2004-25726 ResoRESOLUTION NO. 2004-25726
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING
THE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS
(RFQ) N0.42-03/04 FOR ENGINEERING, URBAN DESIGN,
AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR DESIGN, BID AND
AWARD, AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION
SERVICES FOR THE BISCAYNE POINT RIGHT OF WAY
INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City of Miami Beach has developed various capital improvement
projects to improve the quality of life of its residents in each of the City's thirteen
neighborhoods; and
WHEREAS, Biscayne Point is one of the City's thirteen neighborhoods, which
encompasses the area bounded on the east by the Tatum Waterway, and bounded on the
north, south and west by Biscayne Bay, as more particularly described in generally, the
Biscayne Point Right of Way (ROW) Geographic Area; and
WHEREAS, the Biscayne Point ROW Infrastructure Project (Project) is a $7.3
million infrastructure project which may include, but is not limited to, the enhancement of
roadways, landscaping, sidewalks and streetscapes, ireigation, water, storrr,~.vater,
electrical, street lighting, street furniture, signage, as well as bicycle and pedestrian
transportation routes; and
WHEREAS, the scope of services for the Project will take into consideration
previously authorized and currently endorsed City planning level documents including, but
not limited to, studies or reports encompassing necessary upgrades, as noted in the
Biscayne Point Basis of Design Report approved by the City Commission on October 15,
2003, and other qualified decisions of the City's Public Works, Parks and Recreation,
Planning, Parking, Building, Fire and Police Departments, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City negotiated extensively with the previous consultant, The
Corradino Group, but was unable to achieve agreement on a reasonable fee for the
expected scope of services; and
WHEREAS, because of the failure in reaching agreement after several unfruitful
attempts, and the amount of time spent in the negotiations, the City decided to abandon
the effort with Corradino and prepare to issue a new Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for
the remaining services on the Project; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of issuing the RFQ is to obtain qualifications from firms
with the capability and experience to provide professional engineering and landscape
architecture services for the design, bid and award, construction administration of the
Project; and
WHEREAS, the Administration recommends the issuance of RFQ No. 42-03/04.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT DULY RESOLVED BY THE MAYOR AND CITY
COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, that the Mayor and City
Commission hereby authorize the issuance of Request For Qualifications No. 42-03/04 for
Engineering, Urban Design, and Landscape Architecture for Design, Bid, Award and
Construction Management Services for the Biscayne Point Right Of Way Infrastructure
Improvement Project.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this October 13, 2004
ATTEST: /
i
~' ~-~~~-
CITY CLERK OR
Robert Parcher David Dermer
T:\AGENDA\2004\Sep0804\Consent\Biscayne Point RFQ reso.doc
APPROVED AS TO
FORM & LANGUAGE
& FOR EXECUTION
l3 07
Cit tornex~ to
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
COMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 42-03/04 FOR
PLANNING, DESIGN, BID AND AWARD AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FOR THE
BISCAYNE POINT RIGHT OF WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
Issue:
Shall the Mayor and City Commission adopt the Resolution?
Item Summa /Kecommenaat~on:
The Biscayne Point Right of Way (ROW) Infrastructure Improvement Project is a $7.38 million
project which includes the restoration and enhancement of an urban, mixed use, residential
(single and multi-family) neighborhood including roadway, sidewalk, curb and gutter, landscape,
streetscape irrigation, lighting, potable water, and storm drainage infrastructure as needed. This
project is funded through General Obligation and Water and Stormwater Bonds. The purpose of
issuing an RFQ is to obtain qualifications from professional firms with the capability and
experience to provide engineering, urban design, and landscape architecture services for design,
bid and award, and construction administration of urban streetscape improvements in the
Biscayne Point Neighborhood. Planning efforts were previously completed by another Consultant
and is documented in the City Commission approved Biscayne Point Basis of Design Report
dated October 15, 2003. The City negotiated extensively with the previous consultant, The
Corradino Group, but was unable to achieve agreement on a reasonable fee for the expected
scope of services. The City held several negotiation sessions and requested adjustments to the
fee on two occasions based on the discussions and on the evaluation of the proposals as being
incomplete or inaccurate. The City exchanged correspondence with Corradino on several
occasions and eventually received a response from Corradino declining to adjust the fee further
and stating they would not pursue the project further. Because of the failure in reaching
agreement, the City abandoned the effort with Corradino and prepared to issue a new RFQ for
the remaining services on the project. The estimated budget for the project is $7,384,000. The
estimated construction budget is $6,410,000, which includes a contingency of $649,000. The
budget also includes soft costs of $974,000, which consist of Planning (previously completed),
Design, Bid & Award, Construction Administration, Program Management, and City Construction
Management. The successful firm will be tasked with the following duties and responsibilities:
Design Services; Bid and Award Services; Construction Management Services; Reimbursables.
After considering the recommendation of an Evaluation Committee, the City Manager will
recommend to the City Commission the response which is deemed to be in the best interest of
the City. The Administration recommends that the Mayor and the City Commission of Miami
Beach, Florida approve and authorize the issuance of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 42-
03/04fnr design, bid and award, and construction administration of streetscape improvements for
the Biscayne Point Ri ht of Wa Infrastructure Im rovement Project.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
N/A
Financial Information:
Source of Amount
Funds: N/A
Finance Dept. Total N/A
Ci Clerk'
Jorge E. C
Sign-Offs:
ep 'fitment irector Assistant City Manager ~, City Manager
TH
,~ .---~.1 RCM ~-°
w~
rS~ < AGENDA ITEM ~ ~?T'
DATE I D-(~~
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor David Dermer and Date: October 13, 2004
Members of the City Commission
From: Jorge M. Gonzalez ,,,~
City Manager ~
Subject: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYOR AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF REQUEST
FOR QUALIFICATIONS (RFQ) NO. 42-03/04 FOR ENGINEERING, URBAN
DESIGN, AND LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE FOR PLANNING, DESIGN, BID
AND AWARD AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES FORTHE
BISCAYNE POINT RIGHT OF WAY INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT.
ADMINISTRATIVE RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
ANALYSIS
The Biscayne Point Right of Way (ROW) Infrastructure Improvement Project is a $7.38 million
infrastructure project which includes the restoration and enhancement of an urban, mixed use,
residential (single and multi-family) neighborhood's hardscape, including roadway, sidewalk, curb
and gutter, landscape, streetscape irrigation, lighting, potable water, and storm drainage
infrastructure as needed. This project is funded through a combination of General Obligation and
Water and Stormwater Bonds.
The purpose of issuing a Request for Qualifications is to obtain qualifications from professional
firms with the capability and experience to provide professional engineering, urban design, and
landscape architecture services for design, bid and award, and construction administration of
urban streetscape improvements in the Biscayne Point Neighborhood in Miami Beach. Planning
efforts were previously completed by another Consultant and is documented in the City
Commission approved Biscayne Point Basis of Design Report dated October 15, 2003.
The City negotiated extensively with the previous consultant, The Corradino Group (Corradino),
but was unable to achieve agreement on a reasonable fee for the expected scope of services.
Because of the failure in reaching agreement after several unfruitful attempts and the amount of
time spent in the negotiations, the City decided to abandon the effort with Corradino and prepare
to issue a new RFQ for the remaining services on the project.
The City was unable to reach an acceptable agreement with Corradino due to several issues.
First, it became apparent that Corradino was having difficulty understanding the depth and
magnitude of the scope of work for the neighborhood and presented fee proposals that reflected
this misunderstanding. Second, the City held two negotiating sessions with Corradino both to
clarify the scope and to discuss the level of services entailed. The sessions were also intended to
establish a fee that reflected the scope requirements but a fee that was also competitive,
reasonable, and fair.
N - BPR ROW - 02 - 09082004 - JECh - 01
Commission Memorandum
Biscayne point RFQ
Page 2 of 7
October 13, 2004
At the first negotiating session, Corradino submitted a fee proposal in the amount of $873,389
which included the amount of $90,512 already expended for the planning tasks previously
performed (Attachment 1). This total amount represented a 13.6% fee for consultant costs
relative to the overall construction value. The City informed Corradino that this fee proposal was
high, was not consistent with other negotiated fees for projects of similar complexity, that the
number of drawings proposed was higher than expected, and that some of the scope
requirements were not consistent with the proposed fee.
At the second negotiating session, Corradino submitted a fee proposal, in the amount of
$922,742 (Attachment 2), which included the amount of $90,512 for planning tasks, and was now
higher than the first fee proposal by approximately $50,000, even though the City expected the
fee to be lower based on discussions during the first negotiating session. This amount also
represented a 14.3% fee relative to the construction value which is again higher than other
negotiated fees in the program. The number of drawings required still contained several
inconsistencies. In addition, Corradino attached a number of qualifications to the proposal which
would have generated additional fees because Corradino considered the tasks to be outside the
scope of the project. These exceptions included a limit on the number of Requests for
Information, Change Order Proposals, Change Orders, and Submittals. The proposal also
indicated confusion on the role of the consultant in completing permit reviews through the
Building Department (Attachment 3).
The City directed Corradino to re-visit the fee proposal and to include within the scope all items
which had been left out or to which Corradino had taken exception. The City also informed
Corradino that the fee value had to be adjusted to a more acceptable level and to a percentage
more consistent with other negotiated fees. Corradino initially objected to these directives and
eventually did not produce a third fee proposal which would take into account the items
discussed during the second negotiation session. Eventually, due to a lack of progress on the
negotiations, and the lack of response from Corradino regarding the City's comments, the City
wrote Corradino on July 2, 2004 informing them that negotiations would not continue and that the
City intended to issue a new RFQ on the project (Attachment 4).
On July 12, 2004, Corradino responded to the City's letter accepting the termination of the
negotiations and stating that they were not interested in pursuing this project in the future
(Attachment 5). On September 24, 2004, after the discussions during the September 8, 2004
Commission meeting, the City issued a letter to Corradino asking whether they would revisit their
participation on the project and honor the last fee proposal they presented (Attachment 6).
Corradino was given until October 4, 2004 to respond to this letter. On September 30, 2004, the
City received a letter from Corradino re-stating their previous position regarding pursuing the
project and declining to reconsider (Attachment 7). Therefore, the Staff re-states the
recommendation to issue a new RFQ for the Project.
The estimated budget for the project is $7,384,000. The estimated construction budget for the
project is $6,410,000, which includes a construction change order contingency budget of
$649,000. This estimated construction total includes $3,230,000 for Streetscape improvements,
$1,500,000 for Stormwater improvements, and $1,031,000 for Water Improvements as detailed
below:
STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS $3,230,000 (construction)
Biscayne Beach
• Entryway Improvement -Hawthorne &Crespi Entrances
• Textured Crosswalks -Hawthorne @ 79tH 81St & 85tH; Crespi @ 79tH & 81St; &Crespi Park
Commission Memorandum
Biscayne point RFQ
Page 3 of 7
October 13, 2004
• Hawthorne -Replace existing planting strip w/ new landscape
• Bumpouts 8~ Planters attached to sidewalk -Corner bump-outs Hawthorne at 79th, 81st,
85th, 84th, Corner bump-outs Crespi at 79th, Planters opposite corner bump-outs Hawthorne at
79th, 81st, 85th. Planters opposite corner bump-outs Crespi at 79th, 81st
• Planters detached from sidewalk -Crespi at 79th Terrace., 80th, 82nd, 83rd, 84th, 86th and
mid-block. Hawthorne at 79th Terrace., 80th, 82"d ,83rd, 84th, 86th corners only. All Cross
streets, (2 per side per street)
• Mid Block Hawthorne Bumpouts (22)
• Speed table with brick pavers at Hawthorne and Crespi
• CMB Entry Sign East of Hawthorn and 77th
• Sidewalk installation and repair - 79th Street and 20% neighborhood wide repairs
• Neighborhood wide improvements -Repair 20% of all sidewalks
• Pocket Park @ 81st Street
• Re-striping parking neighborhood wide
• Landscaped Island at Stillwater Drive and Hawthorne intersection
• Paving costs covered by GO Bond -Hawthorne (from 77th to 83rd); Hawthorne (1/2);
Bayside Lane S. of 77th); Crespi (from Hawthorne to 83rd); 82nd Street (1/2 of Street, other half
by Water Bond & PWD.); & 79th Street
• Replace existing lighting "globes". - 138 new light fixtures and bulbs
Biscayne Point
• Traffic Calming At Intersections, Speed Tables - 2 @ Daytonia and Cleveland; 1 @ Daytonia
and S. Biscayne Point; 1 @ Cleveland and N. Biscayne Point; 1 @Noremac and Cleveland;& 1
@ Noremac and Daytonia
• Textured Intersections - (2) Cecil & Cleveland, Fowler & S. Biscayne Point
• Grass Triangle -Noremac and N. Biscayne
• Enhance grass islands - Daytonia and S. Biscayne & Cleveland and N. Biscayne
• Decorative Lighting (Acorn) @ 100- ft on center, staggered
• Swale Reclamation -Approximately 3375 LF to be reclaimed
• Infill plantings at 30-ft spacing O.C.
• Repaving (1-inch overlay) all roadways @ approximately - 13,630 LF @ 20-ft width
• Entryway Improvement -Hawthorne &Crespi Entrances
Stillwater Drive
• Traffic Calming "Tables" (total of 3)
• Replace and widen sidewalk (to 5 - ft on each side)
• Decorative Lighting (Acorn) @ 100 - ft on center, staggered
• Enhance Area around Gatehouse -Landscaping/sign & Accent lighting
• Entryway Improvement -Hawthorne &Crespi Entrances
• Enhanced Landscaping in new Swale areas -New trees /palms 1 per lot
STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS ($1,500,000)
• Select improvements to priority basins within Stillwater Drive and the northern areas of Biscayne
Beach
WATER IMPROVEMENTS $3,160,000 (construction)
• Replacement of Discretionary Waterlines with 8-inch diameter lines Per attached Exhibit A
Commission Memorandum
Biscayne point RFQ
Page 4 of 7
October 13, 2004
The budget also includes a construction contingency ($649,000) as well as development and soft
costs ($974,000), which consist of Planning (previously completed), Design, Bid & Award,
Construction Administration, Program Management, and City Construction Management.
ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET
ENGINEERING /MANAGEMENT COSTS $ 974,000
CONSTRUCTION BUDGET
• Streetscape: $ 3,230,000
• Stormwater Improvements $ 1,500,000
• Water Improvements: $ 1,031,000
• Estimated Construction Budget: $ 5,761,000
• Construction Contingency $ 649,000
• Subtotal $ 6,410,000
TOTAL PROJECT BUDGET: $ 7,384,000
RFQ TIMETABLE
The anticipated schedule for this RFQ and contract approval is as follows:
RFQ to be issued
Pre-Qualification Conference
Deadline for receipt of questions
Deadline for receipt of responses
Evaluation committee meeting
Commission approval/authorization of negotiations
Contract negotiations
Projected award date
Projected contract start date
CONSULTANT TASKS
October 20, 2004
November 4, 2004
November 22, 2004
December 3, 2004
December 17, 2004
January, 2005
Through January, 2005
February, 2005
March, 2005
The successful firm will be tasked with the following duties and responsibilities:
Task 1 -Planning Services (Not in Scope -Previously Completed)
Task 2 -Design Services
Task 3 -Bid and Award Services
Task 4 -Construction Management Services
Task 5 -Additional Services
Task 6 -Reimbursable Services
Task 1 -Planning Services: A final Basis of Design Report has been prepared summarizing the
accepted design concept, budget level cost estimate, schedule and other issues deemed
Commission Memorandum
Biscayne point RFQ
Page 5 of 7
October 13, 2004
important to the implementation of the project. The final Basis of Design Reportwas presented to
the City Commission and approved on October 15, 2003..
Task 2 -Design Services: The purpose of this Task is to establish requirements for the
preparation of contract documents for the Project. Note that the selected firm will be required to
perform a variety of forensic tasks to verify, to the extent practicable, existing conditions and the
accuracy of base maps to be used for development of the contract drawings. These tasks
include, but may not be limited to, surveying, utility verification, and listing encroachments in the
Right of Way using formats established for the City's Right of Way Infrastructure Improvement
Program. In addition, the selected firm will follow City standards for the preparation of contract
documents, inclusive of drawings, specifications and front-end documents and cost estimates.
Presentation formats for Review Submittal will be prepared at the 30%, 60%, 90% and 100%
design completion stages. Contract documents will be subject to constructability and value
engineering reviews to be performed by others. The selected firm shall work with the City to
adjust /revise project scope as may be deemed necessary to meet established budgets as the
design evolves from earlier to latter stages of completion.
In addition, the selected firm will attend and participate in community design review meetings to
review the design progress and concept at different progress levels during the design. The
selected firm will also be responsible for reviewing and receiving approvals of its contract
documents from all jurisdictional permitting agencies and boards prior to finalization. To facilitate
the implementation of a Public Information Program, the selected firm will provide electronic files
of all project documents, as directed by the City. City in-house Departments shall be required to
respond, in writing, to all review comments. Presentation formats will be as directed by the City.
Note that the selected firm shall establish and maintain an in house Quality Assurance /Quality
Control (QA/QC) program designed to verify and ensure the quality, clarity, completeness,
constructabilityand bid potential of its contract documents.
Task 3 -Bid and Award Services: The selected firm shall assist City in bidding and award of the
contract. Such assistance shall include facilitating reviews of its contract documents with
applicable Procurement, Risk Management and Legal Department representatives. In addition,
the selected firm shall furnish camera ready contract documents for reproduction and distribution
by the City, attend pre-bid conferences, assist with the preparation of necessary addenda, attend
the bid opening and assist with the bid evaluation and recommendation of award to the City. The
selected firm shall provide "As-Bid" documents for use during construction.
The City is also considering awarding the project to one of the Job Order Contractors (JOC)
already in place. This may facilitate the construction procurement as well as reduce the period to
award considerably from the common four to six months the City experiences when a project is
advertised for competitive bidding. This decision will be made as the project design progresses.
Task 4 -Construction Management Services: The selected firm shall perform a variety of tasks
associated with the administration of the construction contract and construction management of
the project. These shall include attendance at the pre-construction conference, attendance at
weekly construction meetings, responding to Contractor requests for information /clarification,
responding and evaluating Contractor requests for change orders /contract amendments, review
of shop drawings, review of record drawings, review and processing of contractor applications for
payment, specialty site visits, project closeout reviews including substantial and final punch list
development and project certification. The City /Program Manager will provide day-to-day
Commission Memorandum
Biscayne point RFQ
Page 6 of 7
October 13, 2004
construction administration and observation service duties.
Task 5 -Additional Services: No additional services are envisioned at this time. However, if such
services are required during the performance of the Work, they will be requested by the City and
negotiated in accordance with contract requirements.
Task 6 -Reimbursable Services: The City may reimburse additional expenses such as
reproduction costs, survey, geotechnical work and underground utility verification costs.
It is anticipated that a Firm whose specialty and primary business is in the practice of civil
engineering will head the selected Project Design Team, which should also include an urban
designer/planner and a landscape architect as subconsultants, all with extensive experience in
design upgrade and urban retrofitting, including environments with new streetscape, drainage
and, water/sewer, and utility improvements. Interested teams must demonstrate streetscape and
utility design and construction administration expertise, based on the successful completion of a
number of projects of similar substantial size and complexity for other governmental and/or
private entities.
EVALUATION PROCESS
The procedure for response evaluation and selection is as follows:
• Request for Qualifications issued.
• Receipt of responses.
• Opening and listing of all responses received.
• An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, shall meet to evaluate each
response in accordance with the requirements of this RFQ. If further information is
desired, respondents may be requested to make additional written submissions or oral
presentations to the Evaluation Committee.
• The Evaluation Committee will recommend to the City Manager the response(s) which the
Evaluation Committee deems to be in the best interest of the City by using the following
criteria for selection:
a. Firm's Qualifications and Experience with renovating existing, urban Right of
Ways (ROWs) including coordinating drainage, water, and streetscape work;
b. Project Manager's Experience renovating existing urban Right of Ways,
community presentations, and urban planning;
c. References Provided by Prior Project Owners;
d. Experience and Qualifications of the Project Team with renovating existing, urban
Right of Ways (ROWs) coordinating drainage, water, and streetscape work;
e. Methodology, Approach and Understanding of Tasks 1-6;
f. Volume of work previously awarded to each firm by the agency, with the object of
Commission Memorandum
Biscayne point RFQ
Page 7 of 7
October 13, 2004
effecting an equitable distribution of contracts among qualified firms;
The City may request, accept, and consider proposals for the compensation to be paid
under the contract only during competitive negotiations.
After considering the recommendation(s) ofthe Evaluation Committee, the City Manager
shall recommend to the City Commission the response or responses acceptance of which
the City Manager deems to be in the best interest of the City.
The City Commission shall consider the City Manager's recommendation(s) in light of the
recommendation(s) and evaluation of the Evaluation Committee and, if appropriate,
approve the City Manager's recommendation(s). The City Commission may reject City
Manager's recommendation(s) and select another response or responses. In any case,
City Commission shall select the response or responses acceptance of which the City
Commission deems to be in the best interest of the City. The City Commission may also
reject all proposals.
Negotiations between the selected respondent and the City Manager take place to arrive
at a contract. If the City Commission has so directed, the City Manager may proceed to
negotiate a contract with a respondent other than the top ranked respondent if the
negotiations with the top ranked respondent fail to produce a mutually acceptable
contract within a reasonable period of time.
A proposed contract or contracts are presented to the City Commission for approval,
modification and approval, or rejection.
If and when a contract or contracts acceptable to the respective parties is approved by
the City Commission, the Mayor and City Clerk sign the contract(s) after the selected
respondent(s) has (or have) done so.
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and the City Commission of Miami Beach,
Florida approve and authorize the issuance of Request for Qualifications (RFQ) No. 42-03/04 for
engineering, planning, urban design and landscape architecture services for design, bid and
award, and construction administration of streetscape improvements forthe Biscayne Point Right
of Way Infrastructure Improvement Project.
T:WGENDA\2004\Oct1304\Consent\Biscayne Point RFQ Memo.doc
z
r
J
~ W
N J
2 ~
U W
w U
Q y
~ W
QvQ c~c.~~LLa
mWOOp
ma
j ~ W N 2
=LL~am
v U~x
N U ~ O U
~ U W
U N N Z
J
3z
,~ o
o U
x
U
K
o
s
1
I
II
, 'i
i
I
i
i 1
i
~; ~«..
~,,,,«a.
r
,:,,~,
«.r
i
<
g
i
r
~
,
~
~
I
m
~
R
,
~
i
~
~
_
i
J
R
1
I
i
~
'
I
IN
1
»
~
~
I
~
~
I
I°I i
'
i
, I
i
-
', i~
sv.
I
{
~
1 ;
I
i
~
I
f
~
~ Ii I ,
/„
/
I
l
'
~
^
_
_
_
r
..
I a ~ o o r ~ ~
~.
;//
i
,...
j
,e
~9
%~i
/
';
, ~ ~~
I
d ~
;~;- ~
II
g m $ m t a e
~.
~. I
~
~
S
S
~
m
~
S
r
m
N
j.
.c <:.
~<,"
'ss:n
I
t
~-~
~'
I
~ I
-
yr
,
~~
i
y
#- ~
,'. ~/
.;' '
~~i it I
ml
C ~ ',
-~ i
I
II
~; ;,
r,z~.
I
,//
~ J
~ 3 ~ ~ E
e ~ ~ 3
_
~ 8
U ~ a
o 3
e ~
e
c
"
~
s 3
e 3
w ~
l o
v ~
i~ I I
~ ~ 3
se '~
~ 4_
~
I
I
E
~
J 'Q
L~r V
~~
~ Y
8
c "
~
I
~
Ir - ~
~ I
~ ~'
E
3F
~
I~.
I ~
f "
~ s 9'
31F u,
~-
''.
I o
O
I
I
"
IE
,.
e
I F!, l
a 0
e
~
L
4
i
-
E
ll
s 3 0~
~c -
U
l$ .
C i
Tcsi
m
&
a
Iz
.,a F
~
u
~
¢ ~
-
4°c
I~
-
- :
- ~ g z'
- moo,,
I Ny,o
N
>
p ~ o
~
I~
I
~
c
E
1 vl~
12
- q" ~ J
cl s
-_ o,
~ c~ -
.
`w-I -
I
. ~
C
l ~ ~ _ - 8 ~
y _
~
:
i g
~j ~
~'.
€w Ig u s w
" f i- ~
u~ F .
~ ~s,u
E" N E ~ ,. I
~
X'-"c£'F ~,O
~ u~~$unlw0 v
°$ r
d
E 'ffi° b
wx~iE F°
I ~
F `u".o
u
I ~ U d a 0 xt
i
c U I~ c t Q ~ Ui Y U Id I " c) U ~ '
y~ ~o ~~ 3 ~ _
l I ~o~ . ry _ I
,~
~~_
..ii' ~
y
y
_
I
.
}N
I
r
N
n
w oo
~r n toc>
1~
w
_
_
N
_
ry
_
ry
_ _
{N
~
I I
I
I
'4
e
1
0
1 I
. I
I
.
1
d
~
ry
1
m m
If
I
I
/
~./.
.«~.v;%~''v-
I
~
~
E
33
.
~
.Ei
33
f
33
I
'
;
;
o
i
3
a i
33
rclrc
c~
3
rc
3
C
`
.3
~~
;
5
5
~
3
c
i
c
13
p
3
p
t
33
Ircrc
I
I
J
~ i ~
~
~ '
.
.
{.
-
.
4,
~
r .
~ ~
~
-
-
t
I
~
.mm
~ r ~ ry
l
t
0
0
w
w
~~
U
O
(~
E
O
f
Z
Q
r
J
7
2 J
7
U w
~ _
Q y
`L w
_ ~ LL a
a~zm
mw00o
m K
~-°¢O
p Q K z ~
U w V ~ _
m0~0f9
~~Vw
U QN N Z
R' Z
Z F
_ J
30
o~
x
u
a
0
u
E
0
r
z
r
J
2 J
J
U W
~ _
Q y
`LQ w
=R'LL O.
¢OZm
mw00o
w m C F O
~-a¢O
o¢~z~
= w U f 2
N0~ O (7
~~Vw
U NN N 2
R' Z
LL
Zr
- J
30
O U
F
2
C7
K
F
Z
Q
H
J
~ W
N J
Z
7
UW
~ _
Q y
f W
_ ~ LL d
Q(7Zm
W m d ~ ~
j ~ W N 2
S LL j a m
U U f 2
N~~OC7
~ U W
U Ny N Z
d' Z
2 ~
- J
30
O U
2
U
K
Q I
N
O
l7
E
O
z
r
J
~ W
N J
U W
w U
Q y
`C W
_ ~ LL O.
Q ~ Z m
m W O O p
W mKrO
j ~ W N 2
pQ0-'2R
=~~am
LL U ~ _
m>0~ O (7
1-~O W
U N N 2
J
30
W U
O
K
a
n ~ I I
v A
~ ^
1
III°
o~ ! ,.
W~
, od
offi
1
1 ~
o
W
~,
..
`'+~,
%-~'
fi'' /
w'
g
n
~
r
~
~
R
S
R
g8
'1
i
~
I
~
~
S&
-
R
i
~
~
~~
'
1»
N
~
~
~
~
F
»
S o
M
~
_
_o i
~ N 'I
r
~
'
a
S'
w
rn
~
w
~
~
~~ ~
n~ w
~
s
~
~ 'I
.~
i
I
i 1
~
~
~
~
i I
6!
~.
' _
I
~ I
i y rR
r
_
_
<
3
S m
g
8
g
g
g
//- y~
.~?
~%~" '
~~
~
$,,.;:
~ ,.
,;'°;,, _
o ~
%y
~/
iii:
f
rv a <
//
'
;I i
:=4//,
~j
P;-
~'
~
~~
~~,
I
~
L
,~
egg, e~
I
g 8 0 8 g
~ $ ~ n
%"
~
I
~ g
~ e
yE m
IE _€
E
V +~
~
E ~
_
P i
~'~
3 O
~ E
~
~
~
~ u
e
3 $
le
" °
e' 3
m ~
l~
w
_
II
~
_
~ rc~ 9
~ ~W'
oc°> ~
II° ~
i ~
n
o
.9_~
h~. ~'-
o
p
i
!
E
..
I
2
-
~
3
S
~
,
u
~
f
~
'
_"
' ~
~
O
~
I.
I s
w
3
o
1
C
E
I
Ii
II 4~
w
~
a
~
on
I
a
-
3
_
I
9
~
o
v7' r
-
-
w
,
~
4'.
0 Q
0 ~.
y x
_
E E 1
3 3..
.
3 3
01~.
g
i
' __
L
s
'°
=
u n
i
„
E y
'.~ ~
~ 3
°
w 3
Lgq
o
a u E
'3. 0
~ ¢
3 1 E O Ez
00
¢ O
to ~
OU O
E F
o
w ~
II a
K, ~
I
~ ®:,
`> ~I
-
O
_
~ I
'~.
/_%
0
0 >
~ 3
E e .,m
W I
3 ~~
a 0
~ >
O O rc
R Q ~
~ $
u _gg
o ~
~ ~
~
3 ~ L
3 IME
~ S
0 ~
~
~ ~
0E
i O
~ o 10 31 OIL
~
O p W O~ > O S w
~'I
I P
(f z
O ~
E ~~
j o; o t o u ° s oj o I ~ ~ ~ s I oEO ~ ~ u q
~3 Q m Q I '~ y'.oy ~ rc o W a o, z..o ~ q o
~'~ o
Il
o
o I
a',,
-
y
y ~
r u,
woo
o
IN
~_ Im
_
~ °
_ _ '~ ~
_oo o ,. rc
.- __
~
d
d
o
a
°olia 3 ~
3 ~ oo ~
o°' QO
E
- o',
ail
'I
1 v
a
_ s o
z u ~i
°
_ b
N .
o
~ _
33
~ ~ ;3 3 3 S 3
Jam 3
rc 3 3 3' S
l Tr
, }
~-
I
~jr _
1
rir r~
~ .
all
:~ _r
I
_ !~
d
a
`~
f
O
_~.
. Q
J
~ W
N J
7
U w
Q N 2
fwa
2 ~ LL W
Q~Zy
wm~OU
j ~ W N N
= LL ~ d O
~7 U f O
y O ~ O 2
~U d'
U Q N m
K~=
Z (7
2 Fa-w
} ~ Z
30
O U
2
(7
C
Q
O
7
ur
~ ICI
~ ~ I
l I ! II EII Iii
II
I ~ III it
r
O
-
m
-
o
m
m'
~
m~
`$
rvII
J
I
h
n'
'
~
~
~
1
~
~o,.
~
u~
m
m
Si ~S
p
» rv
em lo ry
rmn
y
om
»
n
°io m
hi n nn
~O
r w M » »
1 Ip
I
N w
w ~' l
r N
IN
N
- _
rc
O
O
r
m
v
I
v
~
n
~
~
N
m
~
~
m
~
m
rv
n
~
o
v
! -
~
•
m
+
^
I f
^
m
v
I
~
^
~
v
~
I I
I
ll~~
It _
e
Y
U I
t
O
¢~
~ Q
W~
v
V ~ I
~v N IA
rv
W~
o I
a~
O -
I
z 81 m Si a a a
~~
Y
yE
~ m ~ ~ ^' ~ 9 ° ~ ° ~ S ° m al o ~ 'I
~9 'I II
w=y
duf e
Cwi_
OU~K III
~gOC
U
-
}
~~2
mUa
~ O
¢ U
0
rc9
w ~
I
~ ~
W~ I
¢ ~
~
w~
~i
ZVa e a i
!
K~
V ~
H '-o
Caffi
ag
a i.
O
o¢
2¢
K4~
~~U I
UO
_
a0~
v
I I
o
OIL
g
~
~
_p
3
°
3
e
~
_~
E
3
_
O
~
E
S
8
~
~i ~
13 °o
E
I I
~
3
!
'3
o
u~
a.
I
_ u F
, ~ e
E V S ~ @ I
I n N @ 1
r
"
IC IE
~w IW N ~ I
I ~
E fle
~ w
I to II
U
Y E
w U..
O ~
a q
- 2
O
~
-
~ F
O I E
E E =3 '1
~ O
LIn '~ ~ :
~' c'
m O z_
b I '~
IE E
-
- a
~1 ~~
' O l
~
F c'
sl II _
a...
O
O
7.
_
_
p
~ v.~
t
oEa
3
3
e
c
l
s~
u
E _
4
3
=3
_
@
s
~-oEa`
4 EI _
3
8=
3
~
¢
r
-
r
- I~
ym E
s
-
°.
o
4 A
0
& Iv
gl ° n
m
NI
I
3 v n
= ola `
U
x H
u
n
~
3'.c
L I
E
-
~
12
l
.
u
I
x
I
'.O
0
'~
I
u
3
I
'
o
z3
3
of ~
E
a
o
=
°
x,u o
~a ..F ~
o I
_
xlu oa~o ~ E ~
~ Z
°u Ern
^
~
°
e a FF
2 mcE
l ao I
ip0 ICI ~
-
~
U
~~E ~y
@
o~e
,.40
F
0=
c E~y
€' `~
I ~
O
uo
~3
-
NiN
i °~
o
~I~m
I
a, d
l ,
OE
~i~~~
O ou ~ I ~
I
a~
F
~
„
~
rilrv
rv
~I.
nlrv
n
N
N
I
N
NU
woo
o
e
N
N
N
I
a
1~ rv
~. w
~ _ 00
rv,..
'
o
_
f I
t
'
,
~
_ Wq 1
~
_
o
_
,
Ij W
~
t
m
i
i
m I r
_
L "
__._
-~
°
I
' s
3
~ E
3 ~~
3 ;
! - s
~3 'sue
33 ~ ,
fi
33 3
N~ y
3
m -
~ 33
~ 3
3
~rc 33
a ~33
'rcrc -
~ I
~
5
i 3
z 3 3
rc rc 3
e 3
rc 3
rc ,~ ,
Ala
i I
i
~
I-_
G
z I ~ ~ I~ I ~ iN I~~ ~
H'I
O
`~ o
VVV Z
~N
F
Q
J
7
2 J
7
U W
w U Z
Q N -
fQQwa
Q=Q K LL 2
(j J l l l ~ O Q
W m ~ r U
J - a Q N
7 ~ W V1
W f 7 W
= W U ~ O
y ~ 7 ~ 2
~ U O
U a N m
C 1-2
Z
N
2
3a
W V
O
2
N
I'
I
N
o
1
~
I
-
1
1
~
m ;
~
1
I
a
~
'
a
w
~
~
I
~
~
~
w~
~
~
~
l
'
I
~
~
~
~
_
I
~
~
I w
a
0
w
I
w
~
~
i
~
I
1
w
~ww
,
1
~
~
~
w
!
I
o
m
r
~
l
~
~
.
_
.
'
~
m
~
~
e
~
~
~
~
,
~
N r
l
m -
~
~
~
m
I
Y~
v
0
vQ
w~
z
~u
uu
I
~ o
a .'g
ag
~a
a
W R ° R
4~
H 2
Q.
~Y
O h
N
U¢V~
w ¢
~
Q; R
~~~~
z
~~,.
~ iss
~ ~ ;;¢
Z
~
;,i;
C ~`~.
~i ~',
r~..'°,
~~
I
~
a
a
e
a
a
~a
i
I
m m
~ i
a :e
aUt'~;
g~~
¢z
u~o
waa
z~dQ
°
~u
~- z
VG
~u
dw~
rc~
`O
o
~ 'm
o
m
i
.
~
e
=
311
-
II
_
u e
~
S
1
~
`
-
~
B ~3 °~
_
~
-
uA
I I ~
~3
~
~
~
~e
le
'c
_
jS
~
'Ian
3
-
i o
°o~
•
"!°
~
F
~ I
~
A
E
.c
le
~
4
8
a
~
' I
~ 3 ~
~
~a
I
a
u
u,
u
. ~
E
E
_
-
~
~ a
3
O
p
.
'~
m
" v
~ ~
E
, E
C
~m
-
'm
-E
u
r
_
-
O
~
-
_
-
°
~
m
I
s"
_
~
E
c
-
m
8
~
~
I
U
i
3 rc
~~.
li
€
O
m
~
~
a
m
I
e E
E I
~
n
-
cm .
_
«s
-
."~v
~
'
-
o „
~
I °I,~
~
-
¢ in rt
m po
E
~
m~ g
I
I m a ;~ m
°' o
~ 1° 2i
pp
L
E
I
~ ~ a p ~
~'.
Z
L'E c
y
L 3 PI ~
d
x
Y 3
Im q
2~ m
E 3
I . 0
Im'~ 3 3
4 g O O E
I`~a a
.
F I.
$ €F
O x .mp0 3: m~
~ "~
2 o q F ~.E
u~u'E
f z
L~
- pOrc
O'. E @ . .. ~ '~ ~ E{,.
E ,
p0 I
.., I$ E~
~ ~ d SC ~
~ F
E Opl 't E
~ O
nu ~ O 9
T p ~ I D O E () Y (f D O E
m
p ( (
i I~
_~ p
n
'~
N
N
l o o U
2r
I woo
0
u
y r
r
- ii
_ ~°
I
o _
f
r
n
N - -
}-~ ~_ , ~~I~ oo '~.
{-
`,
n
~
y
Sa
~
°n
t
I
~
d'm
~
~ i
'
m
~
n
I
I
i
__
f
I
3
z
'
c" _
3 3 313
rc~
cia
3
3
3
3
3 l
a
3
3
i
3
x 3 3
z
~
I 3
3' 3
I
3' 3
3
3
I
i
I ,
~
T
t
'
~ z
-
rv
~.rv
~.
~
i
~ m ~
~
I ~~~
2
H
J
7
Z J
7
U W
w U Z
Q N .
Q~Qwa
= y' IWi W
a~zy
Wm°~Sa
~ U
j~ W fpN
=~~aO
LL OHO
W ~ 7 ~ _
~~~~
U Q y m
C1-=
2 ~
Y j 2
3z
W U
O
r
C=7
z
<
O
~
s
~ I
I
i
II
N
O
U
O
~
w
~
~
w
I
~
m
I
1
I
~
I
Nl
i
h
`
y
w
I
,
~
n
I
v
»
N
m
h
a
m
mo
1
I
m
»
_
~
.
»
.
«
~
~
n
m
_
i
`
N
j
O
S
n
m
«
«
p
I
I
I
~
_
i
'
~
r
m
m
I
n
n
N
m I
I
I
U
0
a3
wy~y
UV
r I I
i
rv
«
«
a
i
%33'.
a ;:
1 o «
«
,'.;
~
ii~~
8,.....,'... -
I,
°
I
~ '
~''
p"` ?. ' «
..
~. ~~
I
. rv «« m
I ~
~ ~
~U~
~
«
I
i
~~
.~. 333 I li
who
U
~~
wF
w
w~
e~
as
I
i
I
~..
asa
~p~_ m l«
m
«
wua
oQ
of
rzz
~oQ I
OZ a~
a~U
W~u 1
a'w~
rc~
a Z
€
A
I~
9
e~
3
_
>
0 8
e
~
,
~
~
'e
3
i;`°°
_
~~
~, I
13
> ~2w
0 8
o
9
3
e
, 3 v
0
8
a
~,I
I"
8
e
-~
3
B
e
~
~
a
3
`e
~
-
~
~ ~, ~ _ ~3~ ~
- ~
~
S`
~ ~ ~~
~ ~
A ,
EI ~
- f
13- ~~c
s ~,~ of
c
aio ~
._ i~
s. ~ ,
~, F U I
i - _ s~s°
- ~
-
s I
Y
°~.
~
$ ~
E
s
g
£
£
B
-
~.
~
IFS
~
tt _
o
~
p ~~x
~
o s
~
~
I
E
E
I -
O
0.3
8
~
;
~
OE'^
E
_
~ -
Eq
E
`3
I~
4m
;o
~~!
'~
OE
olp
~
~
~
s
4
,w,
~I
~
E
Y ~
v
~I
I
~
'S
3
-
~
al
~,
o
~
Im'
~I
e
g
4~
a~.
~~a
E
Y O
.30
~
V
3
z
.4d
0
g
2~ E
E
4~
E yy
M
u
v
E
~ $
100 r
I $E
.u I
$
d E
€£
p ~
~
O .z
°
~
d ~
I E
I p qi
$ 00 >,
0 3
9 r
~
)
~i
~
9
P ~
€~
O
O v
K°E
p
Y
A
~ 3_ 44
x YE
E ~
$ $
u.
C~ t7
2 ~
I
Up~ p
p [~ E
t)
OE ~
~
~
I p
OIO ( ( f
~I
p E
O U
n f
«I
«
«
«
« p1° o ~
lal«
~ «
« ~«
1 lo
1~ b°u $ I
a
«~
f I w
«
p o 0 2
n~ I
«
n .i'
ir
« o 0 2 «~«
_
« i
r
I
°w w
I
~ r
~
$ w
aim
~ I
_
I
I
a
a~
Vi li g
°
I
~
I
$
z
o
3
3r
alp
3 3
rc
~I~
c g
I
3
I
~~ I
3
3
33
3
a ~
i I Id
I l
3 i'
3 3.33
~
~ ~
p
'-g
I
~
3
3
c
33
~
~
3
~ I 3
~ 3 3 3
z 3
~
I
I.
~
a
.. ~ I « ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ «« I I
I
iz l
Q
J
~ W
N J
Z ~
V W
w V 2
Q y _
fQwa
= y' LL W
a~z>
mm~ga
~~a¢oi
W~~wo
y o 7 0 2
~ U ~
U Q N m
C~=
Z
y ? Z
3z
W U
O
S
K
N
O
s
I
I
I
~ '
~~
°
a
y
I
m
.p
~_I
w
~
N
n
a
n
i
w
'.
N
I
-I
w
N
w
v
H
h
m
~
m
n'.
N
x
w
~,
m
~
~
m
n
~
~
n
~m
rh
~
~
~
.
s
MI
~
A
m
I
~
r
1
i
~
h
rv
m&
nn
~
m
~
;~
:
1
R
M
~
N ~'
g
n gn
mv
m
~I n
i
» ~
o
» n
-
» m
m
^
~
»
o
n»
»
»
O w" n . n i . i
1 . .. I { ...
K
O
Y
v
o
~
H
a
~
~
~
N
r
-
mm
-
n
-
I
r
I
m
~ I
-
m
'
o
-
n
N
i
m
N
~
~
~
n
v I
~
~
a
m ~
"
v
-
O
U
I
J~
UO
W ¢
UD
C
r g`
4g
K
C
~a
g '~
NE
D
~ `y
D i
2w
~ ~
vow
zC
~U?~
~~z'y
a
V Q
Q
R'(J2
m~Q
(.7uC
', I
w¢~
I a •
w~
~_
_~_ ~
-
I
~ U
w ~ i
I
l
I
~
uU~ mlm
I
¢~
~rc
a=
_
o
ugh
°
4'
uQo
a4a
~u
Ow~
6p
r I II
i II i I I
c
U -
Ion
m'Y
i ~
O
~
p
°
~
3
E
~
~I °
-
3
~
p
o
~E
i
I_
-
f L'o
II
~
E
u
l
-
f
-
a - -
.. ~ E
~ In
~ ~
E ~ Z ~~ I z
ly F
E
L° n
4
III _ Z
~
a
l
O n1 £jc
c>I'n
~
o I
Im n
°~
',p w
9 -
Y
°c
-
'E
p°n
-
I
~
E
3
gu
1O
f sl"
QI SO
~
Q
O
°
~Y
~z't
ao y.E I
4
L
f nu
4
g
3
.
~
a
~
s
_
Q
n
O u
F vl I E
z
v
, u
n
_
~
~
~
o3
3
c
~
l
0
_
0 -
.
o
z
4
f
_ .
l~u
e3
~3_
g.'d 4'
_.9
_
O
z
E
n
_
°~
u
N
E-
I
op¢ c SI E . E _
w €
~ w
o ° w9 9 m E
no rti
° iu
c S
l
I ~ .
~ _
Z
Om d'.~
°zz t
x _
E
lo°
° ° e
z . E
' ~ ~. E
~
°Og O
° I i~
~
~
3
n ° xu Gl
l ~
^ ° 'w y z,8 3
~
°
~
h
s
l
~.. o
3 to ul
'
f
o
o
o
f ° ° a E~
o
o x u CI E ~ I
~
-.
°$
arv
o
°
f ~ I o o 2°z° ~
r
r
n
'.rv °OO ~
rv n lr ~nn w , I
ri ~~vnr
n
~ o l
I
v
f
~
~ dm
r
l
l
~.
m
_
-
I
i~
gi p' ~ ~ g' 3~ '~
33
~ g arc ~
I~3~
~ . g 3'~3
rcrc 333
rclc ~ g 3 3 33 p~
..
z
r +
~
I
- m
m
I
I
r
l
~~
r
2
H
J
~ W
N J
Z ~
vw
Q N 2
fwa
T ~ LL W
a~Zj
Wm~FU
j ~ W N N
= LL j d ~
N ~ 7 p 2
~ U ~
U Q y m
R ~ _
Z ~
Z r W
J Z
3z
wU
O
f=7
K
N
r
i
N
~
n
°n
. id
¢ m
w
u
9 I
UI ~
w
I
~
I i
~
m
a
~
I
I
1
l
K
I
I
',
I
I
~~
~~
<~
In
m
~
A
8
S
So
I
~~ ~
9
<
e e
3 I
8
~
~
Ig
°'
p '"
~
N » I
-i , - -
_ ~
_
m
I
:
~
a
I
I
m
~ ,
. I
m
~
m
~
~
m
i
I°s
s
_
~
_
~ ~
s
~ o
o f
a
s
~~~
~.:~.= I
s
r,,,
w
v
„l I
I
~/ I 3 j
r
.:~ j ' i
/
~
/~j/j; ,,
~ ~ i
~ ~ I
j
~~
m
S
~
m
~
, ~
~~~~\
Z
~•
m
&
~
I
~ ~-; r_
Y-
s4:,
:
~
I
~
~
"
~~
a
t
n
~ ~ '
% / ~
~~
.. ' -
m
r
i
°
F
~
bo
o o g
~
I
I
`
~
~ I^
r
I
~
i
S
iii
I
S
/~
/ _ _-
:~
» ~,
:,
// I y
z ~
~ ~ A
E ~ I
ff
'/ dtr
7 3
~ ~ I `~
I o
rc I
6 C
E
E _
u
-
E
~`
~
I
'
F"
a 3~
~I w
c ~~
o w
I 1~1,
3
M~
oz~
,~
_
m
r
~
-
u
~
o a 9
I'g
~'
i
i
o
,o
<
~
I
~~'~. F~ ~ 3 0o ~ a l z ~
~ o:~ 3 ~
° LL
~ I
3
8
t
o >
~
0
3
w
_
O'
as
3 r E ~
O fl,
¢°, z
u
~~ ~
OF
~ ao
~~
0~
i~ O
p
I ~
i
~
~
~
~
~ I
H I ~
~
I
v
N
~
i
o
~I
o o
w o
3 0~
m l
oo z'o
a~ I
o
r ~ u
li
~x ~
O
O
O..~ E
U ~
f
' I ~
f
K U' ~
O E
O~
~ p ~ y,U
O v ~'I
2
O )~
~ wU
E
~ rc
O m
~
O ~
p~
J ccNN I
W
~ O
_
~ C
00
~
~ (~ x
r
a
I
_ wO
Ow ~
v G O
mho ~ u
~a°a ~o°la
3 a ¢ ~
¢
II
0
=
_
o
_
o __ . .
g - ~ I m
I I
I I I a 3133
w
zo
~
Y
~
I
i
a -
m
Im
i - ~
I
F
Z
O
~A ~ o
"~
V
~~
Chartrand, Jorge
From: Vidal, Bert J. [bvidal@hazenandsawyer.com]
Sent: Monday, March 22, 2004 8:36 AM
To: Rolandelli, Alex
Cc: Chartrand, Jorge; Meyers, Joyce; Hoffman, John O.
Subject: FW: Biscayne Pointe ROW Project -Fee Proposal from Corradino in Preparation for Second
Negotiation Session
Importance: High
Drawing List First Biscayne Pointe
Negotiation... Design Fee Pro...
Good morning:
Just touching base on this issue as a brief reminder.
The BODR was completed in October 15, 2003. Please advise on proposed City direction.
Thanks Bert
-----Original Message-,----
From: Vidal, Bert J.
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2004 8:55 AM
To: Alex Rolandelli (alexrolandelli@miamibeachfl.gov)
Subject: FW: Biscayne Pointe ROW Project - Fee Proposal
Second Negotiation Session
Importance: High
FYI
-----Original Message-----
From: Vidal, Bert J.
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 4:59 PM
from Corradino in Preparation for
To: Jorgechartrand (E-mail)
Cc: Hoffman, John 0.
Subject: Biscayne Pointe ROW Project - Fee Proposal from Corradino in Preparation for
Second Negotiation Session
Importance: High
Jorge:
Joe Corradino has submitted the attached fee proposal for design / bid / award and cm on
the subject project. As was the case with North Shore, we have taken the liberty of
preparing our interpretation of the required drawing list (which we suggest be included
with any contract amendment that may result from these efforts).
Following is a summary of points of interest for you consideration:
- Total fee being requested by Corradino for Design / Bid / Award and CM Services is
$832,230, which is $50,000 higher the value requested during the First Negotiation
Session of $782,877.
- To date, the fee expended by Corradino for Biscayne Point Planning is $90,512. When
added to the requested fee of $832,230, this totals a fee of $922,742. The estimated
construction / contingency budget for the Biscayne Point neighborhood is $6,414,936. This
represents 14.30.
- The estimated drawing count from Corradino totals 230 sheet (although LA 1 through 5 are
not identified). Our estimate is 219 sheets.
1 ~1TACl~I~~N~~ ~
- Revisions to total lengths of watermains and stormwater priority basin improvements,
appear to match previously established boundaries.
- Note that limitations to certain Construction Administration Activities have been noted
by the Consultant that we believe the City should take note of and address accordingly.
These include the
following:
* Unlike on North Shore, the Consultant has not taken exception to the fee request
not including "time to process plans through building department. This will be done
hourly" We believe that this point should be clarified since it is unclear why the
Consultant would take a position such as this one project but nor the other.
* The Consultant has assumed that they will respond to a maximum of 50 RFIs during
the progress of the project. We would anticipate that his number will be readily exceeded
and additional services then required.
* The Consultant has not indicated a limitation to either Change Order (Task 4.6) or
Contract Document Clarification (Task 4.4) Item processing, yet they do include
limitations on RFIs and Shop Drawing Reviews. It is recommended that clarification as to
the intention of all parties be verified.
* The Consultant has noted that they will process up to 12 shop drawings and 6
resubmittal. We would anticipate that his number will be readily exceeded and additional
services then required.
* The Consultant has allowed for only 12 specialty site visits during a 18 month
project. This is equivalent to only one visit every 1.5 months. We anticipate that this
allowance will be readily exceeded and additional services then required.
Please take a look at the attached and advise how you would like to proceed.
Thanks
Bert
2
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Capital Improvement Projects Office
July 2, 2004
The Corradino Group
Joseph Corradino
4055 NW 97 AVE
MIAMI, FL 33178
RE: RIGHT OF WAY INFRASTRUCTURE PROGRAM
NEIGHBORHOOD NO. 1 - BISCAYNE POINT
Dear Joe:
Telephone 305673-7071
Facsimile 305-673-7073
The City has carefully and thoroughly reviewed your latest proposal for Professional Services forthe
Design, Bid, Award and Construction Administration forthe above mentioned neighborhood project.
Your current proposal is approximately $50,000 higher than the previous proposal, which is
surprising given the discussion during the first negotiating session. After careful evaluation and
several internal discussions, the City considers the amount of your proposal above the standard
expected level of services fee for this type of project and not in keeping with the fees negotiated with
other consultants for similar tasks.
In addition, your proposal includes limitations and caveats that are not acceptable to the City. For
example, the exclusion of services for the processing of documents through the regulatory agencies
expressed in the North Shore Neighborhood proposal is not presented in this proposal. This leads
the City to believe that the increase in fee from the previous discussion is at least partly due to this
service, but the City will not consider it as such since the regulatory process service is the
responsibility of the consultant as defined in the tasks of the standard Agreement.
Similarly, your proposed limitations to the reviews of Requests for Information, and Shop Drawings
and Technical Submittals, are also not acceptable since the City believes the allowances you are
proposing will be exceeded and therefore additional services would be incurred which the City is not
prepared to accept. Again, these are items which are the consultant's responsibility and must be
included in the proposal without limitation.
Finally, your allowance of twelve specialty site visits during the construction period of the project is
also inadequate for the duration as well as for the expected complexity of the project. Theses site
visits are viewed by the City as critical to the appropriate construction of the project and therefore
should not be limited to such a small amount.
After our initial negotiating session and the several negotiating sessions on the North Shore
Neighborhood, the City expected a more realistic and reasonable approach to this process and that
The Corcadino Group would present a proposal more in keeping with the discussions held with staff.
A fee representing over fourteen percent of the construction value of the project is not what the City
N-BPTROW - 01a - 07022004 - JECH - OL
~rr~c~~r~,~n~i ~
Biscayne Point Neighborhood
Page 2
considers competitive and is not comparable to fees for services in projects of higher complexity
than the subject project.
It appears that at this time, your firm and the City are unable to agree on a fee more in line with the
expectations of both parties and that further negotiations would not be fruitful or conducive to an
Agreement acceptable to both. Therefore, the City has decided to reject your latest proposal for this
project and to end negotiations on this matter. The City intends to issue promptly a new Request for
Qualifications for the design and construction administration of the project.
Consider this letter a termination of the Agreement existing between the City and the Corradino
Group for this Project. The Corradino Group shall deliver to the City an electronic version of the
completed documents for Phase 1, Planning and Schematic Design, including the Basis of Design
Report, any schematic drawings, estimates, and any available calculations as a close out submittal
for the Project. The City appreciates your interest on this project and on the City's activities and
wishes you and your firm continued success on your future endeavors.
Director
c: Tim Hemstreet, Director
Ronnie Singer, Community Information Manager
Alex Rolandelli, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator
Luz Maria Ciccia, Senior Planner
Bert Vidal, Hazen 8 Sawyer
F:\CAPI13all\chartrand\Bisgyne Point Proposal Rejection.doc
O
Z
0
d
O
U
THE CORRADINO GROUP
ENGINEERS PLANNERS ARCHITECTS CONSTRUCTORS ARCH. LIC. NO. AA0002957
July 12, 2004 - :i
~-
Mr. Jorge Chartrand, Assistant Director
Capital Improvement Project ' _ -'
MIAMI BEACH CITY HALL ~ ~~
1700 Convention Center Drive
Miami Beach, FL 33139
Dear Mr. Chartrand:
While I regret that the City has decided to accept other bids for work on both the North Shore
and Biscayne Pointe projects, it is factual that costs provided by Corradino were developed after
careful consideration of the City's needs and desires after several meetings and discussions with
you and your staff. In short, the costs are for what you asked for. Not only are these costs
realistic and reasonable, they are within industry standards for such services. The Corradino
Group could not perform the services for less and be profitable doing so.
As you know, The Corradino Group has no existing agreement for the design of these facilities.
In addition, the City is currently in possession of all required documentation. The Corradino
Group(Iwil~pursue this matter with the City no further.
DL;'1~'O GXOL~P
~dino, AICP
President
JMC~It 'i
Cc: ( Tim Hemstreet, Director
Ronnie Singer, Community Inforniation Manager
Alex Rolandelli, Senior Capital Projects Coordinator
Luz Maria Ciccia, Senior Planner
Bert Vidal, Hazen & Sawyer
Fred P'Pool, The Corradino Group
Steve Sullivan, The Corradino Group
~ -- U~T(~w - O lam.- U 1 l ZZovT ~/
J Projrcis/3048/NortliS~ore
J:Prgjrctsi3097i8iscaynePointe
4055 NW 97rh AVENUE • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33178
TEL. 305.594.0735 • FAX 305.594.0755
W W W. CORRADINO. COM
f~17AC~fM~NT 5
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
CITY HALL 1700 CONVENTION CENTER DRIVE MIAMI BEACH, FLORIDA 33139
Capital Improvement Projects Office
September 24, 2004
Telephone (305) 873-7071
Facsimile (305) 673-7073
VIA Facsimile (305) 594-0755 and US Mail
Joseph M. Corradino, AICP
Executive Vice President
The Corradino Group
4055 NW 97 Avenue
Miami, FL 33178
Re: Services for Biscayne Point Neighborhood Project
Dear Mr. Corradino:
In 2003, The Corradino Group completed a Basis of Design Report for the above noted
neighborhood in the City of Miami Beach. This work was completed pursuant to a Request
for Qualifications that The Corradino Group (Corradino) responded to, and for which, an
Agreement for the preparation of the Basis of Design Report (BODR) was executed.
As you are aware, the Agreement contemplated only pre-design services, in other words
the preparation of the BODR. The reason for this was based on the uncertainty of the final
scope of work that would be designed and then constructed at the time the BODR scope
was negotiated. It was always contemplated that the City and Corradino would enter into a
negotiation process post-BODR for the remaining phases of work.
Unfortunately, City staff and Corradino were not able to agree on a fee and the City staff
sent Corradino a letter ending the negotiations as an impasse.
On September 8, 2004, the City staff recommended that the City Commission issue
another Request for Qualifications for the preparation of construction documents, bid and
award services, and construction administration services for the implementation of the
BODR that Corradino prepared. The City Commission, due to concerns about the time
involved with another RFQ process, chose to defer the item until their October 13, 2004
meeting. In the meantime, the Commission requested staff to provide additional
information regarding the staff decision to discontinue negotiations with Corradino.
Pursuant to #his request, please advise if Corradino is willing to continue with the project in
accordance with its last proposed fee for the scope of services provided by the City. Our
N-BPT ROW-01 a-09242004-TH-01
Ar~A~,~M~Nr ~
Mr. Joseph M. Corradino
September 24, 2004
Page 2
records indicate the last proposed fee for Design/Bid/Award/Construction Administration
services was $832,230, inclusive of reimbursables. Please also advise if Con'adino is
willing to continue with the project, but would request a change in fee. This is being
requested for informational purposes. If Corradino is interested in continuing with the
project, please understand that the City Commission would need to make a determination
to accept the fee for the scope of work and also award the Agreement.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please note that the deadline for City
Commission items is October 4, 2004. Please let me know if you have any questions or
concerns regarding this issue.
Sinc rely,
Tim emstreet,
Director
TH
c: Jorge E. Chartrand, Assistant Director
F:ICAPI1SaI~TIMHEMSTIN-8PT ROW-01a-09242004-TH-01.doc
O ENGINEERS PLANNERS ARCHITECTS CONSTRUCTORS
Z
Q
O
U
THE CORRADINO GROUP
R E C E i V E p H. LIC. NO. AAOOO2957
2~0R, SEP 30 PN 12~ 30
CITY Of E~IAMI c cACH
PROJECTS
September 24, 2004
Mr. Tim Hemstreet, CIP Director
CITY OF MIAMI BEACH
1700 Convention Center
Miami Beach, FL 33139
VIA US Mail and
Facsimile No. 305-673-7073
RE: Services for Biscayne Point Neighborhood Project
Dear Mr. Hemstreet:
Thank you for your reconsideration of this matter. Unfortunately, Corradino must
decline the offer to continue services on the Biscayne Point Project.
Respec Ily,
THE CfRAD~1V0 GROUP
Co rad' o, AICP
Vice resident
~/-,(~pT~2dty-oic~- p~3v~oo~
J:Projects/3097/Planning/ContracUDecline LU THemstreet 9-24-04
4055 NW 97th AVENUE • MIAMI, FLORIDA 33178
TEL. 305.594.0735 • FAX 305.594.0755
WWW.CORRADINO.COM
~r~c~~~~v~ ~
r