Exhibit ACOMMISSION ITEM SUMMARY
Condensed Title:
A Resolution Accepting the City Manager's Recommendation Pertaining to the Ranking of Firms Pursuant
to RFP No. 11-07/08 for Parking Cashiers, Attendants and Supervisors, Authorizing the Administration to ',i
Enter into Negotiations and Authorizing the Mayor and City Clerk to Execute an Agreement.
Key Intended Outcome Supported:
Maintain or improve traffic flow and improve parking availability.
Supporting Data (Surveys, Environmental Scan, etc.):
There had been an overall increase of 9.57% in total vehicle entries in City garages between 2004 and
2007, thus maintainin the need for arkin attendant and cashiers.
Issue•
Shall the Commission Adopt the Resolution?
Item SummarylRecommendatlon:
The City's existing contract for cashiers, attendants, and supervisors expired on January 3, 2008, and
(Pursuant to City Resolution No.2007-26731) the City Commission determined not to exercise a renewal
~, option. The contract for cashiers, attendants, and supervisors has been extended on a month-to-month
term until such time that a new contract is awarded by the Mayor and City Commission as a result of this
RFP.
At its December 12, 2007 meeting, pursuant to Resolution No. 2007-26731, the Mayor and .City
Commission authorized the Administration to issue this Request for Proposals (RFP) for parking cashiers,
attendants, and supervisors for the City of Miami Beach Parking System.
RFP No.11-07/08 was issued on January 8, 2008 and notices sent to over 12 firms, which resulted in the
receipt of (7) proposals from the following firms: AMPCO System Parking; Central Parking System; Double
park; Five Star Parking; Impark; Laz Parking; and Standard Parking.
An Evaluation Committee appointed.by,,the City Manager reviewed, scored and ranked the proposals. The
Committee ranked Impark as the #op-ranked firm; Laz Parking as the second-ranked and Standard
Parking as the third-ranked.
The Administration after exercising its own due diligence is recommending Impark as the highest ranked
firm, consistent with the Committee recommendation.
the Resolution.
Adviso Board Recommendation:
N/A
Financial Information:
Source of {
Funds: Funds are available from the following
1 $3,223,000 Parking Department funds: Fund 480-
0463-000312; 7th Street Garage 142-
6976-000312; and RDA Anchor
II '' Gara a 463-1990-00312.
l~l 2
OBPI Tcstal .' $3,223,000
Financial Im act Summa
:ity Clerk's Office Leg
Gus Lopez, Procurement
Si n-Offs:
tin `8~'~tpt' ~ ~~
SF RCM JMG`
d
x
W
U U ~~
~i` ~ ~ ~~~~~ ~ ~ ~ J4li EN l3A tTENI~, ~~ ~.,
~- 1~ ~ MATE ~1~~
480
m MIAMIBEACH
City of Miami Beath, 1700 Convention Center Drive, Miami Beach, Florida 33139, www.miamibeachfl.gov
COMMISSION MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Matti Herrera Bower and Members of the City Commission
FROM: Jorge M. Gonzalez, City Manager
DATE: April 16, 2008
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF THE MAYO AND CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE RECOMMENDATION OF'[HE CITY MANAGER,
PURSUANT TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFP) NO. 11- 07/08, TO PROVIDE
PARKING CASHIERS, ATTENDANTS, AND SUPERVISORS FOR THE CITY OF MIAMI
BEACH PARKING SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING THE ADNNNISTRATION TO ENTER INTO
NEGOTIATIONS WITH THE TOP-RANKED FIRM OF IMPARK., AND SHOULD THE
ADMINISTRATION NOT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE TOR.:' ~ '
RANKED FIRM, AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE WITH '1;F1E ,
SECOND-RANKED FIRM OF LAZ PARKING., AND SHOULD THE ADMINISTRATION ' ~ ;
NOT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE AN AGREEMENT WITH THE SECOND-RANKED FIRM; . ;
AUTHORIZING THE ADMINISTRATION TO NEGOTIATE.WITH THE THIRD-RANKE~D~
FIRM OF STANDARD PARKING.; FURTHER AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR AND CIT~Y~'• ~" .
CLERK TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT, UPON CONCLUSION OF SUCCESSFULF •:
NEGOTIATIONS IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $3,223,000. :<_ `'
ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Resolution.
FUNDING
$3,223,000 Funds are available from the following Parking Department funds: Fund 480-0463-
000312; 7th Street Garage 142-6976-000312; and RDA Anchor Garage 463-1990-
00312.
KEY INTENDED OUTCOMES SUPPORTED
Maintain or improve traffic flow and improve parking availability.
ANALYSIS
The City's existing contract for cashiers, attendants, and supervisors expired on January 3, 2008, and
(pursuant to City Resolution No. 2007-26731) and the City Commission determined not of exercise a
renewal option. The contract for cashiers, attendants, and supervisors has been extended on amonth-
to-month term until such time that a new contract is awarded by the Mayor and City Commission as a
result of this RFP.
At its December 12, 2007 meeting, pursuant to Resolution No. 2007-26731, the Mayor and City
Commission authorized the Administration to issue this Request for Proposals (RFP) for parking
cashiers, attendants, and supervisors for the City of Miami Beach Parking System. Additionally, at that
time, the Mayor and City Commission (and their respective staff), and the City Administration (and its
481
respective staff), instituted and agreed to be bound by the City's Cone of Silence Ordinance (as coded
in Section 2-486 of the City Code), with said "Cone" to be effective as of December 12, 2007.
RFP PROCESS
RFP No. 11-07!08 was issued on January 8, 2008 and notices sent to over 12 firms, which resulted
in the receipt of (7) proposals from the following firms
• AMPCO System Parking;
• Central Parking System;
• Double park;
• Five Star Parking;
• Impark;
• Laz Parking; and
• Standard Parking.
On February 15, 2008, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 054-2008, appointed an
Evacuation Committee (the "Committee°), consisting of the following individuals:
• Alex Anunziato, Miami Beach Resident, Board of Adjustment Member
' Ada Llerandi, Housing Authority
• Anthony H~mandez, Miami Beach Resident, Debat`rnent Committee Member
° - ~ ~• Mark~Gidri~y;`Miami Beach Resident, Budget Advisory Committee Member
' ~ • ' Al Feoia, IWia~ni Beach Resident, Transportation and Parking Corrimittee Member
' ' - • '` Allison WilliaMs, CPA, Chief Accountant ~ ~ .
' Julio Magrisso, Assistant Director Parks&..Recreation '
.' . Alternates:
1. Richard Lorber, Planning and Zoning Manager
2. Jorge Cano, Assistant CIP Director
. , ., . ,
1
On March 3, 2008, the City Manager via Letter to Commission No. 074-2008, informed the City
Commission that Mr. Fishman will be serving in place of Mr. AI Feola, also a TPC member, who was
unable to attend the Evaluation Committee meetings. Mr. Alan Fishman was selected from the
Transportation and Parking Committee to replace Mr. AI Feola
The Committee convened on March 5, 2008, 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 appointed Alex Anunziato as the Chairman of the Committee. Mr. Anunziato
has been invited to the April 16, 2008 City Commission meeting to directly convey the Committee
recommendations and to address any questions.
The Committee listened to presentations from all seven (7) Proposers, and participated in question
and answer sessions with each of the proposers.
The Committee was instructed to score and rank each proposal pursuant to the evaluation criteria
established in the RFP, which was as follows (total possible 100%):
482
Evaluation Criteria:
Wei ht
• Experience and Qualifications of the Proposer 20 pts
• Experience and Quaycations of Management Team 10 pts
and Key Personnel
• Hourly Billing Rates 40 pts
• Methodology and Approach 15 pts
• Past Performance (based on surveys and the 15 pts
Administration's due .diligence)
Total:
100 pts
The Committee discussed the proposals and the corresponding presentations, and proceeded to
score and rank the proposers as follows:
Parking Ada Alex Anthony Mark Alan Allison Julio
Firms Llerandi Anunziato Hernandez Gidne Fishman Williams Ma risso
AMPCO 95 2 74 3 95 2 87 4 91 4 82 3 • 90' 3
Central
~ i' ,,
Parkin 93 4 73 4 82 6 81 5 92 3 84 2 . ~ X79¢ 5
Double ~ '~•.tG
Park 70 7 56 7 85 5 40 7 72 73 5 •.70 7
Five Star ~ ~ ' `"
Parkin 92 6 63 6 90 4 60 8 85 5 77 4 ~ . r7~T 6
Im ark 94 3 82 1 95 2 89 2 95 3 78 ;9B 1
Laz
Parkin 97 1 80 2 100 1 89 2 85 5 79 5 91 2
Standard
Parkin 93 4 67 5 60 95 1 98 1 85 1 90 3
Subsequent to scoring, the Committee was provided with the above table illustrating the scoring.
After discussion on how to best proceed with short listing of proposers, a motion was trade by Alan
Fishman, with a second from Julio Magrisso, to specify that the Committee unanimously agreed that
the top three (3) proposers (in no specific order) would be determined based on the majority of1~`
2"d and 3ro place votes. The top three were:
Imperial Parking ("Impark");
Laz Parking; and
Standard Parking.
The Committee after discussing the top three (3) proposers listed above, and reviewing the number
votes received, on the motion by Alex Anunziato, with a second motion by Ada Llerandi, voted 6-1
(Alan Fishman dissenting), to agree that Impark was the top-ranked proposer.
The Committee then discussed the scoring and ranking of the remaining two (2) proposers, and on
a motion by Alex Anunziato, with a second from Anthony Hernandez, voted 5-2 (dissenting votes by
Alan Fishman and Mark Gidney), to agree that Laz Parking was the second-ranked proposer, and
that Standard Parking was the third-ranked proposer.
483
Unfortunately, the recording device used during the Committee process failed later in the day long
process and the final three presentations and the Committee deliberation period were not recorded
on the device.
As the Committee meeting was~duly noticed pursuant to the Government-In-The-Sunshine Laws
and the entire meeting recorded via written minutes, the failure to have a complete audio recording
of the meeting is not a procedural violation. The Attomey General's Office has concluded that the
minutes of Sunshine Law meetings need not be verbatim transcripts of the meetings; ratherthe use
of the term "minutes" in Section 286.011, F.S., and contemplates a brief summary or series of brief
notes or memoranda reflecting the events of the meeting (Attomey General Opinion 82-47). While
tape recorders may also be used to record the proceedings before a public body, written minutes of
the meeting must be taken and promptly recorded (Attomey General Opinion 75-45}. The Sunshine
Law does not require that public boards or commissions tape record their meetings (Attomey
General Opinion 86-21).
The City Attorney's Office has concurred that no Sunshine Law violation occurred and the meeting
process is not invalidated by the failure of the recording mechanism.
CITY MANAGER'S DUE DILLIGENCE
The City Managerwas briefed on the Committee's recommendation and ranking of firms,,and in turn
as 'required rrthe City Procurement process, exercised fiis due diligence, which included but was
not limited 1;0: ~ .
"" ~ ~ 1. ~,'', : `Reviewing the proposals of the firms,
2.;" ": Reviewing the Committee's scoring sheets;
3. ~' :~ Analysis of Committee's scoring in various formats- (see Attachments 1 and 2) in
,. ~ order to assess alternate views and impacts associated with the Committee raw .•
'" scores ~ .
4. All issues raised by various individuals by e-mail or in writing throughout the
` process; and
The City Manager, as part of his due diligence also requested from each of the three ranked
Companies a detailed breakdown of wages to actually be paid to employees, benefits offered,
overhead and profit. The original cost data submitted in each proposal only identified the cost to the
City and did not specify how employees might be impacted or the anticipated profit from the
proposal
Attached (attachment 1, 2 and 3) are the responses from each of the top three ranked Companies
with the additional information about wages to actually be paid to employees, benefits offered,
ovefiead and profit.
Also attached is attachment 4, Supplemental Rate Information Analysis. Attachment 4 was
prepared by the Administration and reflects in a common format the supplemental data submitted by
the three Companies. Insufficient detail was provided by LAZ at the time of this memo to fill in the
break out categories. LAZ was responsive to the initial City request for information and if the
additional details can be obtained before the Commission meeting, they will be distributed as
supplemental information.
With the supplemental data available it is possible to compare the highest and lowest cost of the
three top ranked proposals. The review of the supplemental details of these two proposals is helpful
in better understanding the financial basis of the proposals. As LAZ is the middle cost proposal, it
would be expected that their detailed financial information would place them between the high and
low proposals.
484
Attachment 4 illustrates that both the number 1 ranked proposal (Impark) and the number 3 ranked
proposal (Standard) are spending close to the same amount on total wages paid to their respective
employees. Both the Impark and Standard proposal also anticipate similar amounts of overhead
and benefit costs, 27% and 26%, respectively. Whatwas interesting in the details provided are the
items that were included in overhead and benefits that might be further negotiated in a final
agreement. There was a small distinction between the two proposals on anticipated profit, but the
amounts indicate that this was not a significant factor in either proposal. What the attachment
indicates overall is that any negotiation to follow will be centered on the items and amounts included
in overhead and benefits.
In the Administrative assessment of the respective proposals and the Evaluation Committee
recommendation, the following observations as to the benefits or challenges offered have been
made of each of the top ranked proposals. .
Impark
The projected annual cost $3,222,962, which is $241,321 (7.7%) higher than the Standard
proposal amount and $154,066 (5%) higher than the LAZ proposal amount, prior to negotiation,
is estimated to be $61,888 (1.8%) below the current contract costs of $3,284,851.
In the Administrative review of this proposal. several items were ident~ed as being
advantageous to-the City..
• The firm is a National Company with experience in many jurisdictions
• The Company would provide a dedicated Human Resources professional for this
contract. This represents a commitment on the part of the firm to the recruitment
and retention of employee: '
• The Company stresses the~professional appearance of its employees
• ~ The Company has a very•well developed program-and stresses customer service
from its employees.
~• The employees and Company, beyond courteous and friendly service, also offer
a Motorists Assistance Program for facility users. Assistance with lock outs, fuel,
batteries and flat tires is offered and promoted through a "Parking Pete" program.
• Employees of the Company are also expected to be eyes and ears for the City in
reporting facility maintenance issues that need to be addressed.
• The Company has a well developed corporate philosophy and program to support
Green initiatives. By far this proposal represented the most environmentally
committed position.
A possible challenge that this Company will need to address in order to be successful with this
contract is the need to significantly expand the local office. Key personnel have the background
necessary to provide direction, however this will be a major expansion.
The following references of Impark were all positive:
• Espirito Santo Plaza, Miami, Florida;
• Miller Park, Milwaukee Brewers, Milwaukee, WI;
• Fraser Health, Surrey, BC;
LAZ
The projected annual cost $3,068,896, which is $87,255 (2.8%) higher than the Standard
proposal amount, prior to negotiation, is estimated to be $215,955 (6.6%) below the current
contract costs of $3,284,851.
485
In the Administrative review of this proposal several items were identified as being
advantageous to the City.
• The Company has national experience in several jurisdictions
The Company has an internal training and recognition program for its employees
that stresses excellence
The Company stresses customer services and offers both information and
motorist assistance
A challenge for this company will be to overcome the lack of local experience in providing the
desired services, both as to the individual team background and the experience of the local
office. The Company will also have to undergo a significant expansion of the local office to be
able to address the size of the Miami Beach contract.
The following references of Laz Parking were all positive:
• Adriaens Landing -Hartford, CT;
• Parking Authority of Baltimore;
• Hartford 21 -Hartford, CT;
• WMATA -Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority; and
• Victory Park -Dallas, Texas
Standard
The projected annual cost $2,981,641, p'rigr td negotiation, is estimated to be $303,209 (9.2°!a)
below the current contract costs of $x,284,851.
In the Administrative review of this proposal boar the national and localexperience of proVidirtg
the requested services was idenfifed as being advantageous to the City.
While tha other ranked vendors offered a variety,ofimprovements to the current services =.~ -~
provided ~to-the• City, this Company did not chanye• much from the service level already being . .
provided to the City. The proposal stated what is currently provided to the City as its offer-for
future services and appears to be primarily cost based without regard to value provided.
The Company proposal also raises a question as to the contract costs offered. If it is possible to
successfully provide the services requested at the reduced rate offered, why now and not at an
earlier stage of the current contract with the City. If this ra#e reduction results in an offsetting
reduction to current employees' wages, then we would be concerned with the affect upon
services provided and employee morale.
Excerpts from each of the three top ranked proposals are attached as attachments 5, 6, and 7
(Impark, LAZ and Standard respectively).
The following references for Standard Parking were all positive:
• City of Coral Gables, Coral Gables, Florida;
• Mary Brickell Village, Miami, Florida;
• Continental Real Estate Company, Miami, Florida;
• Nationwide Realty Investors, Cols, Ohio;
• City of Fort Myers, Fort Myers, Florida; and
• City of Orlando, Orlando, Florida.
486
Also attached is Attachment 9, which illustrates several different methods to consider and
analyze the original scores, assigned by the Evaluation Committee.
Attachment 9 first illustrates the ranking derived from the raw scores assigned by the Evaluation
Committee. In this ranking, the third and fourth place ranks are switched from the final decision
of the Committee. The Committee determined that the raw point scores were not reflective of
the overall ranking that they wished to support.
Also shown on the attachment is the effect of averaging the Committee's raw scores and the
effect of adding the rank scores (lowest is best in~this method), each of which changes the
relative ranking of the different proposals.
Also shown is the effect on rankings if the highest and lowest score were dropped and rankings
reassigned on the new point total. This nature of pointlrank analysis leaves the number one
rank unaffected, and switches the second and third ranks.
This attachment indicates that even through a variety of different means of assessing Committee
scores, the result is largely the same. The Committee choice of Impark as the highest ranked
firm was clear and supported both by their scores and deliberation. The Administration through
its own due diligence also believes that Impark is appropriately. the highest ranked firm and
offers the best over all value to the City.
CONCLUSION
The Administration,-after review of the Parking contract proposals, recommendations from the
Evaluation Committee, and its own due diligence has determined that the Impark proposal is,the
most advantageous to the City. This determination, and.recommendation is consistent with the
findings and recommendations of the Evaluation Committee. ~ _~
The proposal offered by Impark is'the most advantageous to the City, when ~ appropriate ~. •.
considerafion .is given both to the costs and. to the value added benefit of the services offered: As .
the evaluation committee observed, cost and services provided ~ are both important. ~ If the .
Commission~accepts this recommendation, the Administration will have the opportunityto negotia#e ~_
costs before a final agreement is reached, however, even as proposed the cost is less than the
current contract cost. As this contract is primarily a labor supply agreement, the Impark services
and focus on dedicated Human Resources personnel, its focus on customer service and employee
appearance are valuable to the contract being successful and to the value added provided to our
customers. The corporate Green philosophy, while not a requirement, aligns nicelywith the position
the City is assuming in this arena.
The Administration recommends that the Mayor and City Commission approve the attached
resolution, which recommends the acceptance of the ranking of firms and authorizes the
Administration to enter into negotiations with the top-ranked firm of Impark, and if the Administration
is unable to negotiate an agreement with the top-ranked firm, authorize the Administration to
negotiate with the second-ranked firm of Laz Parking; and if the Administration is unable to negotiate
an agreement with the second-ranked firm, authorize the Administration to negotiate with the third-
ranked firm of Standard Parking and further authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute an
agreement upon the completion of successful negotiations by the Administration.
T:~AGEN DA\20081April 16\Regular\ParkingRFPCommissionMemo.doc
487