Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE FOR RFQ # PSPW-23-20 "CCNA CONTINUING SERVICES FOR CITYWIDE PROFESSIONAL SERVICE PROVIDERS ARCHITECTURAL, ENGINEERING, SURVEYING AND MAPPING" AND TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES, IN ACCORDANCE WITH FLORIDA STATUTE 287.055, CONSULTANTS COMPETITIVE NEGOTIATIONS ACT (CCNA), WITH THE HIGHEST RANKED VENDOR PER TRADE AS LISTED BELOW:
TRADE A: GENERAL CIVIL AND ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEERING SERVICES - KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC
TRADE B: MEP ENGINEERING SERVICES - KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC
TRADE C: GEOTECHNICAL SERVIES - UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING SCIENCES, INC
TRADE D: STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING SERVICES - KIMLEY HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC
TRADE E: LAND SURVEYING SERVICES - MILLER LEGG
TRADE F: GENERAL ARCHITECTURAL SERVICES - SALTZ MICHELSON ARCHITECTS
TRADE G: LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE SERVICES - Miller Legg
TRADE H: HYDRO-GEOLOGICAL SERVICES - CTS ENGINEERING, INC
TRADE I: FDOT ROADWAY ENGINEERING SERVICES - MARLIN ENGINEERING, INC
Summary Explanation and Background
PROCUREMENT PROCESS TAKEN:
- Chapter 35 of the City’s Code of Ordinance is titled “PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES, PUBLIC FUNDS.”
- Section 35.15 defines a Request for Qualifications as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed offers with the title, date and hour of the public opening designated. A request for qualifications shall include, but is not limited to, general information, functional or general specifications, statement of work, instructions for offer and evaluation criteria. All requests for qualifications shall state the relative importance of the evaluation criteria. The city may engage in competitive negotiations with responsible offerors 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. Offerors shall be accorded fair and equal treatment with respect to any opportunity for discussion and revision of offers, and such revisions may be permitted after submissions and prior to award for the purpose of obtaining the best and final offer.”
- Section 35.18 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "COMPETITIVE BIDDING OR COMPETITIVE PROPOSALS REQUIRED; EXCEPTIONS."
- Section 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 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "SEALED COMPETITIVE BIDDING PROCEDURE."
- 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."
- Florida Statute (F.S.) 287.055 is known as the “Consultant’s Competitive Negotiation Act” (CCNA).
- F.S. Section 287.055(2)(a) defines Professional services as “those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, landscape architecture, or registered surveying and mapping, as defined by the laws of the state, or those performed by any architect, professional engineer, landscape architect, or registered surveyor and mapper in connection with his or her professional employment or practice.”
- F.S. Section 287.055(2)(f) states “Project” means that fixed capital outlay study or planning activity described in the public notice of the state or a state agency under paragraph (3)(a). A project may include:
1. A grouping of minor construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities.
2. A grouping of substantially similar construction, rehabilitation, or renovation activities.
- F.S. Section 287.055(3)(a)(1) states “Each agency shall publicly announce, in a uniform and consistent manner, each occasion when professional services must be purchased for a project the basic construction cost of which is estimated by the agency to exceed the threshold amount provided in s.287.017 for CATEGORY FIVE ($325,000) or for a planning or study activity when the fee for professional services exceeds the threshold amount provided in s.287.017 for CATEGORY TWO ($35,000), except in cases of valid public emergencies certified by the agency head. The public notice must include a general description of the project and must indicate how interested consultants may apply for consideration.”
- F.S. Section 287.055(2)(g) states “A “continuing contract” is a contract for professional services entered into in accordance with all the procedures of this act between an agency and a firm whereby the firm provides professional services to the agency for projects in which the estimated construction costs of each individual project under the contract does not exceed $2 million, for study activity if the fee for professional services for each individual study under the contract does not exceed $200,000, or for work of a specified nature as outlined in the contract required by the agency, with the contract being for a fixed term or with no time limitation except that the contract must provide a termination clause. Firms providing professional services under continuing contracts shall not be required to bid against one another."
- Section 35.21 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "AWARD OF CONTRACT."
- Section 35.21(A) of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "City Commission Approval."
- 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.”
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On January 17, 2024, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of RFQ # PSPW-23-20 “CCNA Continuing Services for Citywide Professional Service Providers Architectural, Engineering, Surveying and Mapping”, which was advertised on January 23, 2024.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to seek qualification statements from qualified firms, in order to enter into Continuing Contract(s) for various Professional Service Disciplines that the City will utilize on an as-needed basis, in accordance with the terms,
conditions, and specifications contained in this solicitation and in accordance with the Consultant’s Competitive Negotiation Act (C.C.N.A. - Florida Statute 287.055).
Services may include, however are not limited to:
- General Civil and Environmental Engineering Service,
- MEP Engineering Services,
- Geotechnical Services,
- Structural Engineering Services,
- Land Surveying Services,
- General Architectural Services,
- Landscape Architecture Services,
- Hydro-Geological Services, and
- FDOT Roadway Engineering Services
3. On February 27, 2024, the City opened twenty-five (25) proposals from the following vendors (in order of bids received):
|
Vendor Names |
|
Avirom & Associates, Inc |
|
Longitude Surveyors, LLC (Marketing Manager) |
|
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc |
|
JSA Group, Inc |
|
Caltran Engineering Group, Inc |
|
Carnahan, Proctor and Cross |
|
HSQ Group, LLC |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
|
Control Point Associates FL, LLC |
|
McKim & Creed, Inc |
|
R.J. Behar & Company, Inc |
|
Miller Legg & Associates, Inc |
|
CPH Consulting, LLC |
|
ACAI Associates, Inc |
|
Saltz Michelson Architects, Inc |
|
R.E. Chisholm Architects , Inc |
|
Chris P. Zimmerman, AIA - CPZ Architects |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
|
SGM Engineering, Inc |
|
Synalovski Romanik Saye, LLC |
|
The Tamara Peacock Company Architects of Florida, Inc |
|
BEA Architects, Inc |
|
SRS Engineering, Inc |
|
Marlin Engineering, Inc |
4. On September 9, 2024, the City convened an evaluation committee that was tasked with selecting, in order of preferences, no less than three (3) firms per trade deemed to be the most highly qualified to perform the required services. In determining whether a firm is qualified, the evaluation committee evaluated the qualifications of the proposers based on the weighted criteria listed below:
- Adequacy of Personnel / Ability of Professional Personnel (25 points)
- Past Record / Past Performance (25 points)
- Capabilities (25 points)
- Experience (of the firm or individual) (25 points)
5. At the September 9, 2024, meeting, the evaluation committee short listed the following vendors per trade.
Trade A: General Civil and Environmental Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
6 |
1 |
|
CPH, LLC |
15 |
2 |
|
Carnahan, Proctor and Cross |
21 |
3 |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
23 |
4 |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
23 |
5 |
Trade B: MEP Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
8 |
1 |
|
SGM Engineering, Inc |
9 |
2 |
|
CPH, LLC |
14 |
3 |
Trade C: Geotechnical Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc |
6 |
1 |
|
Synalovski Romanik Saye, LLC |
15 |
2 |
|
R.J. Behar & Company, Inc |
17 |
3 |
Trade D: Structural Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
5 |
1 |
|
R.J. Behar & Company, Inc |
12 |
2 |
|
CPH, LLC |
15 |
3 |
Trade E: Land Surveying Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Miller Legg |
11 |
1 |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
14 |
2 |
|
Avirom & Associates, Inc |
19 |
3 |
Trade F: General Architectural Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
ACAI Associates, Inc |
12 |
1 |
|
Saltz Michelson Architects |
12 |
2 |
|
Synalovski Romanik Saye, LLC |
13 |
3 |
|
CPZ Architects, Inc |
17 |
4 |
|
R.E. Chisholm Architects, Inc |
25 |
5 |
Trade G: Landscape Architecture Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Miller Legg |
8 |
1 |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
11 |
2 |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
12 |
3 |
Trade H: Hydro-Geological Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
6 |
1 |
|
CPH, LLC |
6 |
2 |
Trade I: FDOT Roadway Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Caltran Engineering Group, Inc |
11 |
1 |
|
Marlin Engineering, Inc |
11 |
2 |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
13 |
3 |
These vendors were notified to attend the second meeting which included presentation by the vendors with questions from the Committee. The second meeting was split into two days of presentations.
Day 1 of presentations was scheduled on October 15, 2024, for Trades B, D, F, and G.
Day 2 of presentations was scheduled on October 22, 2024, for Trade A, C, S, H and I.
6. On Friday, October 11, 2024, Acai Associates, Inc. emailed the Procurement Department to withdraw from the evaluation. They informed the Procurement Department that they ceased operations earlier that year.
Acai Associates, Inc. was shortlist for Trade F: General Architectural Services which was scheduled for presentations on Tuesday October 15, 2024. Because the notice was received outside of normal business hours, the Procurement Department did not receive the withdrawal until Monday October 14, 2024, the day before the presentation. Because of such a short notice, the evaluation committee was presented the option to reschedule the evaluation committee or reduce the short list from five (5) vendors to four (4) vendors. On October 15, 2024, the evaluation committee made a motion to short list Trade F: General Architectural Services to four (4) vendors and to continue with the presentations as scheduled.
7. On Wednesday October 16, 2024, R.J. Behar withdrew from Trade C: Geotechnical Services and stated they did not intend to be considered for this trade. On October 21, 2024 Synalovski Romanik Saye, LLC also withdrew from Trade C stating they have a conflict that cannot be resolved.
Because R.J. Behar had withdrawn with notice, the Procurement Department reached out to next highest ranked vendors, Marlin Engineering, Inc., Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc., and CTS Engineering, Inc. to inform them of the possibility that the evaluation committee may make a motion to short list them to present for Trade C as well. All three vendors were scheduled to present October 22, 2024, for other trades so they agreed to be prepared in the event they would be called on to present for Trade C.
On October 22, 2024 the evaluation committee made a motion to accept the withdrawal of R.J. Behar and Synalovski Romanik Saye, LLC and to replace them with the next highest ranked vendors Marlin Engineering, Inc. and Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc.
8. The evaluation committee scored and ranked the vendors based on the weighted criteria provided for in the solicitation documents and listed below:
- Adequacy of Personnel / Ability of Professional Personnel (25 points)
- Past Record / Past Performance (25 points)
- Firm’s Understanding and Approach to the Work (35 points)
- Willingness to Meet Time and Budget Requirements (5 points)
- Recent, Current, and Projected Workloads of the Firms (5 points)
- Location (2.5 points)
- Whether a Firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (as defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act) / or a Veteran Owned Small Business Preference* (2.5 points)
9. At the October 15th and 22nd, 2024 meeting, the evaluation committee met, listened to presentations from the short-listed vendors, conducted their questions and answers and then ranked the vendors by Trade as shown below:
October 15, 2024
Trade B: MEP Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
8 |
1 |
|
SGM Engineering, Inc |
9 |
2 |
|
CPH, LLC |
13 |
3 |
Trade D: Structural Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
6 |
1 |
|
CPH, LLC |
12 |
2 |
|
R.J. Behar & Company, Inc |
12 |
3 |
Trade F: General Architectural Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Saltz Michelson Architects |
9 |
1 |
|
CPZ Architects, Inc |
12 |
2 |
|
Synalovski Romanik Saye, LLC |
12 |
3 |
|
R.E. Chisholm Architects, Inc |
17 |
4 |
Trade G: Landscape Architecture Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Miller Legg |
7 |
1 |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
11 |
2 |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
12 |
3 |
October 22, 2024
Trade A: General Civil and Environmental Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
5 |
1 |
|
Carnahan, Proctor and Cross |
9 |
2 |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
14 |
3 |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
16 |
4 |
|
CPH, LLC |
16 |
5 |
Trade C: Geotechnical Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc |
4 |
1 |
|
Marlin Engineering, Inc |
10 |
2 |
|
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
10 |
3 |
Trade E: Land Surveying Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Miller Legg |
4 |
1 |
|
Avirom & Associates, Inc |
10 |
2 |
|
Craven, Thompson & Associates, Inc |
10 |
3 |
Trade H: Hydro-Geological Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
5 |
1 |
|
CPH, LLC |
7 |
2 |
Trade I: FDOT Roadway Engineering Services
|
Vendor |
Total |
Rank |
|
Marlin Engineering, Inc |
6 |
1 |
|
Caltran Engineering Group, Inc |
7 |
2 |
|
CTS Engineering, Inc |
11 |
3 |
10. After ranking the short-listed vendors by trade the evaluation committee made a motion for each trade to accept the rankings of the evaluation committee and to recommend the City Commission to direct the City Manager to negotiate a contract for RFQ # PSPW-23-20 “CCNA Continuing Services for Citywide Professional Service Providers Architectural, Engineering, Surveying and Mapping” with the highest ranked firm per trade. If a contract cannot be agreed upon, the City Manager shall then undertake negotiations with the next most qualified firm. In the event that no contract agreement can be made with any of the ranked firms, the City Manager may reconvene the Evaluation Committee to select additional firms or to determine the next steps in the process.
The recommended/highest ranked vendor per trade is as follows:
|
Trade |
Vendor |
|
Trade A: General Civil and Environmental Engineering Services |
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
|
Trade B: MEP Engineering Services |
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
|
Trade C: Geotechnical Services |
Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc |
|
Trade D: Structural Engineering Services |
Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc |
|
Trade E: Land Surveying Services |
Miller Legg |
|
Trade F: General Architectural Services |
Saltz Michelson Architects |
|
Trade G: Landscape Architecture Services |
Miller Legg |
|
Trade H: Hydro-Geological Services |
CTS Engineering, Inc |
|
Trade I: FDOT Roadway Engineering Services |
Marlin Engineering, Inc |
11. An agenda item will be brought back to present to the Commission the negotiated contracts executed by the vendors.
12. Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc, Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc, Miller Legg, Saltz Michelson Architects, CTS Engineering, Inc, and Marlin Engineering, Inc have all completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the “Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section.”
13. Request City Commission to approve the findings and recommendation of the evaluation committee for RFQ # PSPW-23-20 "CCNA Continuing Services for Citywide Professional Service Providers Architectural, Engineering, Surveying and Mapping" and to direct the City Manager to negotiate a contract for services, in accordance with Florida Statute 287.055, Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA), with the highest ranked vendor per trade as listed below:
Trade A: General Civil and Environmental Engineering Services - Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc
Trade B: MEP Engineering Services - Kimley Horn and Associates, Inc
Trade C: Geotechnical Servies - Universal Engineering Sciences, Inc
Trade D: Structural Engineering Services - Kimley Horn And Associates, Inc
Trade E: Land Surveying Services - Miller Legg
Trade F: General Architectural Services - Saltz Michelson Architects
Trade G: Landscape Architecture Services - Miller Legg
Trade H: Hydro-Geological Services - CTS Engineering, Inc
Trade I: FDOT Roadway Engineering Services - Marlin Engineering, Inc
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: None at this time. A negotiated contract will be brought back to the Commission and executed by the vendor.
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds for future projects will be determined on a per project basis as the coding will depend on the specifics on the project and what department the services are related to.
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted: Not Applicable.
d) 5 year projection of the operational cost of the project: Not Applicable.
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? Not Applicable.
b) If Yes, what is the total cost or total savings of utilizing Out-Sourcing vs. In-House Labor for this service? Not Applicable.