Title
MOTION TO AWARD IFB# TS-25-11 "CISCO SWITCHES" TO THE MOST RESPONSIVE/RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, R2 UNIFIED TECHNOLOGIES, LLC, IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $500,993.
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 an Invitation for Bid as “A written solicitation for competitive sealed bids with the title, date and hour of the public bid opening designated therein and specifically defining the commodities or services for which bids are sought. The invitation for bid shall be used when the city is capable of specifically defining the scope of work for which a service is required or when the city is capable of establishing 15 precise specifications defining the actual commodities required. The invitation for bid shall include instructions to bidders, plans, drawings and specifications, if any, bid form and other required forms and documents to be submitted with the bid.”
- 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."
- Section 35.19(E) is titled "Bid opening procedure."
- 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."
- Section 35.39 of the City's Code of Ordinances is titled "CITY CONTRACTORS PROVIDING EQUAL BENEFITS FOR DOMESTIC PARTNERS AND ALL MARRIED COUPLES."
- Section 35.39(A) states, "Except where federal or state law mandates to the contrary, a contractor awarded a contract pursuant to a competitive solicitation shall provide benefits to domestic partners and spouses of its employees, irrespective of gender, on the same basis as it provides benefits to employees' spouses in traditional marriages."
- Section 35.39(C)(5) states, "The contractor must conspicuously make available to all employees and applicants for employment the following statement: ‘During the performance of a contract with the City of Pembroke Pines, Florida, the Contractor will provide Equal Benefits to its employees with spouses, as defined by Section 35.39 of the City's Code of Ordinances, and its employees with Domestic Partners’."
- Section 35.39(D)(9) states, "Upon a majority vote, the City Commission may waive compliance of this section under the following circumstances:"
- Section 35.39(D)(9)(c) states, "Where the bid price or proposal price as submitted by the lowest responsive bidder which complies with the requirements of this section is at least 5% greater than the lowest bid or proposal submitted by the bidder which does not comply with the requirements of this section but would otherwise have been responsive if compliance with this section would not have been listed as a requirement in the bid specifications."
SUMMARY EXPLANATION AND BACKGROUND:
1. On August 6, 2025, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of IFB# TS-25-11 “Cisco Switches” which was advertised on August 14, 2025.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to seek bids from qualified firms to provide the requested Cisco infrastructure hardware for the City of Pembroke Pines, in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications contained in this solicitation. New hardware will be replacing aged and end of life (EOL) hardware at various locations throughout the City.
Cisco Catalyst C9500-24Y4C-A9500 core switch. Core switches serve as gateways to City’s wide area network (WAN) or Internet and provide the final aggregation point for the network allowing for multiple aggregation modules to work together Cisco Catalyst 9500 series switches are the next generation of enterprise-class core and aggregation layer switches, supporting full programmability and serviceability including advanced routing and infrastructure services.
Cisco Catalyst C9200L-48P-4X-A edge switch. These switches connect end-user local area networks (LANs) to Internet service provider (ISP) networks. Cisco Catalyst C9200L-48P-4X-A series switches provide 48 ports, full PoE+, 4x10G uplink Switch, with Network Advantage software.
3. On September 2, 2025, the City received nineteen (19) bids, yielding the following results:
|
Vendor |
Total |
|
Sentinel Technologies, Inc |
$499,823.20 |
|
R2 Unified Technologies, LLC |
$500,993.00 |
|
Riverside Technologies, Inc. |
$508,635.30 |
|
NWN Corporation |
$513,677.80 |
|
Staples Technology Solutions, a div of Staples |
|
|
Contract and Commercial, LLC |
$517,264.50 |
|
Presidio Networked Solutions LLC |
$517,625.45 |
|
AVI-SPL LLC |
$538,097.90 |
|
JPT-TECH, LLC |
$560,080.55 |
|
Netverta, LLC |
$572,769.95 |
|
Axelliant LLC |
$578,900.85 |
|
DOF CREATIONS, LLC |
$583,996.01 |
|
SHI International Corp. |
$598,909.80 |
|
PC Network Solutions of the Palm Beaches |
$601,025.10 |
|
Sai Infotek Inc |
$620,520.75 |
|
Emerging Technology Integrators |
$631,553.40 |
|
Verity Partners Inc |
$655,523.00 |
|
Jaak Tech LLC |
$663,913.25 |
|
Smart Network Solutions Communications Corp |
$788,275.00 |
|
Beta Link Solutions |
$1,179,406.15 |
4. Sentinel Technologies, Inc., submitted the lowest bid. However, they indicated they were not compliant with the Equal Benefits requirements.
5. Pursuant to §35.39(C)(5) of the City’s Code of Ordinances, the City requires any contractor working with the City of Pembroke Pines to provide the same benefits to employees with domestic partners as they do to employees who are married. This ensures that all employees receive the same benefits, whether they have spouse or a domestic partner.
6. Pursuant to §35.39(D)(9) of the City's Code of Ordinances, the City Commission is allowed to waive the Equal Benefits requirement under certain conditions. Specifically, the Commission may, by majority vote, approve the award of a contract to the second lowest bidder if the bidder complies with the Equal Benefits requirements and their price is within 5% of the lowest non-compliant bidder.
7. R2 Unified Technologies, LLC, submitted the second lowest bidder, which is less than one percent higher than Sentinel Technologies, Inc. R2 Unified Technologies, LLC, has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and is currently in compliance with the requirements of this section. Thereby, Pursuant to §35.39(D)(9) of the City's Code of Ordinances, a waiver of the Equal Benefits requirement is not applicable in this situation. Therefore, R2 Unified Technologies, LLC, has been determined to be the most responsive/responsible bidder.
8. Request Commission to award IFB # TS-25-11, “Cisco Switches” to the most responsive/responsible bidder, R2 Unified Technologies, LLC, in the amount not to exceed $500,993.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: Amount not to exceed $500,993
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: Funds are available in account # 001-513-2002-664400-0000-000-0000 (Other Equipment)
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.