Title
DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO DISCUSS THE AUGUST 5, 2026 CITY COMMISSION WORKSHOP REGARDING THE DRAFT SOLICITATION FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT SERVICES, DIRECTION ON POTENTIAL REVISIONS, AND APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE RFP # AD-26-01 "OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT".
Summary Explanation and Background
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On March 31, 2026, the City Commission held a workshop to review and discuss the proposed procurement process and draft Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Operation and Management of the Building Department.
2. Following the workshop, Administration revised the draft solicitation to incorporate the City Commission's comments and direction and presented the updated solicitation package at the June 17, 2026 City Commission meeting.
3. At the June 17, 2026 meeting, the City Commission unanimously voted to defer consideration of the solicitation and directed Administration to schedule a follow-up workshop in August 2026. The Commission also requested that Commissioners submit their questions and comments in advance so that Administration could prepare written responses, in a format similar to the Monday Night Questions and Answers Memorandum, for discussion at the workshop.
4. Following the June 17, 2026 meeting, Administration requested that Commissioners submit any additional questions or comments in writing. Administration compiled those questions, prepared detailed written responses, and incorporated additional revisions to the draft solicitation where appropriate. Administration also offered to meet individually with each Commissioner prior to the workshop to answer questions, discuss the purpose of specific solicitation provisions, and receive additional feedback.
5. During the August 5, 2026 workshop, the City Commission reviewed and discussed the revised draft RFP and the Questions and Answers Memorandum, including the items summarized below. Administration is requesting Commission clarification and direction on each item before finalizing the solicitation for advertisement:
A) Solicitation Schedule and Proposal Period
(1) Determine whether the proposal submittal period should be approximately 4 weeks, 6 weeks, 8 weeks, or another period.
B) Non-Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting and Formal Documentation of Questions
(1) Retain non-mandatory pre-bid meeting.
(2) Require staff to document all verbal questions asked in the pre-bid meeting and formally respond to all verbal questions in writing through OpenGov.
(3) Determine whether City Clerk staff should attend the pre-bid meeting and whether formal minutes and/or an audio or video recording should be required.
C) Dedicated Personnel, Dual Roles, and Work for Other Jurisdictions
(1) Required Roles and Minimum Headcount: Maintain the requirement of the 18 role assignments, which may be filled by a minimum of 17 individuals under Option A, or a minimum of 15 contractor-provided individuals under Option B, when the Assistant Building Official also serves as one of the four required Trade Chiefs.
(2) Assistant Building Official/Trade Chief Combination: Maintain the ability of the Assistant Building Official to also serve as a Trade Chief, in a dual-role exception.
(3) Work for Other Jurisdictions: Maintain the restrictions on the minimum required/dedicated personnel from simultaneously providing building department services for other jurisdictions.
(4) Separate Individuals for Other Minimum Required Positions: Maintain the requirement that each minimum position, with the exception of the Assistant Building Official, shall be filled by a separate, dedicated individual, unless otherwise expressly approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager.
(5) Cross-disciplinary assistance by qualified Trade Chiefs, Plans Examiners, and Field Inspectors: Maintain the requirement that staff filling minimum positions shall remain assigned to their designated disciplines, while allowing an appropriately qualified and certified employee to provide limited and temporary assistance in another discipline with the written approval of the City’s Contract Manager.
(6) Minimum Staffing Calculations: Maintain the requirement that cross-disciplinary assistance may not be used to count one individual as filling two or more minimum required positions, eliminate a required position, or otherwise reduce the applicable minimum staffing level.
D) Timing of Requests to Reduce Staffing
(1) Retain, shorten, or eliminate the 12-month waiting period for the Contractor to request a reduction to the minimum staffing requirements.
E) Private Provider Work by Contractor Personnel
(1) Determine whether to retain the current restriction prohibiting private-provider work during scheduled working hours, including breaks, or expand the restriction to prohibit such work at any time Monday through Friday.
F) Building Department Leadership Model
(1) Determine whether to retain both Option A and Option B or select a single leadership model.
(2) Establish a separate City-employed Building Director position to oversee the Chief Building Official and Building Department/Contract.
G) Transition-In and Transition-Out Plans
(1) Determine whether to require both transition-in and transition-out plans with the proposal or require only a transition-out plan with the proposal while only addressing the transition-in plan during contract negotiations.
(2) Determine if the transition-in and transition-out plans based on past experience should be required as part of the review.
H) Evaluation Committee Composition / External Representation
(1) Committee Makeup: Determine whether the Evaluation Committee should remain at five members or be increased in size, and determine how many members, if any, should be external to the City’s organization.
(2) Qualifications/Experience: Determine the desired qualifications or experience requirements for external members.
(3) Availability and Conflicts: Determine the process if qualified external members are unavailable or have actual or potential conflicts of interest.
(4) Selection and Timing: Determine Administration's authority to select external members and the process to follow if suitable members cannot be identified within the procurement schedule.
I) Cone of Silence and Communications with Commissioners
(1) Determine whether members of the City Commission should remain exempt from the Cone of Silence as provided by the City's Code or voluntarily agree to comply with additional communication restrictions for this solicitation.
(2) If additional restrictions are established for the City Commission, determine when such restrictions would begin and end and what communications would be subject to the restrictions.
6. Detailed background and specific questions requiring Commission direction for each item are provided below:
A) Solicitation Schedule and Proposal Period (Section 2.2 - Tentative Schedule of Events). Determine whether to maintain or shorten the proposed solicitation schedule and proposal-preparation period.
- When the draft bid package was first presented to the City Commission at the March 31, 2026 workshop, the proposed period from advertisement to the proposal deadline was approximately four weeks.
- In response to Commission feedback, the June 17, 2026 draft increased that period to approximately six weeks.
- Following additional Commission direction, the August 5, 2026 workshop draft increased the period to approximately eight weeks to provide proposers additional time to prepare and submit proposals.
- During the August 5 workshop, there was discussion regarding the possibility of shortening the schedule.
- Commission direction is requested on whether to retain the approximately eight-week proposal period reflected in Section 2.2 or establish a shorter or different period. Any approved change would require the advertisement date, question deadline, pre-bid meeting date, and proposal deadline to be adjusted accordingly.
B) Non-Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting and Formal Documentation of Questions (Section 2.3 - Non-Mandatory Pre-Bid Meeting/Site Visit, and Section 9.4 Interpretations and Questions). Confirm that the pre-bid meeting will remain non-mandatory and provide direction regarding the documentation, publication, and preservation of questions and responses arising from the meeting.
- A question concerning the procedures for pre-bid meetings was included in the Questions and Answers Memorandum and subsequently discussed at the August 5, 2026 Commission Workshop.
- Administration explained that, under the City’s customary procurement procedures, staff may provide informal verbal responses during a pre-bid meeting or site visit. Questions raised during the meeting that require clarification or modification of the solicitation are addressed through a formal Question and Answer posting or addendum issued through the OpenGov e-Procurement platform. Under the City’s customary practice, staff generally posts questions that materially affect or require clarification of the solicitation. Prospective proposers are encouraged and remain responsible for submitting, through OpenGov, any additional questions for which they require an official written response.
- The City Clerk’s Office does not typically attend pre-bid meetings or site visits, and such meetings are not ordinarily recorded or documented through formal minutes.
- During the workshop, the Commission expressed support for retaining the non-mandatory meeting format so that a proposer would not be disqualified solely for failing to attend. The Commission also discussed whether every question asked and response provided during the meeting should be formally documented and posted through OpenGov so that all prospective proposers, including those who do not attend, receive the same information.
- Administration has no objection to documenting all questions raised during the meeting and subsequently issuing formal/official written responses through OpenGov to every question, not only those determined to be material. To avoid inconsistencies, any verbal responses provided during the meeting would remain informal, and the written responses subsequently posted through OpenGov would constitute the City’s official formal responses. Any clarification or modification affecting the solicitation would be issued through a formal addendum, as appropriate.
- No substantive revision to Section 2.3 or 9.4 of the draft solicitation is required. The Commission’s discussion focused on ensuring that all questions raised during the meeting receive official written responses through OpenGov. The Commission did not specifically determine whether the City Clerk’s Office should attend, prepare minutes, or record the meeting.
- Accordingly, Commission direction is requested on whether to:
(1) Retain the non-mandatory pre-bid meeting format.
(2) Require staff to document every question raised during the meeting and subsequently issue an official formal written response to each question through the OpenGov e-Procurement platform.
(3) Require the City Clerk’s Office to:
(a) Attend the meeting;
(b) Prepare formal minutes; and/or
(c) Make an audio or video recording of the meeting.
C) Dedicated Personnel, Dual Roles, and Work for Other Jurisdictions (Section 4.6 - Staff Qualifications and Requirements, particularly 4.6(B) Dedicated Personnel and 4.6(C) Dual Roles). Confirm the minimum staffing requirements and that personnel assigned to the minimum required or dedicated positions must work exclusively for Pembroke Pines and function within their assigned roles and disciplines, subject to any exceptions expressly approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager.
- The August 5 draft identifies the following 17 minimum required positions for the operation of the Building Department:
o 1 - Chief Building Official
o 1 - Assistant Building Official (Which may serve as 1 of the 4 Trade Chiefs)
o 1 - Building Department Operations Manager
o 4 - Trade Chiefs
§ 1 - Structural
§ 1 - Electrical
§ 1 - Mechanical
§ 1 - Plumbing
o 3 - Plans Examiners
§ 2 - Structural
§ 1 - Electrical
o 8 - Field Inspectors
§ 4 - Structural
§ 2 - Electrical
§ 1 - Mechanical
§ 1 - Plumbing
- These requirements represent 18 required role assignments. However, the solicitation expressly permits the individual serving as the Assistant Building Official to also serve as one of the four required Trade Chiefs. Accordingly, when the Assistant Building Official also serves as a Trade Chief, the 18 required role assignments may be filled by a minimum of 17 separate individuals.
- Under Option A, the contractor would provide all 18 required role assignments through a minimum of 17 individuals, provided the Assistant Building Official also serves as one of the required Trade Chiefs. If the Assistant Building Official does not also serve as a Trade Chief, the contractor would need to provide a separate individual for each role, resulting in a minimum headcount of 18.
- Under Option B, the Chief Building Official and Building Department Operations Manager would be City employees. The contractor would provide the remaining 16 required role assignments through a minimum of 15 individuals, provided the contractor’s Assistant Building Official also serves as one of the four required Trade Chiefs. If the Assistant Building Official does not also serve as a Trade Chief, the contractor would need to provide a minimum of 16 individuals.
- Under either option, these figures establish only the minimum staffing baseline. The contractor would remain responsible for providing any additional personnel necessary to perform the complete scope of services, accommodate workload and absences, and satisfy the solicitation’s service and performance standards.
- Section 4.6(B) of the draft solicitation provides that personnel assigned to the minimum required or dedicated positions; “[…] shall not be assigned to, perform services for, or otherwise support any other contract, jurisdiction, municipality, or governmental agency during the term of this Agreement. These positions shall not be shared, rotated, or utilized in a dual-role capacity, whether on a full-time, part-time, temporary, acting, or interim basis, unless otherwise expressly approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager.” (Emphasis added)
- In addition, Section 4.6(B) states, “Notwithstanding the foregoing, Trade Chiefs may, on a limited and temporary basis, provide technical assistance or support across disciplines, provided they possess the appropriate qualifications and certifications. Such assistance shall not relieve the Contractor of its obligation to maintain fully staffed, dedicated positions for each required role and discipline at all times, unless otherwise expressly approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager.” (Emphasis added)
- Section 4.6(B) also states, “All Dedicated Personnel shall be physically present and perform their duties from the Building Department located within the City of Pembroke Pines City Hall during their regularly scheduled working hours to ensure accessibility to customers, contractors, residents, and City staff.”
- Furthermore, Section 4.6(C) states, “Dual Roles: With the exception of the Assistant Building Official, who may also serve as a Trade Chief, each position identified above shall be filled by a separate, dedicated individual. (emphasis added) Dual roles are not permitted for the Chief Building Official, Trade Chiefs, Plans Examiners, and Field Inspectors, who shall each function exclusively within their assigned discipline. A single individual shall not serve concurrently in more than one role, nor across multiple disciplines. Specifically, each inspection discipline (Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, and Structural) shall have at least one dedicated Trade Chief, and no individual may act as a Chief for more than one discipline. The Contractor shall provide sufficient qualified personnel to meet this requirement at all times during the term of the Agreement. Contractor shall not assign or permit any individual designated to serve in one of the minimum required positions identified in this section to simultaneously serve in another designated minimum required position, unless expressly approved in writing by the City's Contract Manager. (emphasis added) Any temporary cross-disciplinary assistance shall not be construed as fulfilling minimum staffing requirements. Failure to maintain required staffing levels shall be subject to liquidated damages […]”
- At the August 5 workshop, Administration explained that the City’s current service provider has more than 40 employees supporting Pembroke Pines. By comparison, the draft solicitation establishes a minimum headcount of 17 individuals under Option A, or 15 contractor-provided individuals under Option B when the Assistant Building Official also serves as a Trade Chief. Administration further explained that these figures establish only a minimum staffing baseline and that the successful proposer will likely need additional personnel to perform the full scope of services and meet the required performance standards.
- Commissioners expressed support for preventing personnel counted toward the City’s minimum staffing requirements from simultaneously being assigned to or performing building department services for other municipalities or governmental agencies. This requirement is intended to ensure that the staffing represented in a proposer’s response is actually available to Pembroke Pines and that the service capacity allocated to the City is not divided among multiple governmental clients.
- The Commission also discussed whether a Trade Chief, Plans Examiner, or Field Inspector assigned to one discipline should be permitted to assist in another discipline when appropriately licensed or certified. For example, the would an employee assigned to Plumbing be able to also assist with Electrical services if appropriately licensed and certified. Administration explained that individuals holding certifications in multiple disciplines are available within the industry, although they are not common. The August 5 draft already provides flexibility for appropriately qualified personnel to assist in another discipline, subject to the written approval of the City’s Contract Manager. Administration recommends retaining a dedicated individual for each minimum required role and discipline, except for the expressly permitted Assistant Building Official/Trade Chief combination, while allowing qualified personnel to provide limited and temporary cross-disciplinary assistance when operationally necessary and approved by the City. Under this approach, temporary assistance in another discipline would not allow the contractor to eliminate a required position, count one employee as filling two minimum positions, or otherwise reduce the applicable minimum staffing level. The only standing exception permitting one individual to fill two required roles is the Assistant Building Official who also serves as one of the required Trade Chiefs. Failure to maintain the required staffing remains subject to the remedies established in the draft solicitation, including applicable liquidated damages.
- Commission direction is requested on whether to retain the provisions as drafted, regarding:
(1) Required Roles and Minimum Headcount: Maintain the requirement of the 18 role assignments identified above, which may be filled by a minimum of 17 individuals under Option A, or 15 contractor-provided individuals under Option B, when the Assistant Building Official also serves as one of the four required Trade Chiefs.
(2) Assistant Building Official/Trade Chief Combination: Maintain the ability of the Assistant Building Official to also serve as one of the four required Trade Chiefs, provided that the individual possesses all required qualifications and certifications and fully performs the responsibilities of both positions.
(3) Work for Other Jurisdictions: Require personnel assigned to the contractor-provided minimum required or dedicated positions outlined above to work exclusively for Pembroke Pines and prohibit them from simultaneously being assigned to or performing building department services for another municipality or governmental agency, unless otherwise expressly approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager.
(4) Separate Individuals for Other Minimum Positions: Except for the Assistant Building Official who may also serve as a Trade Chief, require each minimum position to be filled by a separate, dedicated individual unless otherwise expressly approved in writing by the City’s Contract Manager.
(5) Assigned Disciplines and Temporary Assistance: Require staff filling minimum positions to remain assigned to their designated disciplines, while allowing an appropriately qualified and certified employee to provide limited and temporary assistance in another discipline with the written approval of the City’s Contract Manager, this applies to:
(a) Trade Chiefs
(b) Plans Examiners
(c) Field Inspectors
(6) Minimum Staffing Calculations: Confirm that, other than the expressly permitted Assistant Building Official/Trade Chief combination, temporary cross-disciplinary assistance may not be used to fill two minimum required positions with one individual, eliminate a required position, or otherwise reduce the applicable minimum staffing level.
D) Timing of Requests to Reduce Staffing (Section 4.6(K) - Contractor or City Right to Request Changes to Staffing Levels). Determine whether to retain or adjust the provision prohibiting the contractor from requesting a reduction in required staffing levels or roles during the first 12 months of the agreement.
- The August 5 draft permits the City to initiate a review of the required staffing levels when there has been a significant and sustained change in workload, permit activity, statutory requirements, development activity, or other operational conditions that materially affect the staffing needs of the Building Department. In such cases, the City may request that the Contractor evaluate and submit a proposal for revised staffing levels and a corresponding adjustment to the Contract price, if appropriate.
- In addition, the contractor may request a reduction in required staffing, but not during the first 12 months of the agreement. A request must document how service and performance levels would be maintained with fewer personnel and must propose a corresponding reduction in contract compensation. The City’s Contract Manager must reply in writing to Contractor’s request within ten (10) working days. In addition, any reduction remains subject to the City’s review and approval through a written amendment.
- During the workshop, a member of the Commission suggested removing the 12-month waiting period, while another member supported retaining it.
- The waiting period provides an initial operating history before the minimum staffing baseline may be reconsidered, while removing it would allow the contractor and City to respond earlier if actual workload demonstrates that an adjustment is appropriate.
- Commission direction is requested on whether to retain, shorten, or remove the 12-month limitation.
E) Private Provider Work by Contractor Personnel (Section 4.7(C) -Personnel). Determine whether the restriction on contractor personnel performing private provider work should be expanded, including whether such work should be prohibited all day Monday through Friday, rather than only during workdays, including breaks.
- The June 17 draft prohibited assigned personnel from performing private-provider work within the City or within one mile of the City limits.
- Based on Commission feedback, the August 5 draft removed the one-mile restriction and instead prohibits any individual performing services under the City’s agreement from performing private-provider services for projects within the City of Pembroke Pines during the term of the agreement, in addition to performing private-provider work for other agencies during the workday, including breaks.
- During the August 5 workshop, a Commissioner suggested that Contractor personnel should be prohibited from performing any private provider work Monday through Friday, regardless of whether such work occurs during or outside of their scheduled work hours.
- Commission direction is requested on whether to retain the August 5 draft restriction prohibiting private-provider work during scheduled working hours, including breaks, or expand the restriction to prohibit Contractor personnel from performing private-provider work at any time Monday through Friday.
F) Building Department Leadership Model (Section 4.12(F)(4) - Payment for City-Provided Leadership Model (aka Option B) and Section 5 - Price Proposal/Bid Table). Determine whether the RFP should retain both alternative leadership models: Option A, under which the Contractor provides the Chief Building Official and Building Department Operations Manager; and Option B, under which those positions are employed directly by the City.
- The March 31 draft included only one model, under which the Contractor would provide all required personnel. Based on Commission feedback, the June 17 draft added a second option under which the City would provide the Chief Building Official and Building Department Operations Manager in lieu of those positions being provided by the Contractor.
- The August 5 draft retains both options and requires Proposers to submit proposals and pricing for both the Contractor-Provided Leadership Model (Option A) and the City-Provided Leadership Model (Option B).
- During the August 5 workshop, one Commissioner supported proceeding solely with Option B, under which the City would provide the Chief Building Official and Building Department Operations Manager, while another Commissioner supported proceeding with Option A, under which those positions would remain Contractor-provided. The Commissioner supporting Option A also recommended that the City establish a separate City-employed Building Department Director position to oversee the Contractor and Building Department operations, in lieu of having Assistant City Manager/Planning and Economic Development Director Mike Stamm serve in that contract oversight role.
- Commission direction is requested on whether to:
(1) Retain Option A and B Leadership Models: Should the solicitation continue to require Proposers to submit proposals and pricing for both Option A and Option B, or should the solicitation be revised to require only one of the two leadership models?
(2) Establish a Separate City Building Director Position: Should the City establish a separate Building Director position, as a City employee, to provide executive oversight of the Contractor and Building Department operations, including oversight of the Chief Building Official, regardless of whether Option A or Option B is selected? The cost associated with this additional City position would be passed through to the Contractor as a separate payment to the City, similar to the Administrative Fees, Rent, and, under Option B, the payment to offset the City's costs for the City-employed Chief Building Official and Building Department Operations Manager.
G) Transition-In and Transition-Out Plans (Subsection 4.2 - Transition Plan (Transition-In, Transition-Out and Operational Readiness) in Section 6 - Submittal Documents). Determine whether proposers should be required to submit both transition-in and transition-out plans, or only a transition-out plan, with transition-in details to be addressed during contract negotiations with the selected Proposer.
- The August 5 draft requires each Proposer, including the incumbent, to address both transition-in and transition-out. Proposers are required submit responses to questions to address coordination and knowledge transfer; staffing and operational continuity; management and transfer of records, workflows, customer communications, and work-in-progress permits; system access and operational cutover; potential parallel operations and shared workspace during the cutover process; allocation or reconciliation of permit revenues associated with work-in-progress permits; responsibilities of the incoming and outgoing contractors; and communications with applicants and the public regarding the transition.
- During the August 5 workshop, some Commissioners supported requiring only a transition-out plan as part of the proposal and addressing the specific transition-in requirements during contract negotiations with the selected Proposer. Another Commissioner supported retaining both requirements so the City could evaluate each Proposer’s transition experience, approach, and operational readiness before ranking the firms.
- Requiring transition-in information at the proposal stage provides a common basis for evaluating Proposers and may identify operational, financial, and continuity risks earlier in the procurement process. Deferring the transition-in details until negotiations may reduce the proposal requirements but would leave significant transition matters to be resolved after the firms have been ranked. How firms have addresses these types of transitions may be important to evaluators.
- Commission direction is requested on whether to retain the requirement for Proposers to submit both transition-in and transition-out plans as part of their proposals, or to require only a transition-out plan at the proposal stage and address transition-in requirements during contract negotiations with the selected Proposer.
H) Evaluation Committee Composition / External Representation (Section 7 - Evaluation and Selection Process). Determine whether the Evaluation Committee should include members from outside the City organization and, if so, establish the desired number, qualifications, and process for selecting such members.
- The City typically utilizes a five-member Evaluation Committee for solicitations. Evaluation Committee composition is not normally addressed in the solicitation; therefore, Commission direction on this item would guide Administration in establishing the committee rather than require a revision to the draft solicitation package.
- During the August 5 workshop, the Commission discussed including at least two outside members on the Evaluation Committee. Suggested backgrounds or qualifications included experience with a municipality that provides building department services, experience with the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals, specialized procurement experience involving building department services, City residency, or other relevant qualifications.
- During the workshop, the Commission discussed including at least two outside members. Suggested backgrounds included experience with a municipality that provides building services, the Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals, specialized procurement involving building services, or City residency.
- Commissioners also discussed whether the total committee size should be adjusted to accommodate outside members and whether appropriate candidates could be identified without creating conflicts.
- External Representation: Commission direction is requested on whether the City should require outside members to serve on the Evaluation Committee and, if so:
(1) Committee Size: The City typically utilizes a five-member Evaluation Committee. How many members should this Evaluation Committee have and how many should be external?
(2) Qualifications: What qualifications or categories of outside representation should the City seek, such as municipal building department experience, Broward County Board of Rules and Appeals experience, specialized procurement experience, City residency, or other qualifications?
(3) Availability and Conflicts: How should the City proceed if it is unable to identify a sufficient number of qualified individuals who are willing and available to serve or who can serve without an actual or potential conflict of interest? Potential conflicts or concerns could include prior employment or other relationships with a Proposer or an outside member's governmental agency having an existing or prior contractual relationship with one or more Proposers.
(4) Selection and Timing: Should Administration be authorized to identify and select outside members who meet the criteria established by the Commission? If suitable members cannot be identified within a timeframe that allows the procurement to remain on schedule, should Administration proceed with otherwise qualified members, return to the Commission for further direction, or follow another process established by the Commission?
I) Cone of Silence and Communications with Commissioners (Section 9.35 - Cone of Silence; City Code Section 35.40). Determine whether the City should adopt a voluntary or solicitation-specific restriction on communications involving members of the City Commission during the procurement process, and define when any such restriction would begin, end, and apply.
- The August 5 draft provides that the statutory City cone of silence begins upon advertisement, unless the Commission declares that it begins during other procurement activities, and identifies the persons and communications subject to the restriction. As part of the Code, the City Commission, City Attorney’s Office and the Procurement Department are not part of the Cone of Silence.
- During the workshop, a Commissioner discussed a voluntary or solicitation-specific restriction on communications involving members of the City Commission.
- Commission direction is requested on whether members of the City Commission should remain exempt from the Cone of Silence as provided by the City's Code or voluntarily comply with additional communication restrictions for this solicitation. If additional restrictions are desired, Commission direction is also requested regarding when they should begin and end and which persons and communications they should cover.
7. Consistent with the Commission's direction at the June 17, 2026 meeting, the August 5, 2026 workshop was presented for discussion only, and no formal action was taken. Accordingly, the draft solicitation package attached to this agenda is the same package presented at the August 5 workshop. Administration requests that the City Commission provide separate direction on each item identified in Paragraph 5, authorize Administration to incorporate any approved revisions into the solicitation, provide direction regarding the composition and selection of the Evaluation Committee, and approve the resulting solicitation for advertisement as RFP # AD-26-01 "Operation and Management of the Building Department."
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
RFP # AD-26-01 "Operation and Management of the Building Department"
The agreement resulting from this solicitation utilizes a revenue-sharing compensation structure under which the City retains an agreed percentage of Building Permit Fee revenues and the contractor receives the remaining agreed percentage as compensation for operating and managing the Building Department. The contractor would also be responsible for specified payments to the City, including administrative fees and rent. If the City selects the City-provided leadership model (Option B), the contractor would additionally reimburse the City for the agreed costs associated with the City-employed Chief Building Official and Building Department Operations Manager. If the Commission directs a separate City-employed Building Director, the contractor would likewise reimburse the City for that position's agreed costs.