Title
MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE EVALUATION COMMITTEE AND TO AWARD RFQ # RE-21-03 “DESIGN BUILD SERVICES FOR RENOVATION OF SPRING VALLEY PARK AND WILLIAM B. ARMSTRONG PARK” TO MBR CONSTRUCTION, INC., AND TO DIRECT THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE A CONTRACT FOR SERVICES.
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."
- 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 35.21 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 June 16, 2021, the City Commission authorized the advertisement of RFQ # RE-21-03 “Design Build Services for Renovation of Spring Valley Park and William B. Armstrong Park” which was advertised on June 24, 2021.
2. The purpose of this solicitation was to seek qualifications from qualified firms with specialized skills and interest in providing professional services for a Design/Build project to renovate Spring Valley Park and William B. Armstrong Park.
3. The work at Spring Valley Park will include the demolition of the existing roller hockey rinks and the construction of a new passive park with walk paths, exercise equipment, a playground, and all new landscaping. The work at William B. Armstrong Dream Park includes the construction of a new Community Center and the renovation of the existing pond and deck.
The selected firm will be expected to provide the following:
- Design Services in compliance with State Statutes
- Design Review and Best Value Analysis including cost estimates
- Guaranteed Maximum Price, including 100% Payment and Performance bond
- Permitting
- Construction Services
- Project Management
- Schedule of Values
4. On August 24, 2021 the City opened six (6) proposals from the following vendors:
|
Vendor Name |
|
1. Di Pompeo Construction |
|
2. Benny Bejar DBA Bejar Construction, Inc. |
|
3. Stiles Corporation DBA Stiles Construction |
|
4. MBR Construction, Inc. |
|
5. State Contracting & Engineering Corp. |
|
6. Ahrens Enterprises, Inc. DBA Ahrens Companies |
5. On September 8, 2021, the City convened an evaluation committee that was tasked with selecting, in order of preferences, no less than three (3) firms 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
- Firm’s Design Build Experience, Past Record & Capabilities (30 points)
- Adequacy of Personnel / Ability of Professional Personnel (30 points)
- Financial Capability (10 points)
- Firm’s Understanding and Approach to the Work (25 points)
- Whether a firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (as defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act) (5 points)
6. Prior to the September 8, 2021, evaluation committee meeting, the Procurement Department deemed Bejar Construction, Inc. non-responsive, as they did not submit the Firm's Understanding and Approach to the work, which was a scored section worth 25 points.
7. At the September 8, 2021, meeting, the evaluation committee made a motion which passed unanimously to deem the (5) vendors as qualified and shortlist them all for a second meeting, where the vendors would give a 10 minute presentation followed by a 10 minute question and answer period on September 22, 2021.
8. On September 20, 2021. Di Pompeo Construction notified the Procurement Department via email that they were recently awarded three other jobs and unfortunately would not be able to continue forward through our bidding process.
9. On September 22, 2021, the City re-convened the evaluation committee, and had discussions with each of the short-listed firms regarding their: (1) Qualifications, (2) Approach to the project; and (3) Ability to furnish the required services.
10. The evaluation committee scored and ranked the vendors based on the weighted criteria provided for in the solicitation documents and listed below:
- Firm overall experience and Adequacy of Personnel/Ability of Professional Personnel (35 points)
- Past Record / Past Performance (15 points)
- Firm’s Understanding and Approach to the Work (15 points)
- Willingness to meet time and budget requirements (15 points)
- Recent, current, and projected workloads of the firms (10 points)
- Whether a firm is a Certified Minority Business Enterprise (as defined by the Florida Small and Minority Business Assistance Act) (5 points)
- Local Vendor Preference/ Veteran Owned Small Business Preference (5 points)
11. At the September 22, 2021 meeting, the evaluation committee ranked the vendors as shown below:
|
Rank |
Evaluator/Vendor |
|
1 |
MBR Construction, Inc. |
|
2 |
State Contracting & Engineering Corp. |
|
3 |
Stiles Corporation DBA Stiles Construction |
|
4 |
Ahrens Enterprises, Inc. DBA Ahrens Companies |
12. Based on the scoring results, the evaluation committee approved a motion to recommend the City Commission to award RFQ # RE-21-03 “Design Build Services for Renovation of Spring Valley Park and William B. Armstrong Park” to the first ranked vendor, MBR Construction, Inc., and to direct the City Manager to negotiate a contract for services.
13. An agenda item will be brought back to present to the Commission the negotiated contract executed by the vendor.
14. MBR Construction, Inc. has also completed the Equal Benefits Certification Form and has stated that the “Contractor currently complies with the requirements of this section.”
15. Request City Commission to approve the findings and recommendation of the Evaluation Committee and to award RFQ # RE-21-03 “Design Build Services for Renovation of Spring Valley Park and William B. Armstrong Park” to MBR Construction, Inc. and to direct the City Manager to negotiate a contract for services.
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 are available in account # 001-572-7001-663000-0000-000-0000 (Improvement other than building)
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.