Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND TO AWARD A CONTRACT FOR RFP # AD-23-02 "OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF TRANSPORTATION SERVICES" TO THE TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, LLC.
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinances is titled “PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS.”
- Section 35.15 defines a Request for Proposals as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed proposals with the title, date and hour of the public opening designated. A request for proposals shall include, but is not limited to, general information, functional or general specifications, a statement of work, proposal instruction and evaluation criteria. All requests for proposals shall state the relative importance of price and any other evaluation criteria. The city may engage in competitive negotiations with responsible proposers determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of and conformance to the solicitation requirements. Proposers shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of proposals and such revisions may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining the best and final offer.”
- 35.18(A) states, "A purchase of or contracts for commodities or services that is estimated by the Chief Procurement Officer to cost more than $25,000 shall be based on sealed competitive solicitations as determined by the Chief Procurement Officer, except as specifically provided herein."
- Section 35.19(A) states, "All sealed competitive solicitations as defined in §35.18 shall be presented to the City Commission for their consideration prior to advertisement."
- Section 35.21(A)(1) states, "An initial purchase of, or contract for, commodities or services, in excess of $25,000, shall require the approval of the City Commission, regardless of whether the competitive bidding or competitive proposal procedures were followed."
- Section 35.38(D) states “A bidder may file a “Notice of Intent to Protest” by emailing said notice to the Purchasing Manager within two business days of the issuance of the notice of bid/proposal action pursuant to division (A) or the publication of a City Commission agenda recommending the award of the bid, whichever is sooner. Such notice of protest shall include the bid or proposal number and title, the name and address of the protester, and a brief statement as to the basis of the protest.”
- Section 35.38(E) states “The complete written protest must be filed with the Purchasing Manager within ten calendar days of the issuance of the notice of bid action.”
- Section 35.38(E)(7) states “A bid protest bond in the form of a certified check, cashier’s check, or money order made payable to the City of Pembroke Pines in an amount equal to 5% of the protester’s bid or $5,000, whichever is less. If the protest is upheld by the city, the bond will be refunded to the protester. If the protest is denied, the entire bond amount shall be forfeited to the city.
- Section 35.38(F) states “ Upon receipt of a timely filled and complete formal written protest, the Purchasing Manager shall stay the award of the purchase order or contract until the protest is resolved, unless the Purchasing Manager determines in writing that compelling circumstances exist which require that the award be processed without further delay, in order to protect the city’s interest or for the purpose of avoiding an immediate and serious danger to the public health, safety or welfare.”
- Section 35.38(G) states “After receipt of the timely filed and complete written protest, and upon the protester’s request, the Purchasing Manager shall meet with the protester to discuss the allegations and to attempt to resolve the matter. The Purchasing Manager shall issue his or her decision on the protest within 14 calendar days of the meeting, or if no meeting is requested, within 14 days of receipt of the timely filed and complete written protest. Such decision shall be e-mailed to the protester on the date of issuance unless otherwise directed by the protester.”
- Section 35.38(H) states “The protester may appeal the decision of the Purchasing Manager to the City Manager by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk’s office within three business days of issuance of the Purchasing Manager’s decision. The appeal must be in writing and must include a full explanation of the basis of disagreement with the decision rendered by the Purchasing Manager, as well as the relief sought. The City Manager shall overturn the selection if the protester proves that the selection did not comply in material respects with the requirements contained in the invitation to bid, request for proposal, request for qualifications or request for letters of interest; with this procurement code, or with Florida law. The decision of the City Manager shall be final. The City Manager’s decision shall be e-mailed to the protester on the date of issuance unless otherwise directed by the protester.”
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On July 1, 2018, the City entered into agreement with The Transportation Authority, LLC. ("Transportation Authority") to operate, maintain, and manage the City of Pembroke Pines Transportation Services for the City’s Charter Schools, the Community Bus System and the Senior Transportation Program for an initial five-year period through June 30, 2023. The agreement included the option to renew the agreement for two additional five-year terms, upon mutual written consent of the parties.
2. The current contract with Transportation Authority is a reimbursement type contract, in which the wages of the workers and the cost of their benefits are reimbursed. In addition, items such as taxes, insurance, supplies, uniforms, etc. are all reimbursed. Furthermore, the current contract does not have a fee for the contractor's profit, as the owner is the Transportation Director and their salary and benefits would be reimbursed in the same fashion as the bus drivers and other employees covered in the contract.
3. In lieu of approving the City Administration's recommendation to renew the agreement for the first full five-year renewal option, the City Commission requested for Administration to issue a new RFP to test the market and see if there were any other qualified firms capable of operating, maintaining, and managing the City of Pembroke Pines Transportation Services for the City’s Charter Schools, the Community Bus System and the Senior Transportation Program in the same fashion that services are currently being rendered by the current service provider.
4. As a result, on December 6, 2023, the City Commission approved the renewal of the agreement with Transportation Authority through June 30, 2024 and also authorized the advertisement of RFP # AD-23-02 "Operation and Management of Transportation Services", which was advertised on December 13, 2023.
5. On January 23, 2024, the City opened responses from the two (2) following vendors, listed in alphabetical order:
- Protransportation, Inc. D/B/A Prokel Mobility ("ProKel")
- The Transportation Authority, LLC. ("Transportation Authority")
6. On March 19, 2024, the City convened an evaluation committee to evaluate the qualifications of the proposers based on the weighted criteria provided for in the bid documents and listed below:
Points Criteria
15 Project Cost
25 Experience and Ability
12.5 Previous Experience / References Form
20 Staffing and Training
25 Firm's Understanding and Approach to the Work
2.5 Veteran Owned Small Business Preference
100 Total Points
7. At the March 19, 2024 meeting, the evaluation committee had presentations followed by a question and answer period with each firm. During the meeting, the evaluation committee discussed, at length, the pricing submitted by ProKel, as the vendor stated that their pricing did not include any profit margin and they would need to negotiate adding a profit margin to their proposal. After further discussions with the evaluation committee members and Prokel, member Dan Rotstein, seconded by member Sean Chance, made a motion to deem ProKel as non-responsive since the City did not have enough information submitted in the vendor's bid response to calculate the objective scoring for the Project Cost criteria. The motion passed unanimously by the evaluation committee. In addition, member Rotstein, seconded by member Chance, made a motion to recommend the City Commission to award the contract for RFP # AD-23-02 "Operation and Management of Transportation Services" to Transportation Authority, which also passed unanimously.
8. In addition, Transportation Authority has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has utilized the following allowable exemption, "Contractor does not provide benefits to employees' spouses in traditional marriages."
9. On March 19, 2024, the City issued it's notice of bid action with an intent to award the contract for RFP # AD-23-02 "Operation and Management of Transportation Services" to Transportation Authority.
10. The City received a bid protest dated March 29, 2024, submitted on behalf of ProKel pertaining to RFP # AD-23-02.
11. On April 17, 2024, the Procurement Director met with ProKel to discuss the allegations and to attempt to resolve the matter.
12. On May 1, 2024, the Procurement Director issued a Bid Protest Determination letter to ProKel denying the protest and advising ProKel that the City's Administration will move forward with presenting the Commission with the evaluation committee's recommendation to award a contract to Transportation Authority.
13. On May 6, 2024, ProKel submitted their appeal of the Procurement Department's decision to the City Manager.
14. On June 11, 2024, the City Manager issued, via e-mail, his Appeal Determination Letter, in which he denied the appeal.
15. Request City Commission to approve the findings and recommendation of the Evaluation Committee and award a contract for RFP # AD-23-02 "Operation and Management of Transportation Services" to The Transportation Authority, LLC.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: See attached feasibility review/cost analysis for estimated annual cost of $4,004,472, however actual costs may fluctuate up or down based on operational needs.
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are currently budgeted in various accounts.
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Differences of funds are transferred from the General Fund, and Road & Bridge Fund as needed.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: See attached feasibility review/cost analysis.
e) Detail of additional staff requirements: Not Applicable.
FEASIBILITY REVIEW:
A feasibility review is required for the award, renewal and/or expiration of all function sourcing contracts. This analysis is to determine the financial effectiveness of function sourcing services.
a) Was a Feasibility Review/Cost Analysis of Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor Conducted for this service? Yes.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Savings of approximately $3.5 million compared to In-House labor. See attached feasibility review/cost analysis.