Resolution 2025-33886 RESOLUTION NO. 2025-33886
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2024-277-KB, FOR SECURITY OFFICER
SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO AWARD CONTRACTS
TO THE FOLLOWING (I) DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC., THE
SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, AND (II)
SECURITY ALLIANCE, LLC, THE FOURTH-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE
SECONDARY CONTRACTOR; AND FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE THE FOREGOING AGREEMENTS AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME
AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS.
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of
Request for Proposals No. 2024-277-KB (the "RFP")for Security Officer Services; and
WHEREAS, the RFP was released on February 23, 2024; and
WHEREAS, a voluntary pre-proposal meeting was held on April 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2024, the City received twenty-seven (27) proposals from A 8�
Associates Inc., d/b/a A&A Security Services, American Guard Services, Inc., Centurion Security
Group, LLC/Feick Partnership, Choice One Protection, LLC, Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a
Protection Bureau, DECO International Security Corp., Delta Five Security, LLC, Dynamic
Integrated Security, Inc., Elite Global Security, LLC, Pro-Secur Inc., Good Guard Florida, Inc.,
GSGI, LLC, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., Kent Security Services, Inc., PSI, Security and
Investigations, LLC, Security Alliance, LLC., Servexo Protective Services, SFM Security Services,
Inc., US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp., Universal Security Guard Association, Inc.,
Andy Frain Services, Inc., Ardent Protection, LLC, First Class Security Academy 8� Services LLC,
FPI Security Services, Inc., PalAmerican Security, Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and Valus
Security, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the proposals submitted by Pro-Secur Inc., Andy Frain Services, Inc., Ardent
Protection, LLC, First Class Security Academy & Services LLC, FPI Security Services, Inc.,
PalAmerican Security, Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and Valus Security, Inc. were deemed non-
responsive for failure to meet the requirements of the RFP, and were not further evaluated; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2024, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission No. 384-
2024, appointed an Evaluation Committee consisting of the following individuals: Marc Chevalier,
Senior Risk Officer, Human Resources Department, Kenneth Jones, Security Operations
Manager, Police Department, Giacomo Natteri, Facilities Zone Manager, Facilities and Fleet
Management Department, and Alberto Ventura, Assistant Director, Parking Department; and
WHEREAS,the Evaluation Committee convened on November 14 and 15, 2024,to review
and score the proposals; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee received 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, and a copy of each proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal
pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee process resulted in the ranking of proposers as
follows: Kent Security Services, Inc., as the top-ranked proposer, Dynamic Integrated Security,
Inc., as the second-ranked proposer, Good Guard Florida, Inc., as the third-ranked proposer,
Security Alliance, LLC, as the fourth-ranked proposer, A & Associates Inc., d/b/a A&A Security
Services, Choice One Protection, LLC, US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp. and
Universal Security Guard Association, Inc., as the tied fifth-ranked proposers, SFM Security
Services, Inc., as the nineth-ranked proposer, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., as the tenth-
ranked proposer, Centurion Security Group and PSI, Security and Investigations, LLC, as the tied
eleventh-ranked proposers, DECO International Security Corp., as the thirteenth-ranked
proposer, American Guard Services, Inc. and Servexo Protective Services, as the tied fourteenth-
ranked proposers, Delta Five Security, LLC, as the sixteenth-ranked proposer, Elite Global
Security, LLC, as the seventeenth-ranked proposer, Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a
Protection Bureau, as the eighteenth-ranked proposer, and GSGI, LLC, as the nineteenth-ranked
proposer; and
WHEREAS, Section 2-369 of the City Code requires that, in determining the lowest and
best bidder, in addition to price, the following shall be considered:
(1) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract.
(2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay
or interference.
(3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the
bidder.
(4) The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5)The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating
to the contract; and
WHEREAS,after considering all relevant factors permitted under Section 2-369 of the City
Code, the Administration does not recommend an award to Kent Security Services due to the
indictment and incarceration of Mr. Alon Alexander, the president, bid signee, and primary
account representative for Kent Security Services; and
WHEREAS, this item was on the May 21, 2025, City Commission Consent Agenda as
item C2 A; and
WHEREAS, during the May 21, 2025 City Commission meeting, Commissioners
Dominguez, Fernandez, and Magazine, and Vice-Mayor Suarez, separated item C2 A from the
Consent Agenda and referred it to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee ("FERC")for
further discussion regarding each vendor's local staffing, performance, and the inclusion of strong
employee retention provisions to protect contracted personnel; and
WHEREAS, at the July 16, 2025, FERC meeting, FERC approved a recommendation to
the City Commission to authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations and award a
contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary
contractor, and to Security Alliance, LLC, the fourth-ranked proposer, as the secondary
contractor; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing the Evaluation Committee's rankings and commentary, and
considering all relevant factors under Section 2-369 of the City Code, notwithstanding FERC's
recommendation, the City Manager maintains his original recommendation that the Mayor and
City Commission (i) authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations and the award of a
contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary
contractor and Good Guard Florida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor,
and (ii) authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the foregoing agreements after the
Administration has concluded negotiations.
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 Economic Resiliency
Committee, pursuant to Request for Proposals No. 2024-277-KB, for security officer services;
authorize the Administration to award contracts to the following (i) Dynamic Integrated Security,
Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor, and (ii) Security Alliance, LLC, the
fourth-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor; and further, authorize the Administration to
negotiate the foregoing agreements and authorize the City Manager and City Clerk to execute
same after the Administration has concluded negotiations.
PASSED and ADOPTED this j day of ���r 2025
.
Steven Meiner, Mayor
ATTEST:
C�:� r �, ,��.,,r
Rafael . Granado, City Clerk
;\��;i:��"r-'ry��`,,
:�� ,y,
.
�
';, �INC�R°�ORAIED�` =
:2�. , :`c�:
',,,y., 1��% ,.�p^_
�,'��cy 26 ,-�_
,,,,,....�.
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& F XECUTION
1 oz-�
Ci y orney '�'� Date
P�ocurement Requests - R2 A
MIAMIBEACH
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Eric Carpenter, City Manager
DATE: September 3, 2025
TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2024-277-KB, FOR SECURITY OFFICER
SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO AWARD CONTRACTS TO
THE FOLLOWING (I) DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC., THE SECOND-
RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, AND (II) SECURITY
ALLIANCE, LLC, TFiE FOURTH-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE SECONDARY
CONTRACTOR; AND FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO
NEGOTIATE THE FOREGOING AGREEMENTS AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME AFTER THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS. (POLICE)
RECOMMENDATION
The City Administration's ("Administration") recommendation at the May 21, 2025 Commission
meeting was to authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations and award a contract to
Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor, and to
Good Guard Florida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor.
The Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee (FERC) recommended at the July 16, 2025
FERC meeting that the Mayor and City Commission authorize the Administration to enter into
negotiations and award a contract to Dynamic Integrated 5ecurity, Inc., the second-ranked
proposer, as the primary contractor, and to Security Alliance, LLC, the fourth-ranked proposer, as
the secondary contractor.
The Administration maintains its original recommendation and therefore, it is recommended that
the Mayor and City Commission amend the Resolution in order to authorize the Administration to
enter into negotiations and the award of a contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the
second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor, and to Good Guard Florida, Inc., tha third-
ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor; further authorizing the City Clerk to execute the
agreements after the Administration has concluded negotiations. As an alternative the
Commission may accept the recommendation of the FERC and approve the Resolution as
presented.
This solicitation is under the cone of silence.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The City Of Miami Beach utilizes security officer services citywide in order to 1) create a visible
presence of security personnel within the City of Miami Beach to improve the perception of public
safety; 2) Provide assistance and information to citizens and visitors; 3) Provide assistance to law
798 of 1750
enforcement through deterrence, observe and report suspected criminal activity; 4) Address
issues associated with the homeless and others whose behavior conflicts with acceptable
community norms; and 5) Safeguard the residents, visitors, employees and property of the City
of Miami Beach. Security officer services are also used for routine functions, such as access
control at City facilities, as well as for special events, including spring break and other planned or
unplanned occurrences.
The purpose of this RFP was to solicit competitive bids from qualified security service providers
to establish a new contract(s), ensuring the deployment of professional, reliable, and vigilant
security o�cers. The selected provider(s) will be responsible for safeguarding City premises,
assets, and personnel through the effective deployment of trained armed and unarmed security
personnel. The goal is to implement a comprehensive security strategy that mitigates risks, deters
threats, and fosters a secure environment conducive to the City's operations. All services must
comply with Section 493 of the Florida Statutes and the requirements outlined in the RFP.
On July 29, 2020, the Mayor and City Commission approved the award of contracts to FPI
Security Services, Inc. and Security Alliance, LLC, as co-primaries under RFP 2020-007-JC for
Security Officer Services. These contracts were set to expire on April 1, 2025, having a one-year
option to renew remaining. Rather than extending the agre�ment for the full year, the agreements
with FPI Security Services, Inc. and Security Alliance, LLC were extended on a month-to-month
basis until the replacement contract(s) are executed and all security officer services are
successfully transitioned.
ANALYSIS
On April 3, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of RFP 2024-277-KB
for Security Officer Services. On April 4, 2024, the RFP was issued. A voluntary pre-proposal
meeting was held on April 19, 2024. One hundred fo�ty-seven prospective bidders accessed the
solicitation. RFP responses were due and received on June 20, 2024. The City received
responses from the following 27 firms:
A 8 Associates Inc., d/b/a AS�A Security Services
American Guard Services, Inc.
Andy Frain Services, Inc.
Ardent Protection, LLC
Centurion Security Group, LLC/Feick Partnership
Choice One Protection, LLC
Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a Protection Bureau
DECO International Security Corp.
Delta Five Security, LLC
Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc.
Elite Global Security, LLC
First Class Security Academy & Services LLC
FPI Security Services, Inc.
Good Guard Florida, Inc.
GSGI, LLC
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
Kent Security Services, Inc.
PalAmerican Securiry, Inc.
Pro-Secur Inc.
PSI Security and Investigations, LLC
Security Alliance, LLC
Servexo Protective Services
799 of 1750
SFM Security Services, Inc.
The Kemp Group, LLC
US Security/U.S. Ailiance Management Corp.
Universal Security Guard Association, Inc.
Valus Security, Inc.
The proposals submitted by Pro-Secur Inc., Andy Frain Se►vices, Inc., Ardent Protection, LLC,
First Class Security Academy S Services LLC, FPI Security Services, Inc., PalAmerican Security,
Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and Valus Security, Inc. failed to meet the requirements of the RFP,
either by failing to comply with the minimum eligibility criteria or by submitting the incorrect cost
proposal. As a result, their proposals were deemed non-responsive and were not considered
further.
On September 5, 2024, the City Manager appointed the Evaluation Committee ("Committee"} via
LTC#384-2024. The Evaluation Committee convened on November 14 and 15, 2024, to consider
the responsive proposals received. The Committee was comprised of Ma�c Chevalier, Senior Risk
O�cer, Human Resources Department; Kenneth Jones, Security Operations Manager, Police
Department; Giacomo Natteri, Facilities Zone Manager, Facilities and Fleet Management
Department; and Alberto Ventura, Assistant Director, Parking Department.
The Committee was provided with an overview of the procurement and information relative to the
City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Government Sunshine Law. The Committee was also
provided with general information on the scope of services and a copy of each proposal. 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 Attachment A and below.
1 st ranked - Kent Security Services, Inc.
2nd Ranked - Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc.
3rd Ranked - Good Guard Florida, Inc.
4th Ranked - Security Alliance, LLC
5th Ranked - A 8 Associates Inc., d/b/a AA Security Services, Inc.
5th Ranked - Choice One Protection, LLC
5th Ranked - US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp.
5th Ranked - Universal Security Guard Association, Inc.
9th Ranked - SFM Security Services, Inc.
10th Ranked - Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
11 th Ranked - Centurion Security Group, LLClFeick Partnership
11th Ranked - PSI Security and Investigations, LLC
13th Ranked - DECO International Security Corp.
14th Ranked - American Guard Services, Inc.
14th Ranked - Servexo Protective Services
16th Ranked - Delta Five Security, LLC
17th Ranked - Elite Global Security, LLC
18th Ranked - Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a Protection Bureau
19th Ranked - GSGI, LLC
The evaluation process, which includes a consideration of experience and qualifications,
approach and methodology, and cost, resulted in Kent Security Services, Inc. as the top-ranked
bidder. However, Section 2-369 of the City Code requires that, in determining the lowest and best
bidder, in addition to price, there shall be considered the following:
(1) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract.
(2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract within the time specified, without delay or
800 of 1750
interference.
(3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and e�ciency of the bidder.
(4) The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the
contract.
After considering all relevant factors permitted under Section 2-369 of the City Code, the
Administration does not recommend an award to Kent Security Services ("Kent") due to the
indictment and incarceration of Alon Alexander, Kent's President; bid signee; and, in Mr.
Alexander's own words, primary account representative for the Kent team. Mr. Alexander will be
unavailable for an indeterminate amount of time and has a trial scheduled for January 6, 2026,
with charges including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex tra�cking by force, fraud, or
coercion.
The Evaluation Committee resulted in Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. (DIS) as the second-
ranked proposer. The Committee commended Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. (DIS} for its
comprehensive approach to security monitoring and pe�sonnel deployment. DIS offers around-
the-clock video surveillance and real-time dispatch coordination, ensuring immediate
responsiveness to potential threats. The committee emphasized the value of DIS's live-streamed
surveillance system, which grants direct access to both real-time and archived footage for
investigative purposes. Additionally, the Committee complimented DIS for its low staff turnover
and highly trained workforce, consisting of retired law enforcement officers and military veterans.
The Committee fuRher noted that DIS's personnel bring extensive field experience and undergo
rigorous firearm training that strictly adheres to Florida Department of Law Enforcement
standards, reinforcing the company's commitment to professionalism and operational excellence.
DIS was founded in 2013 and offers a wide range of customized security solutions to homeowner
associations, schools, businesses, and more. DIS' executive management team has over 75+
years of combined experience in the military, police, and security fields. DI's Safe School O�cers
are Florida Sheriff Certified under the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safety Act
(SB 7026 8� SB 7030). DIS provides a training p��ogram for all security officers that allows them to
cater to the site's needs. DIS' patrol fleet is equipped to provide real-time video, audio, and GPS
location, monitored by their command-and-control center. DIS' personnel are equipped with the
latest technofogy in body cameras, body armor, and protective gear. Some of their present clients
include the Leon Courity School District, multiple Charter Schools within North Carolina and
Florida, as well as Palm Island Master Associations in Weston Florida. All submitted references
provided positive feedback.
The Evaluation Committee resulted in Good Guard Florida, Inc. (Good Guard�as the third-ranked
proposer. The Committee concluded that Good Guard meets the expectations, experience, and
qualifications expected from the contractor and that the approach and methodology were suitable
for the needs of the City. The Committee also recognized that Good Guard's onboarding process
and web-based dispatching system would be efficient. Key features, such as the ability to add
maintenance notes and the software's analytical capabilities, were considered practical. Lastly,
the Committee commended Good Guard's additional training offered to leadership, which would
contribute to a more accountable and productive team in the field.
Good Guard was originally incorporated in the State of California and has been registered in the
State of Florida since 2023. Good Guard offers a wide range of services, including armed and
unarmed security personnel, personal protection, fire watch services, and crowd control. The
company prides itself on its highly trained and certified security officers, who undergo rigorous
background checks and continuous training to ensure they meet the highest standards of
professionalism and effectiveness. Good Guard Security operates with a mission to deliver
801 of 1750
professional, affordable, and high-quality security solutions tailored to the unique requirements of
each client. Good Guard has secured contracts with private and public firms such as Wells Fargo,
Greyhound, and the City of San Francisco. All submitted references provided positive feedback.
After reviewing the submissions and the Committee's rankings and commentary, the
Administration recommended entering into negotiations and awarding a contract to Dynamic
Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor and to Good
Guard Florida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor. Both firms
demonstrated, through scores from the Evaluation Committee, that their qualifications, past
performance, government experience, and approach to the City's required scope of services
exceeded those of the other proposers. Additionally, Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. and Good
Guard Florida, Inc. submitted competitive averall pricing, with Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc.
offering the lower cost of the two.
A Resolution to award RFP 2024-277-KB was presented at the May 21, 2025, Commission
meeting. During this meeting, Commissioner pominguez, Fernandez, Magazine, and Vice-Mayor
Suarez separated item C2 A (Attachment B) from the Consent Agenda. Commissioner
Fernandez made a motion to refer the item to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee
(FERC) for further discussion regarding each vendor's loca! staffing, performance, and the
inclusion of strong employee retention provisions to protect contracted personnel (Attachment C).
The item was heard on the July 16, 2025 FERC meeting. FERC recommended that Good Guard
Florida, Inc. not be selected as the secondary contractor due to its lack of local presence. Instead,
FERC recommended that Security Altiance, LLC, a well-performing incumbent with documented
local operations, existing contracts, and a proven capability to meet the City's requirements, be
considered for the secondary award. As a result, FERC approved a recommendation to the City
Commission (Attachment D) to authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations and award
a contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary
contractor, and to Security Alliance, LLC, the fourth-ranked proposer, as the secondary
contractor.
Security Alliance is a Miami-based provider of full-spectrum security services, specializing in
security guard services. Founded in 2001, Security Alliance has evolved into a highly regarded
international security provider and one of the most respected security providers in the United
States. Security Alliance boasts a customer list which includes the City of Miami Beach, Miami
Dade County, Miami Dade College, the Miami Parking Authority, the United States Dept. of State,
the United Nations, the European Union, the government of the Netherlands, the government of
Mexico, and the government of Brazil. Security Alliance currently serves as one of the incumbent
providers of security o�cer services for the City of Miami Beach, which has expressed satisfaction
with the services delivered.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Services pursuant to the award of this RFP shall be subject to successful negotiations and the
availability of funds approved through the City's budgeting process. The City's average yearly
expenditure over the last three (3) contract years is $3,000,000. Grant funding will not be utilized
for this project.
Based on the proposal submitted by Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked firm,
staff performed a cost analysis to determine whether the fiscal impact was in the City's best
interest. The cost analysis compared the costs submitted under the RFP to similar line items in
the current contract. 7he comparison showed that Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. provided a
total cost that was approximately 3% higher compared to the City's current contract. The most
recently published Consumer Price Index (CPI) is 16% higher than at the award of the previous
802 of 1750
contract, and therefore, the proposed cost by Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. is considered
reasonable. However, the Administration will engage in negotiations with the company.
Does this Ordinance require a Business Impact Estimate?
(FOR ORDINANCES ONLY)
If applicable, the Business Impact Estimate (BIE) was published on:
See BIE at: https://www.miamibeachfl.qov/city-hall/city-clerklmeetinq-notices/
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
410-1510-000349 $ 108,000
011-0975-000349 $ 31,400
011-1120-000349 $ 1,729,000
120-6230-000349 $ 237,100
119-6231-000349 $ 291,400
110-6232-000349 $ 289,000
111-6233-000349 $ 209,700
168-1124-000349 $ 160,000
160-1121-000349 $ 376,000
160-0363-000349 $ 2,100
178-6885-000349 $ 11,200
425-0410-000349 $ 3,000
425-0420-000349 $ 3,000
427-0427-000349 $ 3,000
480-0463-000349 $ 2,067,000
142-6976-000349 $ 327,000
463-1990-000349 $ 279,000
467-1996-000349 $ 128,Q00
468-1998-000349 $ 79,000
CONCLUSION
The Administration's recommendation at the May 21, 2025, Commission meeting was to authorize
the Administration to enter into negotiations and award a contract to Dynamic Integrated Security,
Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor, and to Good Guard Florida, Inc., the
third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor.
The Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee (FERC) recommended at the July 16, 2025
FERC meeting that the Mayor and City Commissian authorize the Administration to enter into
negotiations and award a contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked
proposer, as the primary contractor, and to Security Alliance, LLC, the fourth-ranked proposer, as
the secondary contractor.
After reviewing the Evaluation Committee's rankings and commentary and considering all relevant
factors under Section 2-369 of the City Code, the Administration maintains its original
recommendation. Therefore, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission amend the
Resolution authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations and the award of a contract to
Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor, and to
Good Guard Florida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor; further
authorizing the City Clerk to execute the agreements after the Administration has concluded
803 of 1750
negotiations. As an alternative the Commission may accept the recommendation of the FERC
and approve the Resolution as presented.
Applicable Area
Citywide
Is this a "Residents Riqht to Know" item, Is this item related to a G.O. Bond
pursuant to City Code Section 2-17? Project?
No No
Was this Aqenda Item initiallv requested by a lobbyist which, as defined in Code Sec. 2-481,
includes a p�incipal enqaqed in lobbvinQ?
If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s) and principal(s):
Department
Procurement
Sponsor(s)
Co-sponsor(s)
Condensed Title
Award RFP 2024-277-KB, Security Officer Services. PD/PR.
Previous Action (For City Clerk Use Only)
804 of 1750
� a
rtFP tIQ4�Yn-KE wrc cn.w�.. �' wMwtn.�oo.. � Gl.co�w w.ear+ � Alb�eto v.na.. � j �o• �
S�curN�r Olfhw 6�Mas . .d. a � .� ! T�� �a
a.xdur. a,.�er.w. wemw a�+r.w. o�r.w. aemer aW�.w. ? a.�a.w. waar ou.w�. a�.,a.�ti. s�war , .
.K@nt SeGun�Selv�cls.InC. fib 3! � 9I E�t ;1; 9b t hx � 32 9G t f+5 3. 97 .3�. 7 � 1 .
�Dynamc imsqrated Securrty.
�'�..�. ti5 34 f� } 1 62 3� � 95 1 a6 J1 , 80 .3 63 . 34 97 +3 ; B 2
�Good Guard Florida,Inc. � S6 1 3J I 89 r� 8 61 ' 33 '�. 9� � 47 33 ' 80 3... 8� 33 97 tI 3 �� 17 � D�
�Secunty A11�ance.LLC ? 85 } 31 i 98 I 3� 61 31 i 92 .1 46 31 1 77 }5, 62 � 31 93 1_8 20 .1'
A 6 Assoc�etea Inc..�M �� , � . . .+ 1 '
Secunly Services.inc. y1 ''� 35 , 89 �. B; 56 i 35 � 91 6� �0 35 . 75 1 B_ B4 � 35 ; 99 i 1 23 , S
Ctw1ce Oro Prdectlon.LLC 62 y 28 , 90 � 7 63 � 28 � 91 ,6+ 57 28 85 }2. 65 � 28 93 �8 23 . 5_
US SecuntyN 5 ALLIANCE
MANAGEMENT CORP. 5g � 3�1 � B3 .� 55 t 34 88 ,B� 10 3� . 71 �9 61 � 3! 1 9B �2 _ 23 , 5
Urovasal Securt Gwrd � � t � .
Associatan.lnc.ry , 53 35 86 .10, 57 1 35 92 ,1 41 35 76 8 62 35 97 3 23 S
i Sf M Secumy Servwss,Inc. 63 30 , 93 ,4' S8 { 3p � 89 .8� �6 30 , 76 r 6, 8� ; 30 � 93 }8 26 . 9,
�,Inta•Con Secwiry SysMma, . ' ', , ! ', �� � .
'IM. � 63 ; 29 . 92 8�T 59 � 29 i 88 10 �0 29 , � tt 62 29 . 91 !11 38 ,10
'CenWnon Secuny Group. '�. . � � �� � �. ' '.
LLClFe�cic ParVienhip � 62 : 26 . BB 10F 52 26 78 t5. 43 26 60 ,i t 65 , 26 , 91 11 ♦7 11
�PSI Secunty anC �� � � ' �. . ' , �. , '.
Inveatpanonr.LLC 54 ��, 2p t 83 114� 54 � 29 � B3 t2� 39 79 + 88 �,14 65 � 2B � 94 j 7 : ♦7 t1
�6EC0 Inlerna�qrwl Secunly � � . { � � . T..
G��P j SB -� 2S � &i �13 56 �5 B1 13��' �5 � 25 � 70 10 63 25 �� 8B '74�. 50 13
Miencan Guard Semcee,Inc. 55 � 25 � 80 t 16 fi1 t 25 � BB 11T 43 � 25 t 68 �11 64 ? 25 � 89 't3 54 �t�
Servezo ProtocUva Serv�cea � 57 � 29 4 86 �11 50 � 29 � 79 11j 40 � 29 j 69 11� 55 � 29 84 �il 5I 1�
�pe1W Frve Secunty.LLC 59 i 22 81 15'� 5� � 22 76 16' It � 24 � 63 �16� 83 �2 � BS '15 � 62 16
Eiite GioDai Secunty.lLC � 56 � 22 � 7B �77. 52 F 22 f 7� 184 35 � 22 57 ,18, 63 } 22 � 85 .15 ' 6B �17
Conwmx InveanyaUons,Inc. , 'I I
�DBA ProtecUon Bureau { 40 j 26 . 66 �18} �9 4 28 � 75 17 35 26 �� 61 77�..,. 55 26 � 81 .16��- 70 1!�
GSGI.LLC , 22 �, 34 S6 ;1DJ 20 , 34 ', 'S� .79� 13 31 , 17 ;19� 20 } 34 � 54 ;19 .� 76 ;19;
,�,,��,,e,�.. _ _y3ticr'. ,.. .,ac.#.�.n R�:�.� # ":�.
ll�� ..;3�.
�.r o..er..
� r.w cr A�..r . r�w..r.�.r , r.0 r.er r..w v.r.w�r.`o �c.r.v.r.r.�..
A 6 Asaopates Inc.,me M
59curily$ervtc�s.Inc S 3,530,577.60 u .n o a
.Amencan Guard Semces,Inc.j f l,915,774.5fi�� n . a ._ � o. � r, �'.
�.Centuran Socunry Group. � �
.LI ClFdck PaMdsfwp S 4,677,216.00 b y o � ,
Cno�co Oro Protecl�ai,lLC f 4,310,408.89 b a o n
�Ca�sumor Investpa�ons,Inc. = 4,678.23b.00
DBA Prolecuo�Bureau s s o s �
iDECOlnlert�etanal SecuAry S 4,920,328.84
Corp s m o n
Della frve Socurity.LLC � f 5,�56,053.27t �e _. _a o a
t
�Dynamc Inbqrated Secunry, .
�klile GloAal Sacun LLC 5.442,3I2.15 � � I o y
f 3.615.104.35,
. _ _. . ,
F ty. s 1 b n o a .
Good Guard FlonAa,lnt. ; 3,751,330.18 r � --�-�n o u
GSGI.LLC � ; 3,551,256.88 b � �+ # o y r
Inter•Con Secunty Syabma, '
Inc. S �.157.917.15 � a o � n
Ken�Socurity Services,l�c. f 3,841,921.20� b a a a�
;�PSI Secunty and , = q.�63.777.80
��Inv9shgatqna.Ll.0 te A a n �
�Sacun�y Allianco,l l.0 ` f 3,986,44625 b a� o n
Servezo Piolective Sernces � j �,153,273.33 b a o r ;
�.,SFM Sewnly Servicea.Inc. { f 4,063,806.88 . b . .. . �o n ;
US Secunty/U 5.ALLIANCE �,' = 3,630,153.30
AAANAGEMENT CORP. � r �. o �+
Universal Sttcuny Guerd � S 3.497.58976
Assocaetwn.InC. y s o x
805 of 1750
Procurement Requests - C2 A
MIAMIBEACH
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Enc Carpenter, City Manager
DATE: May 21, 2025
TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MiAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2024-277-KB, FOR
SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINlSTRATION TO
ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE AWARD OF A CONTRACT Tp DYNAMIC
INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC., THE SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE
PRIMARY CONTRACTOR AND TO GOOD GUARD FLORIDA, INC., THE THIRD-
RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE SECONDARY CONTRACTOR; FURTHER,
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENTS AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED
NEGOTIATIONS. (POLICE)
RECOMMENDATION
7he City Administration(Adminisfration")recommends that the Mayor and City Commission(City
Commission)approve the Resolution authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations and
the awarc!of a contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the
primary contractor and to Good Guard Florida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary
contractor, further, authorizing the City Manager and City Clerk to execute the agreements after
the Administration has concluded negotiations.
This solicitation is under the cone of silence.
BACKGROUND/HISTORY
The City Of Miami Beach utilizes security officer services citywide in order to 1) create a visible
presence of security personnel within the City of Miami Beach to improve the perception of public
safety; 2) Provide assistanc+e and information to citizens and visitors; 3) Provide assistance to law
enforcement through dete�rence, observe and report suspected cnminal activity; 4) Address
issues associated with the homeless and others whose behavior conflicts with acceplable
community norms; and 5) Safeguard the residents, visitors, employees and property of the City
of Miami Beach. Security o�cer services are also used for routine functions, such as access
control at City facilities, as well as for special events, including spring break and other planned or
unplanned occurrences.
The pu►pose of this RFP was to solicit competitive bids from qual�ed security service providers
to establish a new contract(s), ensuring the deployment of professional, reliable, and vigilant
security officers. The selected provider(s) will be responsible for safeguarding City premises,
assets, and personnel through the effective deployment of trained armed and unarmed security
personnel. The goal is to implement a comprehensive security strategy that mitigates nsks, deters
threats, and fosters a secure environment conducive to the City's operations. All services must
comply with Section 493 of the Florida Statutes and the requirements oudined in the RFP.
On July 29, 2020, the Mayor and City Commission approved the awani of contracts to FPI
806 of 1750
5ecurity Services, Inc. and Security AlUance, LLC, as co-primaries under RFP 2020-007-JC for
Security Offiicer Services. These contracts were set to expire vn Aprii 1, 2025, having a one-year
optio� to renew remaining. Rather than extending the agreement for the full year, this request
seeks approval to award the new RFP and extend the cuRent agreements with FPI Security
Services, Inc. and Security Alliance, LLC on a month-to-month basis until the replacement
contract(s}are executed and all security officer services are successfully transitioned.
ANALYSIS
On April 3, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of RFP 2024-277-KB
for Secunty O�cer Services. On April 4, 2024, the RFP was issued. A voluntary pre-proposal
meeting was held on April 19, 2024. One hundred forty-seven prospective bidders accessed the
solicitation. RFP respanses were due and received on June 20, 2024. The City received
responses from the following 27 fi►ms:
A 8 Associates Inc., d/b!a AB�A Security Services
American Guard Services, Inc.
Andy Frain Services, Inc.
Ardent Protection, LLC
Centurion Security Group, LLC/Feick Partnership
Choice One Protection, LI.0
Consumer Investigations, I�c. d/b/a Protection Bureau
DECO Intemational Security Corp.
Delta Five Security, LLC
Dynamic Integrated Secunty, Inc.
Elite G�obal Securiry, LLC
First Class Secunty Academy & Services LLC
FPI Security Services, Inc.
Good Guard Florida, Inc.
GSGI, LLC
Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
Kent Security Services, Inc.
PalAmerican Secunty, Inc.
Pro-Secur Inc.
PSI Security and Investigations, LLC
Security Alliance, LLC
Servexo Protective Services
SFM Security Services, Inc.
The Kemp Group, LLC
US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp.
Universal Security Guard Association, Inc.
Valus Security, Inc.
The proposals submitted by Pro-Secur Inc., Andy Frain Services, Inc., Ardent Protection, LLC,
First Class Security Academy& Services LLC, FPI Security Services, Inc., PalAmerican Security,
Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and Valus Security, Inc. failed to meet the requirements of the RFP,
either by failing to comply with the minimum eligibiliry criteria or by submitting the incoRect cost
proposal. As a result, their proposals were deemed non-responsive and were not considered
further.
On September 5, 2024, the City Manager appainted the Evaluation Committee("Committee"}via
LTC#384-2024. The Evaivation Committee convened on November 14 and 15, 2024,to consider
the r�esponsive proposals received. The Committee was comprised af Marc Chevalier, Senior Risk
O�cer, Human Resources Department; Kenneth Jones, Security Operations Manager, Police
807 of 1750
Department, Giacomo Natteri. Facilities Lone Manayer. Fac�lities and Fleet Management
Department; and Alberto Ventura, Assistant Director, Parking Department.
The Committee was provided with an overview of the procurement and information relafive to the
City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Govemment Sunshine Law. The Committee was also
provided with general information on the scope of seroices and a copy of each proposal. The
Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP. The evaluation process resutted in the ranking of proposers, as indicated
+n Attarhment A and below.
1 st ranked - Kent Security Services, Inc.
2nd Ranked - Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc.
3rd Ranked - Good Guard Flonda, Inc.
4th Ranked - Security Alliance, LLC
Sth Ranked -A&Associates Inc., d/b/a AA Security Services, Inc.
5th Ranketf - Choice One Protection, LLC
5th Ranked - US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp.
5th Ranked - Universal Security Guard Association, Inc.
9th Ranked - SFM Security Services, Inc.
10th Ranked - Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc.
11th Ranked - Centurion Security Group, LLClFeick Partnership
11th Ranked - PSI Security and Investigations, LlC
13th Ranked - DECO Intemational Security Corp.
14th Ranked -American Guard Services, Inc.
t 4th Ranked -Servexo Protective Services
16th Ranked - Delta Five Security, LLC
17th Ranked - Elite Global Security, LLC
18th Ranked -Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a Protection Bureau
19th Ranked - GSGI, LLC
The evaluation process, which includes a consideration of experience and quatifications,
approach and methodvlogy, and cost, resufted in Kent Security Services, Inc. as the top-ranked
bidder. However, Section 2-369 of the City Code requires that, in determining the lawest and best
b�dder, m add�Uon to pnce, there shall be considered the following:
(1)The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract.
(2) Whether the bidder can perform the contract within the time specfied, without delay or
�nte�Ference.
13}The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder.
�4)The quality of performance of previous contracts.
(5) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the
contract.
After considering all relevant factors permitted under Section 2-369 of the City Code, the
Administration does not recommend an award to Kent Security Services ("Kent") due to the
�ndictment and incarceration of Alon Alexander, Kent's President; bid signee; and, in Mr.
Alexanders own words, primary account representative for the Kent team. Mr. Alexander witl be
unavailable for an indeterminate amount of time and has a trial scheduted for January 6, 2026,
with charges including conspiracy to commit sex trafficking and sex trafficking by force, fraud, or
coercion.
The Evaluation Comm�ttee resultc;d in Dynamic inteyrated Secunty Inc (DIS) as the second-
ranked proposer. The Comm�ttee commended Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. (DIS) for �ts
comprehensive approach to securiry monitoring and personnel deployment. DIS offers around-
the-clock video surveillance and real-time dispatch coordination, ensuring immediate
responsiveness to potential ?hreats. The committee emphasi7ec� the value of �IS s live streamed
808 of 1750
surveillance system, which grants direct access to both real-time and archived footage for
investigative purposes. Additionally, the Committee complimented DIS for its low staff tumover
and highly trained worlcforce, consisting of retired law enforcement officers and military veterans.
The Committee further noted that DIS's pe�sonnel bring extensive field experience and undergo
rigorous firearm training that strictly adheres to Florida Department of Law Enforcement
standards, reinfoncing the company's commitment to professionalism and operational excellence.
DIS was founded in 2013 and offiers a wide range of customized security solutions to homeowner
associations, schools, businesses, and more. D!S' executive management team has over 75+
years of combined expenence in the military, police, and security fields. DI's Safe School O�cers
are Florida Sheriff Certified under the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School Public Safery Act
(S6 7026 8�SB 7030). DIS provides a training program for all security officers that allows them to
cater to the site's needs. DIS' patrol fleet is equipped to provide real-time video, audio, and GPS
location, monitored by their command-and-control center. DIS' personnel are equipped with the
latest technology in body cameras, body armo�, and protective gear. Some of their present clients
include the Leon County Schaol District, multipls Charter Schools within North Carolina and
Florida, as well as Palm Island Master Associations in Weston Florida. All submitted references
provided positive feedback.
The Evaluation Cammittee resutted in Good Guard Florida, Inc. (Good Guard}as the third-ranked
proposer. The Committee concluded that Good Guard meets the ezpectations, experience, and
qualifications expected from the contractor and that the approach and methodology were suitable
for the needs of the City. The Committee also recognized that Good Guard's onboarding prvicess
and web-based dispatching system would be efficient. Key features, such as the ab+lity to add
maintenance notes and the software's analytical capabilities, were considered practical. Lastly,
the Committee commended Good Guard's additional training offered to leadership, which would
contribute to a more accountable and praductive team in the field.
Good Guard was originally incorpora2ed in the State of Califomia and has been registered in the
State of Florida since 2023. Good Guard offers a wide range of services, including armed and
unarmed security personnel, personat protection, fire watch services, and crowd control. The
company prides itsetf on its highly trained and cert�ed security officers, who undergo rigorous
background che�ks and continuous training to ensure they meet the highest standards of
professionalism and effectiveness. Goad Guard Secunry operates wnth a m�ssion to dehver
professional, affordable, and high-quatity secunty solutions taiiored to the unique requirements of
each clie�t. Good Guard has secured contracts with pnvate and public firms such as Wells Fargo,
Greyhound, and the City of San Francisco. All submitted references provided positive feedback.
After reviewing the submissions and the Committee's rankings and commentary, the
Administration recommends entering into negotiations and awardin� a contract to Dynamic
Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor and to G�od
Guard Flonda, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor. Both firms
demonstrated, through scores fr�m the Evaluation Committee, that their qual�cations, past
performance, govemment experience, and approach to the City's required scape of services
exceeded those of the other proposers. Additionalty, Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. and Good
Guard Florida, Inc. submitted competitive overati pricing, wrth Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc.
offering ths lower cost of the two.
FISCAL IMPACT STATEMENT
Services pursuant to the award of this RFP shall be subject to successful negotiations and the
availabitity of funds approved through the City's budgeting process. The City's average yearly
expenditure over the last three (3)contract years is $3,000,�00. Grant funding will not be utilized
809 of 1750
for this project.
Besed on the proposal submitted by Dynamic integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked firm,
staff performed a cost analysis to determine whether the fiscal impact was in the City's best
interest. The cost analysis compared the costs submitted under the RFP to s�mi(ar line items in
the current contract. The companson showed that Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. provided a
total cost that was approximatefy 3°!o higher compared to the Ciry's current contract. The most
recently published Consumer Price Index (CPI) is 16°lo higher than at the award of the previous
contract, and therefore, the proposed cost by Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc. is considered
reasonable. However, the Administration will engage in negotiations with the company.
Does this Ordinance require a Business Impact Estimate?
(FOR ORDINANCES ONLY)
if applicable, the Business Impact Estimate (BIE) was publiahed on:
5ee BIE at: https://www.miamibeachfl.gov/citY-halUcitv-clerklmeetinst-natices/
FINANCIAL INFORMATION
410-1510-000349 $ 108.000
011-0975-000349 $ 31,400
011-1120-000349 $ 1,729,000
120-623Q-000349 $ 237,100
119-6231-000349 $ 291,400
110-6232-000349 $ 289,000
111-6233-000349 $ 209,700
16&1124-000349 $ 16Q,OQ0
160-1121-000349 $ 376,Od0
160-4363-000349 $ 2,100
178-6885-000349 $ 11,200
425-041 D-0003�i9 $ 3,OOQ
425-0420-000349 $ 3,OQ0
427-0427-Od0349 S 3,000
480-4463-000349 $ 2,067,000
142-6976-000349 $ 327,000
463-1990-000349 $ 279,000
467-1996-000349 $ 128,000
468-1998-000349 $ 79,000
CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Mayor and City Commission approve the
Resolution authorizing the Administration to enter into negotiations and the award of a contract to
Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor and to
Good Guard Flo�ida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor; further,
authorizing the City Manager and City Cle�ic to execute the agreements after the Administration
has concluded negotiations.
Applicable Area
810 of 1750
C itywide
Is this a "Residents Ris�ht to Know" it�m Is this item related to a G.O. Bond
pursuant to City Code Section 2-17? Proiect?
t�o No
Waa this As�enda Item initiallv requested by a Iobbviat which, as defined in Code Sec. 2-481,
includes a principal ens�as�ed in lobbyinq? No
If so, specify the name of lobbyist(s)and principal�s):
Deaartment
Procurement
Sponsor(s}
Co-aponsor(s1
Condensed Title
Award R�I' 2024-277-KB, Security Officer Services. PD/PR
Previous Action (For Citv Clerk Use Onlv)
Deferred on 3/19/2025 -C2 A
811 of 1750
.._ ..- o+IloaiMrla.. . .. . ..._ . ____.....„ . �� :..__._.. ._.____....._ ._.._... . i�l_ .__._oucaa.a.n.a . _._._....�� �wi.n.vwMw� ��� Lw �
� .. �� _.. I € `c �MIIn1Mw��
RFF 2f�W 1Tdi! IMit CMwlr K�rMN JNM�
�I�.�_ . ., _ ,.�__. '.__._._._._._ _. _ � 1p� r.err a
L._.._.�. i..��� �I�IM���1Ahr1 �wlM�llq rwwlrMln r ItdrNhl 1 � CvaI11�MYr O�t�� �r1AlAY �rMMN�w �Qu�npl�Mr��. �W�YM
.._._ .. . �....�---' - � - _ . __.. .__�_. ...�..�- � _. .
�14MB�au4y8�rvc�s Inc _... 65 � �7 � D7 I BI � D2 ' 4E 1 SE +: UD 1 ,. 65 +. Y7 3 : f. . 1
w-._._. .. .. _ _._..
I.D�timclnNynlW3�cwdy, , ._ . � � I , ' . . .
��lnc. ... ..... ' 65 34 ` i9 t 6] 3� 08 ' 1 �. �ei N � 60 3 63 ' a� ' GT � ! 2'�
��M�rv+o�t Mc ...��____.._._��._ ._..� -.._.�.,_.__ _� .._._.�._. __..T��._ ____� _ � ._,_ �_ ..._._. �..__... _...��.�. .__ '.. ��. . �� _..� .__.�T_..�,
AlAswu6uu�cLdMM . � J1 S 6/ St Pg 1 �y �t 77 ; M ]1 p__ ......Y! `
!--.___ ____`___�_' -�---- --- "'_._ . S� _ q 2 t! 2� 00 4,,� ��
p L Z! _ . �D� s7 ._._�_.� � e r.m____.
'
�UB B�cunq+U b AIINNGE I �
W1NAE3ELENT CORP _ � 6i 3� , p .. � 6 ._�- !. T4 Y 64 �2 ��
_..� _
wrw'��«ia.G.h a;rti �
wc+Miwi Inc�_____ 76 �0 57 �S !2 ��_ 11 �S 6 6Z 16 7-- - 7 27 �;
6FN Mn Mw, bl 90 1 bi JO N •S M 70 7'� 6 0] f0 � r� �--....2� f,
hwCon 8�airb�Hy�. '
hc --._. N_.� p.__ ..___. 0 Si � M 10 ._.. N.s. tt r. _. 29_ __ Yi__ �11 �..__ 1��
`--- -.___�.__...._�
Cwnturwn 6�ny Oroup.
LICIF�CkPptnMh�p,_,...�_ P. !2 26 10 D7 1 15 ♦ 17 OS T�,4,.. Y7 11 p 11
PSI S�cuny�nA krwafp�bns.
LlC SI Zp t1 S� 1P p 17 Ji 2i N 74 06 2Y W �J t7 11
DECO humMAnal.Ncuny ..__
--.._..._r.... ._..---
Cor�.,_--- - --- _ 6G 36 M U 0� 2l � 17 tS 5 70 W 6a 25 p ta _ yp U�
�..��OLrniw. _.�._. y
� Mt¢ S6 25 te O1 it N t� M 26 �G 13 5� t4�!
S+rv�w ProbrJN�Wn�t Y1 t2 50 7� 1� f0 � M tt 86 . .N. .•t7 S�T t!'
� o.r Fti.s.�.n�,,«c e� ts � �s _ s+ u ie ,e �� sz a ia a� . �.___ �--__�s -u �s
r `EW QIoO�I LlC �. 7) � 7� 1� 33 22 57 1� 61 .. . -'65 15 0/ � tI
_..._.!. _.._
N {Coewm�r twrseyrlon�.M�c. !.
�D6A PrM�Oon 8unw ' ..__ _ f t t 8 ___70 __' ���7.
�._ �o za �e u u __.�. �.._ n aa , » ss � x
� cec� uc -__-- +-_� _..__ _ ._._.T ?�___.
__ _
-y, ,
,__31.. 6E_ ti ]0 _3� � 19 17 .' ]�— --47,_ 19 20 �I ..._. .._ �__�o T��. �3J
F-+
v
�
O �.r o......
ww bww wur M1M 1Mr�r v�.w�M.r rew�•ww.r.i
.._._..__.___._ _�.a.....��. ..._.._.___. __..___ _�_...�__. .,__._._'
A i I4WCAb�lnc. 0!�M
i�mn�Inc ___ • ],330,571A0 ._.,!.__.._ !�_ ° _._._p-"
AmMrOM�(Su�tO . �i15 7N.56 . . » � • �s .. ..
(u r0.��. f..._..�._ .
Gntunur+f�aw�j6rwP. / �.6)7.]1600
LLCli�cltP�!tr»r}t�,1 .--.._� �__._.— -.--..---�_.� �
a O/r Prouceon lL �]10�Oi.�Y •
Conamn Mt��..Nc. � �67�7�6.00
06�PrpyGion ■
DECO MnwnaMor�d�awry � �.Y70 JJ�.M�
_.._..__-`--- - __._ _....L'+__.,.
D�fM LlC 16!OSS 7T� »
Dyrnmc k+bpr�p0�1cwM. � �.!1 S.t Pt]S % .
—�..,._.
Edt 6wGN Pwcur�llC_ i 6�2,�72 15
_ _.. _..__ .._._ -- ._�_._ � -- � � '---u--
GooO Gu�rn FbrW NG..�.__._... �.._.3,_�6a 330 7! '__' � _.'_. .__ u !'.___
6SG1 L,C � J Sb1 IS6 M H � H
InfN�CO�S�cY�'My 9/tMnf�, � �1S7 D17 1S'
�Nt N �
K�rr B�rvn�YY+c. {_7�ba1 Y71 20 s � � u
P31 B�cun1��nC kM�v��YyMOM. � 1 l0�771.�p
uc r a
-. _ _. _ .__ �
Arrn� llC i._]N6��625 __ �• �
�f!��---._________
s«w.o a�a.a�v.e.rvs. .,sa�n ss .
6FNS�ux�.Srvw Y+c i_IOOi�06.l� �_ s �f_,...
iiS B�c.ur�lylU�ALLNNCE - . : _
� �a�c�s9w
MANAGEMENTCORP . . ..__ .� � �' _� H
uryw..0 i.cwr o�,.a • a wisw�s
"".__. _ 1_ ---- � --."-- _..�...---
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CfTY COMMlSSlON OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2024
27T-KB, FOR SECURtTY OFFICER SERVICES; AUTHORiZIN6 THE
ADMINiSTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE AWARD OF
A CONTRACT TO DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC., THE SECOND-
RANKED PRQPC)SER, AS 7HE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR AND TO GOOD
GUARD FLORIDA, INC., THE THIRD-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE
SECONDARY CONTRACTOR; FURTHER, AUTHORIZlNG THE CITY
MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS AFTER
THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS; AND FURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE MONTH-TO-MONTH EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING
AGREEMEN75 WI7H FPI SECURITY SERVICES, INC. AND SECURITY
ALIIANCE, LLC, UNTIL THE REPLACEMENT AGREEMENT(S) HAYE BEEN
EXECUTED ANO SECURITY OFFICER 5ERVICES HAVE BEEN
TRANSITIONED TO THE NEW SERVICE PROVIDER(S).
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of
the Request for Propasals (RFP) No. 2024-277-KB for Security O�cer Services; and
WHEREAS, Request for Proposals Nv. 2024-277-KB (the 'RFP") was re{eased on
February 23, 2024; and
WHEREAS, a voluntary pre-proposal meeting was heid on April 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2024, the City received twenty-seven (27) proposals from A 8�
Associates Inc_, d/b/a A&A Security Services, American Guard Services, Inc., Centurion
Secunty Group, LLC/Feick Partnership, Choice One Protection, LLC, Consumer Investigations,
Inc. d/b/a Protection Bureau, DECO Intemational Security Corp., Delta Five Security, LLC.
Dynamic Integrated Secunry, Inc., Elite Olobal Secwity, LLC, PrcrSrrcur Inc., Gcxxi Guard
Florida, Inc., GSG1, LLC, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., Kent Security Services, Inc., PSI,
Security and Investigations, LLC, Secunty Alliance, LLC., Servexo Protective Services, SFM
Secunty Services, Inc., US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp., Universal Security Guard
Association, I�c., Andy Frain Services, Inc., Ardent Protection, LLC, First Class Security
Academy & Services LLC, FPI Security Senrices, Inc., PalAmerican Security, Ine., The Kemp
Group, LLC, and Vaius Security, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the propasals submitted by Pro-Secur Inc., Andy Frain Services, Inc.,
Ardent ProtectEon, LLC. First Class Secunty Academy & Services LLC, FPI Security Sernces,
Inc., PalAmerican Secunty, Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and V3ius Security, Inc. were deemed
non-responsive for fa�lu�e to meet the requirements of the RFP, and were not evaluated further;
and
WHEREAS, on Septembe� 5, 2024, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission No.
384-2024, appointed an Evaluation Committee consisting of the following individuals: Marc
Chevalier, Senior Risk Officer, Human Resources Depa�tment; Kenneth Jones, Security
Operations Manager, Police Depa�tment; Giacomo Natteri, Fac�lities Zone Manager, Fac�lities
and Ffeet Management Depa�tment; and Alberto Ventura, Assistant Director, Parking
Department: and
813 of 1750
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee convened on November 14 and 15, 2024, to
review and score the proposats; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee received an overview of the project, information
relative to the City's Cane of Silence Ordinance and the Govemment Sunshine Law, general
information on the scope of services, and a copy of each proposal; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal
pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee process resulted in the ranking of proposers as
follows: Kent Security Services, Inc., as the top-ranked proposer; Dynamic Integrated Secunty.
Inc., as the second-ranked pro�ser, Good Guard Florida, Inc., as the fourth-ranked proposer,
Secunty All�ance, LLC., A 8 Associates Inc., d/b/a AB�A Security Services, Choice One
Protection, LLC, US SecuritylU.S. A!liance Management Corp., and Universal Secunry Guard
Association, Inc., as the tied fifth-ranked proposers; SFM Security Services, Inc., as the nineth-
ranked proposer, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., as the tenth-ranked proposer, Centurion
Secunty Group, and P51, Security and Investigations, LLC, as the Ned eteventh-ranked
proposers, DECO International Security Corp., as the thirteenth-ranked proposer, Amencan
Guard Services, Inc., and Servexo Protective Services, as the tied fourteenth-ranked proposers,
Delta Five Security, LLC, as the s�xteenth-ranked proposer, Efite Global Security, LLC, as the
seventeenth-ranked proposer, Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a Protection Bureau, as the
eighteenth-ranked proposer, and GSGI, LLC, as the nineteenth-ranked proposer, and
WHEREAS, section 2-369 of the City Code requires that, in determining the lowest and
best bidder, in addition to price, there shall be considered the following�
{1)The ability, capacity and skill af the bidder ta perform the contract.
(2) Whether the bidder can perfarm the contract within the time specified, without delay or
interference.
{3) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efTiciency of the bidder.
{4)The quality ot performance of prev�ous contracts.
��) Th� pr�viuus dnJ existiiiy cuniNliaric;ts t�y tiia t�icicldr willi IawS ei►J uiJindn�s +alaGny lu
the contract; and
WHEREAS, after considering all relevant factors permrtted under Section 2-369 of the
Ciky Code, t�e Admirnstration does not recomrnend an award to Kent Secunty Services ("Kent"}
due to the indiciment and incarceration of Alan Alexander, KenYs President; bid signee; and, in
Mr. Alexander's own words, primary account representative for the Kent team; and
WHEREAS, after reviewing all of the submissions, the Evaluation Committee's rankings
and analysis, and the Administra6on's recommendation, the City Manager concurs with the
Evaluation Committee and the Administratfon and recommends that the Mayor and City
Commission authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations and the award of a contract
to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the second-ranked proposer, as the primary contractor and
to Good Guard Florida, Inc., the third-ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor; further,
authorizing the Ciry Manager and City Clerlc to execute the agreements after the Administration
has concluded negotiations; and further authonzing the month-to-month extension of the
existing agreements with FPI Security Services, Inc. and Security Alliance, LLC, until the
replacement agreement(s) have been executed and security officer services have been
Uansitioned to the new service provider(s).
814 of 1750
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DU�Y RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby accept tfie recommendation of the City Manager, pursuant to Request for
Proposals (RFP) No. 2024277-KB far Security Officer Senrices; autfiorize the Administration to
enter into negotiations and the award of a contract to Dynamic Integrated Security, Inc., the
second-ranked proposer, as the pnmary contractor and to Good Guard Florida, Inc., the third-
ranked proposer, as the secondary contractor; further, authorize the City Manager and Gty
Clerk to execute the agreements aftet the Administration hes cancludeti negotiations; and
further authorize the month-tamonth extension of the existing agreements with FPI Security
Senrices, Inc. and Security Alliance, LLC, until the reptacement agreement(s) have been
executed and security officer services have been transitivned to the new service provider(s)
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of 2025.
Steven Meiner, Mayo�
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
Rafael E. Granado, City Cl�c 8 F CUTION
3)roI Zozr'
City Attomey '�+� Date
815 of 1750
MIAMI BEACH
Cily d Mbmi�eoth. �.r " .�f�rr�,, . ,.,','. ;l�we Mi:xi`;BetlCh.��+c3a 33'39....tivw m;0^Y�betKr�.gGv
G'��e of the�,:t, S^-���:��r
`r°. c�.. �'3 r� . F+�� Y'�,;S'� ''S;
TRANSMITTED VIA E-MAIL: Michasl.LlorenteQts�taw.com
May 9, 2025
Michael Llorente
LSN Law, P.A_
3800 NW 1"Avenue
Suite 200 � Miami, Fl. 33137
RE: Prot�st Filad Puntuant to Award Recar»mandation o� RFP 2024-277-KB, Secu�ity
Of'�t�Services (the"RFP").
Dear Mr. Lbrente:
The City has reviewed the protest fileci by Security Aliiance, LLC ('Security AIliance'}on March
14, 2Q25, in response to the City Manager's award recommendation untl�the RFP.
In its protest, Secunty Alhance alleges that Good Guard Florida, {nc. ('GGF"� (1) does rwt have
an act'rve license ro perfonn private security serviaes in Fiorida, (2)does not hav�e a bcal office or
management team, (3) iadcs the resources and ab+lity to provxie enhanoed secunty senr�ces
during high-impact events like Spring Break. Accc>rtiing to Security Aliiance, these factors amotmt
to rnisrepreserttatian and detiberate attempts to mislead the City and its evatuation committee.
Based on these tactas, Securtty A!liance respectfully requests tfiat the Gty deem GGF
nonresponsive. tn sddition to its chatlenges to the award to GGF, tt�e third-ranked bidder,Security
Alliance, alao cha(isnges ths secx�nd-ranked b+ddef, O�mamic Integrated Security, Inc. ("DIS'),
and its capadtlr to me�et the City's security needs. ARer reviewing the particutars o# Security
Altiance's protest, the City hereby rejecAs Secunty Alliance's p�test ar�d, in support thereof, finds
as fol{ows.
With regard to �e Minimum Elrg�b�lity Reqwrements, Appendix A, Minimum Re�u�rements and
Spec�tications ot the RFP states that at the time o/propo.sa/submis.sion(emphasis added], &dder
sha11 be li�nsed in accordanc;e with Chapter 493, F�anda Statr des to perfam Pnvate Security
Services. The proposal subm�tted by GGF on June 20, 202d, confirmed via t�e Department of
Agncutture's website that GGF hekf an acti�e licaense to perfarm Exivate secunty seiviaes in
Flotida. On July 10, 2Q24, when the Ciry complebad its responsive�ess review. it agarn confirmed
that GGF was license�i in accorQance with Chapter 493, Flonda Statutes, to perfom� Private
Security Services. As of May 2, 2025, the administrative edion pending agairtst GGF and
referenced by Secxarity Aliiance in iis protest letter has been lifted. Thus, GGF is authonzed to
perfarm security guatd services in the state of F{onda.
With rega�d to GGF's lack of local afficers ar management team, the RFP did not spealy that
bidders are required to have a specrfic kind af local presence o� phys`cal iacat►on. The Gty
contacted GGF and confirmed that a GGF representative was available at tfia Fbrida address
identified in tfie GGF proposa! to receiv�e legal notices as reqwred by Flo�da law. In addition,
virtual meetinqs via platforms like Teams and Zoom are now the nom�, reducing th� need for a
constant physical preser�ce. And�f an in-person meeting were necessary,today's ease of travel—
especially with frequent fliqhts to ma�or hubs like Miami—makes it simple for an executive to
attend without sgnificant disruption.
Next, Security Alliance alleges that hoth GGF, the third-ranked bidder, and Dynamic Integrated
Security Inc., the second-ranked bidder, lack the resources, enperience, and ability to provfde
816 of 1750
enhanced security servic�s dunng hFgh-imp�ct events. The City r�nil not reject a successful bid
simpfy because another bidder disagrees with the content and quality oi the successful bid. As
noted in Me RFP's Secxion 0100 - Inshvdian to Bidders subsecbon No. 9 titied 'BIDDER'S
RESPONSI8ILITY,' it is the responsibility ot each Bidder to make '...any and aA investigations,
evaluations, and examinations, as it deems necessary, to ascertain atl canditions and
requiremen#s affectiting the fuli perfamance of the contract."Further,`Ignorance of such corxiitions
and requirements, arxi/or failure M make such eva{uationa, investigations, and a�caminations,will
noi rel�ve the Biddef from any obli�tion ta oompty with every detgil and with all provisions and
requirements of the contrad, and will not be accepted as a basfs tar any subsequent Gaim
whatsoewer fo�any monetary consideration on the part of the B�dder'The references sutxnitted
by GGF fot security officef s�vices, its submitted propasal pursuant to RFP 2024277-K8, and
its evaluetian oomrnitUee totats and quantitative scores under the RFP evaluat�on critena all
suggest tttat (:GF is suitabiy equipped to perform the scope of services itfentified in the RFP.
Lastly, while the evartuation committee's fintiings are not determinative, had the evaluation
cammittee agreed with Securiry Al{iance in finding GCF's pmposal insuffiaent, such agreement
would be evident in tttie evatuation committee's scx�ing ot GGF. tnstead, three of tfie four
evaluation committee members scared GGF third out of ni�eteen proposers.
As to the claims af misrepresentations in the GGF propvsal, the City conducted due ditiyence to
evaluate ttte validity af Securiry Alliance's daims. The City's due diligence induded a thorough
review of references, which confirmed that GGF has consistenUy delivered exemplary security
officer services. Based � the City's due diligence, the City is satisfied wrth its awn findings and
the infom►ation provided by GGF and rejects the ciaims of misrepresentations in the GGF brd.
Thus, tfie City does not find its award to GGF to be arbiVary arid capricious without greater
evidenc:e of p�oposal misrepresent�tior�s than ttte allegafions provided try Sectmty Atliance.
Academy Express, LLC v. Broward County, 53 So 3d 1188,1190(Fia. Dist. Ct. App. 2011).
Therefone, after rev�ewing the �rticulars upon which Security Wiiance's protest has been filed,
tt�e AdminisVation de�ies said protest Florida courts have repeatedty made cfear that, in
reviewing chaAenges to a puWic a�ncy's procurernent dacisions, a 'public bady has wide
discret�on" �n the bbding proce.ss and "its decrs�on, when based on an hor�est exerc�se" ot that
discretion, should nat be overtumed 'ev�n rf �t may appear emoneous and even if reasonable
persorts may disagree." Department of Transportation v. Groves-Watkms Gonstructas, 530
So.2d 912.913(FIa.1988xquoting Llbey'ty Courtty v. Baxiei'S Asphett b Concrete, Inc., 421 So.2d
5a5{F1a.1982))(emphesis in original)• "[Thel sofe responsibility�s to ascertatn whether the agency
acted frauduienti�r, arbitranly, iUegalty, or dishonestly.' IC., 530 So. 2d at 914.
You may appeal my decision by fiting an anginal action in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial
Circuit in and for Miami-Dade County, Florida, in accordance with the applicable court rules. Any
action not brought in good faith shall be subject to sanct►ons, including damages suffered by the
City and the attamey's fees incurred by the City in defense of such wrongful action.
RespectFully Submitted,
- _�
.._ J
� .4��'�..+. li/-d_`��
K � '
Enc Capente� ,
City M�nager
Cc: Mayor Steven Me�ner
Members of the Gty Commission
Ricardo Dopico, City Attomey
Kristy 8ada, Ch'ef Procurement C?f'Ficer
817 of 1750
��
�'�.� LSN LAWp.A.
��
March 14, ?0?5
Mr. Er►c Carpenter
City Managcr
Ciry of Miam� Beach
1700 Con��ention Center Dnve,4th Flcwr
Re: Bid Protest of RFP 2024-277-KB,Securih�Otticrer!�ervices("KFP")
Dcar City Manag�r C,arpcnter:
This firm rcpresents Security Altiancr LLC ("Sccurity� Alliar►cr"), the incumtxnt
provici�r of socunty guard s�rvices for the Ciry of Miami Beach. In a�rdance with S�aon
2-371 of the City Code, Security A(tiancr I.LC (°'Security Alliancc") fiks this timely protest
af tfie City 'Nanagrr's 'Votice of Intrnt to recomrteend award this cc�tr��c.t w Gcx�d Guard
Ftarida, Inc. ("GGF") for the reasons set forth below.
1. GG� Does Not Have a■ Active l.icenss ro Ptrform Private Security 5ervices in
�brids.
The RFP u�cludes a minimum requirement that all �posers must be licensed to perform
ptivat� crcirrity cervict� m the State c�f Floreda.
At ii'inimum EliqibiEity Rpuitemmta The�A�srr�um E�dkty R�+�ncsrne�,tar Sxxs sai�Uan
are f�e�e�d beb�r B+dOer snaf subrttf��'eQiireA s+,brtMtaifsl siowrrreriMtg oorr�na.+�it+eedt
mnnx�tn reqt�ee+neM B+CQets�iet tst io cOrnqhir w�t mrw�xxn reqtrrerr�erris�ii be d�ern�d
ra��ar�d stte�r�ot hsve C�er b�d oonsrdered
a A1 the bre d�oposal5ub�►rs�+�on �Jder sdt�bs 1oer�sed n ac�derre�d►
CMpbr�93 F4onoe Siatuks eo pertortn�rr�ie SecEx#y�er,,ces
�BiNTTAI REQUIREMEKT: tion� raquirN. TM iMMbttfaitl� wHl be
independentfY vHified bY tM Cit3►durin9 ib du��lip�nc�proaas-
GGF is not licensed to prrform pnvate socurity strvicts m thc State of fiorida. Acxording ro
thc webs�te of the Department of Agricultute and Consumer Affairs, thc status of GGF's
liccnse is (isicd as"ADMIti ACTtOI` P£tiDt?�iG."` Bclow is a scrrens}xit of thr Department
of Agricutture's w•cbsitc.
' Thc Department af Agriculture and Con�mer AfTairs Liccnse Searr.h database �s availabie
at thc fotlowing(ink� http�. lic�ns�n�,fda��.�u� .ic��,.,a�c:n::� b�r.
818 of 1750
Public Access System
c000 cu��o r�ono�uu
.��,r r..e r.... r
wr�rn�rr..
�,�u.,
�r.s�rr
.•'r�c+-«�.. ,.
F���
.�w.�--w
�NP� T�
The undetsigned counsel cantsctod the Dcpartment of Agricultur�e at approxiinately 2:00 PM
on Fnciay, �i.arch 14, 2025, and spoke witl� a Departrrunt of Agricultur+e reprcsentativ� wbo
infarmod the undersign�d counsel that GGF does gq�kave ie utive ticease at this time and,
as$result, is prohihited fima providing pri4�atc sccunry services in tt�c Stace. We urge you to
contact the Department of Agnculture at 850-245-56G5 ta�anfinn the status of GGF's license.
Because GGF failcd to raaintsin en sctive ticaise from t�proposal submisston date through
the contmc:t award, GGF failed ta comply witti the minimum raquiremecits and must be
disqualified.The Ciry cannat award a security serv�ces contr�t to a company that is prohibited
from providir� security servic,rs �n the State of Fbnda. See Glvtstein v. City ajMianel, 399
So.?d 1005 (Fla. 3d DCA), re�. denied, 40? So.2d 1102 (Ela. t981); see r1lJo RoGinson
E/ertrical Co. v DQde Cty.,417 Su.2d 1032, 1034(Fla. 3d DCA 1982)("A variance is material
iF it gives the bidder a substantial advantage over other biddas and thereby restncts or
irtterftrts w�it1� compttition.").
2. GGF Does`oi Nave a Local Office or Local !Nansgemeat Team.
GGF's proper.;al is replete with referencrs to the company's "local office" and "Icxal
managcment team." For example, in its cover lttter, C',Gf expresses gratitude "o� etkdfof
ear laca/Mi�wri o,/j''ic,r" i'ar[he opportuniry to participate in thc RFP. The company also notes
Chat: "OWr dedic�tcd, locd n�axaYeertnt tr� witl offor Miami Beach a partncrship with
spe4ialired�.�curit� �lutiuns to fit these necds."GGF tidentifies�ts tocal address as��,g
Lagoon Drive,Suite 400,Miami,FL 33126,and claims that all the company's key personnel
are wc�rking aut of th�s local address. Below are several screensh�ts of the resumes for GCiF's
purpc�rted key pc-rsc�nncl fnr this pm,jeCt.'
� The RFP r�equired proposers to submit nesu�es for alt key pasonnel assigned to this project.
�Tab 2, Section 2.2 of Elecvonic Proposal Format, p. 9 of RFP.
819 of 1750
-; � .� ,.� .
....; . ;,. . .. _ �::. -.s.
i.= £3 , . ,�'.
Y ;
. ..� . . . � ' , . �3� � �
�, �. -,l...-..
._. _..� ' _. ._• w __.,-.-... ,. „ ...-.. __ .Gn++��Ir�waw
'. __�::v � ._�_�'�� "_..''��._.
•�arw�Y�r a�+� I� .�.. ..
'�'1Mwa��r�� ��� ruly
r+.r.w�rr+.yr+ +.rr.wr.�.�s�..+r.�.��w
ra�.a.rw.� r+...+w...�r+��...�+w.�r
:w.r.r+r....►r....rwtis� ��.r�r•�.s�rw
�Mr�dY 4
�r:re�+
_ � �..wr� "...•- .�nrr�w+s�����+�
. �.rrf� �.�rr���i r�r.�.r•
�.�,�r.rr.�+�
f 1�t1MGi f.i�l7Nf0�
r� �-�--�-�-- - r �...........,..
� � �.:��
�iliil��� � �risrn.r+....w... "�i _ �.rwr.w _
�.�. � a....e...�..._.._ .�� ,�. _ .�....._:...e....._...
�
� � •� i
r�-F
r1`°`
._..�. ... � �.... .�
v:-._. _.
;
- '---� -T- —.,
.......
.��r.«.�...�..�.r --�-�.��r+..w...
..�f� �....r.
�yYr���4
��...ror..�..�.rws ..�-.._-..
+ �+r
.�.,..�..w
...�+�.�+.+..r.
�,...
��w.�r�..r.w..��
��G�yM�� E a p�s�re�
�� L s.�rs.:e<�,;.e
� r���..w.... � ar�.�+r.wr
�, � x ,,,..� _ a.r��...��w�..
� .������.. _ �"�r,
The problem is that GGF dc�es not have a lucal affict at Blue La�n. F�rst,the Department of
Agriculture website indicatcs GC;F's appli�;ation fcx a Securiry Agency Branch C?ffice at 63U3
Blue Lagoon Dnve was "t�EtilFi)." Betow �s a sx;reenshot fram thr Dep�rtmc:nt of
Agriculture's w�ebsitc_
820 of 1750
Pubiic A�ooess Systeni
coao uw�o noua.,rMc
;.....o...... a�.., w
.....+,�
.�*R e �sew s
+Yrs`.�'.r
Y�`W�
. it�... .
�
c�����YiYr
Second,Miami-Dade County rccords indicate C,GF has never obtained a Business TaY Roctipt
{B"1'Rj for a local ofTe;e anywhere in Miami-Dade County.} Thirci, Security Allisnce visitead
6343 Blue Lagoon Drive aa Thursday,March 13,2D25,and confirmed this loeation is occu�iod
by a differrnt company with no appar�nt celauon to GGF or socunty services.
Moreover,basec Google�-chey indic;ate that�GGF's k�} ptrsannel ar�basod in Californis,
not Miami-Dade Counry. Belaw are screenshots of the Linkedin profiles for severat icty
perannnel, uydicating tbe�y are basai in Californ�s,not Miami-Dad;e County.
. . . . , _ � . �:.,, .: ::
� .
v,._ . ,.,.< t .. � ., . �_.e,_..,...
■�•......,
� . e .. � . .. :.
GC;F's rcpeattd refercnces to its"tcx:al ofTice" and "Iocal management team" bciie a simple,
incscapabte fact GGF appesrs to Ssvr gQ M�ai oflice and ao tueai eoatrach. The
cnmpany's corporate headc�uaners. kcy personnel, and most mcaningful 9ecurity expenrnce
arc all based 3,OU0 mites away- in ihe State of California.GC;F's repeaud misrep�esentations
can only be rtad es s detiberaLe attcmpt to deceive the cvaluation committee regarsiiag the
campany's local expericnet and capabit�t�es. GGF's repeated mis�tpresentations are matertnl
and likety impactcd tht scores of evaluauon comm�ttee membCrs, wbo were m�sled inw
believing GFF has a strong local presence - a cntical factor for the effxtive management of
this complex and important sccurity contract.
� Miami-Dadc County's Business Tax Receipt (BTR) database is available at the following
link: haps:�'county-taxcs.nevtl-miamidadelbusincss-tax
821 of 1750
Awarding th�s cona�a�:t W GFF dtspitr aCs�kth�iple wiisneprue�ta�ows would be arbiErary aod
c;apricious. Sc�e Aeademy F.xpress. LLC v. Bm�ard Cry., 53 So. 3d t 188(Fla. 4th DCA 201 l)
("A coatiact award�d on krawn misrcpr�sentations by a v�r could constitute arbitrary
and capricious action"),see also Statewick Proce.�,r Serv. ojFla.. Inc. v. I1�ep'�ojTrarcrp., No.
95-5035BID, 1995 WL IQ53244 (FlaDiv.Adrnin.Hrgs. Dcc. t8, 1995) (t'inding that the
pm�unng agency acted arbitrarily and caprictously in recommending the award of a contract
to a vendor that had nsade mat�at misrepresentatians regarding its experience, and wficre
these enisrepresentahons had been identified t�y tt�e pmtesting party following the aw�ard
recotnmrndation).
3. GG� Lacks the Resources aod Abilit� to Provide En6anctd Security Servica
Dnring Hi�6 [mpact Events Like Spring Break.
:ts mentioned above,GGF�s not�esponsfve because the company failod to mact thc minimum
qualifications and made cepeated misre�resentations regarding its local presence and
capabilities. in addition, GGF Is not respodrible because the company lacks the local
e�cpericncc, marsagement team, and resources to perfocm the eantract. See Engineering
C�n�ructors Ass'n ofSoutlt Florula. Inc. v Brox�urd Ctti•., 789 So.2d 445{Fla,4tA DCA 2001)
(�ung that a �onsihility determination is bascd on an cvaluation of "thc honesry and
integrity of the bidder nccessary to a faithful performance of the contract-upon his skill and
business judgment, his experience and his f�ilities for carrying aut the con�ct,his previous
canduct under other contracts. and the qualin�of his previous work.")
Thi3�ritical security canusct is extremely complex. Not only does it require the protection of
multiple asscts and use of rovirng sa;urity guards on bicycles and golf cacts, but this convact
requi� ve�dors ta provide enhancai security servic� during fugh impact evrnts. [:c�der
Scx:tion A3 of the RFP,d�City pro�•ides that the City may request additional s��urity serv�ces
for spe�cial or emerQency e�•ents and further pro��ides that: "�o�speeial o�naer�escy eveats,
t6e Ca�trsctor ahaU �sve a qnaiitfed oflicer present aad �y for dutr� w�6ia t6rce(3)
iaars o[reqaest�"
Over ihe year, for e�cacnple, the City has requested - and Security Alliance, as the City's
iiu;umbent veador,had pravided-appmximatety th�rty-five(35)additional afficcrs for�ing
br�alc, eweuty-five (25) additional ofticers far ?�fcmorial Day Wodcend, and fifteen ((5)
ac�itiansl afficers for "rew Year's Eve. Security A(liance 6as boen able to accommodace a!1
the City's requests bocause Security Aliiance has over one thousand(1,000) security o�cers
worldwide, inctuding over ftve hundred (5()O) security officers in South Flonds servicing
cltents likc Mrami-Dade Cnunty, the City of Miamy Beach, City of Hialeah, and dozens uf
pnvate businesses.
A compaar tike GGF, wit6 0o bcil presence aad ao local officen, �ill likely be unable
to proYide enhanccsi secnrity staff ior higb Impaet evrnts.
[ndec�, 1he �ame can be said for the nthcr recomrnendod proposer. Dyn'mic [ntegrated
Secvrity� tnc. ("DIS"). According to DSI's proposa{, the compan} employs a total of onc
hundred ant! rwcnty-seven (127) socurity guards worklwide, w�th littk, if any, demons-uated
expencnce in 'Niami-Dade Caunty. Virtuatiy alt tfic company's experirnce a{�pears to be at
9cl�oots and Ghurches outside af 4tiam►-Dadc Cauaty. it i� uncicar t�w DSI or GGF witl be
822 of 1750
able ta �:commodate tht City's req�st for dozcru of additional �fficers during high impact
evrnts, creating a pvtential safcty concern for the Ciry.
4. Coadusioa
The C�ty Ylanagcr is recommcnding award of this cnntrsct w DFS,the secand-ranlcod proposer,
and C;GF, the third-rankcd prvposa.' As set farth abave, we belicve GGF is ►neligible fa
awartl because: (i) GGF is not currentty hcc-nsod w pror�ide prtvate ya:;urity servic�; in the
State of Florida; ancl �ii) GGF ina�dc multiplc matcrial misre}�resentations in its proposal. !n
additrc�n, we be(ieve an award to D[S acd GGE is aot�nsibte because neither�mpany has
sufficient locat prescnce to provide enhanced socurity services as e�equired under Secuon A3
of the RFP.
We resp�ctfully svbm�t that the City shauld award t3�is eoatract to Socunty Alliance, the
u�cumbent provider.
'The City Manager disqualified th�e t'irst-ranked proposer. Kea�t Secunty Services, [nc. due to
che indictment and incarceration af the company's president.
823 of 1750
Bada, Kristy
Frorr►: Dopico, Ricardo
5ent Fnday. March 14, 2025 5:56 PM
To: Bacia, Knsty; Hooptr, Daren
Cc: Carpenter Eric Granada. Rafael
Subjert: c,� , � ��,,..E.st .,t Rf� �'C;:a ._ K E, >F . >+= :e� :e�. .?s ��-
Email 1 af �
Ricardo J. �opico, City Attorney
oFF�ce aF rn�c�rY�rTaRr�Y
"^:7 Corsvenbon Gnter(�nve.AAwxrti 8estt+.F�33139
.: 505813.7470 � �naw.r*i�rr!r�Y�S..�Q+
.r� ve oarvrxfhro io pirov�rg exasN�rN OuEtc a�rv�pa and aalbry'ro at wl+o M�v �and daY+R our v�Orant.troO�cat/d�trnc canrrr+nly
v•.,se no�:Fi�orida Ax a very broad Yu6tic Necords law Most w�itlen communicatfons to w from the�ky M Miami dexh ue pubik records
�v+�tabk to anyvne upon rputst. Ther�fw�,your e-mail,iruiudi�your e-mail a�rtss.may bt tubject to pvbirc disclowre.
From:Michaet Uorente<michael.11orertte�isniaw.com>
Sertt:friday,March 14, 2025 5:00 PM
Ta:Carpenter, Eric<EricCarpenter�miamibeachfl.gov�
Ct:Dopico,Rica�do<Ricardo0opico�miamibeachfl.gov>;Granado, Rafael<RafaelGranado@miamibeachfl.gov>
Subject: Bid ?rotest of RFP 2024 277-KB,Security Officer Services("R�W')
�ear Mr Manager,
On behatf of Security Alliance, llC,the 4th ranked praposer in the above-refe�enced RFP, please accept this
email as a formal bid protest of the recommended award to Dynamic Integrated Security, lnc. ("DIS") and
Gaod Guard F{o�ida, Int. ("GGF").
A� a preliminary matter,GGF is nat authurized to provide securEty services in the State of Florida. Acco�ding to
the Department of Agricutture and tonsumer Servicts website, GGF's license status is listed as"ADMIN
ACTION PENOING.'" Ea�lier tnday,we contaderJ the Department af�gricutture and confirmed that GGF does
not have an adive licence to provide security servites in the State of Flarida. Below is a screenshot from the
Department of Agr�culture website
824 of 1750
F'ublic Aasss System
c000 cuuro aoiro�.�Nc
a,............ �.o... w.w.
�....+.�..
....��_
:._,,v
.�r„�....
.>..n.r..-..r.,
wr.�.��
.. ��i...r».a.
t�r•
<.�+r••-,-�..
c���...�
We urge you to contact the Department of Agricuhure at 850-245-5665 to confirm GGF's license status.
Obviously, because GGF was unable to maintain its license active from the proposal submission deadline
through contract award,GGF fails to meet the Minimum Qualification aequirements set forth in Appendix A of
the RFP and is unresponsive.
In addition, GGF falsely represented throughout its proposal that GGF inaintains a local office at 6303 Blue
lagoon Orive. This is not accurate. Again, a�eview of the Department of Agriculture website indicates that
GGF's application for a security services branch office at this location was DENIED.
Public Access System
c000 cu�r�i�o�no�iMc
�.w rns�+N++ow� QOwo Latr�
��W.�
�W'�
�f+��
:��ar�..�
It appears GGF has no 5tate license, no local o�ce, and no local contracts.
This also means that GGF will be unable to provide enhanced security services during high impact events, as
required under Section A3 of the RFP. In fad, DIS has the same issue, given its lack of local contracts. These
companies will not be able to provide enhanced services to the City.
We urge you to award this contract to the incumbent provider, Security Alliances.
z
825 of 1750
�+LSN LAW.. �`��•��'���f�
�a:a� SSN Lv. P A
3fa:.R 3Q5 "3i�.22:C
.,::w: '�`� r;a 34�6
:ir.a::
�
7'h�s E-Mait rneswqe and anr dxumenq eccompanpu+q thia�Mail trannmusion contain�nformanon from iSN Law.P!l(Eormerly d1b/a Worence�
Hockltr. P.Jl1.which u'Pnnl�qrd snd wafidfrtLsi etwrn��i�t oomasua+tano»andloi wnrk producs cd c�unNi.' tt yau are aot tls�anou+d�d
rsupsant.you u�iur�by nonfi�d that any d,sclosur�,copyu�q,dumbua�+and/or the talanq ot or z*frumnq t�om talnng d ury acnon�n rwann
on the cantents of thi�&Mail cnfarn►anon a unctlp protubit�d and may result in taqu ac�on b�nq�nsutut�d aqauut you. Pf�as�csply to th��der
advianq at th�error in tran�nisrioa and delete t!a msisaqe and any accompanyinq documena kom your arystsm immediately 11�a:+k�ou
3
826 of 1750
Bada, Kristy
From: Dop�co. R�cardo
Se�t: Fnday, March /4, 2025 5:57 PM
To: SaQa, Kristy; Hooper, Daren
Cc: ta�penter. Enc:Granado, Rafael
Subjsct: FW� 8id Protest of RfP 2024-277-KB, Security Otficer Sernces('RFP")
Attachnw�nts: Securiry Ailiance Miami Beach Bid Protest.pdf
Email 2 of 2
Ricardo J. Dopico, CFry Attom�y
OFFiCE OF TFiE ClTV AFT{�NEY
1700 Conven�iw+CerM9►Onve.M�am�88�d+ FL 3313$
Te� 3�673 7170 ; �r 'hy�rt'��...�'!
wE art�cnrnm/ta�d to provrdng escsrbrw vuAi�c aerv�e snd self9Py to eN w►ro rve Kork anrt LM�ry n ou►aerani paipca� hakxr aar�nunfY
pkisc rtot�:Flor�da has a wry broa�d Dubtic Recards taw Mast written commun�catFo�ns ta or hom the C7ty of Mianu ecad+an public reoords
avaElable to my<me upan requesi ThrKefrne.Your e-mail,inc�udin�your rmai�address.may be wbject to pubtic�ixlowre
From:Mictwel Llorente<mithael.11o�ente�isnlaw.cam>
Sent: Friday, March 14, 2025 5:19 PM
To:Carpenter,Eric<EricCarptnter�miamibeachfl.gov>
Ec:Dopica,Ricardo<RicardoDapico�lmiamibeachfl.gov>;Granado, Rafael�RafaelGranado�miamibeachfl.gov>
Subject:Re:9id Pratest of RFP 2024-277-KB,5ecuriry Officer Services("RFP"�
a�ar►�r,��+�Y� �
Please see supplementaf information attached.
On Fri, Mar 14, 2025 at 4:59 PM Mithael Llorente<michaet.lforente�lsnlaw.com>w�ote:
Dear Mr. Manager,
On behalf of Security Alliance, LIC, the 4th ranked proposer in the above-referenced RFP, please accept this
email as a formaf bid protest of the retommended award to Dynamit Integrated Security, Inc. ("DIS") and
Good Guard Florida, Inc. ("GGF").
As a preliminary matter,GGF is not authorized to provide security services in the State of Fbrida.
According to the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services website, GGF's license status is listed as
"ADMIN ACTiON PENdING." Eariier taday, we contarted the Department of Agriculture and confirmed that
GGF dces not have an active iicence to provide security services in the State of florida. Below is a
screenshot from the �partment of Agricuhure website.
i
827 of 1750
Pubiic Acuss 5ystam
a000 a�n no�non.iKc
u�...,.�a.. e.... s�...
.►.......
. .e�,.,,
...��,:,_,
,.,_, ...
.........
... .,... . ,.
��...
s._we. ....,,,,
r�.
uw.�+tirr. . '
We urge you to contact the Qepartment of Agricutture at 850-245-5665 to confirm GGF's license status.
�bviousiy, because GGF was unable to maintain its license active from the proposal submission deadiine
through tontract award, GGF fails to meet the Minimum Qualification Requirements set forth in Appendix A
of the RFP and is unresponsive.
In additinn, GGF falsely represented throughout its proposal th�t GGF inaintains a local office at 6303 Blue
Lagoon Drive. This is not accurate. Again, a review of the Department of Agriculture website indicates that
GGF's application for a seturity services branch office at this locatian was DENIEO.
Pubtic Acceu Sys�em
c000 cu�ao cio�no�.�Mc
.k«,..«..,..o.• ar+.+ tsn�n
w..,r aM
, wT. . • .
1���r
a� n.,tt� .
iw1
A1Yrt�4
Call�lY�l�wM
It appears GGF has no state IKense, no local office, and no laca!contrarts.
This atso mea�s that GGF will be unable to provide enhanced seturity servites during high impact events, as
requi�ed under Section A3 of the RFP. In fact, D1S has the same issue, given its{ack of{ocal contracts. These
companies will not be able to provide enhanced services to the City.
We urge you to award this contract to the incumbent provider, Security Alliances.
z
828 of 1750
�:.•�il.:..JIC:.'.2
LSN LAW�. =��� .�,�,n =
�,�,::. aU�-�. �e:
�::ri:. �c� :��;.�
�Ta:: �aati Lsm+ea�sNiw.oo�a
l�.ii0iiift.G�
This E-M,ul m�sa�g�and�nr documana ao�ompanyutiq[tus E-Mail tranamn4on contun infocmaa�fiom t.6rt La.r.P./C(lormertp d!b/a Llorancs
�tiecJder.P A.},wtuch u"pnvtisqed and conf:dsnhai attorn�y-cli�c�t camm�uuwCon and/or work product af couinel.' II pou u�not tM int�nded
recipient.you are herebr nohfiad that any disclosure.coP1'1n4,dumbutton andlor rhe talunq of or rd:aaranq from uhnq o(asy acaon m rolianca
cn the carntena af t!w E-Mul infocmatwn�s stncHr prolub�tsd aad may r�ault in l�qal acdoa I�ung�xuntut+d agunu�ou. Pi�ase c�pt�ro t!��end�t
�dv�u�q ot tta error in�sansm�tion and del�ta tM eec�ssagr and tny a000mpanru�q docvm�b from your syst�m immsdunly. 'Rtank you.
3
829 of 1750
May 21, 2025
City of Miami Beach Hybrid Commission Meeting/RDAJNBCRA
9:24:52 a.m.
City Clerk Granado noted that Item R9 AC was moved to the Consent Agenda as C4 X at the request of
Commissioner Laura Dominguez to be referred to the Public Safety Neighborhoods and Quality of Life
Committee at the June 3rd meeting.
9:44:50 a.m.
SETTING THE AGENDA
Commissioner Fernandez requested that Items C4 W, C7 AI, and C7 AJ be approved for inclusion in the
Consent Agenda.
City Clerk Granado noted that Item R9 AC was moved to the Consent Agenda as C4 X at the request of
Commissioner Laura Dominguez to be referred to the Public Safety Neighborhoods and Quality of Life
Committee's June 3rd meeting.
Commissioner Fernandez stated that three consent Items had been submitted via Addendum. He explained
that the first was C4 W, which suspends the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) increases on residential
parking rates. The second was C7 AI, which implements the parking holiday to help businesses during the
months of July and August. The third was C7 AJ, which urges the Governor to veto Senate Bill 1730, also
known as the Live Local Act. He acknowledged that these were Addendum Items and apologized for the
late submission. He respectfully requested that the Commission contemplate a motion to accept the Items.
Mayor Meiner responded by noting that the Commission usually handles add-on Items after 5:00 p.m., but
since Commissioner Fernandez had asked nicely, he asked whether there was any objection from the
Commission. Hearing none, Mayor Meiner confirmed that the Items would be added to the agenda.
City Clerk Granado clarified that the previous vote was to accept the Items onto the agenda, and a separate
vote was now needed to approve the three Items.
Commissioner Fernandez made a motion to approve Items C4 W, C7 AI, and C7 AJ. Commissioner
Daminguez seconded the motion.
All members voted in favor. (Vote: 7-0)
Lunch recess was taken at 12:09:58 p.m.
CONSENT AGENDA
Procurement ReQuests - C2
9:27:15 a.m.
C2 A A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2024-277-KB, FOR SECURITY OFFICER SERVICES;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS AND THE AWARD OF
A CONTRACT TO DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC., THE SECOND-RANKED
PROPOSER, AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR AND TO GOOD GUARD FLORIDA, INC., THE
THIRD-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE SECONDARY CONTRACTOR; FURTHER, AUTHORIZING
THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENTS AFTER THE
ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS. (POLICE)
Page 3 of 178
830 of 1750
May 21, 2025
City of Miami Beach Hybrid Commission MeetinglRDA/NBCRA
Applicable Area: Citywide
Procurement
Deferred on 3/19/2025 - C2 A
ACTION: The Item was referred to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee. The
Resolution was not adopted. Commissioners Dominguez, Fernandez, Magazine, and Vice-Mayor
Suarez separated the Item from the consent agenda. Commissioner Fernandez made a motion to
refer Item C2 A, related to the award of RFP 2024-277-KB for Security Officer Services, to the Finance
Committee for further discussion regarding each vendor's local staffing, performance, and the
inclusion of strong employee retention provisions to protect contracted personnel. Vice-Mayor Suarez
seconded the motion. Vote: 7-0. Chief Wayne Jones and Kristy Bada will handle it.
REFERRAL:
Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee—Jason Green to place the Item on the Committee's
pending list. Chief Wayne Jones and Kristy Bada to handle.
City Clerk Granado announced that Commissioner pominguez, Commissioner Fernandez,
Commissioner Magazine, and Vice-Mayor Suarez separated Item C2 A for discussion.
Commissioner Fernandez recommended that the Item be referred to the Finance and Economic
Resiliency Committee for discussion. He stated his interest in having a conversation with staff
regarding each company's local staffing and local performance. He also emphasized the importance
of incorporating strong employee retention language in the final agreement, in the event the City
proceeds with the recommended vendor. He expressed his support for protecting the workforce,
including those serving the community in a contracted capacity, and ensuring that current employees
are not unnecessarily displaced. He noted that some concerns raised on the record resonated with
him and reiterated his preference that the Item be discussed further in committee. Commissioner
Fernandez made a motion to refer Item C2 A to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee.
Commissioner Fernandez asked if the referral would cause any issues for the Administration and
whether there was a deadline to approve the contract.
Kristy Bada, Chief Procurement Officer, clarified that the City is operating under a month-to-month
extension of the existing agreement. While under a cone of silence, the City Attorney confirmed that
the matter could be discussed in the Sunshine.
The motion to refer the Item to the Finance and Economic Resiliency Committee was seconded by
Vice-Mayor Suarez.
Commissioner Fernandez made a motion to refer Item C2 A, related to the award of RFP 2024-277-
KB for Security Officer Services, to the Finance Committee for further discussion regarding each
vendor's local staffing, performance, and the inclusion of strong employee retention provisions to
protect contracted personnel. Vice-Mayor Suarez seconded the motion.
Vote: 7-0.
Handouts and Reference Materials:
1. Email from Michael Llorente, Michael.IlorenteCa�lsnlaw.com, Date: May 9, 2025, RE: Objection to Item C2
A — Citywide Security Services.
Page 4 of 178
831 of 1750
ATTACHMENT D
THIS IS A DRAFT OF THE JULY 16, 2025, FERC. MEETING MINUTES WILL BE APPROVED
AT THE SEPTEMBER 3, 2025, COMMISSION MEETING
NB 1� DISCUSS A RESC7L.UTIUN OF THF MRYtNt AND CIiY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FIORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO 2024-277-KB, FOR SECURITY OFFICER
SERVtCES, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS AN�
THE AWARD OF A C(?NTRACT TO DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC , THE
SECOND-RANKE� PROPOSER,AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR AND TO GOOD GUARD
FLORIDA, INC , THE THfRD-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE SECONOARY CONTRACTOR;
FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND CITY CLERK TU EXECUTE THE
AGREEMENTS AFTER TNE ADMINISTRATION NAS CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS.
(POLICE)
Appl�abie Area Gtywide
F'�ocurement Departme�t 8 Pol�ce Depertment
Procurement Depertment&Pol�ce Depertment
May 21,2025-C2 A
ACTION:
Comm�ssioner Suarez motiaied to have th�s Rem retum to Comm�ssion wRfi a favorable
recommendahon to autt�o�ze the Adminrstratan to enter mto negot�at�ons and award co�tracts
to Dynam� Inte�ated Secur�ty es the pnmary contrector and Secxu►ty Alhence as a seaondary
contractor Gorrnr�ssione�Magazine seca�ded the motion. All m favor.
832 of 1750
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE
FINANCE AND ECONOMIC RESILIENCY COMMITTEE, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS NO. 2024277-KB, FOR SECURITY OFFICER
SERVICES; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO AWARD CONTRACTS
TO THE FOLLOWING (I) DYNAMIC INTEGRATED SECURITY, INC., THE
SECOND-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE PRIMARY CONTRACTOR, AND (II)
SECURITY ALLIANCE, LLC, THE FOURTH-RANKED PROPOSER, AS THE
SECONDARY CONTRACTOR; AND FURTHER, AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE THE FOREGOING AGREEMENTS AND
AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER ANO CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE SAME
AFTER THE ADMINISTRATION HAS CONCLUDED NEGOTIATIONS.
WHEREAS, on April 3, 2024, the Mayor and City Commission approved the issuance of
Request for Proposals No. 2024277-KB (the "RFP")for Securiry Officer Services; and
WHEREAS, the RFP was released on February 23, 2024; and
WHEREAS, a voluntary pre-proposal meeting was held on April 19, 2024; and
WHEREAS, on June 20, 2024, the City received twenty-seven (27) proposals from A &
Associates Inc., d/b/a A8A Security Services, American Guard Services, Inc., Centurion Security
Group, LLC/Feick Partnership, Choice One Protection, LLC, Consumer Investigations, Inc. d/b/a
Protection Bureau, DECO International Security Corp., Delta Five Security, LLC, Dynamic
Integrated Security, Inc., Elite Global Security, LLC, Pro-Secur Inc., Good Guard Florida, Inc.,
GSGI, LLC, Inter-Con Security Systems, Inc., Kent Security Services, Inc., PSI, Security and
Investigations, LLC, Security Alliance, LLC., Servexo Protective Services, SFM Security Services,
Inc., US Security/U.S. Alliance Management Corp., Universal Security Guard Association, Inc.,
Andy Frain Services, Inc., Ardent Protection, LLC, First Class Security Academy 8 Services LLC,
FPI Security Services, Inc., PalAmerican Security, Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and Valus
Security, Inc.; and
WHEREAS, the proposals submitted by Pro-Secur Inc., Andy Frain Services, Inc., Ardent
Protection, LLC, First Class Security Academy 8 Services LLC, FPI Security Services, Inc.,
PalAmerican Security, Inc., The Kemp Group, LLC, and Valus Securiry, Inc. were deemed non-
responsive for failure to meet the requirements of the RFP, and were not further evaluated; and
WHEREAS, on September 5, 2024, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission No. 384-
2024, appointed an Evaluation Committee consisting of the following individuals: Marc Chevalier,
Senior Risk Officer, Human Resources Department, Kenneth Jones, Security Operations
Manager, Police Department, Giacomo Natteri, Facilities Zone Manager, Facilities and Fleet
Management Depa�tment, and Alberto Ventura, Assistant Director, Parking Department; and
WHEREAS,the Evaluation Committee convened on November 14 and 15, 2024,to review
and score the proposals; and
WHEREAS, the Evaluation Committee received an overview of the project, infoRnation
relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the Govemment Sunshine Law, general
information on the scope of services, and a copy of each proposal; and
833 of 1750