Title
MOTION TO AWARD IFB # RE-25-05 “PINES RECREATION CENTER RENOVATION" TO THE MOST RESPONSIVE/RESPONSIBLE BIDDER, BEJAR CONSTRUCTION INC., IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $1,480,184.16, WHICH INCLUDES THE COST TO PROVIDE PAYMENT AND PERFORMANCE BONDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $26,431.86, AND AN OWNER'S CONTINGENCY IN THE AMOUNT OF $132,159.30.
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(G) states "Contracts shall be awarded to the lowest responsive, responsible bidder, which provides the best value to the city. In determining the “lowest responsive, responsible bidder,” the Chief Procurement Officer shall consider:"
(1) The prices contained in the bid;
(2) The ability, capacity and skill of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service required;
(3) Whether the bidder can perform the contract or provide the service promptly or within the time specified, without delay or interference;
(4) The character, integrity, reputation, judgment, experience and efficiency of the bidder;
(5) The quality of performance of previous contracts of services, including, but not limited to, city contracts;
(6) The previous and existing compliance by the bidder with laws and ordinances relating to the contract or service;
(7) The sufficiency of the financial resources and ability of the bidder to perform the contract or provide the service;
(8) The quality, availability and adaptability of the commodities or services to the particular use required;
(9) The ability of the bidder to provide future maintenance and service for the use of the subject of the contract;
(10) The number and scope of conditions attached to the bid;
(11) The overall cost to the city;
(12) Whether the bidder is involved in any pending litigation with the city; and/or
(13) The best interests of the city.
- 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 August 21, 2024, the City Commission approved the Facility Management Agreement with the Boys and Girls Club of Broward County, granting the organization the ability to develop and implement a comprehensive youth and teen program at the Pines Recreation Center. As part of this agreement, the City is responsible for completing needed rehabilitation work at the facility, while the Boys and Girls Club requested additional interior classroom improvements that they will fully reimburse. In accordance with Section 6.2 of the Agreement, the Boys and Girls Club must review and formally accept the contractor’s proposed pricing for the classroom rework component prior to the City entering into a construction contract.
2. On May 7, 2025, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of IFB #RE-25-05 “Pines Recreation Center Renovation,” and the solicitation was advertised on May 14, 2025.
3. The purpose of this solicitation was to obtain bids from qualified firms to deliver a turnkey renovation of the Pines Recreation Center. The project includes two components:
Construction Plan A, which encompasses the City’s renovation and rehabilitation work to restore the facility to a safe and welcoming condition for the community; and
Construction Plan B, which includes optional interior classroom rework requested by the Boys and Girls Club, the cost of which will be reimbursed to the City by the tenant in accordance with the approved agreement. Construction Plan B combines both the City’s required renovation items and the tenant-requested improvements into a single coordinated construction scope. Consistent with Section 6.2 of the Facility Management Agreement, the Boys and Girls Club was provided the contractor’s proposed pricing for Construction Plan B and has submitted written acceptance authorizing the City to proceed.
4. On July 8, 2025, the City opened eight (8) bids from the following vendors, representing the estimated costs of each plan.
Construction Plan A:
|
Vendor |
Total |
|
Triad Security Group Inc* |
$19,290.00 |
|
WILLIAMS & THOMAS CONSTRUCTION |
$686,271.00 |
|
Kyzen Group, LLC |
$925,000.00 |
|
Bejar Construction |
$1,118,002.00 |
|
JAE Development Group LLC* |
$1,224,850.00 |
|
Miliani Construction Corp. |
$1,273,497.87 |
|
Cosugas LLC |
$1,325,000.00 |
|
Sleiman Construction LLC |
$1,516,403.11 |
Construction Plan B:
|
VendorTotal |
|
|
Triad Security Group Inc* |
$19,290.00 |
|
JAE Development Group LLC* |
$86,205.00 |
|
Williams & Thomas Construction |
$837,993.00 |
|
Kyzen Group, LLC |
$1,000,000.00 |
|
Bejar Construction |
$1,321,593.00 |
|
Miliani Construction Corp. |
$1,448,105.50 |
|
Cosugas LLC |
$1,465,000.00 |
|
Sleiman Construction LLC |
$1,727,463.22 |
*Incomplete submittal. Based on the estimated cost of the project and the submittal pricing provided by Triad Security Group, the City suspected a pricing error. The City verbally confirmed with Triad Security Group that the submittal was incomplete. JAE Development Group LLC was determined to have an incomplete submittal, as Construction Plan B was required to include the full cost of Construction Plan A in addition to the cost of the added scope, which was not fully reflected in their submission.
5. As part of the City’s due diligence process, the City contacts vendors to clarify bid submissions, confirm understanding of scope requirements, and schedule pre-award meetings.
6. On November 6, 2025, Williams & Thomas Construction was deemed unresponsive due to the below timeline of requests from the City and the lack of response from the bidder:
- August 12, 2025 - City received Schedule of Values
- September 9, 2025 - City requested the for Notice of Acceptance (NOA) documents for the equipment, product approvals, additional details on the schedule of values, and an indication of any alternative products used in their submittal, if any.
- September 10, 2025 - Received confirmation of receipt of email from Williams & Thomas Construction
- October 1, 2025 - Sent follow up email to Williams & Thomas Construction
- October 2, 2025 - Sent email to Williams and Thomas informing them of a submission deadline of October 6, 2025 and received confirmation of receipt.
- October 6, 2025 - No response via email from Williams and Thomas. City contacted vendor to provide final submission deadline of November 6, 2025
- November 6, 2025 - No response from Williams and Thomas who was then deemed unresponsive.
7. During the due diligence process with Williams & Thomas Construction, the Procurement and Sustainability Department began discussions with the next two lowest vendors to expedite process.
8. The City received the Schedule of Values (SOV) from Kyzen Group on September 15, 2025. On October 20, 2025, the Procurement Department sent an email to Kyzen asking them to address missing items on their Schedule of Values. On October 22, 2025, Kyzen provided an updated SOV to include the missing items with no change in the project totals.
9. On November 6, 2025, the Recreation and Cultural Arts Department and the Procurement and Sustainability Department held a pre-award meeting with Kyzen Group LLC, the second lowest bidder. During the meeting, Kyzen Group LLC was asked to clarify multiple questions, including how their Schedule of Values (SOV) total remained unchanged after adding missing scope items; confirm that all testing, commissioning, and compliance-related costs were included; provide a complete list of bid exclusions; and confirm they would supply a full-time superintendent as required. The vendor was also requested to submit subcontractor quotes and detailed quantities for key trades, provide a schedule based on actual manufacturer lead times, confirm coordination with the fire-alarm monitoring company, and explain the low-cost difference between Plan A and Plan B. Finally, Kyzen was asked to provide additional contact information for the references submitted in the bid. Kyzen Group LLC, was sent an email with a deadline of November 12, 2025 at 9:00 AM to provide the requested details and reference information.
10. Per Section 6 "Submittal Documents,” of the bid package, regarding references, it states that bidders shall “provide specific examples of similar experience conducting licensed work of equal or similar scope of work preferably delivered by the proposed team members. A minimum of 3 references should be from the last five years and should be capable of explaining and confirming your firm’s capacity to successfully complete the scope of work outlined herein. As part of the proposal evaluation process, the City may conduct an investigation of references, including a record check or consumer affairs complaints. Proposers’ submission of a proposal constitutes acknowledgment of the process and consent to investigate. The City is the sole judge in determining Proposers qualifications.”
Kyzen Group LLC, listed the following references in their bid submittal:
|
Name of Firm |
Nature of the firm’s responsibility on the project |
|
City of Pompano Beach |
General Contractor responsible for entire project (Building, Roofing, MEP, Paint) |
|
Turnberry Aventura |
Construction Manager for GC/ Developer |
|
Atex Group, LLC |
Private owner/ developer construction manager at risk project. |
|
|
Coordination and management of all trades schedules, permitting, operations etc. |
The Procurement and Sustainability Department e-mailed all the listed references and requested each to complete the “Reference Check Form"; however, the City did not receive written responses. Additionally, staff called all three listed references and was only able to get in contact with one (1) of the three (3) references:
City of Pompano Beach. Arnold Sierra, Construction Manager, stated the vendor performed for the Office of Housing and Urban Improvements, which is related closely to HUD repair projects, which differ substantially in scope and complexity from the renovation work required under this solicitation.
11. The Recreation and Cultural Arts Department did not receive adequate documentation or references demonstrating Kyzen Group LLC’s successful completion of a comparable full-scale renovation project. Additional concerns arose from multiple unanswered questions related to their understanding of the project requirements, including clarifications on unchanged SOV pricing despite added scope, confirmation of testing and commissioning responsibilities, completeness of bid exclusions, commitment to a full-time superintendent, required subcontractor quotes and quantities, coordination with the fire-alarm monitoring company, a schedule reflecting actual lead times, and justification of the low cost difference between Plan A and Plan B. Kyzen Group LLC was given a deadline of November 12, 2025, at 9:00 AM to provide the requested details. The bidder did not provide a follow-up response and therefore was deemed non-responsive and disqualified from further consideration.
12. On November 10, 2025, the Recreation and Cultural Arts Department and the Procurement and Sustainability Department met with the third-lowest bidder, Bejar Construction. During the meeting, Bejar Construction was asked questions similar to those posed to Kyzen Group. Bejar provided sufficient responses and documentation to support their proposal and address the Project Manager’s inquiries. After the meeting, the City emailed Bejar Construction requesting one additional detail regarding their coordination with the fire-alarm company, and a response was received promptly that same day.
13. In addition to Bejar Construction’s references being satisfactory, the firm has previously completed projects for the City of Pembroke Pines on time and within budget, meeting the expectations of the City’s Project Manager.
14. Because of the completeness of Bejar Construction’s submittal, prompt responsiveness, and their demonstrated understanding of the scope of work and project requirements, the Recreation and Cultural Arts Department has determined them to be the most responsive/responsible bidder.
15. In accordance with the City's procurement requirements, Bejar Construction, has submitted a complete Equal Benefits Ordinance Compliance Form and affirmed that the firm is currently in full compliance with the provisions of the City's Equal Benefits Ordinance.
16. For Construction Plan B, Bejar Construction submitted a total bid of $1,321,593.00. The City will be responsible for $1,118,002.00 of the total cost plus 2% for a payment and performance bond and a 10% owner's contingency, with the Boys and Girls Club covering the remaining $203,591.00 plus 2% for a payment and performance bond and a 10% owner's contingency. This allocation reflects the shared funding arrangement between the City and the Boys and Girls Club for the project. In accordance with Section 6.2, of the Facility Management Agreement the Boys and Girls Club was provided the contractor’s pricing and formally accepted the total cost of $228,021.92 (inclusive of contingency and bonding) through written correspondence to the City prior to award.
17. Request Commission to award IFB # RE-25-05 “Pines Recreation Center Renovation" to the most responsive/responsible bidder, Bejar Construction, in the amount not to exceed $1,480,184.16, which includes the cost to provide payment and performance bonds in an amount not to exceed $26,431.86 and a 10% owner’s contingency in the amount of $132,159.30.
Financial Impact
FINANCIAL IMPACT DETAIL:
a) Initial Cost: $1,480,184.16 ($1,252,162.24 is the City's portion and $228,021.92 is the Boys and Girls Club's portion)
b) Amount budgeted for this item in Account No: For the City portion there is $1,185,700 in account # 001-572-7001-663015-0000-000-0000 (Pines Recreation Ctr - Improv.)
c) Source of funding for difference, if not fully budgeted:
The City portion is short $66,462.24. If approved, the below budget adjustment will be processed
From:
$66,463 - 001-572-7001-666400-0000-000-0000- (Other Equipment)
To:
$66,463 - 001-572-7001-663015-0000-000-0000- (Pines Recreation Ctr - Improv)
The Boys and Girls Club will reimburse their portion of the costs totaling $228,021.92. If approved, the Finance Department will set up the accounts for the expense and the reimbursement.
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.