2004-25764 Reso
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-25764
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY
OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE CITY MANAGER PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PARKING
COMPANIES/OPERATORS PURSUANT TO REQUEST
FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 18-03/04 FOR THE SELECTION OF A
PARKING COMPANY/OPERATOR TO SUPPLY PARKING CASHIERS
ATTENDANTS AND SUPERVISORS; AUTHORIZING THE
ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-
RANKED FIRM OF STANDARD PARKING INC., AND SHOULD THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION
TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM OF CENTRAL
PARKING SYSTEM; AND FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND
CITY CLERK TO EXE'CUTE AN AGREEMENT HAVING TERMS AND
CONDITIONS CONSISTENT WITH, AND AS REQUIRED BY RFP NO. 18-
03/04 AND THE SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER'S RESPONSE THERETO,
UPON THE COMPLETION OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY
THE ADMINISTRATION.
WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Commission, at its January 14, 2004 meeting
adopted Resolution No. 2004-25452 which authorized the issuance of a Request for
Proposal (RFP) for parking cashiers, attendants, and supervisors for the City of Miami
Beach Parking Department; and
WHEREAS, on February 6, 2004, RFP No. 18/03-04 (the RFP) was issued and
notices sent to 26 individuals or firms, which resulted in the receipt of five qualifications
packages from the following firms:
1) Standard Parking Inc.;
2) Central Parking Systems;
3) AM Parking;
4) Imperial Parking;
5) Quik Park; and
WHEREAS, on August 6,2004 proposals submitted by Imperial Parking, Quik Park
and AM Parking in response to RFP No. 18-03/04 were deemed non-responsive after
review by the Parking Department, the City Attorney's Office and the Procurement Division;
and
WHEREAS, the forestated proposals failed to conform to the Minimum
Requirements/Qualifications, as set forth in Section IIIB.A. on page 19 of the RFP, which
states:
The Firm(s) shall have a record of satisfactory performance within the State of
Florida in the past three consecutive years providing hourly trained personnel with
experience in gated parking revenue control equipment, preferably Federal APD
equipment, to a public agency and/or private concern of comparable size and
magnitude to the City of Miami Beach; and
WHEREAS, on May 10, 2004, the City Manager, via Letter to Commission No. 114-
2004, appointed an Evaluation Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following
individuals:
Chester Escobar, Assistant Parking Directorl On-Street Parking;
Arthur Noriega, Executive Directorl Miami Parking Authority;
Jerry Libbin, North Beach Resident;
Diana Egozi, AYUDA;
Eva Barreto, Ocean Bank;
Scott Needleman, South Beach Resident;
Steve Clark, SMG Operation Manager;
Ray Breslin, Resident/Neighborhood Leadership Academy Graduate;
Marlo Courtney, Transportation and Parking Committee; and
WHEREAS, the Committee convened on November 3, 2004, and was provided with
an overview of the RFP, information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance, and
the Government in the Sunshine Law;and
WHEREAS, the Committee then listened to presentation by Saul Frances, the City's
Parking Director and a presentation on the RFP Evaluation Criteria by Gus Lopez, the
City's Procurement Director; and
WHEREAS, after evaluating the proposals, the Committee engaged in deliberations
of the given proposals; and
WHEREAS, the Committee, after evaluating the proposals, deliberated and ranked
and scored each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria established in the RFP, which
was as follows (total possible 100%):
Evaluation Criteria/Factors:
Weiaht
Professional experience and past performance:
Hourly Billing Rate (Unit Cost)
Approach to the project and staffing strategies:
Financial Stability:
Personnel resources, oversight, and management plan:
Total:
25%
25%:
20%
15%
15%
100%; and
WHEREAS, the Committee unanimously ranked Standard Parking as the top-
ranked proposer and Central Parking as the second-ranked proposer pursuant to the RFP;
and
WHEREAS, the City Manager was briefed on the Committee's ranking and after
reviewing both proposals and the Committee's recommendation, he concurs with the
Committee's ranking.
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 accept the recommendation of the City Manager pertaining to the ranking of
Parking Companies/Operators pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 18-03/04 for
the selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers Attendants and
Supervisors; authorize the Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm
of Standard Parking Inc., and should the Administration not be able to negotiate an
agreement with the top-ranked firm, authorize the Administration to negotiate with the
second-ranked firm of Central Parking System; and further authorize the Mayor and City
Clerk to execute an agreement upon the completion of successful negotiations by
the Administration.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 8th day of December 2004.
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
~k r~dw--
JMG/CMC/SS/GL
T:\AGENDA \2004\Dec0804\RegularlParkingCashier .RES.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
:s ...t; () (;
,(..-
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
m
=-
--
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Accepting The Recommendation Of The City Manager Pertaining To The Ranking Of Parking
Companies/Operators Pursuant To Request For Proposals (RFP) No. 18-03/04 For The Selection Of A
Parking Company/Operator To Supply Parking Cashiers Attendants And Supervisors; Authorizing The
Administration To Enter Into Negotiations, And Further Authorizing The Mayor And City Clerk To Execute
An A reement U on The Com letion Of Successful Ne otiations B The Administration.
Issue:
I Shall the City Commission adopt the resolution?
Item Summary/Recommendation:
The Mayor and City Commission at its January 14, 2004 meeting adopted Resolution No. 2004-25452
which authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for parking cashiers, attendants, and
supervisors for the City of Miami Beach Parking Department.
On February 6, 2004, RFP No. 18/03-04 was issued and notices sent to 26 individuals or firms, which
resulted in the receipt of five qualifications packages from the following firms: 1) Standard Parking Inc.; 2)
Central Parking Systems; 3) AAA Parking; 4) Imperial Parking; and 5) Quik Park.
On August 6, 2004, proposals submitted by Imperial Parking, Quik Park and AAA Parking in response to
RFP No. 18-03/04 were deemed non-responsive after review by the Parking Department, the City
Attorney's Office and the Procurement Division. The three proposals failed to conform to the Minimum
Requirements/Qualifications as set forth in Section IIIB.A. of the RFP.
Quik Park filed a protest which argued that Standard Parking's proposal should be disqualified for violating
the Vendor Campaign Contribution Ordinance and failing to complete the required documentation as a joint
venture proposal. Quik Park's protest was denied after thorough research by the City Attorney's Office and
the Miami-Dade County Ethics Commission.
On May 10, 2004, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 114-2004 appointed an Evaluation
Committee (the "Committee"). The Committee unanimously ranked Standard Parking as the most qualified
firm to provide parking cashiers, attendants and supervisors.
APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION.
Advisory Board Recommendation:
IN/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount Account Approved
Funds: 1 $1,694,802 480-0463-000-312
D 2 $333,051 142-6976-000-312
3 $280,525 463-1990-000-312
4
Finance Dept. Total $2,308,378
Si n-Ofts:
Department Director
Assistant City Manager
City Manager
SF CMC~ JMG
T:\AG EN DA\2004\Dec0804\Regular\ParkgCashiersltem Sum mary.doc
AGENDA ITEM
DATE
R71
/;2.-Z-oy
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.miamibeachfl.gov
m
To:
From:
Subject:
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
Mayor David Dermer and Date: December 8, 2004
Members of the City Commission
Jorge M. Gonzalez ,.. --'. /
City Manager 0 "'--0-
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE CITY MANAGER
PERTAINING TO THE RANKING OF PARKING COMPANIES/OPERATORS PURSUANT
TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 18-03/04 FOR THE SELECTION OF A
PARKING COMPANY/OPERATOR TO SUPPLY PARKING CASHIERS ATTENDANTS
AND SUPERVISORS; AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM OF STANDARD PARKING INC., AND
SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION NOT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT
WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE
WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM OF CENTRAL PARKING SYSTEM; ANDFURTHER
AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CITY CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT UPON
THE COMPLETION OF SUCCESSFUL NEGOTIATIONS BY THE ADMINISTRATION.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
AMOUNT AND FUNDING
$2,308,378
Funds are available in the following Parking Department accounts:
Parking Enterprise Fund
7th Street Garage
Anchor Garage (RDA)
480-0463-000-312
142-6976-000-312
463-1990-000-312
LIVING WAGE IMPACT
The fiscal impact of the Living Wage Ordinance requirements on this project is $603,494. The City
currently pays $1,704,884 annually for parking cashiers, attendants and supervisors. As a direct
result of the living wage requirements, the cost under the new contract may (subject to negotiations)
equate to $2,308,378 annually. Attached is a cost comparison between the current contract with
APCOAlStandard (living wage is not applicable) with the recommended firm's (Standard Parking)
billing rates.
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 20f12
ANALYSIS
The Mayor and City Commission at its January 14, 2004 meeting adopted Resolution No. 2004-
25452 which authorized the issuance of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for parking cashiers,
attendants, and supervisors for the City of Miami Beach Parking Department.
The Parking Department (the"Department") has collaborated with private industry and through a
partial privatization of services accomplished a "partnership approach" to managing its parking
facilities. The Department has been very successful using the concept of private sector expertise
with public sector oversight. The Department has a management team in place consisting of an
Assistant Director (Project Mar'lager), an Operations Manager, and five facility supervisors, all of who
are employed by the City.
As a "partnership", the Department has competitively bid for contract services including,
cashiers/attendants/supervisors, security services, janitorial services, and landscaping services.
To this end, the existing labor pool contract for cashiers, attendants, and supervisors with
APCOA/Standard and VIP's Parking Systems is in its final term, expiring on August4, 2004, with no
options for renewal. This necessitates a competitive bidding process vis-a-vis the issuance of an
RFP in order to procure this service.
RFP PROCESS
On February 6, 2004, RFP No. 18/03-04 was issued and notices sent to 26 individuals or firms,
which resulted in the receipt of five qualifications packages from the following firms:
1) Standard Parking Inc.
2) Central Parking Systems
3) AAA Parking
4) Imperial Parking
5) Quik Park
IMPERIAL PARKING'S DISQUALIFICATION
On August 6, 2004 proposals submitted by Imperial Parking, Quik Park and AAA Parking in
response to RFP No. 18-03/04 were deemed non-responsive after review by the Parking
Department, the City Attorney's Office and the Procurement Division. The three proposals failed to
conform to the Minimum Requirements/Qualifications as set forth in Section IIIB.A. on page 19 of
the RFP, which states:
The Firm(s) shall have a record of satisfactory performance within the State of
Florida in the past three consecutive years providing hourly trained personnel
with experience in gated parking revenue control equipment, preferably
Federal APD equipment, to a public agency and/or private concern of
comparable size and magnitude to the City of Miami Beach.
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 3 of 12
As it relates to Imperial Parking, none of their State of Florida references were of comparable size
and magnitude to the City of Miami Beach.
1060 Brickel Avenue -- 106 stalls
Derm Lot 120 stalls
Kapustin Lot -- 87 stalls
QUIK PARK'S DISQUALIFICATION
As it relates to Quik Park, none of their State of Florida references were of comparable size and
magnitude to the City of Miami Beach. On page 4 of Quik Park response, the following references
are listed, none of them meeting the minimum required qualifications set by the City:
. The Royal Palm Hotel: Valet Operation and 95 spaces
. Westin Diplomat Hotel: Valet Operation, 2,000 spaces self park, 1,000 valet, and
started Nov 2001
. Ocean Steps: Small parking garage at 1501 Collins Ave, 206 spaces.
. Sagamore Hotel: Valet Operation
. Opium Garage: Small self park lot across from Opium. No Garage, 50 space lot
. Tuscan Garage: 167 spaces No public parking permitted.
None of the aforementioned references meet the minimum requirements of three consecutive
years providing hourly trained personnel with experience in gated parking revenue control
equipment, preferably Federal APD equipment to a public agency and or private concern of
comparable size and maanitude to the City of Miami Beach.
All of the other references are commercial garages and lots that may have at best three attendants
and possibly one supervisor overseeing multiple daytime (business district) operations that are not in
any way similar/comparable to our RFP requirements.
AAA PARKING'S DISQUALIFICATION
As it relates to AAA Parking, none of their State of Florida references were within the past three
consecutive years of providing hourly trained personnel with experience in gated parking revenue
control equipment. The only comparable size reference, Centroplex Facilities, Orlando, Florida,
reflects a start date which the City confirmed, of August 1, 2003. The Florida reference Centroplex
had a start date of August 2003 thereby making them non-responsive under the minimum three
years of continued operation.
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 4 of12
QUIK PARK'S PROTEST REGARDlNGSTANDARD PARKING
In filing its Protest, Quik Park:
- Alleged non-responsiveness of Standard Parking Corporation's (Standard) proposal in
response to the subject RFP; and
- Alleged violation of City of Miami Beach Code Section 2-487 entitled "Prohibited Campaign
Contributions by Vendors".
Herein below follows the City's findings and conclusions on the issues presented based upon the
facts and information made available to the City Attorney's Office.
I. Alleaed Non-responsiveness of Standard's proposal in response to the subiect RFP.
Quik Park's Bid Protest alleges that the proposal submittal by Standard in response to
the RFP (the "Standard Proposal") is non-responsive based on the following:
. The RFP requires proposers to complete and execute a Questionnaire (see pages 29 through
32 of the RFP); Said Questionnaire requires proposers to identify the proposer's name, and
whether the proposer is an individual, partnership or corporation. Quik Park alleges that, as the
Standard Proposal identifies the proposer as Standard Parking Corporation (and not as a joint
venture between Standard Parking and Frank Pintado), the Proposal is "... materially non-
responsive on its face...
. Quik Park further alleges that the Standard Proposal is also materially deficient in that it fails to
procure the signature of Frank Pintado at the end of the Questionnaire.
The City's review of the Standard Proposal, and the supporting documentation submitted with the
Proposal, indicates that the proposer entity is Standard Parking Corporation. This is evidenced by
the following:
. Standard's execution, through its Regional Manager-State of Florida Operations, of the
Proposer Information form.
. Standard is identified as the proposer in the Declaration form, which is also executed by the
Regional Manager.
. Standard is identified as the proposer in the Questionnaire; said Questionnaire is executed by
the Executive Vice President of Standard, and attested to by an Assistant Corporate Secretary.
. All references to the "proposer" by Standard in the text of its Proposal refer to and/or directly
name Standard Parking Corporation.
The Standard Proposal discloses and identifies Frank Pintado as a "joint venture". Mr. Pintado is
also disclosed and identified as a member of Standard's Management Team.
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 50f12
The issue of non-responsiveness turns on whether the relationship between Standard and Mr.
Pintado, as disclosed in the Standard Proposal, evidences such an interest in the work product as
would require Mr. Pintado to join with Standard in submitting the response, and whether the failure
of such join makes the Standard Proposal non-responsive.
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE REVIEW
The City Attorney's Office investigation of the facts alleged in Quik Park's Bid Protest consisted of
review of the RFP; review of the Standard Proposal; interview of Mr. Pintado; communication with
Mr. Pintado's legal counsel; and review of the portions of an instrument, the "Joint Venture
Agreement" between Apcoa/Standard Parking, Inc. and VIP's Parking Systems, Inc. (the Joint
Venture Agreement, referred to in the following paragraphs), as provided to the City by Mr. Pintado's
counsel.
A review of those portions of the Joint Venture Agreement provided to the City Attorney's Office
showed Standard Parking Corporation (as successor in interest to Apcoa/Standard Parking, Inc.)
and VIP's Parking Systems, Inc., (a corporation which is 50% owned by Frank Pintado and 50%
owned by Maria Pintado), are parties to an agreement to form a joint venture, dated June 6, 2000
(the "Joint Venture Agreement").
The Joint Venture Agreement was ostensibly entered into to perform services pursuant to the award
of the proposal submitted jointly by ApcoalStandard-VIP's Parking Systems, pursuant to Request for
Proposals No. 62-98/99, dated May 13, 1999. The award was for a two (2) year contract (with an
option for three (3) additional one (1) year terms) to supply parking cashiers/attendants and
supervisors for the City of Miami Beach parking system (the 1999 RFP).
Paragraph 2 of the Joint Venture Agreement states that, in addition to the 1999 contract between
the City and Apcoa/Standard-VIP's Parking Systems, as the number one ranked proposer pursuant
to the 1999 RFP, any future project in which the joint venture is a participant shall be entered into in
the name of the joint venture, which is set forth in Paragraph 2 therein as the "Apcoa/Standard
ParkingNIP Joint Venture."
In the instant case, the pre-existence of a separate "joint venture agreement" between
Apcoa/Standard Parking and VIP's Parking Systems does not, in and of itself, determine the
question of whether Standard's Proposal to the City should be considered a submittal by a joint
venture, and not a submittal solely by Standard Parking Corporation.
In Kislak v. Kreedian, 95 So.2d 510, 515 (Fla. 1957), the Florida Supreme Court set forth the
necessary elements to be proven in order to establish the existence of a joint venture agreement.
In addition to the essentials of an ordinary contract, in contracts creating joint ventures there must
be (1) a community of interest in the performance of the common purpose, (2) joint control or right of
control, (3) a joint proprietary interest in the subject matter, (4) a right to share in the profits and (5) a
duty to share in any losses which may be sustained.
See also, Brownina v. Pevton, 918 F.2d 1516 (11th Cir. 1990).
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 6 of 12
For purposes of determining whether the Standard Proposal is responsive and materially complies
with the requirements of the 2004 RFP, this Office reviewed the Joint Venture Agreement to
determine whether there was anything on its face or in any other factual evidence that would
indicate that the proposer entity was or should be construed to include any entity other than
Standard.
The plain language on the face of the Standard Proposal evidences that the proposer entity is
Standard Parking Corporation, not the same entity as the one named in the Joint Venture
Agreement (Apcoa/Standard ParkingNIP Joint Venture). The Standard Proposal is distinguishable
from the response submitted pursuant to the 1999 RFP, where the proposer entity was identified as
Apcoa/Standard-VIP's Parking Systems; the response and supporting documentation was
submitted by Apcoa/Standard-VIP's Parking Systems; and the subsequent contract with the City
was entered into with Apcoa/Standard-VIP's Parking Systems.
Additionally, Section 21 of the Joint Venture Agreement provides for a "first refusal" right and
procedure for the exercise of that right. The net effect is that either party upon notification of a
parking contract and its terms will have seventy two (72) hours to notify the other party in writing of
its willingness to go forward with the contract under the terms of the Joint Venture Agreement.
There is no evidence that VIPI Mr. Pintado opted to participate as a joint venture in the subject
transaction contemplated by the 2004 RFP.
The documentation reviewed by this office, taken as a whole (Le. the Joint Venture Agreement, the
Proposal and their respective attachments) do not create a presumption that the proposer, the one
responsible to the City, was any entity but Standard.
The City can only review evidence available to it and it has no subpoena power in the instant
situation. It cannot substitute its own judgment as to the intent of the parties in an agreement to
which the City is not a party to and which is outside the scope of the RFP. It is this Office's opinion
that, notwithstanding the disclosure of Mr. Pintado's services as a "joint venture partner and
management team member", Mr. Pintado is not a proposer under the 2004 RFP and was not
required to join in the response to said RFP.
II. Alleged Violation of City's Ordinance Prohibiting Camoaign Contributions by Vendors.
As established above, inasmuch as Mr. Pintado is not a "proposer" for purposes of the subject
pending bid award, he is therefore similarly not a City "vendor" regarding the subject award. The
only relevant inquiry is with regards to Mr. Pintado's existing contract with the City of Miami Beach
(the 1999 contract).
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 7 of 12
City Code Section 2-487 prohibits "Vendors" from directly or indirectly giving campaign contributions
to a candidate for the offices of Mayor or Commissioner. The term "Vendor" is defined as: "a person
and/or entity who has been selected by the City as the successful bidder on a present or pending
bid for goods, equipment or services, or has been approved by the City on a present or pending
awards of goods, equipment or services, prior to or upon execution of a contract, purchase order or
standing order". The term "Vendor" further includes". .. natural persons and/or entities who hold a
controlling financial interest in a vendor entity." Miami Beach City Code Section 2-487 A(4 )(a). The
ordinance further states that a ". .. person or entity who directly or indirectly makes a contribution to a
candidate who is elected to the office of the Mayor or Commissioner shall be disqualified for a period
of twelve (12) months following the swearing in of the subject elected official from serving as a
vendor with the City." Code Section 2-487 A(3). The Protest alleges that vendor Frank Pintado, as
a joint proposer with Standard Parking, made a contribution to a candidate who was elected at last
November 2003's General Election in the City of Miami Beach, thus disqualifying both Mr. Pintado
and Standard Parking from serving as a vendor with the City in connection with the pending bid
award.
The Protest further alleges that Mr. Pintado made the following contributions to candidates during
last November's election:
1) Construction of campaign signs;
2) Organization of campaign workers;
3) Going to low cost housing facilities and soliciting votes;
4) Sending e-mails for the purpose of soliciting campaign contributions;
5) The storage of political literature and other campaign materials at 1674 Meridian Avenue, Suite
106, Miami Beach, Florida, which address is alleged to be the current offices of Standard
Parking and VIP Parking Systems; and
6) Arranging for transportation to bring voters to the poll and using Standard employees as drivers.
All allegations have been denied by Mr. Pintado, with his further qualification that "campaign
activities, if any, performed by Mr. Pintado as a volunteer for no compensation, would not be a
violation of the City's Code."
In adopting Code Section 2-487, the City Commission adopted the definition of "contribution" as
contained in Chapter 106, Florida Statutes. Pursuant to Section 106.011 (3), Florida Statutes, the
meaning of "contribution", "...shall not be construed to include services ....provided without
compensation by individuals volunteering a portion or all of their time on behalf of a candidate... ."
Accordingly, in as much as voluntary services are exempt from the Code's prohibition, even if Mr.
Pintado had performed services 1 - 4 listed in the Protest, as a volunteer and without contributing
money or other things of value, they would not, as a matter of law, amount to a City Code violation.
As for the remaining allegations of non service-related contributions (providing poll drivers and
storage of campaign material), inasmuch as said contributions would have a monetary value to the
candidate, if the allegations are proven, a violation of the City's ordinance might have occurred. The
factual disputes regarding these issues are the subject of Mr. Pintado's request for investigation by
the County Ethics Commission.
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 8 of 12
MIAMI DADE COUNTY COMMISSION ON ETHICS AND PUBLIC TRUST
On October 6, 2004, the Miami-Dade County Commission on Ethics and Public Trust (The Ethics
Commission ") closed out the investigation into whether or not Mr. Frank Pintado violated Section 2-
487 of the City's Code regarding prohibited campaign contributions by vendors.
The Ethics Commission concluded that there is not enough evidence to demonstrate that
Mr.Pintado violated the code by making payments or contributions in kind during the 2003
campaigns of candidates that were elected to the Office Commission.
On May 10, 2004, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 114-2004 appointed an Evaluation
Committee (the "Committee"), consisting of the following individuals:
Chester Escobar, Assistant Parking Director! On-Street Parking
Arthur Noriega, Executive Director! Miami Parking Authority
Jerry Libbin, North Beach Resident
Diana Egozi, AYUDA
Eva Barreto, Ocean Bank
Scott Needleman, South Beach Resident
Steve Clark, SMG Operation Manager
Ray Breslin, Resident/Neighborhood Leadership Academy Graduate
Marlo Courtney, Transportation and Parking Committee
Ray Breslin and Marlo Courtney were unable to serve on the Committee, due to prior commitment.
The Committee convened on November 3, 2004 and was provided with an overview of the project,
information relative to the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance, and the Government in the Sunshine
Law. The Committee then listened to project overview by Saul Frances, Parking Director and
Evaluation Criteria by Gus Lopez, Procurement Director. After evaluation the proposals, the
Committee engaged in deliberations of the given proposals.
The Committee was instructed to rank and score each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP, which was as follows (total possible 100%):
Evaluation Criteria/Factors:
Weiaht
Professional experience and past performance:
Hourly Billing Rate (Unit Cost)
Approach to the project and staffing strategies:
Financial Stability:
Personnel resources, oversight, and management plan:
Total:
25%
25%:
20%
15%
15%
100%
Commission Memo .
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 9 of 12
The Committee then scored and ranked the firms as follows:
COMMITTEE
MEMBER
BARRETO, EVA
CLARK, STEVE
EGOZI, DIANA
ESCOBAR,CHESTER
L1BBIN, JERRY
NEEDELMAN,SCOTT
NORIEGA, ART
STANDARD
PARKING
SCORE
99 1
99 1
100 1
100 1
95 1
96 1
97 1
The Committee unanimously ranked Standard Parking as the most qualified firm to
provide parking cashiers, attendants and supervisors.
The cost comparison of Standard's and Central Parking's follows on the next page:
CENTRAL
PARKING
Hourly Rate x Number of Hours Total
CASHIERSI
ATTENDANTS $13.95 * 119549.25 $1,667,712.04
SUPERVISORS $18.20 * 42141.5 $766,975.30
Grand Total $2,434,687.34
STANDARD
PARKING
Hourly Rate x Number of Hours Total
CASHIERSI
ATTENDANTS $14.43 * 119549.25 $1,725,095.68
SUPERVISORS $15.62 * 42141.5 $658,250.23
Grand Total $2,383,345.91
Standard Parking will provide the following services pursuant to the RFP and any subsequent contract:
1. To provide trained and uniformed parking cashiers, attendants, and supervisors at each
of the designated parking facilities, Monday through Sunday, including holidays and during
Special Events. The parking facilities are located at:
A. 7th Street & Collins Avenue Garage (24 hours per day)
B. 17th Street Garage (24 hours per day)
C. 13th Street Garage (24 hours per day)
D. 42nd Street Garage (12 hours per day)
E. 12th Street & Drexel Garage (24 hours per day)
F. 17th Street & Washington Ave Surface Parking Lots (16 hours per day)
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 10 of 12
G. Preferred Parking Surface Lot (Convention Center Lot/180 days per year).
H. Anchor Garage (16th Street and Collins Avenue/24 Hours per day).
I. Municipal surface parking lots during special events and/or
seasonally.
2. The parking cashiers, attendants, and supervisors must:
A. Maintain a neat, well-groomed appearance at all times.
B. Collect parking fees, validate tickets, and perform related duties.
C. Provide financial and ticket reports at the conclusion of each shift to the satisfaction of
the City.
D. Submit monies representative of the shift's activity to the shift/facility
supervisor, and assist in the recordation and deposit of the daily shift cash receipts.
E. Maintain a clean work area including the adjacent booth area and access control
equipment. Each shift shall be responsible to maintain the fee computer as
to cleanliness, dust and appropriate use.
F. Provide directions and general information to the public.
G. Maintain a friendly, courteous and service-oriented attitude at all times.
H. Consistently demonstrate the ability to communicate effectively in the English language
with the general public, supervisors, and City management.
I. Perform all other related duties as assigned by the City.
J. All cashiers, attendants, and supervisors shall be qualified to complete all required cash
and ticket reports. Such qualification shall be to ensure the accurate and complete
recordation of such reports. Ability to add, subtract, multiply, and divide in a consistent
and accurate manner is essential.
K. All cashiers, attendants, and supervisors must be trained in CPR and
emergency procedures.
L. All cashiers, attendants, and supervisor are required to know City parking policies
pertinent to:
1. Monthly Parking Program
2. City Decals and Permit Parkers
3. Special Event Parking
4. Parking Meter Smart Card Program
5. Hotel Hang-Tag Program; and
6. All programs implemented by the City
M. All cashiers, attendants, and supervisors must be familiar with the
location, hours of operation, and rates of all City parking facilities.
N. All cashier, attendants, and supervisors shall be trained in operating
Federal APD revenue control equipment.
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 11 of 12
3. The Firm shall provide and require its employees to wear a uniform:
Sport/polo shirt or collared shirt (no t-shirts), dark pants, shorts or skirt. The Firm's employees
will be issued official City of Miami Beach photo identifications and these shall be required to be
worn daily as part of the employee's official uniform. The Firm must include its name on the
badge or uniform. The City reserves the right for final approval of the uniform selected by the
Firm.
4. The Firm shall provide a full-time on-site Project Manager with experience handling the type of
services requested by the City who will have full authority to act on behalf of the Firm. The Firm
will also provide one (1) trained working supervisor per location as requested on each shift. The
responsibilities of the supervisors will be:
a. Attendance verification: Verify at the beginning of each shift that all booths are staffed. If
personnel are absent or call in sick, it is the responsibility of the supervisor to replace the
parking cashier immediately. The supervisor shall issue a bank for each
cashier/attendant per shift.
b. Scheduling of shift locations and replacements for daily and weekly
schedule and scheduling for vacations and emergencies.
c. The shift supervisors shall be an employee of the Firm and shall serve as the City
contact for any problems or questions during each shift.
d. Provide required assistance to parking cashiers and attendants during shift closeout
procedures. Prepare all deposits for shift cash receipts as required by the City.
e. Perform the duties of a parking cashier and/or attendant.
f. Perform related duties as requested by City staff.
5. The Firm shall schedule monthly performance meetings with City management to review
performance issues.
6. The Firm shall notify the City of a 24 hour contact via telephone and/or pager. A
minimum of two contact names must remain on file with the City at all times.
7. The Firm shall respond to any complaint received from the general public or the City of Miami
Beach, in writing, within 24 hours of receipt of complaint.
8. All training of new personnel will be the responsibility of the Firm. The Firm will provide written
rules of conduct for its personnel. All rules of conduct for the Firm must be approved by the
City's Parking Director.
9. The Firm must provide a Facilities Operation Manual to each employee and a permanent
manual containing standard operating procedures shall be stored in each cashier booth and
central facility office.
10. All employees of the Firm shall be bonded and insured. Smoking and/or eating on the job or
in a parking facility is strictly prohibited.
11. The Firm must supply a $100.00 bank for each shift at each facility. The $100.00 bank shaI
consist of sufficient variety of currency and/or coin to properly provide change. The City
reserves the right to alter the composition of the $100 bank; however, typically, eighty one-
dollar bills and two rolls of quarters will be required.
12. The Firm shall maintain a trained and courteous workforce.
13. The Firm shall ensure that each cashier booth and facility office is equipped with the following:
Commission Memo
RFP 18-03/04 - The Selection of a Parking Company/Operator to Supply Parking Cashiers,
Attendants and Supervisors
December 8, 2004
Page 12 of 12
A. City of Miami Beach Parking Guide
B. Chamber of Commerce Visitor Guide
C. CMB ELECTROW AVE Guide
D. Any other materials provided by the City.
14. The firm shall be responsible for any cash shortages or missing tickets. Missing tickets shall
be calculated at the maximum daily parking rate. All shortages shall be delivered to the City of
Miami Beach Parking Department c/o the Finance Manager within 72 hours of notice of the
shortage by the City to the Firm.
15. The Firm shall provide continuous and on-going procedural and equipment training to its
employees assigned to the City of Miami Beach. The Firm shall provide a roster of all trained
employees to the City. Employees receiving training at the City's parking facilities must be
scheduled to work at City parking facilities, at a minimum of fifty percent (50%) of their total
weekly hours. Under no circumstances is the Firm to train employees at City parking
facilities and relocate the employee to another contract or client for any period of time without
,the expressed written consent of the City.
16. The Firm shall provide sufficient vehicles, as determined by the City, for their employees to
ensure the effective and efficient transport of cashiers, attendants, and supervisors to
assigned locations throughout all shifts.
17. The Firm shall perform a background check, firm/type of background check to be approved by
the City, on all of its employees, including psychological and/or aptitude examinations as part of
their employment process. The employee must agree to submit to the successful
completion of these screening processes as a condition of their employment within the first
thirty (30) days of said employment. The Firm may also be required to conduct other screening
and/or investigative measures, at the request of the City.
CONCLUSION
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the attached
resolution, which recommends the acceptance of the ranking of the parking companies/operators
pursuant to Request for Proposals (RFP) No. 18-03/04 for the selection of a parking
company/operator to supply parking cashiers attendants and supervisors; authorizing the
administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm of Standard Parking Inc., and
should the Administration not be able to negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked firm,
authorizing the administration to negotiate with the second-ranked firm of Central Parking System;
and further authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an agreement upon the completion of
successful negotiations by the administration.
~ENDA \2004\Dec0804\Regular\ParkingCashiersMemo.doc
gw
!::!(/)a:::
t!Ln~
:::a:::W
0>
!:~
I-
o
~~a:::
WI-Ln
zz>
o~
o
>
~...JW
Wa:::1-
z5~
:r:
I-
...Jza:::
~WLn
5~>
I-::)~
o
1->
Z...JW
Wa:::1-
a:::::)~
a::: 0 a:::
::):r:
o
...J(/)
~a:::
1-::)
00
I-:r:
I-
o
. ~
I- I-
0.. Z
WZO
000
0(1):>
z-:>
-a:::W
x::~Z
~o..(/)
o..~>
:r:OI-
0(/)0
~a:::~
w::)l-
~oZ
:I:r:O
~I-O
-Z(l)
:I~::)
LLOO
OZ-
~W>
-~~
O~o..
.--- ,..- ,..- ,.--
0 ~ C")
~- N .....
t CD
.... .,;
l')
~ ~ CO
~
~ CD ONN..-- J ....
II) ~,...,....,.... It)
..,. .... 0010 II)
cti tD cti..f..fN tD Q
M l') NNNN G) M
..-- .... ..--~~~ .... C")
~ ~ ~ ~ C")
~
N MMMM
10 ..,...,...,...,.
.0 ..t..t..t..t
..-- ,...,...,... ,....
r-- .... ..--01 01 N .... CO
0 0 01 COCO 0 .... .....
0 0 NMMM l')
.0 It) ...: r--- ,...: cti N C")
0 0 0),...,...,.... .... ~
;;; .... ~~~~ .... "'It
~ ~ N
~
N 10101010
0 ..,...,...,...,.
N cicicici
..-- ,...,...,.... ,....
10 CD ~~~o ~ Q
M l') r-- ID~ CD
r-- .... CD C")
CO f1Ii 00,....,....,.... M N
....
N
0::-;(
~~~
,0..0..
0..00
N..--..--
,
- -a..
ZZN
::>::>..--
en en
- -0
!;(!;(w
enen~
- -uj
0::0::::>
u..u..~
uiui -
a:::a:::z
::>::>0
::c::c::!
~~~
en~~~
:ll:::ll:::ll::~
~~~
NNNfll
101010
xxxx
eneneng?
>->->-<C
W en C!iC!iC!io
~
0 ~ r--..,...,.M
~ N xxxx
10 en en en en
~ X a::: a::: a::: a:::
C) en ::c::c::c::C ...J
I- >- ~COCO~ ~
W a::: C!i tn I I I I 0
W 0 ~ ~~~~
a::: tn r-- Z ZZZZ l-
I- :; X c( C!iC!iC!iC!i 0
0
(I) a::: en ..J Z ZZZZ ..J Z
:r: w a::: c( w WWWW ~ ~
a.. ::c ~ 5 5555
I- ::> ..,. ~ 0
..... tn N ~ 0
.--- - ~ ~
0 CD CD
~ l') CO
....
ai ....
....
l') l') ....
~ ~ .....
~
~ CD 001 G) It)
II) ~8 CD N
..,. .... 0 It)
~ tD cti<<i ; 0
l') N..-- CO
..-- .... ..--~ ....
~ ~ ~ ~ N
N MM
10 ..,...,.
.0 ..t..t
..-- ..-- ..--
r-- .... ..--N l') Q
0 0 ~g l') "'It
0 0 l') C'?
.0 iii ~cti t ,,;
0 0 01..-- Q
;;; .... ~~ ....
~ ~ N
N 1010
0 ..,...,.
N cici
..-- ..-- ..--
~ CD lOCO ~ Q
l') M..,. N
r-- .... r--N G) .....
CO f1Ii co..-- ai =
....
0::-
0
M
cY;
I
a..
r--
Z
::>
en
~
0::
u..
ui
a:::
::>
::c
~
en~
:ll:::ll::
~~
NN
1010
Xx
en en
W >->-
en C!iC!i
0 :ll::
~ ~ r--M
N xx
<( 10 en en
0 x a::: a::: ...J
I- en ::c::c
W ~ ~ ~co ~
W a::: ' I 0
a::: 0 ~I-
r-- Z zz l-
I- tn c( C!iC!i
(I) :; x c 0
:r: a::: en ..J z ZZ ..J Z
w a::: ~ w ww ~ ~
I- a.. ::c 5 55
CD ::> ..,. 0 0
.... tn N ~ ~ C)
"'It
en
"'It
M
Q
CD
CO
.....
C")
=
Q
C")
N
"'It
CO
CO
..;
Q
.....~
....
CD
Q
....
cD
It)
....
(I)
z
o
~
o
o
...J
...J
...J
~
Z
o
(I)
a::
<(
0..
:I
o
o
...J
~
o
I-
o
Z
~
o
.. ,..... - - r-- -
0 W N en .... .... en
0 II) II) II) II) ....
l:! en 0::: en en .... .... N
... e(e( ar ...: ri ri iii
l:! Ww N .... ~ ~ CD
... tit .... tit tit
... 0:::> tit
0.".
~
I- 00> CD g18~~~~~ "'" 1"-""1")01"- 0 1"-""1")01"- 0 018 "'" ~I"-I")I")
0><0 II) 0 l()........<OO II) l()........<OO II) ~..,. .... l()~:!!8
0 ..,...,. en 0""0000l() .... <Ol()ONO ~ <Ol()ONO ~ II)
3:i::i0::: C'i"': ar <<><<>C'iC'ioC'i"': 0 .0 cO"': 0.0 iii .0 cO 1"-- 0 .0 iii re~ N ~~~~
I") 0> N ~~~~~~~ II) <ONNN.... II) ~NNN.... II) CD
WI-Li5 ffl ffl .... ~ ffl ffl ffl ffl ffl .... ffl ffl ffl ffl .... .... .... N ffl ffl
tit ffl ffl tit tit ffl ffl tit
ZZ>
0""
0
NN I") N 1")1")1")1")1") I") I") I") I") I") 1")1")1")1")1") I")N 1")1")1")1")
> <0<0 ..,.<0..,...,...,...,...,. ..,...,...,...,...,. ..,...,...,...,...,. ..,.<0 ..,...,...,...,.
0.00.0 "':0.0"':"':"':"':"': ..,:..,:..,:..,:..,: ..,:..,:..,:..,:..,: "':0.0 ..,:..,:..,:..,:
3:...IW .... .... ,- T""" ,... ,... ,.... ..... ..... ,...,...,-,-,.... ,... or-,....,...,.... .... .... ,.... or- ,... or-
WO:::I-
z5i::i
J:
I- Nl() CD ....1"-00<001") CD COO>NNCO en COO>NNCO en ....1"- CD ,-lO,-,.....
00 0 0> 0 I")I")I")I")N ~ ~~18lO18 en ~~18lO18 en 0>0 en ~Pl~~
...IZO::: 00 0 NO""""I"-""CO .... N N NO N
e(We( .0.0 0 "':.0 0 0"': oC'i N "':oai-.io ri "':oai-.io ri "':L6 iii ~~~~
I-O:::W N I"- 0 m~~~~~~ C") ~N""'T""""- .... ~N""''''''''''' .... 0>0 en
ffl ffl .... C") ffl ffl ffl ffl .... ffl ffl ffl ffl .... ffl .... .... ffl
00:::> tit ffl tit tit tit ffl tit
I-::J.".
0
NN l()Nl()l()l()l()l() l()l()l()l()l() l()l()l()l()l() l()N l()l()l()l()
1-> 00 ..,.0..,...,...,...,...,. ..,...,...,...,...,. ..,...,...,...,...,. ..,.0 ..,...,...,...,.
Z...IW NN ONOOOOO 00000 00000 ON 0000
WO:::I- .... .... ,....,-,....,-T""',-..... ...............,... ..... .....,............... ..... .... .... or- ..... ..- ,-
0:::::Ji::i
0:::0
::JJ:
0
...I en 00 0 ~~~~~~~ N l5~~C5O N l5~~C5O N <0<0 N ~~~~
co..,. N "'" l()O>co""C5 ~ l()O>co""C5 ~ 1")1") "'"
e(0::: ON C") 1"-1"-0>0>00>.... ~ I"- I"- ~ 0>0>..,...,.
I-::J N<O t1i COCONNNNN 0 -q-..-T"""""'T""" 0 'V,.....-.....,.... 0 COCO ...:
00 C") .... .... ....
I-J:
. U) U)
~ ~
~ ~
N N
l() l()
X X
~ ~U)U) U) U)U)U)
~~~~~ >- ~~~
I- ~~~~~ ~U)
l()~&:INN l()~&:INN
0 XNXl()l() XNXl()l() ~~~U)
t-= i::i ~~~~~ U)l()NXX U)l() XX ~N ~
U) o::XX<(U) o::X~~U) l()N~
Q", I- ~ ~~~~~ J:NU)<,?~ J:N ,>- W NXl()
WZ~ ~ NNN ~X~Po~ ::) l() XN
U)l()l()l()NN ~Xo::PoO U) U) l()
COO N U)~XXXl()l() ....~J: ,l() ....~J: ,l() U)~ Z Xo::U)X
W u)J:0::U)
C)(/)3: tn l() ~~U)U)U)XX 'J:O>ZX IJ:O>ZX ~~ ~ 0::0>J:0::
Z- 0:: X ~N>->->-U)U) Qo>':::>U) Qo>':::>U) ~&:I ffi,,:"~J:
-o:::W W U) Nl()<(<(<(>->-
0.. ::E.... <(U) 0:: ::E....<(U)O:: tn
::':::e(Z w ~ l()XOOO~~ N,l")o/lJ: N ,l")o/lJ: &:Ix Z '~~~
~Q",en w XU)I"-I"-l() ~~~~~ '7~~t-"f X~ ::i ~ . I a..
~ U)>-XXXI"-I"- ...I
Q",~> ~ l() >-<(U)U)U)XX t- g~~U)I';- ~ ~.(<o<(o.. ~~ 0 ~<(o..""
I") ,U) I"- w
J:01- 0 X W <(Oo::o::o::o..~ 0 .. t- --0.. ...I ..COt--=-a:. ~ ~I"- 0 <0 CO <0 I
0 U)U) ~ 01"-J:J:J:<1l.... ...I <0 '<(0::1") <0'<(0::1") all I ' I ~
OenO CO ~o:: I"-XCOCOCO~a:. t- ~ZU)LL, .... ~ZU)LL, >->->-,
e(o:::i::i all ~J: W 0:: :::> o/l ' 0:: W O:::::>o/llo:: <( I"-X .... ~~~~
<( XU)I' ,....<0 W W xU) w
W::JI- NCO LLU) t- o:: LLU) t- (!) W
0:: (!) U)o::c...c...c... , , 0:: 'o/lo::zl7 'o/lo::zl7 U)O:: 0::0::0::0
~OZ W l()X 0::J:<91';-I';-t-t- t- .... .... 0:: LLi=i=Z
~ XU) .... J:""o..<(<(ZZ tn Zt-LL<(Z tn Z....LL<(Z W 0::J: ....
~J:O W 0<(100 ::I: 0<( ,00 W J:~ tn 1<(<(::)
e(1-0 u)o:: w ..,.NN........<(<( ::I: ::EU)U)aJ::E ~ ::EU)U)aJ::E 0:: ..,., ::I: U)U)U)U)
Z >-W 0:: N ,............ 0 0 ....
-Zen ~ ,a::"IZZ I I to- ~ I I I t- I .... N .... t- I I I
<(c... .... ....O....t-t-WW "'" t-t-Z t- .... t-t-Z~t- tn ~o:: C") Zt-t-t-
~e(::J OW ....
l()W tn ZU)ZZZ~~ , ZZ~<(Z , ZZ~<(Z ::I: zO .... ~ZZZ
u..CO t- XS2 ::I: ~~~~~<(<( ~~ZS:2~ .... ~~aJS:2~ t- <(~ I Z~~~
OZ- (J l- t- tn C") O~ I-
~W> W U)O ...I "'" ZWZZZt-t- ...I ~ ZZ~LLZ ...I W ZZ~LLZ ...I .... ...I 0 WZZZ
a ~ .... ~ WW LLW 0( ~ WW LLW ~ I Zw ~ ...I ~WWW
-~~ 0::0 I ~~~~~~~ W ~~<(C2~ t- ~~<(C2~ :!: Wo.. ><
0:: J:CQ 0 (!) 0 0( 0 0( 0 ~:::> 0 <(~~~
0e(Q", "'"
0.. CO I") l- N <(U)<(<(<(........ l- II) <(<(Nt-<( l- II) <(<(Nt-<( I- .... <(U) I- .... N<(<(<(
3w CD
~(/)Q:~
",CCCC......
t!wuJ~
;:Q:>-'"
u~
~
.... en
U ~
~CC~~
wQ:w'"
Z!z>-
O~
u
>-
~...Iw
wQ:....
z5~
:I:
...Iffi~!
CCQ:WN
bQ:>-'"
....::;)~
u
....>-
z...lW
wQ:....
Q:::;)cc
Q:OQ:
::;):1:
U
...I(/)~
CCQ:CICt
....::;)N
00
....:1:
....
u
. ~
.... ....
c. z
WZO
OOU
C)(/):>
Z-:>
-Q:W
~CCZ
Q:c.
CC~(/)
C.O>
:l:U....
U(/)U
~Q:~
CO::;)....
_OZ
~:l:0
CC....U
-Z(/)
~CC::;)
LL.OO
OZ:;..J
~WWc(
-I:::Q:S
UCCc.1-
OCO;!(
lS~15
cOLOen
N......~
......~
~
MMM
..,...,...,.
.q..q..q.
............ ......
............ ......
C>>......N
N..,.LO
~~~
~~
LO LO LO
..,...,...,.
cicici
............ ......
<ON..,.
MC>>N
r--O<O
CO......
~~
~~
NN
LOLO
XX
(j)(j)
>-~
~O
MN
XX
(j)(j)
(j)0:::0:::
:ll:::I::I:
~r--<o
, ,
Nc(o...
LO"f<o
X 0... ,
(j)C>>0...
>- ' N
Wc(I-......
C)O<('
c(r--(j)Z
O:::X':::l
c((j)(j)(j)
C)o:::o:::,
I-:I::::ll-
W..,.:I:<(
WNI-(j)
a::: I I I
1-1-1-1-
U)ZZZ
~~~~
NZZZ
~WWW
'1=1=1=
::5<(<(<(
-
en
en
ut
~
~
N
N
110
o
CD
~
.,.
C')
N
N
at
o
~
.,.
N
~
o
~
..J
c(
I-
o
I-
(j)
:ll::
~
N
LO
X
(j)
>-
<(
o
LO
wX
C)(j)
~~
c(LO
C)N
1-......
W~
Wz
0:::<(
1-0
U)z
cW
ZI=
~<(
CO
C>>
CO
cO
~
M
..,.
.q.
......
M
~
M
M
~
LO
..,.
ci
......
o
LO
N
M
-
CD
C')
en
N
~
.,.
110
en
110
fSi
~
C')
CD
en
M
C')
.,.
o
CD
N
M
..J
c(
I-
o
I-
(j)
:ll::
~
-N
I-LO
Ox
..J(j)
c>-
a:::c(
c(o
:::IN
C)
WX
!!:(j)
..JO:::
-:I:
1-<0
W,
~~
1-......
U)'
:I: a.
I-~
~I-
~<(
oll(j)
~O/l
-0:::
::Iu.
O~
Oz
'<(
1-0
Oz
..JW
XI=
:::<(
~
o
en
~
M
..,.
.q.
......
......
N
LO
~
LO
..,.
ci
......
..,.
N
<0
,..-
~
'lit
N
.,.
3
o
at
.,.
~~
LOLO
,..:,..:
~~
MM
..,...,.
.q..q.
...... ......
~
N
CD
fSi
.,.
~~
..,...,.
LOLO
~~
LOLO
..,...,.
cici
...... ......
~
CD
00
NN
LOLO
..J
~
o
I-
t='
o...~
Wb:
(j)
W ' W
:::l>-(j)
Z<(>.
W~~
~(j)
....>-~
U)c((j)
~O~
::I~O
OX~
O(j)X
ollO:::(j)
I-:I:o:::
IH~:I:
a::: '0
1-0.........
U)<O'
C ' 0...
a:::<(lD
C')CO'
CD ' <(
C>-CO
Z~;.
c(o:::<(
:I::::l0
I-I-Z
CD<(:::l
~(j)(j)
U) , ,
I-(j)(j)
o I-Z I-Z
..J
IXI~~
enZZ
~WW ..J
olll=l= ~
~<(<( 0
~NN I-
,..-
en
C')
~
..
.,.
r--
o
o
.0
~
.,.
~~~
C>>CON
~l3g
~......~
~
MMN
..,...,.lD
.q..q.uj
...... ...... ......
110
CD
110
o
~
.,.
OON
M..,.r--
..,.NN
gLOM
~t;;~
LOLON
..,...,.0
ciciN
............ ......
o
a
~
000
000
..,.NlD
LOr--M
(j)
~
I-
(j)ffi(j)
>->>-
<(W~
001-
I-coz
Z......w
a:::wX
W>(j)Gi
I-W 0::: 0
Zo:I:co
WCOo......
O............X
ZX~(j)
O(j)LOO:::
- 0::: ' :I:
I-:I:<(o
zor--......
W or- I I
> , (j) 0...
Zo...l-LO
OLOZ'
o ' <( <(
,<(or--
I-r--z,
o'w(j)
..J~I=O:::
Cz<(g
W<(U-
a:::o_~
a:::ZLLW
wW~o...
~1=0::::::l
a:::<(I-(j)
Q.M..,.N
-
110
o
~
M
CD
.,.
o
CD
o
r1S
C')
N
.,.
N
:;
..
r--
~
.,.
o
o
N
fSi
~
..J
g
I-
~
W~
:::l.
Z>-
w<(
~~
>-:::l
C~
~(j)
Q.O/l
oll>-
I-~
W_
Wo:::
a:::u.
1-.
U)(j)
::J:I-
I-Z
110<(
~o
'z
I-w
91=
w<(
'lItN
-
C')
N
CD
fSi
.,.
N
......
o
.,f
~
N
~
o
~
.,.
~ ~ ~ ~
.q. .. .q. ..
'r"" ~ 'r"" ...
C>>
co
M
,..:
;;;
en
110
C')
r-:
~
.,.
LO
..,.
ci
......
~
c::i
~
~
<0
......
~
ut
~
N
LO
X
N
X
(j)
0:::
:I:
lD
......
,
(j)
Z
U)Q
I-~
ffig
~...J
..J(j)
..Jc(:::l
c(oQ
I-WO:::
00..<(
I-U)>
r--
8
LO
......
~
~
o
......
~
LO
..,.
ci
......
o
~
......
...J
~
W
C
o
W
:I:
U
~
<(
w
w
(j)
-
en
C')
~
~
-
."
CO')
U)
I
r--
o
o
.0
~
.,.
N
o
co
.;
en
f.C!.
-r-
~
110
CD
110
o
~
.,.
I"-
CD
-r-
~
~
-r-
~
~
c::i
~
o
a
~
CD
N
o
an
-r-
-r-
..J
~
~
...I
~
o
....
o
Z
~
C)
~w - - ,..... - - - -
CI:I en N N ~ CI:I 0)
~(/)IX: en CO') 00 en .... .... C"')
..... N CO') ~ ~ .....
"'CC~ 4It 4It 4It 4It .....
.... .tf
~W 4It
"IX:> .,.
0.,.
a!!:
~ <0 CI:I ~ CI:I MM II) <0<0 N ..- .... ..... ..... ...-.
co 00 CI:I mOl 00 coco ..... 0 0 Ol en 0
0 co 00 ~ 00 ~~ C't coco ..... 10_ 11). 10 II)
~~~ N- N 4It NN .0 N N 0
.... ..- .... an
~ 4It 4It ~~ 4It ~ 4It ~ 4It
.....
Z~> .,.
0'"
0
M M MM MM M M
> ~ ..,. ..,...,. ..,...,. ..,. ..,.
~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~
~ QH~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
w::J~
Zo
::I:
~ 0 0 ..... ..... NN CO') 00 0 ..... ..... ex; .... CO
Ol en N N 00 0 mOl 00 ~- 00 00 U)
..JZIX: 0 0 ~ CI:I 1010 ct 00 .... ct IX!. 00.
N N 4It ~~ NN i CO
CCWCC .... ..- .... ..- .... 0
~IX:W ~ 4It 4It ~~ ~ 4It ~ 4It
.....
0IX:> .,.
~::J.,.
0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
~> ..,. ..,. ..,...,. ..,...,. ..,. ..,.
Z..JW 0 0 00 00 0 0
WIX:~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..-
IX:::J~
IX: 0
::J::I:
0
..J(/) 0 0 0 0 coco CI:I 00 0 c; ~ 0 0 0
0 0 <0 CI:I ..,...,. en 00 0 co 00 '''It
CCIX: N N NN ~ ..- .... ..- .... ~
~::J .....
00
~::I:
~
0
...= ~
D. ~
WZ~ en en en en en en
COO ~ ~~ en ~ tJ)
C5 ~~ ~ C5 ~
~(/)~ en C5C5 Z
z- 0 ~ 00 0 W
-IX:w ..- NN ..- ..- ..,. ..- >
~CCZ X XX XX X X
~D.(/) W
en <0 en en en en en en
D.~> 0:: X 0::0:: 0::0:: 0:: 0:: ..J
::I: en ::I:::I: ::I:::I: ::I: ::I: CC
::I:O~ 0 0:: NN 00 M Ol <3
0(/)0 ..J ..- ::I: ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- I
~ I 0 I I , , I a.. W
CCIX:~ a.. ..- a.. a.. a.. a.. a.. ..... D.
W::J~ w IIj> I coco IIj>IIj> Ol I tJ)
I I ~ ~
~OZ e ~ a.. <(<( <(<( I
m IIj> coco co co ..- ..J
:IE::I:O I- , ~ I I m I I I I CC
en en en en en en en
CC~O z l- I 1-1- I- 1-1- l- I- ~
-Z(/) w m 0 S 0
> Z l- I- ZZ ZZ Z z
:lECC::J C5 z 0 C5C5 ..J C5C5 C5 C5 ~
w W ..J
!.LCo ..J <( ..J C
Z 0 zz CI:I ZZ I- Z ..J Z
oz- <( l- S II- .... 0
~w> W ..J Z ..J WW ..J WW ..J 0 W ..J W ..J Z
(3 0 ~ <( <( en ~~ ~ III ~~ ~ ..J ~ ~ 0 ~ <( ~
w III
-I=~ w ..J I- ..J ~ l- e <( ::I: I-
OCCD. a.. In <( 0 0 0 In 0 CI:I <(<( 0 00 <( 0 0 0 ~
m CI:I N I- ..... I- en NN I- .... NN I- .... N I- m N I-