waste, substance, or material.
4. Consultants--Individuals or entities having
a contract with EMA to furnish services with respect
to this Project as EMA's independent professional
associates, consultants, subcontractors, or vendors.
5. Documents--Data, reports, drawings,
specifications, record drawings, software, and other
deliverables, whether in printed or electronic media
format, provided or furnished in appropriate phases
by EMA to Client pursuant to this Agreement.
6. Lqws and Regulations; La1,vs or
Regulations--Any and all applicable laws, rules,
regulations, ordinances, codes, and orders of any and
all governmental bodies, agencies, authorities, and
courts having j urisdiction.
7. Reimbursable Expenses--The expenses
incurred directly by EMA in connection with the
performing or furnishing of Basic and Additional
Services for the Project.
ARTICLE 8 .
PROVISIONS
EXHIBITS AND SPECIAL
8.01 Exhibits Included
A. Exhibit A, "EMA',s Services," consisting of
pages.
B. Exhibit B, "Client's Responsibilities,"
consisting of_ pages.
C. Exhibit C, "Payments to EMA for Services and
Reimbursable Expenses," consisting of _ pages.
D. Exhibit D, "Insurance," consisting of I pages.
E. Exhibit E, "Dispute Resolution," consisting of I
pages.
8.02 Total Agreement
A. This Agreement (consisting of pages I to _
inclusive, together with the exhibits identified above)
constitutes the entire agreement between Client and EMA
and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings.
This Agreement may only be amended, supplemented,
Page 5 of 7
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12109109
180
modified, or canceled by a duly executed written services to be performed or furnished by EMAand
amendment to this Agreement. responsibilities of Client under this Agreement. Such
E.03 Designated Representatives individuals shall have authority to hansmit instructions'
recelve information, and render decisions relative to the
A. With the execution of this Agreement, EMA Projectonbehalfofeachrespectiveparty.
and Client shall designate specific individuals to act as
EMA's and Client's representatives with respect to the
Page 6 of 7
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12109/09
181
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the Effective Date of which is
indicated on page 1.
Client:EMA:
Address for giving notices:Address for giving notices:
Designated Representative (see paragraph 8.03.A): Designated Representative (see paragraph 8.03.A):
By:
Title:
Date Signed:
Title:
Phone Number:
Facsimile Number:
E-MailAddress:
By:
Title:
Date Signed:
Title:
Phone Number:
Facsimile Number:
E-Mail Address:
Pagel of1
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EilIA for Professional Services
Revised 12109109
182
EXHIBIT A
This is EXHIBIT A, consisting of 9 pages, referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated
Scope ofServices
SCOPE OF WORK
The following scope of work is broken into two distinct tracts.
Tract 1 is depicted by the Project
Management Box and is focused
on managing the Business
Process Analysis (BPA) activities
(Tract 2), System lmplementation
activities, and coordination with
Tyler to assure BPA results and
subsequent business process
efficiencies are translated into a
successful implementation of the
ERP investment.
Tracl2 is depicted by the four
remaining boxes. This tract is
focused on performing the
business process analysis work
in each of the work groups
identified. The BPA work is
performed at two levels:
Review of the Operational Objectives and Mission of each work group. For example, within the
Building Department, potentially shifting focus from "Code Enforcement" to "Developer,
Contractor, and Citizen support"
Evaluation and Optimization of Current and Planned Work Practices - This is performance of the
"Eliminate, Reduce, Shift, Redesign Analysis" of the work practices outlined below.
Tract 1 - Project Management
Task 1.1 - Program/Project Management Support of the ERP lmplementation
ERP system implementation will be conducted by the ERP vendor. EMA will provide management
oversight to ensure user and technical requirements are fulfilled during the implementation process.
EMA will act in the capacity of the owner's representative and the City's main point of contact
throughout the implementation process.
Page I of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised l0/05/04
ERP
Proiect Manag6m6nt
::P!Y': c-Y:"r cl",oi.!i*"dpe- - -- rul"nig* ivre.tont,rct Lrmrt customrzatronuuog€r uonlror Software purchase tu1odel Facili6te Organrrztron Changes Data Conversign
:::_11iY:^^^-^-. Fa(ilrrate P.aclce Changes tulanage Etlicrency Oppo(unrires Trarnrng Desrgncnange rdanagemenr
t.r.,nt*lilil1[ffi
inlP.ove
e ffir renr-! and
eftarirveiess
rmprcve
elffrenay and
efrecl,vefrESs
nprrre
et'iciency and
elteiiiv:ness
lmcrcvE
efir:ienty and
efletlrveness
183
EMA will provide an ERP project manager who will initially work onsite with the project manager and team
to finalize a detailed project plan. This project plan will nail down all project objectives, tasks, deliverables,
milestones, and budgets based on BPA and streamlined business processes.
EMA's project manager will also:
. Conduct regular project review meeting with Miami Beach to review the progress of this project and
to discuss any outstanding issues and potential problems. A standard agenda will be developed for
the progress meetings, and will include the following topics:
identification of work performed last period,
work to be completed next period,
critical action item status, and
responsible parties to complete actions.
Budget or schedule problems will also be identified and corrective actions noted.
EMA will upload an agenda, updated schedule, and revised action items log to the project
SharePoint site in advance of the meeting. Meeting minutes for each meeting will be uploaded for
review within three working days of the meeting.
. Provide Quality Assurance/Quality Control (OA/OC), including the review of all project deliverables
and status to ensure that all of the appropriate project diligence has been taken.
. Lead in coordinating City implementation team and vendor activities.
. Develop communication and coordination protocols for the project.
. Oversee communication and coordination of the project.
. Meet with Miami Beach leadership to resolve project issues.
. Work with the Miami Beach Project Manager to identify a format and schedule for progress reports
that best meets the needs of the project. EMA will provide these reports in the desired format and
with the desired frequency.
. Assure participation of Miami Beach staff. Our work with clients throughout North America confirms
that change to high performance operations (process optimization) will be realized only by
involving management and staff throughout the project. By involving employees, they learn
what industry best practices are and the importance of maximizing productivity. By involving
managers, they learn the business management practices of high performance organizations and
new approaches to developing and maximizing the productivity of a highly-skilled and motivated
work force. Everyone will also develop teamwork behaviors and be introduced to new ways of
thinking and interacting.
. Meet with the vendor to ensure an understanding of Miami Beach's direction and to discuss and
plan objectives, requirements (as defined in Tract 2 below), responsibilities, performance, and
review of business process analyses, reporting requirements, deliverable review procedures, and
project schedule.
Page 2 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
184
. Review and get approval of vendor submittals and monthly progress reports. The progress reports
shall describe significant accomplishments, issues and/or problems which have potential effect on
schedule or costs, and plans for the upcoming week. They should be sufficiently detailed to assure
that directions being pursued are in compliance with established and/or projected goals.
. Coordinate and oversee vendor training.
. Work with Miami Beach project team to approve vendor final work product (configured system). All
planned and agreed upon milestones and deliverables must be fully met and approved by the
Project Team and as defined in the project plan.
o Review and approve payment application.
. EMA's project manager will be the point person to manage the ERP vendor activities, deliverables and
schedule while establishing a foundation for the ongoing partnership between the vendor and the
organization. Effective project management involves communication both upward and downward within
the organization in order to understand the business concerns, gain acceptance of the pending changes
and gain project buy-in and support for the team's activities.
The vendor-appointed project manager is the point person to act as a liaison between the organization and
the vendor. This individual is responsible for coordinating vendor resources, managing the vendor
deliverables and handling support requests as they are identified. ln addition, the vendor-supplied project
manager or a member of the vendor's team should be expected to provide guidance to the organization on
how to best leverage the vendor product by sharing best practices, processes and experiences.
From a project manager perspective, vendor management best practices may include:
1. Maintain a detailed, written audit trail of all discussions and agreements.
2. When documenting vendor tasks, the operative phrase is "the vendor shall."
3. Get a written commitment on vendor team members, escalation, etc.
4. Roles and responsibilities are clearly written and agreed to.
5. Rules of engagement should include onsite attendance requirements.
6. lmplementation strategies are mutually agreed upon.
7. Reserve the right to review vendor designs and request changes.
8. Project plans are submitted in advance for approval.
9. Test plans are submitted in advance for approval.
10. Specify documentation required from the vendor, including media and format.
1 1. Specify support and maintenance to be provided.
12. Prearrange change control processes and pricing to address scope creep.
13. Any training provided by the vendor must be preapproved.
To ensure a successful venture, all parties need to establish a clear understanding of each other's roles
and open lines of communication. They also need to work to develop an environment of mutual trust.
Open access provides the pathway to a successful relationship; an open exchange of information
throughout the project will facilitate quick resolution when issues do arise.
Page3of9Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
185
Task 1.2 - Assist with User Acceptance Testing
EMA will develop user acceptance test scripts to test the configuration of the ERP system to ensure
compliance with configuration specifications. User acceptance testing will be used to verify the testing
activities have been completed and have validated the design of the ERP system. We will develop User
Acceptance Test Scripts, perform User Acceptance Testing Oversight and maintain a Defect Log
Template
Task 1.3 - ERP lnterface Design
EMA will provide the user requirements for the integration of the ERP system with other City systems.
Based on the requirements, EMA will oversee design of the interfaces for the selected ERP solution and
manage system integration activities performed by the vendor. EMA will assist with integration testing to
assure the configured functionality works correctly. EMA has the expertise to design and program the
interface but they are not included in this scope of work.
Tract 2 - Business Process Analysis
The following tasks will be repeated for each of the four major work groups (Building/EnerGov, Finance,
HR, and Billing) understanding that there are sub groups within each (e.9., budget, procurement) for which
the tasks may be required independently. The costs for these will not be uniform. The first work group to
be addressed will require a significantly larger effort than the remaining three. The large effort is due to the
fact that we are laying out the road map for the entire project. Specific effort completed in the first
workgroup that will not need to be repeated includes:
. Development of the working templates, which include
SWIM lane diagrams that are used to visually represent the various business processes and
sub-processes and the associated data
- forms for resolving changes to business processes
communications media
requirements templates for vendor coordination
training materials
- vendor sign off
. lntegration requirements are primarily defined during the first workgroup
. Developing the team structure and rules for participation and sign off
o Building organizational momentum for the change process
. Building an approach to identify and change "sacred cows"
. Formalizing Project Management activities as defined in Tract 1
. Knowledge transfer to the project team on project execution and developing common language
Page 4 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and ENIA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
186
Based on the Phase 1 work Miami Beach should undertake the EnerGov workgroup first since there are
significant issues that will be addressed with this effort. This work group also has the most points of
interaction with other City Departments and technologies
Task 2.1 - Review and Analysis of Existing Operational Objectives and Mission for
Each Work Group
The purpose of this task is to understand Miami Beach's overall strategic objective and compare them to the
way the four work groups are currently working. lf there is misalignment this project is an opportunity to
evaluate the options for making changes. This task will also allow the work groups to define key performance
indicators to measure the progress against City wide objectives.
The City Project Manager will work with the EMA Project Manager to identify stakeholders who have
insight into the strategic objectives of the City. EMA will meet with this group to determine if there are
approaches to the work groups operations they would like to have evaluated and changed to better
support strategic objectives. As an example, the City may wish to improve customer service in a
significant way. This may require business process to be changed to expand business hours, provide
more transparency, or have more self-service options.
After the meeting, EMA will conduct a half-day workshop with the City project team and work group
leadership in which the strategic perspectives are presented and discussed. Consideration of stakeholders
and their business needs will be discussed to determine what if any changes to work group objectives and
mission should be made. Any objective that lS identified will be used in the BPA process.
Task 2.2 - Review and Analysis of Existing Practices within ldentified Work Groups
The purpose of this task is to understand Miami Beach's business needs, customers' needs, and the
needs of key stakeholders. Additionally, this task will develop alignment through agreement on business,
technical, and other drivers and how to measure success. By "drivers," we mean those pressures that are
causing Miami Beach to consider investing in analysis and/or improvement to business processes.
The Miami Beach Project Manager will work with the EMA Project Manager to identify stakeholders who
have significant needs related to this project. A workshop will be conducted with these stakeholders,
supplemented by a few one-on-one interviews.
Additionally EMA will review manual processes or Excel spreadsheets to determine what functionality these
systems are providing and what data is stored in these systems.
After the interviews, EMA will conduct a half-day workshop with the Miami Beach project team in which the
stakeholders' perspectives are presented and discussed, and then converted to high level project
requirements.
Page 5 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
187
Careful consideration of stakeholders and their business needs can reveal important functionality that isn't
obvious in the current business processes and systems. Stakeholders can also identify where business
processes cross organizational boundaries. These points of exchange are often an opportunity for work
process automation or integration.
Task 2.3 - Development of
Process Diagrams that will
present the lnitial Definition of
the Various Business Processes
During the workshops and interviews
identified above EMA will capture the
information required to develop initial
business process diagrams. These
diagrams will then be developed in
Microsoft Visio. They will depict a high
level picture of the business processes
and objectives within Miami Beach.
These process diagrams will be
presented to Miami Beach staff for
review and comment.
Task 2.4 - Development of Work Flow Diagrams that Describe how and when Work
within the Work Groups is Accomplished
For this task we will add the initial work
flow diagrams to the process diagrams.
Each work group, when there is cross
department work flow, will be depicted on
its own row. This approach serves
several purposes. First it relates all work
flow activities back to a specific business
process. This will highlight any work that
is being performed that does not directly
relate to a specific business process.
Second, it will show all touch points
(areas where information is passed)
between specific groups. lt is important to
understand these since one of the best
ways to improve practices is to limit the
number of touch points as much as
possible while still meeting the business
needs of Miami Beach. Touch points are also usually prime targets for leveraging technology, whether it be
on a single system such as ERP or between multiple systems - ERP and CityWorks, GlS, and 311, for
Page 6 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised l0/05/04
188
example.
Task 2.5 - Development of Data Flow Diagrams that show the Relationships between
the Business Processes, the Dataflow, and the Data
For this task we will add the initial data
flows to the business/work flow diagrams.
By adding data flow diagrams to the
existing diagrams Miami Beach will be
able to see how data is used within work
flows. This data can then be analyzed to
determine not only what data is critical,
what adds little or no value, and what
data is missing, but also what data
should be called out to use for specific
performance measures and exception
reports.
By capturing data from the previous three
tasks on an integrated flow diagram
Miami Beach will be able to quickly
identify areas for process improvement,
identify opportunities to provide new services,
and clearly communicate specific system requirements to the ERP project implementation team.
The next three activities will be conducted in parallel. We will use the process analysis diagrams
developed in the previous steps as the baseline for these activities. EMA staff will review the diagrams
and identify areas of possible improvement through either changes to the process or the application of
technology. We will then conduct a series of workshops with Miami Beach staff to review the possible
changes and document other changes identified by Miami Beach staff.
At this stage, we will also utilize an iterative process where we look at the business processes to
determine if various steps can be:
. Eliminafed, often steps are added over time to
address issues that have become unnecessary
. Reduced, again many steps can often be reduced
in frequency
. Shifted, when steps are analyzed it may be
determined that different people are performing
similar or the same tasks. These can often be
consolidated and assigned to a single person.
. Redesigned, New technology offers opportunities
to automate tasks
Task 2.6 - Development of Proposed Process Diagrams that will present Optimized
Business Processes or Activities Based on !ndustry Best Practices
Page 7 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised l0/05/04
189
At EMA we have conducted over 400 business process analysis projects for our clients in municipal
government. Through this work we have identified many best practice strategies. We will apply these in
this step. The proposed processes will be in the same format as those listed in the previous activities.
These will be submitted to Miami Beach for review and comment.
Task 2.7 - Development of Proposed Work Flow Diagrams that Describe Optimized
Work FIows
EMA will work with Miami Beach staff to identify ways to streamline work flows by looking at the
business processes, the touch points between different work groups (internal Miami Beach and
external), and the application of specific technologies or technology integrations. Optimized work flows
will be presented and discussed with Miami Beach staff.
Miami Beach will find that some of the improved work flows can be implemented immediately while
others will be dependent on the implementation of the ERP.
Task 2.8 - Development of Proposed Data Flow Diagrams that Reflect and Support
the Optimized Business Processes
The data flow diagrams will be updated to reflect the new business processes and work flows developed
above. EMA will also make recommendations of specific data elements that should be used in reports, as
stand-alone performance measures or should be included in calculated performance measures. A good
example of performance measure is the development of indices. lndices can be defined that assign a
relative level of effectiveness or efficiency to a City process. These can be used with Miami Beach's
continuous improvement process to measure improvement
Once the business process diagrams are updated, they can be used to quickly communicate with the
ERP vendor how the system needs to be configured. These will also serve as operating procedures and
training material.
Task 2.9 - Development of Business Process Requirements
A proven approach for successfully implementing new technology is to clearly define the needs and
then work with the selected vendor to tailor their solution to these needs.
For this task EMA will analyze and synthesize the work to date, and discuss the specifications in a
working session with the Miami Beach project team and the ERP vendor.
ln the course of reviewing and discussing these functional requirements, EMA will capture - and
supplement - reviewers' perspectives on how Miami Beach optimized business processes may change
as a result of implementing the new system.
EMA will work with the Miami Beach Project Manager to identify a format and schedule for progress
reports that best meets the needs of the project. EMA will provide these reports in the desired format
and with the desired frequency.
PageSof9Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 10/05/04
190
Deliverables
Progressive Deliverables Development Manages Risk and Provides Basis for
lnformed Decisions
We create deliverables in an incremental
fashion. While the specifics vary by task,
general we will first collect information
(through interviews, walk-throughs,
workshops, etc.). The information
collection will be followed by an analysis
conducted by the Miami Beach / EMA
The results of this analysis will be presented in draft form (typically to the Miami
and other key staff as appropriate) for review, discussion, and feedback. Finally,
updated to reflect the discussion.
step
team.
Beach project team
the draft will be
This incremental approach keeps the team well informed and focused on the deliverables. lt ensures that
there are no surprises.
Present project plans and procedures to Miami Beach project team for review
and approval in a project kick-off meeting and provide narrative and/or
documentation of said kick-off meeting.
Project Kick-off Meeting and
Documentation
Produce and submit status reports to the designated project manager and
Miami Beach project team monthly.
Workshops and Customer
lnterviews and Documentation
Conduct workshops and interviews with Miami Beach work groups and staff
as needed to identify and define existing business processes and provide
narrative and/or documentation of said workshops and interviews.
lnitial Version of Existing Process
Diagrams
Develop and deliver initial version of process diagrams that reflect the
various business processes and activities.
Develop and deliver initial version of work flow diagramslnitial Version of Existing Work
Flow Diagrams
Revise draft proposed business work flow diagrams. Based on the Eliminate,
Reduce, Shift, Redesign process with additional workshops and interviews as
needed
Draft Proposed Work Flow
Diagrams
Develop final version of proposed business work flow diagrams for
submission to Miami Beach project manager and project team
Follow-up Workshops and
Customer lnterviews
Documentation
Conduct follow-up workshops and customer interviews as needed to present,
review, and modify draft version of business process models and provide
narrative and/or documentation of said workshops and interviews
Revise draft proposed business process models with additional workshops
Page 9 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised l0/05/04
191
and interviews as needed
Develop final version of proposed business process models for submission to
Miami Beach project manager and project team
Schedule and conduct review meeting with project team to hand off all
project related deliverables
Final Review Meeting with Project
Team and Documentation
Documented UATS designed to assure desired functionality is implemented
correctly
User Acceptance Test Scripts
(UATS)
User Acceptance Testing
Oversight
Sign off sheets after completion of UATS
Defect Log Template Updated log of system issues discovered during system implementation and
testing
Page l0 of9 Pages
(Exhibit A - EMA's Services)
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised l0/05/04
192
EXHIBIT B
This is EXHIBIT B, consisting of I pages, referred to in and part of
the Agreement Lretween Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated
Article 2 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties.
82.01 In addition to other responsibilities of Client as set forth in this Agreement, Client shall at its expense:
A. Provide EMA with all criteria and full information as to Client's requirements for the Project, including design
objectives and constraints, space, capacity and performance requirements, flexibility, and expandability, and any budgetary
limitations; and furnish copies of all design and construction standards which Client will require to be included in the
drawings and specifications; and furnish copies of Client's standard forms, conditions, and related documents to EMA.
B. Furnish to EMA any other available information pertinent to the Project including reports and data relative to
previous designs, or investigation at or adjacent to the Site.
C. Following EMA's assessment of initially-available Project information and data and upon EMA's request, furnish
or otherwise make available such additional Project related information and data as is reasonably required to enable EMA to
complete its Basic and Additional Services.
D. Give prompt written notice to EMA whenever Client observes or otherwise becomes aware of the presence at the
Site of any Constituent of Concem, or of any other development that affects the scope or time of performance of EMA's
services, or any defect or nonconformance in EMA's services, the Work, or in the performance of any Contractor.
E. Authorize EMA to provide Additional Services as set forth in Part 2 of Exhibit A of the Agreement as required.
F. Arrange for safe access to and make all provisions for EMA to enter upon public and private property as required
for EMA to perform services under the Agreement.
G. Examine all alternate solutions, studies, reports, sketches, drawings, specifications, proposals, and other documents
presented by EMA (including obtaining advice of an attorney, insurance counselor, and other advisors or consultants as
Client deems appropriate with respect to such examination) and render in writing timely decisions pertaining thereto.
H. Provide reviews, approvals, and permits fiom all governmental authorities having jurisdiction to approve all phases
of the Project designed or specified by EMA and such reviews, approvals, and consents fiom others as may be necessary for
completion of each phase of the Project.
I. Provide, as required for the Project:
1. Accounting, bond and financial advisory, independent cost estimating, and insurance counseling services.
2. Legal services with regard to issues pertaining to the Project as Client requires, Contractor raises, or EMA
reasonably requests.
J. Advise EMA of the identity and scope of services of any independent consultants employed by Client to perform or
furnish services in regard to the Project, including, but not limited to, cost estimating, project peer review, value
CONSULTANTing, and constructibility review.
K. Attend job related meetings.
L. Provide EMA with the findings and reports generated by the entities providing services to Client pursuant to this
paragraph.
Page I ofl Pages
Exhibit B -- Client's Responsibilities
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09109
193
EXHIBIT C
This is EXHIBIT C, consisting of 2 pages, referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated
Payments to EMA for Services and Reimbursable Expenses
Article 2 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties:
ARTICLE 2 -- -{lient's Responsibilities
C2.01 Compensation For Basic Services
A. Client shall pay EMA for Basic Services set forth in Exhibit A, as follows:
l. An amount equal to the cumulative hours charged to the Project by each class of EMA's employees times
Hourly Rates for each applicable employee for all Services performed on the Project, plus Reimbursable Expenses and
EMA's Consultants'charges, if any.
2. EMA's Reimbursable Expenses Schedule and Hourly Rates are attached to this Exhibit C as Appendix l.
3. Total compensation for Services under paragraph C2.01 is estimated to be $1.995.000 based on the following
assumed distribution of compensation:
a. Project Management $1.050.000
b. Energov BPA S 675.000
c. Human Resources BPA $ 95.000
d. Finance BPA $ 45.000
e. Billing BPA S 130.000
f. Contract Negotiation Assistance $ 130.000
g. Reimbursable Expenses $ 300.000
4. EMA may alter the distribution of compensation between individual phases of the work noted herein to be
consistent with Services actually rendered, but shall not exceed the total estimated compensation amount unless
approved in writing by Client.
5. Amounts billed for EMA's Services under paragraph C2.01 will be based on the cumulative hours charged to
the Project during the billing period by each of EMA's employees times Hourly Rates for each applicable employee,
plus Reimbursable Expenses and EMA's Consultant's charges.
6. Hourly Rates will be adjusted upwards by 3% annually (as of April lst) to reflect equitable changes in the
compensation payable to EMA.
C2.02 Compensation For Reimbursable Expenses
A. Client shall pay EMA for all Reimbursable Expenses at cost. Amounts payable to EMA for Reimbursable
Expenses will be travel and other Project-related expenses actually incurred by EMA.
Page I of2 Pages
Exhibit C - Basic Services - Standard Hourly Rates Method of Payment
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12109109
194
C2.03 Other Provisions Concerning Payment
A. Whenever EMA is entitled to compensation for the charges of EMA's Consultants, those charges shall be the
amounts billed by EMA's Consultants to EMA times a factor of 1.25.
B. Estimated Compensation Amounts
l. EMA's estimate of the amounts that will become payable for specified Services are only estimates for
planning pu{poses, are not binding on the parties, and are not the minimum or maximum amounts payable to EMA
under the Agreement.
2. When estimated compensation amounts have been stated herein and it subsequently becomes apparent to
EMA that a compensation amount thus estimated will be exceeded, EMA shall give Client written notice thereof.
Promptly thereafter Client and EMA shall review the matter of Services remaining to be performed and compensation
for such Services. Client shall either agree to such compensation exceeding said estimated amount or Client and EMA
shall agree to a reduction in the remaining Services to be rendered by EMA, so that total compensation for such
Services will not exceed said estimated amount when such Services are completed. If EMA exceeds the estimated
amount before Client and EMA have agreed to an increase in the compensation due EMA or a reduction in the
remaining Services, EMA shall be paid for all Services rendered hereunder.
C. To the extent necessary to verifu EMA's charges and upon Client's timely request, EMA shall make copies of such
records available to Client at cost.
Page2of2Pages
Exhibit C - Basic Services - Standard Hourly Rates Method of Payment
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09/09
195
This is EXHIBIT D, consisting of I pages, referred to in and part of
the Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated
Insurance
Paragraph 6.05 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties.
D6.05 Insurance
A. The limits of liability for the insurance required by paragraph 6.04.A and 6.04.8 of the Agreement are as follows:
l. By EMA:
a. Workers'Compensation: Statutory
b. Employer's Liability --
l) Each Accident: $1,000,000
2) Disease, Policy Limit: S1,000,000
3) Disease, Each Employee: $1,000,000
c. General Liability --
1) Each Occurrence (Bodily Injury and
Property Damage): $1,000,000
2) GeneralAggregate: $2,000,000
d. Excess or Umbrella Liability --
l) Each Occurrence: $5,000,000
2) GeneralAggregate: S5,000,000
e. Automobile Liability -l) Combined Single Limit
(Bodily Injury and Property Damage):
Each Accident S1,000,000
f. Professional Liability -
l) Each Claim Made S3,000,000
2) Annual Aggregate $3,000,000
Page I ofl Pages
f,xhibit D - Insurance
Standard Form of Agreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09109
196
This is EXHIBIT E, consisting of 1 page, referred to in and part of the
Agreement between Client and EMA for Professional Services
dated
Dispute Resolution
Paragraph 6.09 of the Agreement is amended and supplemented to include the following agreement of the parties:
[NOTE: Select one of the two altematives provided]
E6.09 DisputeResolution
A. Mediation. Client and EMA agree that they shall first submit any and all unsettled claims, counterclaims, disputes,
and other matters in question between them arising out of or relating to this Agreement or the breach thereof ("Disputes") to
mediation by the American Arbitration Association following the Construction Mediation Rules. If such mediation is
unsuccessful in resolving a Dispute, then (a) the parties may mutually agree to a dispute resolution of their choice, or
(b) either party may seek to have the Dispute resolved by a court of competent jurisdiction.
Pagelof lPages
(Exhibit E - Dispute Resolution)
Standard Form ofAgreement Between Client and EMA for Professional Services
Revised 12/09109
197
APPENDI)( C
EMA & Tyler Correlation between Project Timeline and Cash Flow as of 0712412014
CMB Funds DUE PRIOR to October 1,2015
EMA $1,146,013.00 & Tyler $2,732,864.00
$ 3,878, 877
(CMB need to add your current Eden
maintenance billto this amount)
$ 2,645.626CMB Funds DUE AFTER October 1,2015
EMA $ 849,001.00 &Tyler $ 1,796,625
Tyler Correlation between Project Timeline and Cash Flow as of 0712412014
Assumption: Tyler contract is signed August 2014
Disclaimer: Estimates are based on services delivery
sep r. -ran 15 v., 15 sep 15 'a^ t6 .Ma' 16 s.p'16 ,.;,t
contract signed
Financials Suite
PayrolllHR Suite
Utility Biuing & Misc
Mon9/r/44 Mon9/1/14
Mon 11/3/14 Thu 1Ol1,/15
F.i 1,/2/Ls F.i 4/a/a6
Fri Lo/2/as Mon ao/3/a6
arc.ao/Al76 M6dla/6/17
e{a
r---,-_- i J
A.1 Overall High Level Project Gantt Chart: The Exact Start and Finish Dates to be negotiated with the City upon further
discussion.
CMB Funds DUE PRIOR to October 1. 2015 = $2,732,864.00 (CMB need to add your current
Eden maintenance billto this amount)
Typically unless they negotiate something else, soft\uare license fees for all the new software is due
100o/o 30 days after the execution of the contract (October 2014). For cash flow purposes this is
how it will be or whatever is worked out.
Services: $1,294,004
For Services assume EnerGov would start Jan 2015 this is a 15 mo implementation; for cash flow
purposes may take 75o/o of $859,1 00 and $54,400 for 2015 and 25o/o for each in 2016.
Software: $ 1,3
Software Cost
Munis $ 373,450.00
EnerGov $ 1,005,410.00
Total $ 1,378,860.00
EMA. lNC. - VMason
198
Service Cost
EnerGov Professional Services $ 859,100 @.75% = $ 644,325
EnerGov Est Travel $ 54,400 @71o/o = $40,900
Munis Service:
Total Tyler Services : $1,480,398.00
Total of 3'd Party Hardware, Software and Services
$41,800.00
$1,480,398.00
$ +t,800.00
Total $1 ,522,198 @ 40o/o = $ 608,879
Total $ 1,294,004
Maintenancez CMB should have current bill
Tyler proposes that CMB pay the prorated Eden maintenance (they should have that recent bill).
Referencing the above revised timeline, the contract sign is 09101114. Thus, CMB would pay their
normal Eden maintenance thru August2014 and start new Munis maintenance on Sept 2015.
Other: $60,000
OSDBA (used right away) $30,000
Munis Disaster Recovery (starts 6 months after contract sign) $30,000
Tota!= $60,000
CMB Funds DUE AFTER October 1. 2015 = $ 1,796,625
Maintenance: $ 647, 631.00
Munis $ 398,632.00
EnerGov $ 248,990.00
Total= $647,631.00
Other: $ 7,300.00
Payroll Tax Table Updates $ 1,000.00
CAFR $ 6,300.00
Total = g 7,300.00
Services: $ 1,294,004.00
Service Cost
EnerGov Professional Services $ 214,775
EnerGov Est Travel $ 1s,600
Munis Services:
Total Tyler Services : $1,480,398.00
Total of 3'd Party Hardware, Software and Services
$41,800.00
Since this is a 3 year proiect subtract 40%
$1,480,398.00
$ 41,800.00
Total $1 ,522,198 @60% = $913,319.00
Tota!$ 1.141.694
EMA, lNC. -VMason 7D412O14
199
EMA Correlation between Project Timeline and Cash Flow as of 07124120'14
CMB Funds DUE PRIOR October 1,20'15 = $1,'t46,013.00
CMB Funds DUE AFTER October 1, 2015 = $ 849,001.00
Labor E&nses
:..
pre 10/2015 $955,010.81 $191,002.16 $1,146,012.97
post10/2015 $707,501.19 $141,500.24 $849,001.43
$1,995,014.40
EMA. lNC. - VMason 712412014
200
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Gondensed Title:
A Resolution Of The MayorAnd City Commission Of The City Of Miami Beach, Florida, Authorizing The
MayorAnd City Clerk To Execute Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) To The Contract Between The City
And Limousines Of South Florida, lnc., Executed As Of May 8,2014, For Turnkey Trolley Operations
And Maintenance Services; Said Amendment Approving An lncrease ln The Contract Price, ln An
Amount Not To Exceed $150,000, ln Connection With The Acquisition And Maintenance Of Optional
Equipment, !ncluding Automatic Passenger Counters, Automated Voice lnformation Systems, Wl-Fl
Services, GPS Tracking Services, And Additional Automatic Stop Announcement Equipment (With The
Capabilitv Of Public Advertisements The lnitial Five (5)YearTerm Of The Contract.
lntended Outcome Su
Ensure Comprehensive Mobility Addressing All Modes Throughout The City.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.): As recently indicated in the 2014 City of Miami Beach
Community Satisfaction Final Report,54% o'f the City of Miami Beach residents would be willing to use local bus
circulators.
Item Summary/Recommendation :
On April 30,2014, the City Commission approved the award of lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-5R
for North Beach Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services to Limousines of South Florida
lnc. (LSF). Following the approval of the lTB, an Agreement between the City and LSF was executed on
May8,2014.
The aforementioned Agreement provided an option to procure optional equipment including Global
Positioning Systems (GPS) with capabilities to report, Automated Passenger Counters (APC), Wi-Fi
services, and Automated Voice lnformation Systems (AVIS). The ITB required the contractor to not
consider the optional equipment and related services in the Bid price and further denoted that the City,
at its sole discretion may choose to exercise this option through the contractor (LSF), directly with a
vendor or Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), in all of which cases the costs would be negotiated. As both
negotiations and research of the options were needed, no cost information was included for optional
equipment in the Agreement.
After executing the Agreement, it was also noted that Automated Stop Announcers (not to be confused
with AVIS equipment which provides information by telephone) would be advantageous to the City to
improve the accuracy and reliability of stop announcement which provides guidance to the visually
and/or hearing impaired (otherwise stop announcementwould have to be performed by drivers, in which
case reliability is poor), furthermore, enhanced Automated Stop Announcement equipment with
capabilities to provide advertisement can generate revenue to the City and is therefore recommended.
THE ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDS APPROVING THE RESOLUTION.
Financial lnformation:
FY 20131142 106-6260-000300 Transportation Quality of Life Fund
Future annual costs subject to annual budget appropriations
Financial Impact Summary: Future annual costs subject to annual budget appropriations
Departmejrt Director Assistant Cifl4lanager citv;li.arftdg
JRG )t(-(,KGB_ ZUU_JLtultlll,s_
14\Julv\Julv 3O\Amendment No1 to Turnkev f rolWOoerailons and Malntenance Services Agreement.doc
AGEI.IBT ITEifr N.7 D-
vL|{e 1-y-lq201
g MtA& IsffiAch{
Clty of Mioml Beoch, l70O Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 30,2014
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
ctTY GLERK TO EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 (AMENDMENT) TO
THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY AND LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH
FLORIDA, INC., EXECUTED AS OF MAY 8, 2014, FOR TURNKEY
TROLLEY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES; SAID
AMENDMENT APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT PRICE,
IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15O,OOO, IN CONNECTION WITH
THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT,
INCLUDING AUTOMATIC PASSENGER COUNTERS, AUTOMATED
VOICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, WI.FI SERVICES, GPS TRACKING
SERVICES, AND ADDTTIONAL AUTOMATED STOP ANNOUNCEMENT
EQUTPMENT (WITH THE CAPABILITY OF DISPLAYING PUBLIC
ADVERTISEMENTS) DURING THE INITIAL FIVE (5) YEAR TERM OF
THE CONTRACT.
FISCAL IMPACT
Funding Source - Funding for optional and additional equipment will be provided from 106-6260-
000300 Transportation Quality of Life Fund.
Gost -The cost to the City for the procurement of this optional and additional equipment and related
services shall not exceed a cumulative total of $150,000 over the initial five (5) year term of the
contract (including capital and operating/maintenance costs). LSF requires that the capital cost of
the equipment (included in FY2014i 15 shown below) be paid up front; the cost of said equipment is
approximately $40,000. Both, the one-time capital cost and recurrent monthly maintenance fees will
be invoiced on a monthly basis separately from the turnkey service monthly fee.
Below is a breakdown by Fiscal year of the cost impact on the aforementioned funding source:
o FY2014115 .. .. . .. . .. . ..$91 ,000o FY2015116 . ...$15,000
o FY2016117.... .........$15,000
. FY2017118. ...$15,000
o FY2018119.... .........$14,000
Please note that the aforementioned cost includes $12,564.00 (9% increase) in addition to the
overall cost quoted by the contractor in an effort to account for potential after the fact modification to
vehicle structure (i.e. additional reinforcement to support equipment), which may not be determined
until vehicles are delivered.
202
Commission Memorandum - Amendment No. 1 to Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services
Agreement
July 3oth, 2014
Page 2 of 3
BACKGROUND
On April 30,2014, the City Commission approved the award of lnvitation to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-
SR for North Beach Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services to Limousines of South
Florida lnc (LSF). Following the approval of the lTB, an Agreement between the City and LSF was
executed on May 8,2014.
The aforementioned Agreement provided an option to procure optional equipment including Global
Positioning Systems (GPS)with capabilities to report, Automated PassengerCounters (APC), Wi-Fi
services, and Automated Voice lnformation Systems (AVIS). The ITB required the contractorto not
consider the optional equipment and related services in the Bid price and further denoted that the
City, at its sole discretion may choose to exercise this option through the contractor (LSF), directly
with a vendor or Miami-Dade Transit (MDT), in all of which cases the costs would be negotiated. As
both negotiations and research of the options were needed, no cost information was included for
optional equipment in the Agreement.
After executing the Agreement, it was also noted that Automated Stop Announcers (not to be
confused with AVIS equipment which provides information by telephone) would be advantageous to
the City to improve the accuracy and reliability of stop announcement which provides guidance to
the visually an/or hearing impaired (otherwise stop announcement would have to be performed by
drivers, in which case reliability is poor), furthermore, enhanced Automated Stop Announcement
equipment with capabilities to provide advertisement can generate revenue to the City and is
therefore recom mended.
ANALYSIS
Three options to procure the aforementioned equipment and services were provided in the
Agreement and evaluated in the following order of priority:
1. Through Miami-Dade Gounty
During and upon completion of the execution of the Agreement, the Administration held
discussions with MDT in an effort to accomplish what the Administration believed was the
best option in regards to trolley tracking services, the inclusion of the North Beach Trolley in
MDT's existing tracking service and platform as this option would ensure all available transit
information was accessible to the end user under one platform.
Upon meeting and discussing with MDT aboutthis possibility, MDT highlighted the potential
challenges and liabilities related to performing maintenance by MDT on equipment stored at
LSF's facility or bringing privately owned vehicles (trolleys) into MDT's facility.
2. Through the current contractor (LSF)
This option ensures the efficient operation and maintenance of the equipment, while
maintaining the City's right to impose performance penalties included in the contract for
malfunction of equipment or omissions to report them.
3. Directly with the vendor
This option, while resulting in the lowest cost to the City, does not hold the contractor
responsible for the efficient and proper coordination of the tracking services, and
performance penalties related to tracking services provided in the Agreement with the
contractor would not apply.
The Administration pursued option 2 listed above and asked LSF to provide a quote for cost of
optional equipment and related services. Since LSF is not a transportation electronics company,
they have proposed to subcontract a company that has sufficient expertise in this area. LSF
203
Commission Memorandum - Amendment No. 1 to Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services
Agreement
July 3oth, 2014
Page 3 of 3
provided quotes for two potential candidates to provide this service, TSO Mobile, which is the
company currently providing tracking services for the Alton-West Trolley, and REl, the company
currently providing similar services for City of Miami Trolleys. Each of the quotes includes a 1Oo/ofee
for additional installation efforts, on-going training, contract administration and other miscellaneous
items to be provided by LSF directly.
Please note that the Administration separately requested quotes directly from each vendor prior to
reviewing the quotes submitted by LSF in an effort to ensure the integrity of the quoted costs.
The Administration reviewed both quotes and would like to highlight the following:
. REI has capabilities to provide a great end product, including an aesthetically pleasing
interface for mobile application, efficient algorithms fortracking purposes resulting in less lag
of icon movement, good report format structure, innovative equipment, and 2417 technical
support. Although this company is based out of state, it has a satellite support center in Boca
Raton. The tracking interface developed by REI for the City of Miami can be seen at
miami.etaspot.net.
o TSO Mobile is a locally based companywith competitive solutions. Currently, this company
provides tracking services for City of Doral and City of Hollywood directly and City of Miami
Beach (through LSF). TSO Mobile's customer service for the Alton-West Trolley has been
excellent, though limited to office hours (not necessarily matching the trolley's hours of
operations, 16 hours, 7 days per week). This company does not currently support a module
for integrated advertisemenVautomated announcement equipment, and its automated
passenger counter service is outsourced.
Please note that LSF's quote using RElequipmentwas $3,185.91 higherthan using TSO Mobile's
equipment. Upon review, the Administration considered REI to be the most advantageous option for
the North Beach Trolley service.
ln addition to the optional equipment, the Administration is recommending the approval to acquire
Automated Stop Announcers with Capabilities to display Public Advertisement. This equipment is
intended to accommodate visually and hearing impaired passengers, in addition to provide an
additional source of revenue to the City through its advertising capabilities.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on staff's analysis of the available options, the Administration recommends that the Mayor
and City Commission authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services Agreement, executed as of May 8,2014,
between the City and Limousines of South Florida, lnc.; said amendment attached hereto and
incorporated herein approving an increase in the contract price, in an amount not to exceed
$150,000, in connection with the acquisition and maintenance of optional equipment, including
automatic passenger counters, automated voice information systems, Wi-Fi services, realtime GPS
tracking services, and additional automated stop announcement equipment with capabilities to
display public advertisements (with the capability of displaying public advertisement) during the initial
(5) year term of the contract.
Attachment A: Amendment No. 1 Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services Agreement
Attachment B: Quote provided by LSF for total cost of optional and additional equipment and services
fr vcN,
JLM/KGB/JRGroFG
T:\AGENDA\2014UulylJuly 30\Amendment No1 to Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services Agreement MEMO.doc
204
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY GOMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO
EXECUTE AMENDMENT NO. 1 (AMENDMENT) TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN
THE CITY AND LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC., EXECUTED AS OF
MAY 8, 20'14, FOR TURNKEY TROLLEY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
SERVICES; SAID AMENDMENT APPROVING AN INCREASE IN THE
GONTRACT PRICE, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15O,OOO, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE ACQUISITION AND MAINTENANCE OF OPTIONAL
EQUIPMENT, INCLUDING AUTOMATIC PASSENGER COUNTERS,
AUTOMATED VOICE INFORMATION SYSTEMS, WI-FI SERVICES, GPS
TRACKING SERVICES, AND ADDITIONAL AUTOMATED STOP
ANNOUNCEMENT EQUTPMENT (W|TH THE CAPABILTTY OF DTSPLAYING
puBLrc ADVERTTSEMENTS) DURTNG THE rNrflAL FIVE (5) YEAR TERM OF
THE CONTRACT.
WHEREAS, on April 30,2014, the City Commission approved the award of lnvitation
to Bid (lTB) No. 2014-154-SR for North Beach Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance
Services to Limousines of South Florida lnc. (LSF); and
WHEREAS, following the approval of the lTB, the City and LSF executed a contract,
dated as of May 8,2014 (Contract); and
WHEREAS, the aforementioned Agreement provided an option to procure optional
equipment including without limitations, Global Positioning Systems (GPS) with capabilities
to report, Automated Passenger Counters (APC), Wi-Fi services, and Automated Voice
lnformation Systems (AVIS); and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommended the addition of Automated Stop
Announcers which would improve the accuracy and reliability of stop announcement, provide
guidance to the visually and/or hearing impaired, and further provide advertisement which
would generate revenue to the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Contract, the Clty, at its sole discretion, may choose to
purchase optional equipment and related services through the contractor (LSF), directly with
a vendor, or through Miami-Dade County, in all of which cases the costs would be
negotiated; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 3, Section 1 of the Contract, the City Manager has
the authority to approve subcontracts through our Contractor, LSF, and based upon the
proposals submitted from LSF, the Administration is recommending that the City secure the
optional equipment through LSF, for a sum not to exceed $150,000, during the initial five (5)
year term of the Contract.
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
approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to the
Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services Agreement, executed as of May 8,
2014, between the City and Limousines of South Florida, lnc.; said Amendment approving
an increase in the contract price, in an amount not to exceed $150,000, in connection with
205
the acquisition and maintenance of optional equipment, including automatic passenger
counters, automated voice information systems, Wi-Fi services, real time GPS tracking
services, and additional automated stop announcement equipment (with the capability of
displaying public advertisement) during the initial (5) year term of the contract.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2014.
ATTEST:
Rafael E. Granado, City Clerk Philip Levine, Mayor
T:\AGENDA\2014\July30\ Amendment Nol to Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance Seruies Agreement RESO.doc
,8E"i8YiRSlB,
& FOR EXECUTION
7/15///
-l
Dote
206
Attachment A
AMENDMENT NO, 1 TO THE CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
AND
LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH FLORIDA, INC
CONTRACT NO. ITB 2014.154.SR, DATED MAY 8,2014
FOR THE TURNKEY TROLLEY OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE SERVICES
("coNTRACT")
This Amendment No. 1 (Amendment) to the Contract is made and entered into this
dayof-,2014,byandbetweentheCityofMiamiBeach,Florida
(City), and Limousines of South Florida, lnc. (Contractor), and hereby amends the
Contract as follows:
WHEREAS, at the April 30, 2014 City Commission meeting, pursuant to Resolution
Number the Commission approved the award of lnvitation to Bid
(lTB) No. 2014-154-SR for North Beach Turnkey Trolley Operations and Maintenance
Services to Limousines of South Florida, lnc. (LSF); and
WHEREAS, on or about May 8, 2014, the City and Contractor executed the
Contract with respect to the North Beach Trolley Operations and Maintenance Services,
which services include all inclusive transportation services, meaning that the selected
contractor will provide all necessary vehicles, equipment, personnel, fuel, licenses and
insurances necessary to operate and maintain the service, as set forth in Exhibits A
through C of the Contract; and
WHEREAS, Section 4 of Exhibit "A" of the agreement reads as follows:
"OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT. lt is the CITY's intent to have all vehicles used for this trolley
system to be equipped at some point in the future with the following equipment, including
but not limited to: Automatic Passenger Counters (APC), Automated Voice lnformation
Systems (AVIS ), Wi-Fi services, real time GPS tracking services (with capabilities to
provide mileage, service hours and ridership reports, and capabilities to provide data in a
format that is compatible with Miami-Dade County's mobile application "Miami Dade Bus
Tracked'). The CITY at its sole discretion may have this option provided separately by
the CONTRACTOR, Miami Dade County, or may directly supply this equipment for
installation to the CONTRACTOR and the CITY will negotiate any cost impacts with the
CONTRACTOR. The CONTRACTOR shall not include the cost of the above equipment
and related maintenance fees in the hourly rate for this Agreement."; and
WHEREAS, on July 30,2014, the Mayor and City Commission passed
Resolution No.authorizing the City to secure Optional
Equipment for a price not to exceed $150,000: Automatic Passenger Counters (APC),
Automated Voice lnformation Systems (AVIS ), Wi-Fi services, realtime GPS tracking
services (with capabilities to provide mileage, service hours and ridership reports, and
capabilities to provide data in a format that is compatible with Miami-Dade County's
mobile application "Miami Dade Bus Tracked'), and additional automated stop
announcement equipment, with the capability of displaying public advertisements; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article 3, Section 1 of the Contract, the City Manager
has the authority to approve subcontractors under the Contract.
207
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and conditions
contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is
hereby acknowledged, the City and Contractor hereby agree as follows:
1. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated as part of this
Amendment No. 1.
2. Section 4 of Exhibit "A" of the Contract is amended to add the following
paragraph:
Pursuant to this Section 4, the City has opted to initially equip its trolley system with
the following optional equipment: Automatic Passenger Counters (APC), Automated
Voice lnformation Systems (AVIS), Wi-Fi services, real time GPS tracking services
(with capabilities to provide mileage, service hours and ridership reports, and
capabilities to provide data in a format that is compatible with Miami-Dade County's
mobile application "Miami Dade Bus Trackei') and additional automated stop
announcement equipment, with the capability of displaying public advertisements
through the CONTRACTOR'S subcontractor, REl, pursuant to the attached contract,
in the amount of $
3. Except as amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Contract shall
remain unchanged and in fullforce and effect.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Contract to be
executed by their appropriate officials, as of the date first entered above.
FOR CITY:
ATTEST:
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
By:
Gity Glerk
Rafael Granado
Mayor
Philip Levine
Date
FOR CONTRACTOR:
ATTEST:
Date
LIMOUSINES OF SOUTH
FLOR!DA, INC
By:
Secretary President
Print Name Print Name
Date Date
FITRAN\$ALL\Transportation\Trolley Related\Admin\Tracking Devices.doc
208
Attachment B
July 24,2014
Julian Guevara
City of Miami Beach
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
RE: AVL/GPSM|Fi Systems euote
Dear Mr. Guevara,
Pursuant to the conversations regarding the AVL/GPSA//iF|, etc. for the New North
Beach Trolley System, I have received the attached quotes from TSO Mobile and REl.
REI -$137,436.16
lf you have any questions, please feetfree to contact me at anytime,
3300 S.W. 11 Avenue
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33315
Phone: (954) 463-0845
TSO Mobile - $134,250.25
Please note that the quotes are for the costs for a five year term and are for thehardware, software and installation for all five trolleys. Additionally, we were abte tonegotiate with both vendors to provide us with lower prices than wfrat tt"re City of MiamiBeach has been able to negotiate through our working relationships with both vendors.
Additionally, we were able to negotiate with the vendors to allow us to have additionalhardware inventoried by us and we only have to pay for these parts if they are used.This will cut downtime in waiting for parts, in the event of failures.
Please be advised that Limousines of South Florida, lnc. has had both quotes markedup by 10% to cover Limousines of South Florida's costs in assisting in the installation,
training, supervision, administration and overseeing of the systems and tneir operations.
Vice President
209
RGI
6534 LStreet
Omaha, NE tr117
402-339-22N
Qude Good For S D.F
P:tncnt Tcft: BD
tqic Unit Computerwith Navitation, GPS, and Cellular
CellularComms, Se.ial, CAN (1939, 1708), andVGA odDut
tCD Monitorwfth ables and brackeB
A.R.M.O.R. AVL'sotuar€ as a *toac€
MappinS with 10 second vehicle upd.tes
at<:50Glls perday
Slate Cen;fiad Tay Erempiion C€(ific{o Reqlired fo. r{les tnx to be w.iyed
74,299-50
5,512.46
750.m
|Yrs,ifu ,
l%rtlotkup(sF) S
SYwlfiolwkhwup S
l2t9{t96
12,4%.20
,37,ffi.15
210
1 T$S"l$pHle'.
Compar:y Address
Phone
Fax
Account Name
Bill To Name
779'1 I'll'V .lEth Street
Miami, FL 33165
US
(877) 477-2922
t305) 500-91 32
LOSF
LOSF
Suite 3C6 Quote Nuntber
Expiration Date
Prepared By
E-nrail
Email
Ship To Name LOSI:
00(jc2:1!l
7,':r 11201 4
Die3,l CaPe*lutti
ilc,il)ellL, loililsnirabiie, ooni
r r:l r::vi lt&i) : t:sl. us
APC (0ne Door)
APC lnslallation
APC Service
AVAS
AVAS lnstallation
Avas Service
AVAS Set Up
AVIS Service
AVIS Set Up Fee
AVL Units lnstallation
GPS Service-Public Transportati 5 years Service Fee
Led Display
Led Display
LED Display lnstallation
Mobile App Android & Apple
Sim Card Activation
TSO 10200
TSO WiFi
TSO WiFi
TSO WiFi lnsla!lation
5 years Service Fee
Automated Voice Anouncer System (LED Board +2 Speakers)
5 yaars Service Fee
AVI$,S Ysars Servrcs fr*
22' Display for Advertisement
5 years service fee LED Display Service
5 years service fee
AVUGPS Unit
5 years Wifi Service No data included, requires data plan
$3,850.00
$605.00
$21-99
$2,'145.00
$385,00
$32.9S
$880"00
$21.9S
$1,760.00
s'143,00
$76.99
$2,475.00
$32.99
$200,00
$32.99
$35.00
$522i50
$660.00
$21,99
$110.00
5.00 $19,250.00
5.00: $3,025.00
300.00 $6,597,00
5.00 $10,725.00
5.00 $1,92s.00
300.00 j $s.897.00
1.00 $880.00
300.00 i $6,5s7.00
1.00 $1,760,00
5.oo i $715.00
300.00 $23,097.00
s.oo; $12,s7s.00
I
300.00 $9,897.00
5.00 I $1,000.00
300.00 $9,897,00
5.00 I 9175.00
5.00 $2,612.50
:5.00: $3,300.00
300.00 $6,597,00
5.00, $550.00
Description AVIS service requires a separate Minutes ;:lan,
and it is not included irr this proposal, WiFl
sohdion requires a separate Dala plan, and il is
nol included in this proposal.
Tax based on 7% over Hardware.
Sutrtotal
Total Price
Tax
Grand Total
S r 3o.ti7] so
s 1:i0.8i 1 .5C
$3,378 75
$1.14.25C :15
211
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
212
&IF MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY
RAUT J. AGUILA, CITY ATTORNEY COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: MAYOR PHILIP LEVINE
MEMBERS OF THE CITY COMMISSION
CITY MANAGER JIMMY MORALES
FROM:
DATE:
RAUL J. AGUTL;?.rI Cr.t-
CITY ATTORNEY
JULY 30,2014
suBJEcr: RESoLUTION GALLING NOVEMBER4, 2014sPEclAL ELEGTIoN:
AMENDMENT TO GIry CHARTER SECTION 1.03 TO REQUIRE 417 VOTE OF MEMBERS
OF PLANNING BOARD AND 6/7 VOTE OF GITY COMMISSION PRIOR TO GIry ENTERING
INTO ANY MANAGEMENT OR CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH PRIVATE PARTY FOR
10 YEARS OR LONGER (INCLUDING OpTtON PERIODS).
Pursuant to the request of City Commissioner Ed Tobin, and consistent with City Commission
directives from its July 23, 2014 meeting, the attached Resolution has been prepared calling for
a City of Miami Beach Special Election to be held on November 4, 2014 for the purpose of
submitting to the City's voters the following ballot question:
Shall Charter Section 1.03 be amended to require approval by 4/7 vote of all members of
Planning Board and 6/7 vote of City Commrssion prior to City entering into any Management or
Concession Agreement with a private party for 10 years or longer (including option periods) for
the management, operation and/or use of City property (including public beaches) or a City-
owned facility, exempting therefrom City agreements with Federal, State or Local governmental
entities?
Under existing City law, majority approval of the City Commission is required in order for the
City to enter into a Management or Concession Agreement. This Charter amendment proposes
to impose a heightened approval requirement for the City's entrance into such Agreements with
private parties when Agreement terms are ten years or longer (including option periods),
whereby approval shall require 417 vole of all Planning Board members and 617 vote of the City
Commission. Since Charter section 1.03 governs City procedures applicable to disposition of
City-owned property, this measure is thus presented as a proposed Charter amendment,
necessitating voter approval prior to adoption.
Finally, pursuant to directive of the Miami-Dade County Elections Department, the final date by
which the City may adopt its Resolution placing a ballot measure on the November 4, 2014
ballot is August 5,2014. Accordingly, this matter is timely presented to the City Commission and
Agenda ltem RJE,.
Date213
adoption of the attached Resolution may take place at today's meeting.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA CALLING FOR AN NOVEMBER 4,2014 SPECIAL ELECTION, FOR THE
PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE ELECTORATE OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA A QUESTION ASKING WHETHER CITY CHARTER SECTION 1.03 GOVERNING..POWERS OF CITY" SHOULD BE AMENDED TO REQUIRE APPROVAL BY 4/7 VOTE OF
MEMBERS OF PLANNING BOARD AND 6/7 VOTE OF CIry COMMISSION PRIOR TO CITY
ENTERING INTO ANY MANAGEMENT OR CONCESSION AGREEMENT WITH A PRIVATE
PARTY FOR 10 YEARS OR LONGER (TNCLUDING OpTtON PER|ODS) FOR THE
MANAGEMENT, OPERATION AND/OR USE OF Ctry pROpERTy (INCLUDING PUBLIC
BEACHES} OR A CITY.OWNED FAG!LIry, EXEMPTING THEREFROM CITY AGREEMENTS
WITH FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH:
sEcTtoN 1.
ln accordance with provisions of the Charter of the City of Miami Beach, Florida and the
general laws of the State of Florida, a Special Election is hereby called and directed to be held
in the City of Miami Beach, Florida, from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, November 4,2014,
for the purpose of submitting to the electorate the question as set forth hereinafter.
sEcTtoN 2.
That the appropriate and proper Miami-Dade County election officials shall conduct the
said Special Election hereby called, with acceptance of the certification of the results of said
Special Election to be performed by the City Commission. The official returns for each precinct
shall be furnished to the City Clerk of the City of Miami Beach as soon as the ballots from all
precincts have been tabulated.
SECTION 3.
That the said voting precincts in the City of said Special Election shall be as established
by the proper and appropriate Miami-Dade County Election Officials. All electors shall vote at
the polling places and the voting precincts as determined by the Miami-Dade County Election
Officials as set forth in the attached Exhibit "A".
SECTION 4.
Not less than thirty days notice of the adoption of this Resolution and of its provisions
214
calling this Special Election shall be given by publication in the Miami Herald, a newspaper of
general circulation in Miami Beach, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Such publication shall be
made in accordance with the provisions of Section 100.342, Florida Statutes, and Section 38-3
of the Code of the City of Miami Beach.
sEcTtoN 5.
The Notice of Election shall be substantially in the following form:
THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA
NOTICE OF SPECIAL ELECTION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT A SPECIAL ELECT]ON HAS BEEN
CALLED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AND WILL BE HELD IN SAID C]TY FROM 7:OO
A.M. UNTIL 7:OO P.M. ON THE 4TH DAY OF NOVEMBER,2014, AT WHICH
TIME THERE SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE DULY REGISTERED AND
QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH THE FOLLOWING
QUESTION:
Citv Charter Section 1.03:
Manaqement Aqreements and Concession Aoreements.
Shall Charter Section 1.03 be amended to require approval by 4t7 vote of all members of
Planning Board and 617 vote of City Commission prior to City entering into any Management or
Concession Agreement with a private party for 10 years or longer (including option periods) for
the management, operation and/or use of City property (including public beaches) or a City-
owned facility, exempting therefrom City agreements with Federal, State or Local governmental
entities?
Yes
No
Said Notice shall further set forth the several polling places in the election precincts as
established in accordance with Section 3 hereof, and shall further set forth pertinent information
regarding eligibility of electors to participate in said elections.
SECTION 6.
That the official ballot to be used in the Special Election to be held on November 4,
2014, hereby called, shall be in substantially the following form, to-wit:
215
..OFFIClAL BALLOT"
Citv Charter Section 1.03:
Manaoement Aoreements and Concession Aoreements.
Shall Charter Section 1.03 be amended to require approval by 417 vote of all members of
Planning Board and 617 vote of City Commission prior to City entering into any Management or
Concession Agreement with a private party for 10 years or longer (including option periods) for
the management, operation and/or use of City property (including public beaches) or a City-
owned facility, exempting therefrom City agreements with Federal, State or Local governmental
entities?
Yes
No
SEGTION 7.
The form of the ballots to be used in this Special Election and their preparation shall be
in compliance with all statutory requirements relating to the use of mechanical or other approved
voting machines or devices.
SECTION 8.
Registration of persons desiring to vote in the Special Election shall be in accordance
with the general law of the State of Florida governing voter registration. Qualified persons may
obtain registration forms to vote at the Office of the City Clerk, City Hall, 1700 Convention
Center Drive, First Floor, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, during normal business hours, and at
such other voter registration centers and during such times as may be provided by the
Supervisor of Elections of Miami-Dade County. The Miami-Dade County Supervisor of
Elections will register voters for this Special Election until 5:00 p.m. on _, 2014. All
persons eligible to vote at this Speclal Election must be registered before the time and date set
forth herein or have registered previously, as provided by law. Each person desiring to become
a registered voter shall be responsible for properly filling out the registration form and returning
it to the Miami-Dade County Elections Office. All questions concerning voter registration should
be directed to the Miami-Dade County Elections Office, 2700 N.W. 87th Avenue, Doral, Florida
33172; Telephone: (305) 499-VOTE (8683).
SECTION 9.
That the absentee voters participating in said Special Election shall be entitled to cast
their ballots in accordance with the provisions of the Laws of the State of Florida with respect to
216
absentee voting.
SECTION 10.
That the City of Miami Beach shall pay all expenses for conducting this Special Election
and will pay to Miami-Dade County or directly to all persons or firms, upon receipt of invoice or
statement approved by the Supervisor of Elections of Miami-Dade County, Florida.
SECTION 1 1.
lf any section, sentence, clause or phrase of the proposed ballot measure is held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no
way affect the validity of the remaining portions of said ballot measure.
SECTION 12.
This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon its passage.
PASSED and ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
RAFAEL E. GRANADO
CITY CLERK
2014.
PHILIP LEVINE
MAYOR
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
---r & FOA EXECUTION/;U,; r,'r,o
City Attorn€y Dole
(Requested by Commissioner Ed Tobin)
217
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH CHARTER SECTION 1.03:
PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION AND AMENDED Ctry CHARTER TEXT
NOVEMBER 4, 2014 SPECIAL ELECTION.
I. PROPOSED BALLOT QUESTION:
City Charter Section 1.03:
Manaqement Aoreements and Concession Aqreements.
Shall Charter Section 1.03 be amended to require approval by 4t7 vote of all members of
Planning Board and 617 vote of City Commission prior to City entering into any Management or
Concession Agreement with a private party for 10 years or longer (including option periods) for the
management, operation and/or use of City property (including public beaches) or a City-owned
facility, exempting therefrom City agreements with Federal, State or Local governmental entities?
II. PROPOSED AMENDED C!ry CHARTER TEXT:
City of Miami Beach Charter:
Sec. 1.03. Powers of eCity.
(a) General. The City shall have all governmental, corporate, and proprietary powers to enable it to
conduct municipal government, perform municipal functions, and render municipal services, and
may exercise any power for municipal purposes except as expressly prohibited by law or this
Charter.
(b) *t+enabili$ Disposition of City pflroperty.
1. The enly limitatien eeneerning alienability ef Gity ewned park, reereatien er waterfrent
@Thesale,exchange,conVeyance.orleaseoften(10)yearsorlonger
(ncluding option periods) of City-owned park, recreation, or waterfront propefi in+ne+iry-*++iamiBea€h, apprenee approval by a
majority vote of the voters in a City-wide referendum. This provision shall be liberally construed in
favor of the preservation of all park, recreation and waterfront lands.
2. The sale, exchange, conveyance or lease of ten years or longer of the following propertles
shall also require approval by a majority vote of the voters in a City-wide referendum: (1) Lots West
of the North Shore Open Space Park: All City-owned property bounded by 87th Street on the North,
Collins Avenue on the East, 79th Street on the South, and Collins Court on the West; (2) Cultural
Campus: All City-owned propefi bounded by 22nd Street on the North, Park Avenue on the West,
21st Street on the South, and Miami Beach Drive on the East; (3) 72nd Sfreef Parking Lof; The City-
owned surface parking lot bounded by 73rd Street on the North, Collins Avenue on the East, 72nd
Street on the South, and Harding Avenue on the West; and (4) Lincoln Road Parking Lofs; All City-
owned surface parking lots in the vicinity of Lincoln Road located within the area bounded by 17th
Street on the North, Euclid Avenue on the East, 16th Street on the South, and West Avenue on the
West.
3. The sale, exchange, conveyance or lease of ten years or longer of the following properties
shall require approval by vote of at least sixty (60) percent of the City's voters voting thereon in a
City-wide referendum: (1) Convention Center Parking Lofs; All City-owned surface parking lots
located in the Civic and Convention Center District, generally bounded by Lincoln Lane on the
South, Washington Avenue on the East, Meridian Avenue on the West and Dade Boulevard on the
North; (2) Convention Center Campus: All City-owned property, except for the Convention Center
and Carl Fisher Club House, located within the Civic and Convention Center District (includes City
Hall, 1701 Meridian Street, 555 17th Street, 21st Street Community Center, The Fillmore Miami
218
Beach/Jackie Gleason Theater, and the 17th Street Parking Garage). All local laws, charter
provisions and ordinances of the City in conflict with this provision are hereby repealed. This
provision shall become effective immediately upon acceptance of the certification of election results
by the City Commission.
4. The sale, exchange, conveyance or lease of ten years or longer of all remaining City-
owned property (other than public beach rights-of-way - see (d) herein below, and other than those
properties addressed more specifically in this Charter section 1.03) shall, as provided by Ordinance,
require approval by a majority 417 vote of all members of the Planning Board and 6t7 vote of the City
Commission.
5. The terms of this Charter section shall not apply to any valid written contractual
commitments or bids or bonded indebtedness, which commitments, bids or indebtedness existed
prior to January 14, 2004; nor shall this Charter section apply to any City property which is the
subject of a settlements of a claim which the City had notice of as of January 14,2004.
(c) The floor area ratio of any property or street end within the City of Miami Beach shall not be
increased by zoning, transfer, or any other means from its current zoned floor area ratio as it exists
on the date of adoption of this Charter Amendment [November 7 , 20011, including any limitations on
floor area ratios which are in effect by virtue of development agreements through the full term of
such agreements, unless any such increase in zoned floor area ratio for any such property shall first
be approved by a vote of the electors of the City of Miami Beach. The provision shall not preclude or
othenrise affect the division of lots, or the aggregation of development rights on unified abutting
parcels, as may be permitted by ordinance. ln addition, this provision shall not apply to settlements
of any claims the City has notice of as of December 10, 2003. This Charter Amendment shall
become effective on the day after its approval by the voters of the City of Miami Beach. No rights in
derogation of the provisions of this Amendment under any ordinance or any other action of the
Miami Beach City Commission between the time this measure is approved by the Miami Beach City
Commission for placement on a ballot and the adoption of this Amendment shall be enforced against
the City of Miami Beach.
(d) Public Beach Rights-of-Way. The sale, exchange, conveyance, lease, or any other
transfer of any City interest in a public beach right-of-way (extending eastward from Collins
Avenue/Ocean Drive to the erosion control line) shall require approval by a majority vote of the
voters in a Citywide referendum, excluding permits of no greater than one year, and excluding the
sale, exchange, conveyance, lease or any other transfer not exceeding 10% in width of such public
beach right-of-way.
(e) Public Sfreef-Ends Bordering GU, GC, or Wateffront Land. The sale, exchange, conveyance,
lease, or any other transfer of any City interest in any public street-end bordering on land designated
"Government Use", "Golf Course" or Waterfront land, shall require either the unanimous approval of
those members of the City Commission with power to vote or approval by a majority vote of the
voters in a Citywide referendum, excluding a sale, exchange, conveyance, lease, or any other
transfer not exceeding 10o/o in width of such street-end which advances a significant public purpose,
and excluding underground utility easements.
(! Manaqement and Concession Aqrcements with Private Operators. The Cifu shall not enter into a
management aoreement or concession aqreement with a orivate oarty or operator, havino a term of
ten (10) vears or lonqer (includino ootion periods). for the manaoement. operation, and/or use of
Citv-owned property. or of a City-owned facility. without obtaininq the approval of a maiority 4/7 vote
of all members of the Planninq Board and 6/7 vote of the City Commission. For purposes of this
Beach. from Government Cut to 87'n Terrace. The term "private partv or operatod'shall exclude anv
political subdivisions and/or qovernmental aqencies. deoartments. and/or divisions of the United
219
States, the State of Florida. or Miami-Dade County.
220
R9
NEW BUSINESS
AND
COMMISSION REQUESTS
221
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
RgA Update On The Miami Beach Convention Center Project.
(City Manager's Office)
Agenda nem R?A -
Date 7^3o-//222
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
223
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
RgB Presentation On Transportation lnitiatives.
(Transportation)
Agenda tr'ln R9 B
oate 7-3o-/{224
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
225
R9 - New Business and Commission Requests
RgC Presentation By The Florida Department Of Transportation (FDOT) On The State Road
(S.R.) 907/Alton Road Reconstruction Project From 43rd Street To Allison lsland
Bascule Bridge.
(Transportation)
Agenda ltem
Date
fl1c
'7 +a{q226
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
227
g MIAMI BEACH
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR AND COMMISSION
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jimmy Morales, City Manager
FROM: MickySteinberg,Commissioner
DATE: July 14,2014
SUBJECT Memo re Muss Park
Please place on the July 23'd City Commission agenda a discussion item regarding Muss
Park and the best option available to provide better weather protection for the young
children who attend our programs there.
Thank you!
lf you have any questions please do not hesitate to call our offibe.
MIAMIBEACII
Com m i ssi on er M icky Stei n berg
OFFICE OF MAYORAND COMMISSION
1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, FL 33139
Tel: 305-673-7103 / Fax: 305-673-7096 / www.miamibeachfl.oov
We are committed to providing excellent public sevice and safety to all who live, work and play in our vibrant, tropical, historic
community.
We are committed to providing excellent public seNice and safety to all who live, work, and play in our vibrant, ttopical, histotic community.
Agenda rtem fl ?D
oate -l^W(Y
228
MIAMIBEACH
OFFICE OF THE CIry MANAGER
No. Lrc # aGo-2olq
To: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of tlq CitqC
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manag", +U.!
DATE: July 25,2014
SUBJECT: Renovation Alternatives for Muss Park
The purpose of this Letter to Commission (LTC) is to provide the Mayor and Commission with
information regarding the planned renovations for Muss Park. By way of background, the City
otfers afterschool and summer recreational programs for young children in grades K-3'd at the
park. Currently, there are approximately 147 children enrolled in the City's summer recreational
programming at the site. The park contains a pavillion with bathrooms, a tot lot and an open,
greenspace area. The park does not otfer an indoor facility for program participants and
therefore, during periods of inclement weather, alternative accomodations must be provided.
The FY 2013114 Capital Budget approved a renovation project for Muss Park. The approved
project includes renovations to the existing pavillion by providing ADA upgrades for compliance,
restrooms, electrical, accessiblity, flood mitigation and a new roof. The proposed scope also
includes the installation of a vinyl curtain enclosure and portable air conditioning to the pavillion.
Once completed, the enclosure will accommodate approximately 50 children. The amount
allocated for this existing project is $282,000.
A discussion item was placed on the July 23, 2014 City Commission meeting by Commissioner
Steinberg who raised concerns regarding the existing renovation project for Muss Park.
Commissioner Steinberg requested for the Administration to present alternatives to the existing
project that would provide a longterm solution to better address the challenges of weather
protection for the young children who attend programming at the Park, while maintaining the
existing greenspace. The Administration presented the City Commission with four (4) options to
consider. lt is important to note that the options provided to the City Commission were strictly
conceptual. Should the City Commission wish to proceed with one of the alternatives, the
Administration would need to do their due dilegence to fully assess the feasibility of the project for
considerations such as Finished Floor Elevation (FFE), LEED, parking and setback requirements.
The options provided below have been revised to include estimates for soft costs and additional
square footage to accommodate a kitchen area which, were not presented during the July 23,
2014 Commission meeting.
Option 1:. Proceed with the existing scope to renovate the pavillion for ADA compliance, provide
upgrades to the restrooms, electrical, accessibility and a new roof. However, amend the
scope by eliminating the installation of the vinyl curtains and portable air conditioning unit.o Construct a new facility of approximately 4000 square feet to include two ADA restrooms,
a small office, reception area, kitchen area, storage space, 4 individual rooms and a
mechanical room. This space would accommodate approximately 120 children.. Estimated Construction Cost: $1,305,000. 35o/o for soft costs to include: CIP fees, bond/insurance, permits, design, contingency and
other related costs = $467,750. Total Estimated Project Cost: $1 ,761J50
--)
=
LETTER TO COMMISSION
N
r
NA
'-d
{Jtcrla-'l
229
Option 2:. Demolish the existing pavillion. Construct a new facility of approximately 4000 square feet to include two ADA restrooms,
a small office, reception area, kitchen area, storage space, 4 individual rooms, a
mechanical room and an exterior overhang to accommodate an outdoor covered sitting
area with benches. This space would accommodate approximately 120 children.. Estimated Construction Cost: $1,200,000. 35o/o for soft costs to include. CIP fees, bond/insurance, permits, design, contingency and
other related costs = $441,000o Total Estimated Project Cost: 91,701,000
Option 3:. Proceed with the existing renovation of the pavillion to include the installation of vinyl
curtains and a portable air conditioning unit that could accommodate appxomately 60
children.. Construct a smaller, open architectural builiding of approximatlely 1600 square feet to
include 1 ADA accessible unisex bathroom and a kitchen area. This building would
accommodate approximately 60 children but would not include an office, reception area,
kitchen space, storage space or any individual rooms.. Estimated Construction Cost: $612,000. 35Yo for soft costs to include. CIP fees, bond/insurance, permits, design, contingency and
other related costs $214,200o Total Estimated Project Cost: $826,200
Option 4:r Proceed with the existing renovation of the pavillion to inctude the installation of vinyl
cuftains and a portable air conditioning unit that could accommodate appxomately 60
children.
a
a
Construct a smaller, open architectural builiding of approximatlely 2800 square feet to
include 1 ADA accessible unisex bathroom and a kitchen area. This building would
accommodate approximately 60 children but would not include an office, reception area
or any individual rooms.
Estimated Construction Cost: $825,000
35% for soft costs to include: CIP fees, bond/insurance, permits, design, contingency and
other related costs = $288,750
Total Estimated Project Cost: $1,113,750
During the July 18,2014 Finance and Citywide Projects Committee meeting, the Administration
was directed to add an additional $200,000 forthe construction of a indoorfacility at Muss Parkto
be contemplated in the proposed FY 2014115 Capital Budget. Based on the existing
programming needs for Muss Park, it would be ideal to provide a large, indoor facility that offers
separate classrooms and an outdoor, covered area with benches for seating (Option 2).
However, we recognize that there are a number of significant projects that are competing forthe
same resources and so cost certainly plays a role when assessing these alternatives.
lLMtlLrHRQfil&
c: J. Mark Taxis, Assistant City Manager
John Rebar, Parks & Recreation Director
David Martinez, CIP Director
Carla Maglio Gomez, Parks & Recreation Assistant Director
c:\usersVcpagomc\desktop\2014 ltc muss park renovations.doc
230
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
231