20151216 SM2MIAMI BEACH
City Commission Meeting
SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL 2
Gity Hall, Commission Chambers, 3rd Floor, 1700 Convention Genter Drive
December 16,2015
Mayor Philip Levine
Commissioner John Elizabeth Alem6n
Commissioner Ricky Arriola
Com m issioner Kristen Rosen Gonzalez
Commissioner Michael Grieco
Com missioner Joy Malakoff
Commissioner Micky Steinberg
City Manager Jimmy L. Morales
City Attorney Raul J. Aguila
City Clerk Rafael E. Granado
Vrslf us at www.miamibeachfl.gov for agendas and video "streaming" of City Commission Meetings.
ATTENTION ALL LOBBYISTS
Ghapter 2, Article Vl!, Division 3 of the City Code of Miami Beach entitled "Lobbyists" requires the
registration of all lobbyists with the City Clerk prior to engaging in any lobbying activity with the City
Commission, any City Board or Committee, or any personnel as defined in the subject Code
sections. Copies of the City Code sections on lobbyists laws are available in the City Glerk's office.
Questions regarding the provisions of the Ordinance should be directed to the Office of the City
Attorney.
SUPPLEMENTAL AGENDA
R7 - Resolutions
R7A A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking
Of Firms, Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 2015-195-LR For Health Care Benefits
Consulting Services.
(ProcuremenUHuman Resources)
(Deferred from December 9, 2015 - C7l)
(Memorandum)
1
Supplemental Material 2, December 16,2015
R7C Expediting The Proposed South Beach Component Of The Beach Corridor Transit Connection
Project Consisting Of A Light Rail TransiUModern Streetcar System ln South Beach1. A Resolution Approving And Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute A
Memorandum Of Understanding Between City Of Miami Beach, Florida, City Of Miami,
Florida, Miami-Dade County, Florida And Florida Department Of Transportation, District No. 6,
For The Beach Corridor Direct Connection Project, lncluding Authorizing The City Contribution
Of $417,000, Or 4.17% Ot The Overall Study Cost.
2. Discussion On Options To Advance The Proposed South Beach Component Of The Beach
Corridor Transit Connection Project, Consisting Of A Light Rail TransiUModern Streetcar
System ln South Beach, lncluding Action With Respect To June, 2015 Unsolicited Proposal
Received From Greater Miami Tramlink Partners.
(Transportation)
(Additional lnformation)
R7E A Discussion Regarding Work Related To The West Avenue Bridge Across Collins Canal, A
Pedestrian Bridge, Raising Of Dade Boulevard And Ancillary lmprovements For The City.
(Public Works)
(Memorandum)
2
UOMMISSION I I EM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE GITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF
FIRMS, PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 2015-195-LR FOR HEALTH CARE
BENEFITS CONSULTING SERVICES.
Ensure re trends are sustainable over the lonq term.
Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc: N/A
Item Summarv/Recommendation :
The Administration issued RFP 2015-195-LR to seek proposals from qualified firms to provide health care
benefits consulting services. The RFP was approved for issuance July 8, 2015. The RFP was released on
July 9, 2015. A pre-proposal conference to provide information to the proposers submitting a response was
held on July 23, 2015. On September 11,2015, the City received proposals from the following firms: Aon
Risk Solutions, Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc., and Wells Fargo lnsurance.
On November 5, 2015, the Evaluation Committee appointed by the City Manager convened to consider the
responsive proposals received. The Committee was instructed to score and rank the proposals received
pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP. The results of the evaluation committee process
were presented to the City Manager for his recommendation to the City Commission.
After reviewing the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's ranking of the proposals received, the Ci$
Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the Mayor and the City Commission,
pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2015-195-LR, for Health Care Benefits Consulting Services,
authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the highest ranked proposer, Gallagher Benefit
Services, lnc. The City Manager further recommends that the Mayor and City Clerk be authorized to execute
an Agreement upon completion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
UPDATE FROM THE DECEMBER gTH CITY COMMISSION MEETING.
On December 9,2015, the City Commission, pursuant to item C7l, considered the City Manager's
recommendation to negotiate with Gallagher Benefit Services. At the meeting, the second-ranked proposer,
Aon Risk Solutions, despite acknowledging that every member of the Evaluation Committee ranked
Gallagher as the top proposer based on qualifications, scope offered and methodology, presented to the City
Commission that it should be awarded the contract solely because its cost is apparently $30,000 less than
the cost proposed by Gallagher Benefit Services. The City Commission deferred the item to December 16"',
asking the City Manager to conduct further due diligence.
The City Manager conducted additional due diligence (as noted on the attached memorandum) and
reconsidered the results of the Evaluation Committee process, which, again, resulted in Gallagher Benefit
Services being unanimously ranked as the top proposer based on a combination of qualifications, scope and
cost, and reaffirms his recommendation to award the contract to Gallagher Benefit Services.
RECOMMENDATION
ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.
Financiat lnformation: The annual cost associated with the health care benefits consulting services is
195-LR Health Care Benefits Consulting Services -
RTAE MIAMISTACH 3
g MIAMI BEACH
City of Miqmi Beoch, I200 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33'139,
www.miomibeochfl.gov
SSION MORANDUM
TO: Mayor Philip Levine and Members of City
FROM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: December 16,2015
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MA AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,G THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY
MANAGER PERTATNING TO THE RANKING OF FIRMS, PURSUANT TO
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFp) NO. 201s-195-LR HEALTH CARE BENEFITS
CONSULTING SERVICES.
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the resolution.
FUNDING
The annual cost associated with the health care benefits consulting services is subject to the funds
availability approved through the City's budgeting process.
BACKGROUND
On July 8, 2015, the City Commission approved the issuance of Request for Proposals (RFP) No.
2015-195-LR for Health Care Benefits Consulting Services. The Administration issued RFP 2015-195-
LR to seek proposals from qualified firms to provide health care benefits consulting services for the City
of Miami Beach.
RFP PROCESS
The RFP was released on July 9,2015. A pre-proposal conference to provide information to potential
proposers was held on July 23, 2015. On September 11 , 2015, the City received proposals from Aon
Risk Solutions, Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc., and Wells Fargo lnsurance.
On October 20,2015, the City Managerappointed, via letterto Commission (LTC) No.447-2015, an
Evaluation Committee (the Committee), consisting of the following individuals:. Sonia Bridges, Risk Manager, Human Resources Department, City of Miami Beach. Kathie J. Brooks, Assistant City Manager, City of Miami Beach. Tameka Otto-Stewart, Budget Officer, Budget Department, City of Miami Beach. Anne-Marie Sharpe, Risk Manager, City of Miami. Allison Williams, lnterim Acting Assistant Director, Finance Department, City of Miami Beach
The following Alternates were also appointed:. Jim Buschman, Risk Manager, City of Hallandale Beach. Ramon Suarez, Finance Manager, Finance Department, City of Miami Beach
Ms. Brooks and Ms. Sharpe were unable to participate, and were replaced by the listed alternates. The
Committee convened on November 5, 2015, to consider the proposals received. The Committee was
provided an overview of the project, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance and the
Government in the Sunshine Law. The Committee was also provided general information on the scope
of services, references, and a copy of each proposal. The Committee was instructed to score and rank
the proposals pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP.
4
Commission Memorandum - RFP 2015-195-LR Health Care Benefits Consulting Services
December 9, 2015
Page 2
TotetriPdiilts::..
Proposer Experience and Qualifications, including Financial Capability
Scope of Services Proposed
Approach and Methodology
Cost Proposal
45
15
20
20
The RFP also stipulated that additional points would be applied, if applicable, pursuant to the City's
Veteran's Preference Ordinance. However, none of the proposers were eligible for the veteran's
preference.
After proposer's presentations and interviews, the Committee discussed the proposers' qualifications,
experience, and competence, and further scored the proposers in accordance with the qualitative
criteria established in the RFP (experience & qualifications, scope of services, and
approach/methodology). As stipulated in the RFP, cost proposal scores (indicated below) were added
to the qualitative scores established by the committee members. The finat rankings are as follows:
ln determining responsiveness and responsibility of the firm, the Procurement Department verified
compliance with the minimum requirements established in the RFP, financial capacity as contained in
the Dun & Bradstreet Supplier Qualifier Report, and past performance through client references
submitted by each proposer.
MANAGER'S DUE DILIGENCE
After reviewing the submissions and the Evaluation Committee's ranking of the proposals received, the
City Manager exercised his due diligence and is recommending that the Mayor and the City
Commission, pursuant to Request for Proposal (RFP) No.2015-195-LR, for Health Care Benefits
Consulting Services, authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the highest ranked
proposer, Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc. The City Manager further recommends that the Mayor and
City Clerk be authorized to execute an Agreement upon completion of successful negotiations by the
Administration.
The City Manager notes that Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc. is the City's current contractor for benefits
consulting services. According to staff, Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc. has performed well over the 5
year term of the current agreement. Their services have also been attained by other local municipal
agencies such as Palm Beach County Board of County Commissioners, the City of Boca Raton and the
School Board of Broward County.
RFFil2ol5-19s-LR lbalth
Car€ B€nellts Consultlng
Servlces
ooot
osEo lankino
o
e3oto
Eo Rankino
Edio
u?
o
6
6!o
E6F Rankino
c6
E3oo
=o
.E lankino
o
Eg
=coI
ulr{
(,
u-dd(,ad
x3qg
\on Risk SohJtions 76 2 8t 2 9't 2 95 2 80 2 'to
lallaoher Banefil Seruices lnc 95 9t 1 96 1 97 87 5
Ne[s Faroo lnsurance 68 3 80 3 an 3 e7 3 68 3 15
Cost Points
Pmmser Annual Cost
Maxifium
Allowable
Pdintr
Total Points
{on Risk Sohiions s r50 000 00 20 20
3alhoher Benefri Services. lnc.$ 't80.000.00 20 17
Mells Fardo lnsuraree s 200 000 00 20 15
5
Commission Memorandum - RFP 2015-195-LR Health Care Benefits Consulting Services
December9,2015
Page 3
UPDATE FROM DECEMBER 9. 2015 CITY COMMISSION MEETING
On December 9, 2015, the City Commission, pursuant to item C7l, considered the City Manager's
recommendation to negotiate with Gallagher Benefit Services. At the meeting, the second-ranked
proposer, Aon Risk Solutions, despite acknowledging that every member of the Evaluation Committee
ranked Gallagher as the top proposer based on qualifications, scope offered and methodology,
presented to the City Commission that it should be awarded the contract solely because its cost is
apparently $30,000 less than the.cost proposed by Gallagher Benefit Services. The City Commission
deferred the item to December 16'n, asking the City Manager to conduct further due diligence.
Accordingly, the City Manager conducted additional due diligence and reconsidered the RFP (which
awarded 80 points to non-cost factors and 20 points to cost factors), and the results of the Evaluation
Committee process, which, again, resulted in Gallagher Benefit Services being unanimously ranked as
the top proposer based on a combination of qualifications, scope and cost. Based on the following, the
City Manager reaffirms his recommendation to award the contract to Gallagher Benefit Services.
Cost.
Aon's primary argument is that the City would save money by awarding it the contract. First, given the
nature of the services envisioned and services provided in the past, the $30,000 difference between the
two proposals is negligible. Second, when Aon's responses to certain portions of the RFP are
considered, the apparent cost savings may quickly disappear. This is because in its proposal, Aon failed
to agree to unlimited actuarial services as requested in the RFP and as agreed to by Gallagher. As an
example of how Aon's material alteration of the requirements of the RFP may affect pricing, some
actuarial reports previously acquired by the City in other areas (e.9., pension related) have ranged in
cost between $400 and $27,000. ln fact, with Aon's failure to agree to unlimited actuarial services
makes it impossible for the City to determine the full cost of its proposal. ln contrast, under the current
contract Gallagher has provided actuarial reports and assistance to the Budget Advisory Committee and
staff at no additional cost. For these reasons, the apparent cost savings claimed by Aon may not
actually exist and Aon's proposal may result in higher costs than the City is currently paying for the
required services.
Exceptions to RFP Requirements.
ln addition to its failure to agree to unlimited actuarial services, Aon took other exceptions to the
Requirements of the RFP that cause concern. Aon's proposal attempts to limit its liability pursuant to the
required services or for errors in its work. lts proposal included a limitation of liability stating that,
" Should any errors in our work occur, we will correct our work product without any additional charge. ln
addition, to the extent we failed fsic] to satisfy our obligations under this letter, our liability to you will not
exceed a mutually agreed amount. As our sole responsibility under this letter is to the City, the City will
be responsible for any third pafty claims against you or us arsrng out of or in connection with the
seruice. Third pafties include your affiliates, the plans, any trustees and any employees, participants or
their representatives. lf it is determined that any damages fo such third pafties resulted from our error,
we will reimburse the City up to the amount agreed upon in the contract." This attempt to limit liability by
Aon pursuant to the services it would provide is concerning to the City.
Finally, the RFP required that the proposer provide guidance on the transitional fee reinsurance
program and calculate the transitional reinsurance fee. While Aon agreed to provide the City guidance,
it made no mention of calculating of the transitional reinsurance fee, a critical component for the City.
Current Services Provided by Gallagher.
The contract requires that the consultant's work include, but not be limited to: unlimited actuarial support
and analysis of the self-funded medical and dental health care coverage plans, negotiations with
carriers to obtain the best prices and terms and conditions available, support and guidance in the
implementation and impact of the Patient Protection and Affordability Act and interpretation and
application of any other benefit related regulation, actuarial analyses and reporting as required for the
Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) 45 filing, and review and approval of the carriers'
summary plan descriptions.
Through the current consultant agreement, the City has had unlimited access to the lead consultant, two
benefit consultants/account managers, an actuary and a benefits attorney, who are all local.
6
Commission Memorandum - RFP 2015-'195-LR Health Care Benefits Consulting Services
December9,2015
Page 4
Projects/assignments to Gallagher Benefits Consulting in the recent past include, but are not limited to,
reviewing a pharmacy cost containment program, assisting the City with defining the scope of work for
the wellness program RFP and preparing the City to comply with the new IRS reporting requirement as
of March 2016.
Perhaps the most complex and labor-intensive project, not specifically identified in the scope of work
was working with the Budget Advisory Committee in 2012 on an analysis of the City's health plan
services. On August 29, 2012, the premiums paid by the City and its enrolled active employees and
retirees for health care insurance coverage for general employees enrolled in the City's self-funded plan
was discussed by the Committee of the Whole as part of the Mayor's and Commissioner's proposed
budget for FY 2012113.
With Humana's loss of the Baptist network, the consultant assisted with an expedited solution through
an informal process to continue providing the City's insured employees and retirees access to the
Baptist network providers. Consequently, the City Commission approved a two self-funded arrangement
to included AvMed as the carrier to provide access to the Baptist network. A mini-open enrollment
period was opened and the City's insured employees and retirees had the opportunity to make a
change. lt was a seamless process and continuity of care was not disrupted.
When the City needed an experienced benefits manager as part of its staff, Gallagher actively, and for
no additional cost, assisted the City in finding the right person to come in and assume the role, at least
on a temporary basis, while firmer plans were developed.
ln the recent past, Gallagher conducted all the actuarial work to assist the City in offering transgender
health insurance benefits. Their work demonstrated that offering this benefit would not have a
considerable effect on the City's health insurance cost, but could result in a significant recruitment tool
and goodwillamong the community.
Past Performance.
Throughout the years Gallagher has worked closely with the Human Resources Department, Budget
Office and Assistant City Manager, Kathie Brooks. Staff has been responsive to our needs and desires
and has delivered as requested. Quarterly meetings are held to go over our experience and actuarial
projections for the rest of the beneflt year. Their knowledge of the City's experience providing health
care benefits is exhaustive.
The staff attorney and current account manager have spent a significant amount of time familiarizing
City staff with the Patient Protection and Affordability Act, and assisted City staff to ensure fees were
correctly paid and on time.
Gallagher staff responds to calls and emails promptly, including weekends and evenings.
Aon and Broward County entered into a five-year, with two one-year options to renew, agreement for
Owner's Control lnsurance Program (OCIP). Upon expiration of the five-year agreement, Broward
County did not exercise its options to renew; instead, hired their current broker of record, Arthur J.
Gallagher, to continue the administration of their program. ln addition to the four cases in which Aon is
named as a defendant, that appears on Aon's Dunn and Bradstreet Report, the City has learned that
Aon has outstanding issues with Broward County and Miami-Dade County Aviation Department.
CONCLUSION
The Administration continues to recommend that the Mayor and City Commission of the City of Miami
Beach, Florida, approve the resolution accepting the recommendation of the City Manager, pursuant to
Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 2015-195-LR, for Health Care Benefits Consulting Services, authorizing
the Administration to enter into negotiations with Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc. and further authorizing
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement with Gallagher Benefit Services, lnc., upon
completion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
JLM/MT/SCT/AD
T:\AGENDA\2015\Oc{ober\PROCUREMENnRFP 2015-195-LR Health Care Benefits Consulting Services - Memo (FINAL).doc
7
RESOLUTION TO BE SUBMITTED
8
MIAMI BEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, l/00 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSI N MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members the City mrsston
FRoM: Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
DATE: December 16,2015
SUBJECT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION OR AGENDA ITEM R7C
RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY
CLERK TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, CITY OF MIAMI, FLORIDA, MIAMI.DADE COUNTY,
FLORIDA AND FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRIGT NO. 6,
FOR THE BEACH CORRIDOR DIRECT CONNECTION PROJECT, INCLUDING
AUTHORIZING THE CITY CONTRIBUTION OF $417,000, OR 4.17% OF THE
OVERALL STUDY COST.
DISGUSSION ON OPTIONS TO ADVANCE THE PROPOSED SOUTH BEACH
COMPONENT OF THE BEACH CORRIDOR TRANSIT CONNECTION PROJECT
CONSISTING OF A LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT/MODERN STREETCAR SYSTEM IN
SOUTH BEACH, INCLUDING ACTION WITH RESPECT TO JUNE, 2015
UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL RECEIVED FROM GREATER MIAMI TRAMLINK
PARTNERS.
At the December 15, 2015 meeting of the participating entities for the Beach Corridor Transit
Connection, the purpose of which was to review each entity's scope of work for advancing the
approach proposed by Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), several issues were
raised that cause concern as follows:
o FDOT revised its position from the November 30, 2015 Policy Executive Committee
(PEC) meeting and stated that the proposed approach will not allow for each City to
proceed with procurement in parallel to the proposed FDOT approach. (See Attachment
A). As a result, should the Mayor and City Commission elect to proceed with the FDOT
approach, only Option 1 in my prior memo would apply. City of Miami, one of the participating entities in the Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU), raised concerns with the definition of the project as well as their level of funding
participation for the FDOT approach, potentially impacting the timing of the approach
until this issue is resolved.
Given these issues, I am no longer comfortable with proceeding with Option 1, and would
therefore recommend that the Mayor and City Commission proceed with either Option 2 or
Option 3. ln either event, I would recommend that Kimley-Horn be given the opportunity to
evaluate the options and determine the best way to proceed.
JGM/KGB/JRG
Agenda ltem
Date9
ATTACHITENT A
MEI\{ORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDIIT{G
Between
CITY OF MIAMI BEACII, FLORIDA,
CITY OF NIIAI}II, FLORIDA,
MIAMI.DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA
And
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, DISTRICT #6
For
BEACH CORRIDOR DIRECT CONNECTION PROJECT
NEPA ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT, ENGINEERING
AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES; FI.INDING; PROJECT SPONSORSHIP; AND
OPERATING AGENCY
This Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) is entered into between the City of Miami
Beach, Florida (Beach), City of Miami, Florida (City), Miami-Dade County, Florida
(County), and the Florida Department of Transportation District 6 (FDOT), collectively
known as the "Parties."
The Parties wish to continue the efforts already underway to improve regional mobility
which has involved local, regional and state stakeholder collaboration and coordination,
including the Parties' ongoing efforts to identifo optimum multimodal altematives for a
balanced regional transportation system and to define regional and local projects that
support continued economic transit oriented development through effective transportation
and land use planning and subsequent decisions.
The development of a multimodal transportation system within the southeast Florida
region involves numerous transportation agencies and stakeholders and is a complex
undertaking. Each of the Parties has unique skills and abilities which are necessary for
successful implementation of the Beach Corridor Direct Connection Project (formerly
known as Bayl-ink), a fixed guideway corridor project between downtown Miami near
the Govemment Center to the Miami Beach Convention Center via the MacArthur
Causeway, hereinafter referred to as the "Project."
The Parties acknowledge the potential transportation, economic, social, and
environmental benefits of the introduction of passenger rail service linking downtown
Miami with the Convention Center in Miami Beach. The project is identified in the
Miami-Dade 2040 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) as a Priority III partially
funded project for Preliminary Engineering and Right-of-Way phases. [n addition,
portions of the Project are included in the Beach, City and County transportation plans
and programs. It will improve east-west mobility, promote redevelopment and
revitalization, enhance and integrate existing Miami-Dade Transit service, and improve
circulation in the two downtown areas. Introducing passenger service in the Project
corridor will provide an effrcient option to driving on congested streets and highways and
a much-needed integrated transportation link.
10
The purpose of this MOU is to develop a multi-agency partnership for undertaking the
Project, especially as to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process and
Project Development activities. This includes, but is not limited to:. Clarifying the roles and responsibilities of the Parties relative to the Project;. Clarifying the involvement of the Parties relative to the Project;o Identifyrng Project funding;
o Improving the efficiency by which Project activities are conducted;
o Establishing a Project Advisory Committee ("PAC") with specific responsibilities
and regularly scheduled meetings;
. Scheduling regular Project updates to the involved Boards and agencies as
deemed necessary by the PAC ;o Presenting and advancing the Project with a unified voice;
o Coordinating technical studies and evaluations;
o Coordinating outreach to the public, municipalities, and other involved
stakeholders;
. Collaborating on innovative approaches to a funding framework for the Project,
o Maximizing the Region's competitiveness in securing potential federal funding
for the Project;
. Managrng the funding and administration relating to the Project; and
o Determining the Project Delivery method and the responsible parties.
The Parties hereby mutually agree and express their understanding of the following
components:
1. Project Roles. The role of the Parties in conducting the Project shall be as
follows:
a. The Parties agree to pursue the Project under one NEPA document, under
FDOT management.
b. The Parties shall ensure that the Project is coordinated and consistent with
all local, regional, and state transportation plans.
c. All Parties shall seek to reach consensus on key project issues and work
cooperatively towards resolving any conflicts that may arise.
d. All Parties shall ensure that the overall Project Development milestone
schedule (two year required timeline by Federal Transit Administration
"FTA") is maintained throughout the Project, for the entire Project. A
schedule with key milestones (FTA documentation, public meetings, etc.)
will be developed by FDOT and reviewed by the PAC.
e. Upon prioritization of this project as a MPO Priority I funded project for
Planning and Preliminary Engineering phases in the MPO 2040 Long
Range Transportation Plan, FDOT shall coordinate with the Beach, the
City and the County on operations, planning and engineering to support
the advancement of the Project, particularly as it affects the Beach, the
City and the County transportation network and local infrastructure.
f. FDOT, with support from the Beach, the City and the County, will present
regular Project updates quarterly to the MPO, and the Parties' boards.
g. FDOT shall serve as the contract manager for the Project and shall
administer Project funds, and ensure that the Project's procurement
11
process is consistent with Federal, state and local regulation and that
appropriate billing procedures are implemented.
FDOT shall have the primary responsibility for completing all activities
associated with the Project Development Phase and the NEPA process.
FDOT will coordinate this effort directly with the Parties, including
technical support and all presentations, workshops, and hearings.
Following approval of a Locally Preferred Alternative by the Miami-Dade
MPO, FDOT shall submit final NEPA documentation to FTA. Upon
approval of the NEPA document, FDOT on behalf of the Parties, shall
submit a request to FTA to enter the Engineering Phase.
FDOT will coordinate with the PAC regarding coordination with local
govemments addressing station locations, land use, future transit oriented
development opportunities, and related matters.
2. Initial Project Funding. The Parties agree to fund the NEPA and Project
Development activities up to the total amount of $10,000,000. Upon approval and
execution of this MOU by all Parties, the Beach, the City and the County shall each enter
into Locally Funded Agreement ("LFA") for purposes of contributing its portion of
Project funding, as further indicated below:
h.
a.
b,
c.
d.
e.
f.
Ot'
FDOT shall contribute $5,000,000, or 50% of the initial Project funding.
Beach shall contribute $417,000, or 4.17% of the initial Project funding.
City shall contribute $417,000, or 4.17o/o of the initial Project funding.
County shall contribute $417,000, or 4.17o/o of the initial Project funding.
The Parties shall further pursue the funding commitment of the Citizens
Independent Transportation Trust (CITT), in the amount of $3,750,000, or
37.5% of the initial Project funding.
In the event that the entire amount is not expended, the funds will be
returned to the respective party based on the above percentages.
In the event that the entire amount is not enough to cover the initial Prqect
activities cost, FDOT shall provide detailed information as to the need for
additional funding, and will request funding from the Parties according to
the above percentages.
3. Party Involvement in the Project. Each stage of the Project shall be conducted
with the involvement and cooperation of each party. During Project Development, and
subsequent phases, input and approval must be obtained from each party to define the
appropriate proj ect milestones.
4. Project Advisory Committee (PAC): The Parties shall establish a Project
Advisory Committee to provide guidance for the Project and to serye as a liaison to their
respective agencies. The Beach, the City and the County shall each select two
representatives to serve on the PAC and FDOT shall select one representative to serve as
an ex-officio member. All Parties shall provide staff and technical support to the PAC.
The PAC may appoint advisory subcommittees as deemed necessary.
5. Project Finance Plan. FDOT shall have the primary responsibility to develop a
general funding framework which will include anticipated federal, state, and local shares.
The Parties shall have the primary responsibility for project financing, as herein stated,
12
and shall further be responsible for the development of a conceptual project finance plan
that addresses capital costs, operations/maintenance costs, and local contributions. These
efforts will occur simultaneously throughout the course of the Project. The Project
Finance Plan will be coordinated with and integrated into ongoing MPO finance planning
and be presented to the MPO for approval. Approval will be sought by the PAC and all
affected funding parties at the federal, state, county, and municipal levels, as well as other
sources that may be identified, and ultimately brought to the MPO for inclusion in their
Cost Feasible Plans and Transportation lmprovement Plans (TIPs), per federal law.
6. Future Project Funding. Funding for the NEPA and Project Development
Phase of the Project will be included in the FDOT five-year work program. The PAC
shall pursue all sources of capital money to fund the remaining phases of Engineering and
Construction. Operations and maintenance costs shall be a local and regional
responsibility. FDOT shall have no obligations to fund operations and maintenance costs
for the Project. It is the intent of all Parties that the Operating Agency of the Project rail
passenger service will be the Beach, the City, the County, or their agents, and that the
selected entity shall have the primary responsibility for the service. Under no
circumstances will FDOT become the Operating Agency, or fund future operations.
7. Determining the Project Detivery Method and the Responsible Parties. Up to
and near the completion of the NEPA and Project Development work, the Parties will
determine collectively how to proceed into the next phases of the capital program
development process, and may reconsider the Project process as well as Project roles at
that time. The Parties will collaborate on a schedule for proceeding, as well as agree on a
funding plan for the next stage of the capital program development process, engineering
and design. At that time, the Parties will explore and agree upon the preferred Project
Delivery Method, and the associated roles and responsibilities.
8. Basis and Foundation for the Project. It is the intent of the Parties that the
previous work completed for the Project, most notably the Beach Corridor Transit
Connection Study Report (June 2015) and the Phase 2 Miami-Miami Beach
Transportation Cotidor (BayLink) Study (April 2004), shall serve as the basis for the
Project, and the analysis and technical work that went into developing the Direct Connect
altemative shall be used as the foundation for the NEPA and Project Development work.
9. Obligations. Through this MOU, the Parties express their mutual intent to move
in a diligent and thorough manner to develop the Project during the NEPA and Project
Development phase, but understands this MOU is by its nature a preliminary agreement
outlining commitments to be made in this process, and imposes no legally enforceable
contractual obligations on any party, other than the obligations set forth in Paragraph 2
herein.
10. Effective Date. This MOU shall take effect when executed by all Parties, on the
last date shown below, and shall expire upon Project completion, unless extended in
writing by the Parties.
11. Counterparts. This MOU may be executed in counterparts, and when taken
together, the same shall constitute a binding agreement on all Parties.
13
12. Right to Terminate. The Parties agree that if the New Start Project Development
Application is not submitted to the Federal Transit Administration byAugust 15,2016,
any party may choose to terminate this MOU and proceed independently. If the New
Start Project Development Application is submitted by August 15, 2016, then any party
may terminate this MOU no sooner than forty five (45) days and no later than ninety (90)
from the date of the submittal of the New Start Project Development Application. I*
rvith the p-eetrement ef thedesign; eerstruetier; eperatien, er maintenanee ef the Beaeh
WHEREFORE, the Parties have each executed this MOU on the dates below written.
Florida Department of Transportation Miami-Dade County
By:By:
Name:
Title:
Name;
Title:
Date:Date:
Legal review:Legal Review:
City of Miami
Name:
Title:
By:
By:
Irlame;
By:
By:
City of Miami Beach
Date:
Title:
Date:
Legal review:Legal Review:
By:By:
14
g MIAMIBEACH
City of Miomi Beoch, lZ00 Convention Center Drive, Miomi Beoch, Florido 33,139, www.miomibeochfl.gov
COMMISSI MEMORANDUM
Mayor Philip Levine and Members { the City
Jimmy L. Morales, City Manager
December 16,2015
ACROSS COLLINS CANAL, A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, RAISING OF DADE
BOULEVARD AND ANCILLARY IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE CIry.
BACKGROUND
The City of Miami Beach, in coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation,
conducted a Project Development and Environment Study (PD&E) to evaluate the construction
of a new low-level bridge on West Avenue over Collins Canal to connect West Avenue from
north of 17th Streetto south of 18th Street. At itsApril 11,2012 meeting, the City Commission
adopted Resolution No.2012-27892 approving the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) for the
development and construction of the West Avenue Bridge as presented in the PD&E and as
recommended by the City's consultant, Gannett Fleming, lnc. The proposed bridge is expected
to improve traffic safety, transit, bicycle and pedestrian mobility and general safety in the area.
ln addition, the new bridge will create a direct connection across Collins Canal.
On October 14,2015, the City of Miami Beach authorized an agreement with Gannett Fleming,
lnc. for the Design of the New West Avenue Bridge over Collins Canal for the amount of
$537,328.35 (Resolution No. 2014-28728). Gannett Fleming, lnc. was selected through a
competitive procurement process by an Evaluation Committee as the Top-ranked Proposer to
perform the PD&E study with the design as an additional service. FDOT funds paid for the
PD&E study and FDOT funds would also pay for the design fees enumerated above.
The schedule for design has the design completed in mid to late 2016. The idea would then be
to competitively bid the construction work. Construction of the bridge would likely be completed
in late 2017. We would, of course, make every effort to expedite both of these processes.
Earlier this year, the City Engineer requested Bergeron submit a cost proposal for the proposed
bridge, including the design, permitting and construction of the West Avenue Bridge and the
approach, reconstruction/raising of Dade Boulevard, signalization at the intersection of Dade
Boulevard and West Avenue and other incidental work (See attached).
The proposal includes a design component which would require terminating the Gannett
Fleming lnc. agreement and also require the return of the FDOT funding to perform this work.
ln addition, the provisions of the Joint Participation Agreement with the County preclude funding
of many soft costs including design. As a result, the $300,000 for design in the Bergeron
proposal would not be eligible for County reimbursement.
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
ission
Asenda ltem RJ E -
Date IAOE15
Commission Memorandum - 1/h Sfreef Bridge lmprovemenfs - Dlscusslon
Page 2 of 2
ANALYSIS
The principal advantage of the Bergeron proposal is to try to take advantage of the fact that
traffic is at a low volume on Dade Boulevard due to the Venetian Causeway road closure, whilethe County replaces the westerly bridge. The proposed bridge work requires the
reconstruction/raising of Dade Boulevard on the north side of the proposed West Avenue bridge
approach. Performing the proposed work along Dade Boulevard requires lane closures for an
extended period of time. ln theory, by commencing this work while the Venetian Causeway is
closed to through traffic, it will minimize traffic impacts. The Venetian Causeway, however, is
expected to reopen in March 2016.
I am concerned, however, that an award to Bergeron would represent an award of a design-
build contract on a non-competitive basis. I do not believe there is any emergency condition
that would justify a departure from competitive bidding. lf the Commission wants to accelerate
the project while still complying with procurement rules, an alternative approach might be to do
a competitive procurement for a design build and Bergeron could certainly compete in that
process.
There is no question that Bergeron is familiar with the project site as they constructed the Alton
Road lmprovements for FDOT and are currently constructing 17tn Street and West Avenue for
the City of Miami Beach. Bergeron is currently mobilized and, according to the City Engineer,
has the resources to finish this project in 2016. The question is whether convenience justifies
departing from a competitive process.
The Bergeron proposal includes a proposal to construct a pedestrian bridge. This bridge would
span Collins Canal between Lincoln Court and Dade Boulevard opposite Purdy Avenue. The
additional cost related to this bridge is $885,000. This specific project has not been publicly
noticed or discussed. I am reluctant to recommend including a new project that has not been
vetted.
CONCLUSION
The Administration is seeking direction from the City Commission regarding the construction of
the West Avenue Bridge and a possible project to construct a pedestrian bridge.
J LM/ETC/J J F/BAMA/VR B/LJ S
16
PROPOSAL 12-09-2015
Bergeron Land Development, lnc.
n r ffi. ( r L96L2S.W. 59th Place-r-)"1( ;) ct I', [(f) l\l Ft.Lauderdare,FL33332l_)-i-:.J\\----- \r
LANDDEtELot"E*,^c. Contact: Brian Landis
Phone: 954-218-7875
Fax:786-476-0724
Quote to: City of Miami Beach Job Name: Bridges on Dade Blvd &
West Ave
Phone:
Fax:
Attn: Bruce Mowry
Description Unit Quant.Unit Price Total
Design LS 1.00 s300,000.00 s300,000.00
I,uality Control and Testing LS 1.00 S28o,ooo.oo S28o,ooo.oo
Bridge EA L.00 5995,000.00 5995,000.00
Bridge Lighting LS 1.00 Sloo,ooo.oo Sloo,ooo.oo
3lear & Grubb LS 1.00 Szs,ooo.oo Szs,ooo.oo
Embankment CY 500.00 s20.00 Slo,ooo.oo
Sravity Wall/Handrail LF 545.00 S33o.oo S179,850.00
Iype F Curb LF 1,369.00 s22.oo S30,118.00
5'Concrete Sidewalk SY 915.00 Sqz.oo S38,430.00
Water LS 1.00 s12,666.68 S12,GGG.G8
>ewer LS 1.00 5L7,L66.61 Stl,too.al
Drainage LS L.00 5L5,766.72 515,766.12
Stabilized Subgrade SY 4,285.00 S+.so 519,282.50
Base SY 4,285.00 Sre.oo s68,560.00
Asphalt Paving TN 472.OO s13s.00 s63,720.00
I ntersection Signa I ization LS 1.00 s320,000.00 5320,000.00
Pedestrian Bridge LS 1.00 s885,000.00 S885,ooo.oo
Street Lighting LS 1.00 S2zs,3so.oo S27s,360.oo
TOTAL S3,685,920.57
Page 1 of 3
17
NOTES:
1. The reconstruction of Dade Blvd and West Ave at West Ave are based off Attachment A.
2. Embankment to be a line item, only to be billed for what is used per cubic yard that the City
cannot provide.
EXCLUS!ONS:
3. Gravity Wall is not included along Collins Canal.
STANDARD TERMS AND CONDITIONS
L Unless otherwise stated in this proposal, bond is included.
2 Unless otherwise stated in this proposal testing, testing fees are by others.
3 Permit fees by others.
4 All material is guaranteed to be as specified.
5 All work to be completed in a workmanlike manner according to standard practices.
6 Any alteration or deviation from above specifications involving extra costs, will be executed only
upon written orders, and will become an extra charge over and above the proposal.
7 Unless otherwise indicated in writing, this proposal expires Thirty (30) days from date of quote if
not accepted in writing before that time. At the sole option of Bergeron Land Development, lnc.
(Hereinafter Bergeron), this proposal may be extended for additional periods of time.
8 lt is expressly agreed that there are no promises, agreements, or understandings not set out in
this proposal. Any subsequent cancellations or modifications must be mutually agreed upon in
writing.
9 Unless a lump sum price is to be paid for the Foregoing work and is clearly so stated, it is
understood and agreed that the quantities referred to above are estimates only and that payment
shall be made at the stated unit price for the actual quantities of materials utilized and work
performed by Bergeron as determined upon completion of work.
10 Changes in labor classification or assignment of work by anyone other than Bergeron will
establish a basis for renegotiation of prices set forth in this contract. At the sole option of Bergeron,
this proposal may be canceled in the event that said changes or assignment occur or in the event
that said renegotiation is deemed unsatisfactory by Bergeron.
11 Unless otherwise agreed, any additional expense not covered by this proposal which is incurred
by Bergeron as a result of performing work under conditions of or caused by adverse weather, will
be borne by Customer.
L2 lf for causes beyond Bergeron's control, its work is not completed within twelve (12) months
after the date of acceptance of this proposal; Bergeron may cancel this agreement at any time
thereafter on ten (10) days written notice.
13 ln the event of a misunderstanding or conflict between the terms and conditions stated in the
plans and specifications, this proposal shall govern.
Page 2 of 3
18
14 Unless a time for the performance of Bergeron's work is specified, Bergeron shall undertake its
work in the course of its normal operating schedule. Bergeron shall not be liable for any failure to
undertake or complete work due to causes beyond its control, including but not limited to fire,
flood, or other casualty, labor disputes, accidents and Acts of God, whether directly or indirectly
affecting this work or other operations in which Bergeron is involved.
L5 Unless otherwise agreed herein, payment terms are net cash, upon receipt of Bergeron's invoice.
All monies not paid when due bear interest at the maximum rate allowed by law at the project.
16 lf an agent and/or attorney is employed by Bergeron for collection of any delinquent payment,
Customer agrees to pay, in addition to the service charge, all fees for the services of such agent
and/or attorney (including, but not limited to, all fees and costs incidental to any appeals) together
with all costs, charges and expenses, regardless of whether or not suit be brought.
17 This proposal and agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Florida without regard
to principles of conflicts of laws. Venue of all proceedings shall be in Broward County, Florida and
Customer waives whatever rights it may have in the selection of venue and hereby consents to
jurisdiction.
18 This agreement is subject to approval from Bergeron's Credit Department.
ACCEPTANCE OF PROPOSAL
The above prices, specifications and conditions are hereby accepted. You are authorized to do the
work as specified.
Payment will be made fifteen days after approved invoice is received.
SIGNATURE:
DATE:
These prices are firm for 30 DAYS AFTER BID DATE.
Page 3 of 3
19
JHEF - --l
:::' E i
e: i; ; '[rl
q SNOIJIONOS
'NIJSIXqoATg govo
HJVgg il[Wh. ,{O ,{JIJ
p,
I
rls1
,4,
li
]E
1:
6
li:
\
\
- '1 'le'ttw.
V-----.--,-
[il) ry "----',-- -\ry\' \-,\\l ; \l"Ni - \
U
-{_
\r"
'rrCv
.d
hs
rtil
,iI
[.!'i
\]-
1
5u*
sg8
SE:
E 3.ErF*+t
L
E9H
gEE g
EE PE
E;ET
+rvrF5estobfiiz
f;€E
=+{,
20
Soto, Luis
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Aftachments:
Luis,
FYI
Roger
Buell, Roger
Wednesday, December 09, 2015 7:4L AM
Soto, Luis
FW:schedule for Miami Beach work
image00Ljpg; image002jpg
From: Mowry, Bruce
Sent: Tuesday, December 08, 2015 9:47 PM
To: Buell, Roger; Pena, Giancarlo
Subject: Fwd: schedule for Miami Beach work
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Chad Widup <cwidup@bereeroninc.com>
Date: December 8, 2015 at 4:39:04 PM EST
To: "Bruce Mowry (brucemowrv@miamibeachfl.gov)" <brucemowrv@miamibeachfl.gov>, Brian Landis
<blandis@ bergeroninc.com>
Subject: schedule for Miami Beach work
Bruce
This is the tentative schedule that we would be looking at:
NTP Dec L7 - Start Design
Jan 25,201,6 - Bridge Foundation design release for construction
Jan 26 - order piles
Feb 8 - Substructures design release for construction & confirm precast Ped. Bridge Structure
Feb9-ordergirders
Feb. 29 - Bridge Design released for construction
Mar 7 - start bridge construction
Apr 1- Design complete
Apr 11 - Close Dade Blvd / M'il / start embankment / raise structures
Apr 14 - set girders
Apr. 25 - Embankment for Bridge West Ave & 17th
May 16 - Cure bridge deck
June 5 - Start Bridge Railing / Drainage
June 20 - install lighting on Bridge / roadway lighting relocation
June 27 - Roadway Base
July 11- Roadway Asphalt
1
21
July 31 - Open all roadways
Tha n ks
Chad Widup, PE
Operations Director
Bergeron Land Development lnc
tgStzSW 69th Place
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl 33332
(Office) 954-680-6100
(Cell) 954-214-L39L
E-M ail - cwidup@ bergeroninc.com
http ://www. be rgeron la nddev. com
tr
tr
22
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYORAND CITY CLERK
TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDER NO. 6 TO THE DESIGN-BUILD AGREEMENT WITH
BERGERON LAND DEVELOPMENT, lNC., DATED APRTL 30, 201 4 (THE AGREEMENT)
IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,081,013 FOR WORK RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF
THE WEST AVENUE BRIDGE OVER COLLINS CANAL.
WHEREAS, at its February 12,2014 meeting, the City Commission approved and authorized the City
Manager to procure the necessary emergency design and construction services, pursuant to a negotiated
design-build contract for the stormwater pump stations for 6'n, 10'n and 14'n Streets, with Bergeron Land
Development, lnc. (Bergeron), a Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) contractor for the Alton Road
lmprovements Project, in an amount not to exceed $11,250,000 (the Agreement); and
WHEREAS, the City Commission approved Change Orders No. 1 through No. 5 in the total amount of
$23,041,696 on June 1 1, 2014, September 02, 2014, October 29, 2014, April 15, 2015 and September 2,
2015 respectively, to increase the scope of the Agreement of the Design Build Contract; and
WHEREAS, The City of Miami Beach in coordination of FDOT conducted a Project Development and
Environmental Study (PD&E) to evaluate the construction of a new low-level bridge on West Avenue over
Collins Canal to conhect West Avenue from north of 17th Street to south of 18th Stieet; and
WHEREAS, at its April 11,2012 meeting, the City Commission adopted Resolution No.2012-27892
approving the preferred alternative (Alternative 2) for the development and construction of the West Avenue
Bridge as presented in the PD&E and as recommended by the City's consultant, Gannett-Fleming, lnc.; and
WHEREAS, the proposed West Avenue Bridge is expected to improve traffic safety, transit, bicycle
and pedestrian mobility and general safety in the area. ln addition, the new bridge will create a direct
connection across Collins Canal. The proposed Lincoln Court pedestrian bridge was not part of the PD&E
study but it also improves pedestrian and bicycle mobility; and
WHEREAS, time is of the essence to move forward with construction of both bridges while traffic is at
a low volume on Dade Boulevard due to the west end of the Venetian Causeway road closure; and
WHEREAS, Public Works Department requested Bergeron to submit a cost proposal for the proposed
bridges, including the design, permitting and construction of the West Avenue and the approach,
reconstruction of the Dade Boulevard, signalization at the intersection of Dade Boulevard and West Avenue
and other incidentalwork; and
WHEREAS, Bergeron submitted for review a proposal to complete the work and the City Engineer's
opinion of probable construction cost determines that the final amount of $3,081,013 (including 10%
contingencies) is considered reasonable for the scope of work that is included; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF MIAM! BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City Commission hereby approve and authorize
the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Change Order No. 6 to the Agreementwith Bergeron Land Development,
lnc., dated April 30, 2014 (the Agreement), in the amount of $3,081,013, for all work related to installation of
the West Avenue Bridge, raising of Dade Boulevard and ancillary improvements for the City.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this day of
ATTEST:
2015
Rafael Granado, City Clerk
T:lAGENDAUO1s\December\PUBLIC WORKS\Bergeron CO No. 6 - Reso.docx
Philip Levine, Mayor
23
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
24