Agenda 11/10/2015 Item #11C Proposed Agenda Changes
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
November 10,2015
Continue Item 11C to the December 8, 2015 BCC Meeting: Recommendation
to approve the award of RFP 15-6424, Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Programs, to
Medical Transportation Management, Inc., d/b/a Southeast MTM, Inc.
(MTM) for Scheduling and Dispatch Services and to MV Transportation, Inc.
for Transit Operation Services. (Estimated annual amount $6,427,033).
(Commissioner Taylor's request)
Withdraw Item 17D: This item continued from the October 13, 2015 BCCMeetinj.
Recommendation to adopt an Ordinance amending Ordinance 97-82,as amended,which created
the Bayshore Beautification Municipal Service Taxing Unit,to expand the district boundary to
include County owned right-of-way identified for the purpose of constructing pedestrian
streetscape improvements within the right-of-way along Thomasson Drive. (Staffs request)
Note:
Item 16H1 Agenda Index title should read: Recommendation to appoint two three members to
the Radio Road East of Santa Barbara Blvd. Advisory Committee. (Staffs request)
Time Certain Request:
Item 9C to be heard at 9:45 a.m.
Item 9A to be heard at 11:00 a.m.
Item 9B to be heard immediately following 9A
Item 11E to be heard at 11:30 a.m.
11/10/2015 8:30 AM
11/10/2015 11 .C.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to approve the award of RFP 15-6424, Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Programs, to Medical Transportation
Management,Inc., d/b/a Southeast MTM, Inc. (MTM) for Scheduling and Dispatch Services and to
MV Transportation,Inc. for Transit Operation Services. (Estimated annual amount$6,427,033).
OBJECTIVE: To provide scheduling and dispatching services for the transit system and to provide the
operations of both fixed route and paratransit systems.
CONSIDERATIONS: The current Management Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT)
Fixed Route and Paratransit Program is due to expire and accordingly, the Public Transit and
Neighborhood Enhancement Division is procuring a new successor agreement.
The County issued Request for Proposal # 15-6424, "Management Services Contract for the Collier Area
Transit(CAT)Fixed Route and Paratransit Program," on April 27, 2015. The RFP separated the scope of
work into two separate agreements; one to include regular transit operations and the other to include
scheduling and dispatch services.Notifications were sent to 651 firms and 73 packages were downloaded.
The County received eight proposals for the operations Contract and four proposals for the scheduling
and dispatching contract by the June 4, 2015 closing date.
Each proposer was given an opportunity to make a presentation to the selection committee. Due to the
number of proposals received for the operating contract a second presentation was conducted by the three
highest scoring vendors. The table below identifies the final ranking of the selection committee.
Operations Fixed and Paratransit Scheduling&Dispatch
1. MV Transportation Inc. 1. MTM
2. Maruti Fleet&Management 2. MV Transportation
3. Keolis 3. Reveal Management Services
4. National Express 4. Intelliride
5. Ride Right
6. McDonald Transit America
7. Transportation America
8. Dolphin Transport Specialists
By consensus of the selection committee, the recommended scheduling & dispatching firm for award is
MTM and the recommended Operations firm for award is MV Transportation, Inc.
The term of each contract is for an initial term of five years with three, one year renewal options
thereafter. It is anticipated that further modifications will take place throughout the contract term to
provide for added or adjusted transit routes. Throughout the contract negotiations process,the two firms
agreed to take primary lead in some functions and work to coordinate others. In the best interest of the
County, Staff recommends that these minor adjustments in scope are waived as minor irregularities per
Procurement Services Policy Section 10 E.
Although the services are separated into two contracts,the vendors are expected to work together to make
the provision of transportation services a seamless process, including preparing and completing required
reports assuring that at the end of the contract that all pertinent employees' files are retained by Collier
Area Transit.
Packet Page-292-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
To ensure high level of service without negatively impacting service quality, Performance Standards have
been established in the contract,which includes Incentives and Disincentives. The standards are included
in Appendix 1 of the contract and will be used to evaluate operations on a monthly basis. The Transit
Manager will provide oversight and review all reports and documentation to determine compliance and
apply incentives or disincentives where applicable. The application of incentives/disincentives will be
distributed to vendors every six months.
Procurement Services posted the intent to award to RFP 15-6424, Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Programs for Transit Operation Services on
September 3, 2015. Subsequent to that notice, Maruti Fleet & Management LLC filed an intention and
their formal protest pursuant to the Board's Procurement Ordinance. As a result of the protest, the Board,
on September 8, 2015, extended the current agreement through March 25, 2016 to allow ample time to
hear and resolve the forthcoming protest.
The Procurement Services Director reviewed the issues raised in the solicitation protest, denied the
protest and directed staff to move forward with the award recommendation. The protesting party did not
file a written objection to the decision issued by the Procurement Services Director.
Staff recommends the award of RFP 15-6424, Management Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit
(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Programs, to Medical Transportation Management, Inc., d/b/a
Southeast MTM, Inc. (MTM) for Scheduling and Dispatch Services and to MV Transportation, Inc. for
Transit Operation Services for a five (5) year period with three (3) one (1) year renewal options
commencing on March 26, 2016. The chart below depicts the estimated contract amounts in total over
the five(5)year period.
YEAR 1 YEAR 2 YEAR 3 YEAR 4 YEAR 5
$6,427,033 $6.340,767 $6,512,643 $6,632,530 $6,774,178
FISCAL IMPACT: This contract does not coincide with the County's fiscal year. The contract service
period runs from March to February each year for the five year contract duration. The numbers in the
table above reflect annualized contract costs. The following table identifies the source of funds in FY16
for this contract.
Fund Revenue Source Amount
424 CAT Grant Florida Department of Transportation State Block $448,350
FTA Section 5311 Rural Area Grant funds $209,550
Service Development Grant $91,650
426 CAT Ops Gas Tax(313)FY16 Transfer $1,068,850
425 CAT Grant Match
428 TD Grant Federal Transit Administration(FTA) 5307 ADA $144,400
Commission of TD Trip&Equipment $390,850
427 TD Ops General Fund (001)Transfer $859,900
429 TD Grant Match
GRAND TOTAL $3,213,550
Annually, the General Fund (001)and Gas Tax Fund(313)provide a subsidy in support of Transportation
Disadvantaged (TD)paratransit and Collier Area Transit(CAT)fixed route services. This annual subsidy
will not change as a result of this contract.
Packet Page-293-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been approved as to form and legality and requires a
majority vote for Board approval.—ERP
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Consistent with Objective 12 of the Transportation Element of
the Growth Management Plan.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners awards the Scheduling &
Dispatching contract to MTM and the Operations contract to MV Transportation, Inc. to provide
operations of both Collier County's Fixed Route and Paratransit and authorize the Chairman to execute
the negotiated contract which has been reviewed by the County Attorney's Office.
Prepared By: Michelle Arnold, PTNE Division Director
Attachments:
1) Due to the size of the solicitation which is 531 MB and 140 pages long, it is accessible at:
http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaSept0815/11 FFRP156424.docx
2) Final Ranking Sheets; Operations and Schedule and Dispatch
3) Due to the size of the Scheduling and Dispatch contract which is 18.3 MB and 501 pages long, it
is accessible at: http://www.colliergov.net/ftp/AgendaSept0815/15-
6424Schedul ingandDispatchContract.pdf
4) Due to the size of the CAT Operations Contract which is 10.2 MB and 458 pages long, it is
accessible at: http://www.colliercov.net/ftp/AaendaSept0815/15-424CATOperationsContract.pdf
5) Maruti's Formal Protest
6) Protest Response
Packet Page-294-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.11.C.
Item Summary: Recommendation to approve the award of RFP 15-6424, Management
Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Programs, to
Medical Transportation Management, Inc., d/b/a Southeast MTM, Inc. (MTM) for Scheduling
and Dispatch Services and to MV Transportation, Inc. for Transit Operation Services. (Estimated
annual amount $6,427,033).
Meeting Date: 11/10/2015
Prepared By
Name: ArnoldMichelle
Title:Division Director-Pub Tran&Nbrhd Enh,Public Services Department
10/5/2015 8:24:02 AM
Submitted by
Title: Division Director-Pub Tran&Nbrhd Enh, Public Services Department
Name: ArnoldMichelle
10/5/2015 8:24:03 AM
Approved By
Name: SotoCaroline
Title: Management/Budget Analyst,Public Services Department
Date: 10/6/2015 8:53:03 AM
Name: SainvilusJames
Title:Project Manager,Immokalee County Redevelopment Agency
Date: 10/7/2015 9:53:51 AM
Name: MarkiewiczJoanne
Title: Division Director-Procurement Services, Administrative Services Department
Date: 10/7/2015 1:54:32 PM
Name: TownsendAmanda
Title: Division Director-Operations Support, Public Services Department
Packet Page-295-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Date: 10/7/2015 2:13:42 PM
Name: JohnsonScott
Title: Manager-Procurement,Administrative Services Department
Date: 10/8/2015 12:39:42 PM
Name: JohnsonScott
Title: Manager-Procurement, Administrative Services Department
Date: 10/8/2015 12:40:13 PM
Name: HerreraSandra
Title: Manager-Procurement,Procurement Services
Date: 10/12/2015 2:04:28 PM
Name: BrilhartBrenda
Title: Procurement Specialist, Procurement Services
Date: 10/15/2015 8:57:36 AM
Name: AlonsoHailey
Title: Operations Analyst,Public Services Department
Date: 10/19/2015 4:02:26 PM
Name: AlonsoHailey
Title: Operations Analyst,Public Services Department
Date: 10/22/2015 11:40:52 AM
Name: AlonsoHailey
Title: Operations Analyst, Public Services Department
Date: 1 0/22/2015 11:41:37 AM
Name: CarnellSteve
Title: Department Head -Public Services, Public Services Department
Date: 10/24/2015 9:03:09 AM
Name: PepinEmily
Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Litigation
Date: 10/26/2015 2:22:24 PM
Name: OberrathKaren
Title: Accountant, Senior, Grants Management Office
Date: 10/27/2015 12:39:44 PM
Name: PepinEmily
Title: Assistant County Attorney, CAO Litigation
Packet Page-296-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Date: 10/27/2015 3:14:25 PM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney,
Date: 10/30/2015 9:34:33 AM
Name: StanleyTherese
Title: Manager-Grants Compliance, Grants Management Office
Date: 11/2/2015 4:09:58 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager, County Managers Office
Date: 11/3/2015 5:55:28 PM
Packet Page-297-
11/10/2015 11 C
....
_ =
• --r,i-
L,
..
as
• • • .1•--,•:"
tz •L— cv re)t4....44
u..
),,,••:
4i4i1)
ern c■I co ,,4-,- 5
as
',,?,4 c‘i
O iirM
C
> rot. ce,
<
O — it4 ,..
o a) 4.ifie
co
C.) :R• • . ,
,-- = ,,...,&',',::::.-I•ki.
I-
O 03 a) . •e- 1,,,,-.4.
305
:7.1 ct E F..,..- ,t,....4
C.) _
g
a) ca 1— ,--1
0
CO• Li. 1...
...j. =>,.ct ■ .,
: t1C
U) _,
c)...
= 0 m .... ,
ees ci)
....., — 4., •,,,
....
CU 65it. i7)
C..1 0, 4:4,,,
06 au M
E
cts tti co ;00 m
= .0 wk-4.,-4 o
O 0
o
,..
C.
rb• _ ' 41,.
.,.
75 >, ',"'" C°4 CI Oth
'' t-
co
=
X C 0 Fit: L
Licoc
(...)
0
.-
o
e.) _1 ..,?..'
,
= a, . ,,,,- a)
...1.-
C
LT.
CA ..-C"'
4..
(D 0 CD , a)
C- C '?,...--:fi' cn
O
5 0 Ca
,,,,Z.■ F■9,.
ca cf) co iri,:z. cp_
i ti; to f 11W a)
Z Z 't °5 Attl CC
U) . ,— cr)
2 i.. w a)
(75 --
,,.....,..iilb- .cn-
a)
Q N -,--- "- 1-- -5 u)'-,,‘,P
v1-0 .. =
w =;.,„,,,t,L,p, 0
< 11.... i:.. cap)
0 2 2 -
•Afex a.
Packet Page-298-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
...
.-,
u,
a) o y-
03
,...
-' en e, t
_=(1)
-910 c
CU
.—
U..
- 0 =
o 0 73 c
, -
0 a.)
"..' - >
, -.-' 2
47
j-- „0 r-
,' 4 n...., CU CS
Cb CO. cc), co CO r Lc,
• le:s3 ,-- N.-- 04 co , - 0
• CU
,_
> C•I
4 .
a)
+.. %—• 0.1 el CI' '
>4
cf) ...
= a,
E CD P. -• '
= = ,
2
..:o-.. 03 Ct E .- r-
clo.)
—g ,
o
.7r
CO LL " re ....'r
...f CU
D— taA
T''' ,• * • CU
0 0—
." C •
(4
,
0 4••• = 7';'±'41 CU
f■ C ,..„, ,.— 4,
"" < "/..• , 1 03
CIS
a)
...
c) 8
0
,,, ,. a_
,
•E-.. CNI C`^) Mt' '■ ''',- ct
C1)
CU
t... ........ , 1«.-
0 0) 1■1'1.•.14
4.• ,'''"i
...., 2 „.
co
a)
0 E < t 45
(.) :. u) a c a. 0 0 co --~' ca
LL --='
-'a"
... )E
05 " 0 E • -
'5 CNI I- '..,,- a) -.,, 0.
_
as CD — w z::1) ',:! ti)
Vi l'3 c.f.' c?) Z
z ss
..0
Ct
i
0 11.P 1-1-
, =
I" i .
Packet Page-299-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
ONE NORTH CLEMATIS STREET
SUITE 500
WEST PALM BEACH,FLORIDA 33401
TELEPHONE:561.832 3300
BROAD AN ID CASSEL,SET ww.bro dandc ssel. om
/'ail j-., www.broadandcassei.com
A T T O R N L'Y S AT LAW CLIFFORD I.HERTZ,P.A.
TELEPHONE:561.832.3300
FACSIMILE:561.655.1109
EMAIL:chertz@broadandcassel.com
September 10, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
AND FEDERAL EXPRESS
Joanne Markiewicz
Director, Procurement Services
Collier County Procurement Services Division
3327 Tamiami Trail E.
Naples, FL 34112
joannemarkiewicz@colliergov.net
•
Re: FORMAL PROTEST
Recommended Award— Solicitation Number 15-6424
Management Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit
(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
Dear Ms. Markiewicz:
The undersigned represents Maruti Fleet & Management LLC ("Maruti") in connection
with the above-referenced matter. Enclosed please find Maruti's formal protest of the
Recommended Award for Solicitation Number 15-6424, Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program — Transit Operation Services.
Should you require anything further,please do not hesitate to contact us. Thank you.
Sincerely,
BROAD AND CASSEL
Clifford I. Hertz, P.A.
Enclosure
cc: Maruti Fleet&Mgmt.LLC(via electronic mail)
BOCA RATON • FT. LAUDERDALE • MIAMI • ORLANDO • TALLAHASSEE . TAMPA . WEST PALM BEACH
4837-5444-9704.1
47884/0008 Packet Page -300-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
FORMAL PROTEST OF RECOMMENDED AWARD
SOLICITATION NO. 15-6424
TO: JOANNE MARKIEWICZ
DIRECTOR, PROCUREMENT SERVICES
3327 TAMIAMI TRAIL E.
NAPLES, FL 34112
joannemarkiewicz @colliergov.net
RE: MARUTI FLEET&MANAGEMENT LLC
FORMAL PROTEST OF RECOMMENDED AWARD
RFP NO. 15-6424—MANAGEMENT SERVICES CONTRACT FOR THE
COLLIER AREA TRANSIT (CAT)FIXED ROUTE AND PARATRANSIT
PROGRAM
In accordance with Procurement Ordinance 2013-69 as amended by 2015-37, MARUTI
FLEET & MANAGEMENT, LLC ("Maruti") hereby submits its formal protest of the
Recommended Award for the Transit Operation Services for Solicitation no. 15-6424 —
Management Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit
Program.
1. Name and address of County Agency affected and the solicitation number and title.
Collier County Administrative Services Department
Procurement Services Division
3327 Tamiami Trail E.
Naples,FL 34112
and
Collier County Public Services Department
Public Transit&Neighborhood Enhancement
3299 E. Tamiami Trail#103
Naples,FL 34112
Solicitation no. 15-6424—Management Services Contract for the Collier Area Transit(CAT)
Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
4820-5319-4792.1
47884/0008
Packet Page-301-
11/10/2015 11.C.
Maruti Fleet &Management LLC
Formal Protest
Solicitation No. 15-6424
2. The name and address of the protesting party.
Maruti Fleet&Management LLC
4533 Highway Avenue
Jacksonville, FL 32254
3. A statement of disputed issues of material fact. If there are no disputed material facts,
the written letter must so indicate.
Maruti is unaware of whether the material facts stated below are disputed, but assumes that
the Selection Committee disputes the ultimate allegations that they departed from the
requirements of fair competitive procurement practice as set forth below.
4. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged and of any relevant rules, regulations,
statutes, and constitutional provisions entitling the protesting party to relief.
A "public body is not entitled to omit or alter material provisions required by the RFP
because in doing so the public body fails to inspire public confidence in the fairness of the [RFP]
process." Emerald Correctional Mgmt. v. Bay Cnty Bd. of Cnty. Comm'rs, 955 So. 2d 647, 653
(Fla. 1st DCA 2007) (quoting Dep't of Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So. 2d 648 (Fla. 1st DCA
2001)). Where an agency's action does not follow the stated bid procedures or the agency acts
contrary to the procedures or bid documents, the agency action is arbitrary and capricious, and
clearly erroneous. Id. In this case, the Procurement Services Division's Selection Committee
conducted a final scoring process that did not apply the criteria and weighting values prescribed
in the RFP, which would allow the decision to be subject to review for rationality and fairness,
but instead made a final ranking based upon independently improvised criteria not outlined in the
RFP. Because the Selection Committee failed to observe the specified criteria delineated in the
RFP in making the recommended award,the award is improper.
4820-5319-4792.1
47884/0008
Packet Page-302-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Maruti Fleet &Management LLC
Formal Protest
Solicitation No. 15-6424
On or about April 27, 2015, the Collier County Board of Commissioners Purchasing
Department, at the request of the Collier County Public Transit & Neighborhood Enhancement
(PINE;) Department, issued Request for Proposal 15-6424, Management Services Contract for
the Collier Area Transit (CAT)Fixed Route and Paratransit Program (the"RFP"). The Scope of
Work was divided into two components — Part I, the CAT Transit and Paratransit Services
("Operations"), and Part II, the CAT Scheduling, Dispatching (S&D), Call Center, Intelligent
Transportation Systems ("Scheduling & Dispatch"). Vendors were permitted to submit
proposals for both portions of the project, but could only be awarded the contract for one part.
Maruti timely submitted a proposal for Part I (Operations)under the RFP.
Exhibit II, Section 9 of the RFP provides for the evaluation of the proposals, and indicates
that the"committee members shall score each Proposal in accordance with the rating criteria set
forth below." Exhibit II, Section 11 specifically outlines the rating criteria for the award:
Plans and Programs 30
Financial Capabilities& Cost to the County 20
Experience & Capabilities of Firm 30
Past Experiences and References 10
DBE/SBE 10
Total Points: 100
This scoring process is mandatory, as indicated by the term "shall." No other scoring process
was authorized under the RFP.
On June 22, 2015, the Selection Committee for the Procurement Services Division heard
presentations from all companies that submitted proposals under Part I of the RFP, and made its
initial scoring and ranking following the presentations. After consideration of the information
4820-5319-47921
47884/0008
Packet Page-303-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Maruti Fleet &Management LLC
Formal Protest
Solicitation No. 15-6424
presented, the Selection Committee determined that it wished to hear additional presentations
from the top three firms, to wit: Maruti, MV Transportation, Inc. ("MV"), and Keolis. See Ex.
"A."The second round of presentations was scheduled for June 30, 2015.
The Selection Committee subsequently issued a list of"clarification questions" to the three
firms, the items of which were to be addressed at the June 30, 2015, meeting. See Ex. "B." The
clarification questions do not relate to individual items or sections of the RFP, and it is often
unclear to which, if any, scoring items they relate, or what points would be allocated for the
responses to such questions. Several of the clarification questions went well beyond the scope of
the RFP.
Clarification question #2 asks the firms to "list the ITS components that your company is
proposing to deploy and are they included in your proposal, to better manage CAT operations"
[sic], even though the implementation and management of the Intelligent Transportation System
is exclusively within the province of the scope of services for Scheduling & Dispatch. See RFP
Ex. A-2, § 1.7 ("The Contractor shall be prepared to provide all resources necessary to operate
and administer ... assistance with all aspects of the Intelligent Transportation System (including
planning, troubleshooting, assistance with implementation and maintenance of the system)"); Ex.
A-2, § 4.3 ("The Contractor shall be prepared to provide all resources necessary to troubleshoot
and plan for the systems intelligent transportation systems ... in the near future, it anticipated
that the Contractor shall assist in the planning and implementation of future ITS systems.").
MV, which had submitted bids for both Part I and Part II of the RFP,presented and offered to
the County the free use of technological systems that would benefit the call center, "as a
corporate, a partnering team" (MV Transportation answers to proposal_6-30-15.mp3 @ 10:36-
11:09) notwithstanding the fact that MV was being considered for, and ultimately was
4820-5319-4792.1
47884/0008
Packet Page-304-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Maruti Fleet &Management LLC
Formal Protest
Solicitation No. 15-6424
recommended, the award for the Operations contract. Indeed, the Selection Committee at least
in part considered the ability to leverage MV's offer of no-cost technology benefitting the
Scheduling & Dispatch call center in issuing the Recommended Award for the Operations
contract:
• "From a technology standpoint, I can't say anything but great. I mean,they brought so
much technology to the table." (Final Selection Committee Mtg_6-30-15.mp3 @ 9:05)
• "The software and what it can do, the sophistication of suggestions were top notch. I am
really pleased to see what they did already with our other new partner to consider how the
tools can come together, and to do that at no extra cost to us." (Final Selection Committee
Mtg_6-30-15.mp3 @ 10:44)
• "The technology in this proposal was just outstanding." (Final Selection Committee
Mtg_6-30-15.mp3 @ 14:30)
Clarification question #5, requesting the "one thing that makes [the vendor] stand out above
the rest of the vendors that will bring added value to Collier Area Transit," is nebulous at best
and could potentially relate to any number of criteria listed in the RFP (with varying applicable
scoring points). Further, it is impossible for a vendor to define what makes it "stand out above
the rest of the vendors," as bidders did not have access to the bid proposals or business
procedures of the other vendors.
Following the presentations, the Selection Committee ignored the specific scoring criteria
delineated in Exhibit II, Section 11 of the RFP. The Selection Committee did not re-score the
proposals, nor did it adjust its prior scoring, but instead issued a simple ordinal ranking of the
three firms based upon unspecified criteria. See Ex. "C." MV received the first place ranking,
and Maruti received the second place ranking. The Selection Committee's reliance upon the
information provided pursuant to the clarification questions and unspecified weighting of this
information ignored the delineated criteria as outlined in the RFP. By relying upon subjective
4820-5319-4792.1
47884/0008
Packet Page-305-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Maruti Fleet&Management LLC
Formal Protest
Solicitation No. 15-6424
criteria not outlined in the RFP to formulate an overall ranking without scoring, the Selection
Committee's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
On September 3, 2015, the Procurement Services Division issued its Notice of
Recommended Award of the Operations contract to MV. In light of the foregoing, the
recommended award to MV was erroneous.
Maruti timely filed its Notice of Intent to Protest by letter dated September 4, 2015. All
applicable conditions precedent to this formal protest have been satisfied.
5. The protesting party's entitled demand for the relief.
Maruti respectfully requests that the Board of County Commissioners set aside the
recommended award for the Operations contract to MV. Maruti further requests that the
Selection Committee split the recommended contract award between MV and Maruti, or, in the
alternative, issue a new RFP for the project and award the contract according to the new RFP.
6. Such other information as the protesting party deems to be material to the issue.
None.
DATED September 10, 2015.
Respectfully submitted,
Clifford Hertz
Florida Bar No. 291935
BROAD AND CASSEL
One North Clematis St., Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Telephone: (561) 832-3300
Facsimile: (561) 655-1109
E-Mail: chertz @broadandcassel.com
Attorneys for Maruti Fleet&Mgmt. LLC
4820-5719-4792.1
47884/0008
Packet Page-306-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Coler County Email: BrendaBrilhart@colliergov.net
Telephone: (239) 252-8446
Administrative Services Division FAX: (239)252-6697
purchasing
Memorandum
Date: June 24,2015
From: Brenda Brilhart, Procurement Strategist
To: Proposers
Subject: Clarification for 15-6424 Management Services Contract for Collier Area Transit Fixed
Route and Paratransit Program
The Selection Committee for the RFP referenced above met on June 22"d and ranked the Operations
Proposals—the Committee could not reach consensus on the final ranking and it was decided that the
top three ranked firms would be invited back to provide further clarification. A short list of questions
will be provided (in a separate email)that shall be addressed within each firm's allotted timeframe. On
June 30th, 2015, each proposer will be provided thirty(30) minutes.
8:30 AM—9:00 AM Keolis
9:10 AM—9:40 AM MV Transportation
9:50 AM—10:20 AM Maruti Fleet& Management
10:30 AM Selection Committee will Reconvene and Rank Firms
Please complete the attached spreadsheet and submit to me via email by Friday June 26th
If you have any questions, please contact me directly. Thanks
C: Michelle Arnold,Director PTNE
Enc: 1
EX tBIT
Packet Page-307- 1
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Tara Pellegrino
From: BrilhartBrenda
Sent: Thursday,June 25, 2015 8:58 AM
To: Sandi Hill;gary.coles @mvtransit.com; eduardo.carrion @marutitransit.com;
egriffin@mvtransit.com
Cc: ScottTrinity; OteroBrandy; MillerRon; KhawajaAnthony; OberrathKaren;ArnoldMichelle
Subject: RFP 15-6424 Mgt Services for CAT Fixed and Paratransit.
Attachments: Clarification Questions 6 24 15.doc
Good morning, please find list of questions that need to be addressed on June 30th.
Thanks Brenda
Brenda Brilhart, Procurement Strategist
Collier County Government
3327 Tamiami Trail East
Naples, Florida 34112
(239) 252-8446
(239) 252-6697 Fax
Under Florida Law, e-mail addresses are public records. If you do not want your e-mail address released in response to a
public records request,do not send electronic mail to this entity. Instead, contact this office by telephone or in writing.
EXHIBIT
Packet Page-308-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
15-6424 CAT Management Services Contract for CAT Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS
JUNE 30th, 2015 SHORTLISTED FIRMS
1) What immediate options or modifications would your company recommend to CAT management to
make the fixed and paratransit operations more cost effective and efficient.
2) List the ITS components that your company is proposing to deploy and are they included in your
proposal, to better manage CAT operations. Provide the Technology/Software used, describe its
function, capabilities, strengths and shortfalls. Please indicate if there are any additional costs to the
County for the use of the technology. Also if there are any technologies that you will be considering
in the near future please list those and indicate the cost to the County if any.
3) The current contract requires paratransit drivers to have a CDL, however, since their current
equipment doesn't require a CDL, many drivers are unaware of the requirement and do not have it.
If an existing paratransit driver meets all other qualifications besides the CDL requirements, what
will your company do to assist the drivers in order to retain the otherwise qualified individual? If
the driver is willing to obtain a CDL, will that be at the drivers expense or the company's expense? If
at the company's expense, has that been accounted for in this price proposal?
4) Clearly define employee benefit packages and incentives for drivers and all other employees related
to this project. If there are incentives,what would the qualifiers be? What has been done for
previous contracts?
5) What is the one thing that makes you stand out above the rest of the vendors that will bring added
value to Collier Area Transit?
Packet Page-309-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
c - 0Oo
N Crf
N a0 0
r- r" o
LID
d
• C1 r CV'C+i
f/) C. N
O C
• C
i 0
G1 _ ;'Q
a
c s 3 'm
co
y R u
d
o 0
a
U
L
9- U
U J .
R Y
(� O Q) Y
Gyi p C C N
O
I
e ro �
C N
o
_ EXHIBIT
LL a ro :401
0 2 2 0- c10°
Packet Page-310-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
:4,219-0,411.. jfiE I 2 1
'' "1.1 } $ fils1 I
yIIIIIIIFIfi t, '1,1 a qf � S,
I � l T� f ay l, T
`k&it
0 {
O O O N f 111 d: i 1'A L 3 1 1 •'• > » • M
i
CD 4.4. I a a r I i ert 7Er t ' ..4r w:
E ca.� � �'�� �q�it,,�ll ��- u�#sig A
V G 1L1 j kr4' „ICI'"''' 1 fp ;41 =1s,5 ErS4 EF :
Y
O ���// �l X11 is +,1dJ�t y t a-i
a co 1� ;I m�,I Jnk�' d;l(;g — ..-,e 3a a1
d C C3 f n a�Sc 1^ OD
cf) ii-
O. -�4' I 4t;;r 1 �Lm ' q, `1 '°r Pg."
- ik Q d
t4 f. s h 6 h as .,� i'
I 4
hot cx)
L 1 4 -Ji' Jo f
y. ,�'1'1i r±i
` 5 EdI'b„iA rua' t bk
, Sf
ii ��
co 'El rxL t' 1 \0 ¢k1 b � aak so_ �
O Ne' �I� ■ l-� , _
CC
rt:' r�Y�{tl :. ' f
5 I� t °r nr�tt 2i
1
X I6g�i 5� tM c Jl a dit •p`
w a F§' rIC tai-
x lEol Ids 0444! 0 .p�4�d .:b.V i5I d1t ilk q ] tIi i1' 1
" C . _ 1 Q)
O
i
as
ri I ���I,�,,?
V ft ap.44 jq1 ,FaI'� I N'ti • l
: 0v N 31t�t�ii � i A
lJ ` O a 2- iu.
a,5 r s � 1 5 � IS €y Y,I 1 Ol
�.pi,.Gil .'�' •rte' k.'L1' �n q^`�i '�'r rcx �.�Ci ,�'A' co
Packet Page -311-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
•
u 111 rig
.i I i�7,p 1°41111r• 1.1.m.` 4
I ��II "�
j' i q r "•§1=0 I it L1a O O O
I 0 Sky,, .- - fie, '1f V a;I * 0 *
F.I, � I�F�y1 I�1�5," I� x�+11 YS -fit "� ',..f'i 16.49:
I h:1i alr I' �I, ul
J' i9 41-�ay �I (591 0 N
I _
y ' 1 X16 cy." I _
s f a � I f
, 4..---:-,'o ,p 44 li q-i, • /,-- =• ". •0
0 32
c c i„,41,;,;,.,.... 1 I4 , rxl •K .
to
a co
t13 al
N LL O na e 9 i4 , 'i z r F tz
•, _IA- ,41.,...,F,,: , i L. '4.t. '1'..
ikt
0. 'did S S' '' C3i M l
15#1" d
f l r IgI�t� IY ,9i 6t .`TJ;• 4 ir�l,lg. '`SP - ' ' i
le'. �e di 6s _ I•
,rirI�^ �n fief
r� r d9L
te e g " �'+ avid xlr ' 14e.t
u n l'- h e. r.
3F I I� . 11 91 F �ci 7'C.l;
X �9 I
g@ {
'��I 31' r't�Ck'dOy �9�y 4.... 1 4 ik� ,� a� j co��
LL .1 447.711 i�f�.,"`, r z*;, ;_. 1 Gig
ms
q c x-27' h },�I�P� yi5 ' 1'
v g iber.�II� g 4 AI
3 DIVA -6;Ip. l ' , 6IA
0 l r�sal�4 'a 4 la IA
U I wO�i ii l pip r-I n �I �� n�r'.I
Itr� n1 .
2
(0 Ilk§y "t'Y 1 A 1 1 1. r C �i '�' N
al
C r€ + ,, ' '414,Aµµ " N 4
.�6JI P" I ,V� ,
` k '' 11-';,-,.:,-,'a �1� : a)to
O V .�#9.0 i - o @ IBr G III �:u fi tiu i
§1 c4'g �' . 314911., a+jM 9' (ylr�'s cc O I'4' a
';g 190 ��
IL tl' N S _k �'
I°' 4 , i a W O xCD
o Q a d • F '�O w $ rt r w-4P+'."IL r 05`
d
Packet Page-312-
11/10/2015 11 .0.
—14P
o
\�
O
> > N
o
M
0 0 0 (O
m
cu e
s 2 O
ro
E � ;m o
c
U Y
C C
co
a1 C N
a_
as tu
OC 3 w:
C t rn
w c Y
E'
E
B.
O m
t
w v o
U J
i`
o E to
gi ii) iit ig'" 4:k". :,.,-,_,.',.- N c y a d r Y i=U �
Q.
as
Packet Page-313-
11/10/2015 11.C.
Ia b4 'idru�d sp ,� a,�-
Ish11�� t 1 far �y pMI 4 h '`
,,I.'44:0„,411,1111g,ict,11E1'Ali c■ 0 o
q::,,,opnaritt 40444;4 ::-_- :-..... :..---
dyip,d" 1'f„1a�0a 0: ory aoo # it 4
� Vr Y I ”dx F 0
O� �N
i� ao Nxy �,��a�: 0 0 0 0h lh
.G b m s c■
0 _ f it , j f ,a.
x u ]�• : I
}} �.r r c-I
'4:(C)V to r ,xlpN gM"" �a f ^` O
1:13 RS Irli"ek4019,j':`1!!M'44RL/74144iiil 01 " 4f,61a wh �aa %
LL I a P.R.i.5a s....• .5h", h.:aa11. 1:. t °n':, t,R
Q. g ctrl"' '^��,y '� hew W'` , k `9
w a}h' 'n4...1 .Iid�g ���e y( '''^mo^t
CII4 h�.a 9 i 1Y�JrLr P,f A TUi.
L
C
03 L 14 .�4 Geaew Y b"�y�
co 1:, yak t �a 4,, 1,'t �k r rani;.
u, a'PR}lF� ti� �at r
£0' • 1 r y ialiS 4.1 ,1 h
I
U_ x-fri r51 wLcr▪ F i ` 1 C;
Q 4N { OS nN �?{Ia t='!
\°L\°
0 aiA€l�= is1* r lI i a '� lid:444:, -
'I-. Ikf �Y 9�Yk s C_) p
'r ny.q-laI , '.-T.9hinrM •,1a J ,'�
V ' ,6∎ i 1 w'45't13&n fi i q t w�.y�i _. m i 142,1
as
fl ah �� 9 L�rvk9 i▪ �• 1 1 1 F:01.;+ `l"L�IJ
"t , I �tr4 a)
.V s''� a 04,1 G 1c▪"aFgg 1 0 t—..��,
1. .
s Cl k� s �3 if s Lr cc' ∎, ...-.-4,P1 k w _"mow
b CEO 0 ' :a= riles)1 s X1{.$4 !e ° 06r ; /
in , ,, , mv,40,,a aher; _ rtN 0 _ ;,
CO
` S a y..1�*,S.C„`A6Ei�Ltft� s.- 3HU1i I J� 1, _ --
(((\\\n e L. a 0 0.L',?-1 I.a€ r 's' ji' r '`�,I'^a' LWL 0 `V-.
U E .w n a F 'to pi▪ zrc 1 a. *NI I - IC
e:.:)
Page -314-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
$1 k 5, 1i`
att
yti F r�
1 �] t B F
",L r.
0111
,AL= :9 O
., I s,1,4 ]N #.'11:91
12F;"J ''' , 1 � 1 Ii o
J ' =]ad]` 3 1.4, II VIII O O '7—:..5 N
1 d`.. :%...N LI11 > > o
ri°°
7
It1uI
• I
--
ro
-
❑-
`` ;e V,th�61 r, 1`i
L o # ♦�1 j y
1;c011
a; l r t ' '3 11 :i*r L"1;K 1L.ci /
1 Is 4, 1 i, ti ps,
iL X.l i< .€ k f1744,-, 14 r v 'yr .lQ,
'I I rte. Il^cy /'�
tied tit), 1 d..
.— „,
ti I p F 4 1 �u 1, 1,� a mi
4 i L. -3(if,L 00. f,f,,o i i r a
, 8 ' *i:.t 4'I i,..∎. , : 111 —1 f , 4.,.,
ia�. d I
� Ir 1��+�'ry7t*` ��s d �I Is 1
Ci9ku j,ll y I�I C CU
(e 4s i.� 1yec ii N O F MI »-'
=Za � C "'.t"-'r U1
o C)
a) L'G .5 aft 44'",ii e II C.E.O N
"' y Y sa c 7 IB
m c Te N I
to@ E h 'µv.. t 1. ar- y I ~ t� co C I.. 1 ,
W P Xa d !x.11 L.,.. Iau ral 2 ,.r. =
Packet Page-315-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Go -jer County
Administrative Services Department
Procurement Services Division
September 28, 2015
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL AND CERTIFIED MAIL
Clifford I. Hertz, P.A.
Broad and Cassel
One North Clematis Street
Suite 500
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Facsimile: 561-655-1109
Email: chertzbroadandcassel.com
RE: Protest Decision Regarding Solicitation No. 15-6424 Management Services Contract for
the Collier Area Transit(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
Dear Mr. Hertz:
I am writing in response to your formal protest letter of September 10, 2015, filed on behalf of Maruti
Fleet & Management, LLC, ("Maruti") pertaining to the recommended award of the above referenced
Solicitation.
The following is a summary of each of the issues raised in your protest and findings regarding each.
A. The Selection Committee conducted a final scoring process that did not apply the criteria and
weighting values prescribed in the Request for Proposal (RFP), and no other scoring process was
authorized in the RFP making the final ranking based upon independent improvised criteria not
outlined in the RFP.
FINDINGS: On June 22, 2015, the Selection Committee held a meeting for the purpose of issuing
their Step 1 ranking and to afford the Proposers an opportunity to make presentations. At the
conclusion of presentations and meeting, the Selection Committee ranked Maruti and MV
Transportation, Inc. #1 and Keolis #3. By consensus the Selection Committee voted to either
solicit from the top three Proposers additional questions for clarification or request another
presentation, in order to break the tie. The above referenced solicitation document, more
specifically, Section 9. Evaluation of Proposals, subsection 7 (page 13) permitted the County to
request additional information through "interviews or oral presentations." Further, subsection 8 of
that same section reserved the County the right to "request[ing] supplemental proposal
information."
FrorairernentS.,oraces EFnsan•3327 Tarrson Tras East•Naples.Florida 3:112-1 901.219.2523407•wsn oihergov.neup;ocurenxntservices
Packet Page-316-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Protest Decision Regarding Solicitation No. 15-6424 Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
Page 2
Maruti now contends that "[The clarification questions do not relate to individual items or sections
of the RFP . . .[.]" and that "[s]everal of the clarification questions went well beyond the scope of
the RFP." Notably, the RFP admonished prospective firms that it is their sole responsibility to
"immediately notify the Procurement Strategist" upon discovering any ambiguity, conflict,
discrepancy, omission or other errors "prior to submitting the proposal." See RFP Exhibit II.
General RFP Instructions, Section 4, Ambiguity, Conflict or Other Errors in the RFP. The
opportunity to protest the terms of an RFP is also found in the Ordinance No. 2013-69, the
Purchasing Ordinance, at Section 23B, Protest of Bid or Proposal Award. The Procurement
Strategist emailed the list of questions to the competing firms on June 24, 2015; six days in
advance of the June 30, 2015 Selection Committee meeting. Despite the opportunity and duty to
protest the terms of the RFP prior to submitting its proposal, Maruti failed to do so.
Regardless, this office found that the Selection Committee's final ranking by consensus was
properly based on their review of the scores and all the information presented to the Committee.
The Selection Committee complied with the requirements of the scoring process authorized by the
County's Procurement Ordinance and the RFP, specifically as listed below.
The Procurement Ordinance, as amended, provides:
Section Two: Purpose. The purpose of this Procurement Ordinance is to codify and formalize
Collier County's Procurement Policy, to provide for the fair and equitable treatment of all
persons involved in public purchasing by the County, to maximize the purchasing value of
public funds in procurement, and to provide safeguards for maintaining a procurement
system of quality and integrity. Any provision of this Ordinance in conflict with statute is null and
void as to the conflict. (emphasis added)
Section Twelve: Competitive Proposals. Subsection B. 4. Proposals may be solicited and/or
received in one or more steps as permitted by law and deemed appropriate by the Procurement
Services Director. Unless otherwise prohibited by law, the Procurement Services Director shall
have the discretion to solicit and conduct simultaneous or concurrent negotiations with one or
more firms. (emphasis added)
RFP "Exhibit II: General RFP instructions," permits the County to take into consideration in the
evaluation and ranking process of the proposals the following:
Packet Page-317-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Protest Decision Regarding Solicitation No. 15-6424 Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
Page 3
8. Method of Source Selection
The County is using the Competitive Sealed Proposals methodology of source selection for this
procurement, as authorized by Ordinance Number 2013-69 establishing and adopting the Collier
County Purchasing Ordinance. The County may, as it deems necessary, conduct
discussions with qualified Vendors determined to be in contention for being selected for
award for the purpose of clarification to assure full understanding of, and responsiveness
to solicitation requirements. (emphasis added)
9. Evaluation of Proposals
The County's procedure for selecting is as follows:
7. Collier County will consider all the material submitted by the Proposer and other
information Collier County may obtain to determine whether the Proposer is capable of and
has a history of successfully completing projects of this type, including, without limitation,
additional information Collier County may request, interviews, or oral presentations. (emphasis
added)
8. The Selection Committee, as approved by the County Manager or designee, will review,
evaluate and rank all responsive proposals received from Proposers responding to this RFP.
The committee members shall score each Proposal in accordance with the rating criteria set
forth below and may, at their discretion, schedule presentations from any firms submitting a
proposal. The Selection Committee will rank qualified firms in order of preference and by
consensus using all information presented to the Committee, choose the top ranked firm and
will subsequently enter into negotiations with the top ranked firm. Award of the contract is
dependent upon the successful and full execution of a mutually agreed contract. (emphasis added)
The County reserves the right to withdraw this RFP at any time and for any reason, and to
issue such clarifications, modifications, addendums, and/or amendments as it may
deem appropriate, including, but not limited, to requesting supplemental proposal
information....(emphasis added)
It is important to note that the evaluation of proposals involves both a review and individual scoring of
each proposal based on the RFP criteria and a collective ranking of qualified firms by the Selection
Committee "in order of preference and by consensus using all information presented to the
Committee" RFP, Exhibit II, Section 9, subsection 8. Following the individual scoring, and the receipt
of all the information presented, the Selection Committee reached a consensus recommendation as
required by the RFP.
Packet Page -318-
11/10/2015 11 .0.
Protest Decision Regarding Solicitation No. 15-6424 Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit(CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
Page 4
B. The clarification questions (specifically citing #2 and #5) went beyond the scope of RFP and the
Selection Committee's reliance upon the information provided pursuant to the clarification
questions were of an unspecified weight and not outlined the RFP to formulate ranking.
Therefore, the Selection Committee's decision was arbitrary and capricious.
FINDINGS: This office found that the clarification questions were within the scope and criteria of
the RFP. The Selection Committee demonstrated good faith and fairness, by deciding to issue
clarification questions and to schedule additional presentations with the top three firms, for the
purpose of selecting the most qualified Proposer. The Step II final ranking was based on the
criteria in RFP, taking into consideration the presentations, discussions, and responses to the
clarification questions. Below are the criteria sections in the RFP that specifically address
questions #2 and #5, as cited in your protest letter:
• Question 2 is a further elaboration to Tab II, Plans & Programs and Tab III, Financial
Capacity and Cost of Service of the proposals submitted by the top three firms.
• Question 5 is a further elaboration to Tab IV, Experience and Capacity of Firm of the
proposals submitted by the top three firms.
I have carefully reviewed the issues raised in Maruti's September 10, 2015, bid protest. Based
upon my review of Maruti's allegations and my above response to each issue, it is my
position that the selection committee's actions were taken in compliance with the aforementioned
policy and procedural requirements and, moreover, that the committee exercised its duty within the
bounds of its authority under the RFP.
In the context of a government procurement dispute, a public body has wide discretion in soliciting
and selecting bids, and when based on an honest exercise of discretion, will not be overturned even if
it maybe erroneous, and even if reasonable persons may disagree. Liberty County v. Baxter's
Asphalt & Concrete, Inc., 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1982). As a result of this wide discretion, the Florida
Supreme Court has declared that a reviewing court's "sole responsibility is to ascertain whether the
agency acted fraudulently, arbitrarily, illegally, or dishonestly." Department of Transportation v.
Groves-Watkins Constructors, 530 So. 2d 912 (Fla. 1988). This threshold has been described as a
"very high bar." See, Sutron Corp. v. Lake County Water Authority, 870 So. 2d 930 (Fla. 5th DCA
2004).
Additionally, as long as the County has not acted arbitrarily or capriciously, and acted in good faith, its
decision is not subject to review. Wood-Hopkins Contracting Co. v. Roger J.Au & Sons, Inc. 354 So.
2d 446 (Fla. 1978); City of Pensacola v. Kirby, 47 So. 2d 533 (Fla. 1950). Arbitrary and capricious
has been defined to include acts taken with improper motive, without reason, or for a reason that is
merely pretextual. City of Sweetwater v. Solo Construction Corp., 823 So. 2d 798; citing Decarion v.
Monroe County, 853 F. Supp. 1415 (F.D. Fla. 1994). Moreover, it is well established that "so long as .
. . a public agency acts in good faith, even though [it] may reach a conclusion on facts upon which
reasonable men may differ, the courts will not generally interfere with [the agency's] judgment, even
though the decision reached may appear to some persons to be erroneous." Culpepper v. Moore, 40
So. 2d 366, 370 (Fla. 1949).
Packet Page-319-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Protest Decision Regarding Solicitation No. 15-6424 Management Services Contract for the
Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program
Page 5
Here, the Selection Committee's decision was consistent with the terms of the RFP and should not be
overturned absent a finding of illegality, fraud, oppression or misconduct. See Liberty County, 421
at 507. There is simply no evidence that the evaluation criterion was improperly changed or that it
deviated from the requirements of the RFP.
Accordingly, it is the decision of this office to deny the protest and direct staff to move forward
with the award recommendation for Solicitation No. 15-6424 Management Services Contract
for the Collier Area Transit (CAT) Fixed Route and Paratransit Program. The recommendation
is tentatively scheduled to be presented to the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday,
October 27, 2015.
Under Section Twenty Three (23) of the County's Procurement Ordinance, the decision of the
Procurement Division Director shall be considered final and conclusive unless the protestor
delivers a subsequent written objection to my attention within two (2) business days from the
date of receipt of this decision or not later than close of business on Wednesday, September 30,
2015.
Respectfully,
Joanne Markiewicz
Director, Procurement Services Division
3327 Tamiami Trail E.
Naples, FL 34112
Telephone: 239-252-8975
FAX: 239-252-6480
Email: joannemarkiewicz @colliergov.net
C: Michelle Arnold, Director, Public Transportaion and Neighnporhood Enhancement
Sandra Herrera, Manager, Procurement Services Division
Attachment:
Collier County Procurement Ordinance 2013-69 as Amended by 2015-37 Excerpt of Protest
Policy
Packet Page-320-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Gof.lier County
Administrative Services Department
Procurement Services Division
Collier County
Procurement Ordinance 2013-69 as Amended by 2015-37
Excerpt of Protest Policy
SECTION TWENTY-THREE: Protest of Bid or Proposal Award.
The purpose of this section is to accommodate legitimate protests concerning formal
competitive invitations to bid or requests for proposals and recommended contract awards above the
formal competitive bid or proposal thresholds prior to award of a contract by the Board of County
Commissioners.
A. Any actual or prospective bidder or respondent to an Invitation to Bid or a Request for
Proposal, who has a substantial interest and alleges to be aggrieved in connection with the
solicitation or award of a contract, (hereafter referred to as "the protesting party") may protest to the
Procurement Services Division Director, who shall serve as the sole recipient of any and all notices of
intent to protest and all formal protests.
B. With respect to a protest of the terms, conditions and specifications contained in a solicitation,
including any provisions governing the methods for evaluation of bids, proposals or replies, awarding
contracts, reserving rights for further negotiation or modifying or amending any contract, the protesting
party shall file a notice of intent to protest within three (3) days, excluding weekends and County
holidays, after the first publication, whether by posting or formal advertisement of the solicitation. The
formal written protest shall be filed within five (5) days of the date the notice of intent is filed. Formal
protests of the terms, conditions and specifications shall contain all of the information required for
formal protests of recommended contract awards as set forth under subsection C. The Procurement
Services Division Director, shall render a decision on the formal protest and determine whether
postponement of the bid opening or proposal/response closing time is appropriate. The Procurement
Services Division Director's decision shall be considered final and conclusive unless the protesting
party files an appeal of the Procurement Services Division Director's decision.
C. Any actual or prospective bidder or respondent to an Invitation to Bid or a Request for
Proposal who desires to protest a recommended contract award shall submit a notice of intent to
protest to the Procurement Services Division Director within two (2) calendar days, excluding
weekends and County holidays, from the date of the initial posting of the recommended award.
D. All formal protests with respect to a recommended contract award shall be submitted in
writing to the Procurement Services Division Director for a decision. Said protests shall be submitted
within five (5) calendar days, excluding weekends and County holidays, from the date that the notice
of intent to protest is received by the Procurement Services Division Director, and accompanied by
the fee, as set forth below. The protesting party must have standing as defined by established Florida
case law to maintain a protest.
The formal protest shall contain, but not be limited to the following information:
Packet Page-321-
11/10/2015 11.C.
1. Name and address of County Agency affected and the solicitation number and title.
2. The name and address of the protesting party.
3. A statement of disputed issues of material fact. If there are no disputed material
facts, the written letter must so indicate.
4. A concise statement of the ultimate facts alleged and of any relevant rules,
regulations, statutes, and constitutional provisions entitling the protesting party to
relief.
5. The protesting party's entitled demand for the relief.
6. Such other information as the protesting party deems to be material to the issue.
The formal protest shall contain all arguments, facts or data supporting and advancing the
protestor's position. Under no circumstances shall the protestor have the right to amend,
supplement or modify its formal protest after the filing thereof. Nothing herein shall preclude
the County's authority to request additional information from the protesting party or other
bidders or proposers in conjunction with the review and rendering of decisions on the protest,
including any subsequent appeal.
E. In the event of a timely protest of contract award consistent with the requirements of this
section, the Procurement Services Division Director shall not proceed further with the award of the
contract until all appropriate administrative remedies as delineated under this section have been
exhausted or until the Board of County Commissioners makes a determination on the record that the
award of a contract without delay is in the best interests of the County. During this process, the
protesting party shall limit their communications with the County to the Office of the County Attorney,
and neither the protesting party, their agents or their representatives shall have any private contact or
discussions with individual County Commissioners, the County Manager, other County employees, or
any independent hearing officer (where applicable) regarding the protest except such
communications as may be required or permitted during a hearing, if applicable, or a meeting of the
County Commission wherein the solicitation or award is to be considered.
F. The Procurement Services Division Director shall review the merits of each timely protest and
in consultation with the contract manager and other appropriate County staff, issue a decision stating
the reasons for the decision and the protesting party's rights of appeal under this section. Said
decision shall be in writing and mailed or otherwise furnished to the protesting party. The decision of
the Procurement Services Division Director shall be final and conclusive unless the protesting party
delivers a subsequent written notice of appeal to the Procurement Services Division Director within
two (2) calendar days, excluding weekends and County holidays from the date of receipt of the
decision. In filing a written objection to the Procurement Services Division Director's decision, the
protestor shall not introduce new arguments or alter in any other way their protest submission. An
appeal of the Procurement Services Division Director's decision shall be limited to a review of the
grounds set forth in the formal protest, and no new grounds or arguments will be introduced or
considered.
G. In the event of a subsequent appeal pursuant to subsection F, the County Manager shall
determine whether to appoint an independent Hearing Officer to review the formal protest and the
Packet Page-322-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
Procurement Services Division Director's decision. The Hearing Officer's review shall be limited to
the grounds set forth in the formal protest, and shall be for the purpose of determining whether the
County's intended action is arbitrary, capricious, illegal, dishonest or fraudulent. The protesting party
shall have the burden of proof. The Hearing Officer shall consider the formal protest, the Procurement
Services Division Director's decision, and supporting documents and evidence presented at the
hearing. In any hearing, irrelevant, immaterial or unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. All
other evidence of a type commonly relied upon by reasonably prudent persons in the conduct of their
affairs shall be admissible whether or not such evidence would be admissible in a trial in the courts of
Florida. The Hearing Officer may grant the motion of any person having standing under Florida law to
intervene in the proceedings. Persons or parties shall have the right to be represented by counsel in
the proceedings, to call witnesses, and present evidence; provided, however, that the Hearing Officer
shall not have the right to compel attendance of witnesses or to permit or compel any discovery.
The Hearing Officer will have a maximum of 60 days to schedule and conduct a hearing into the
matter and issue a recommended finding of fact and an opinion in writing to the County Manager or
designee for submission to the Board of County Commissioners. Should the Hearing Officer find in
favor of the County, the protesting party pay, in full, the costs of the Hearing Officer. If the Hearing
Officer's recommended decision is in favor of the protesting party, then the County will assume this
cost.
The County Manager's discretion as to whether to appoint a Hearing Officer shall in no way afford the
protestor the right to demand such an appointment or hearing. The decision of a Hearing Officer on a
protesting party's appeal shall be submitted to the Board for its consideration as part of a final award
decision. Nothing herein shall be construed as creating a right of judicial review of the Hearing
Officer's decision, nor shall such decision be binding upon the Board. Additionally, nothing herein
shall be construed as limiting the Board's right to reject any and all bids or proposals.
H. Decisions of the Procurement Services Division Director and Hearing Officer (where
applicable) will be provided to the protestor and other interested parties prior to the award
recommendation being presented to the Board of County Commissioners. Neither the County
Manager's decision nor the Hearing Officer's recommended decision shall be construed as an award
recommendation triggering additional rights of protest pursuant to this policy. Notwithstanding
anything set forth herein to the contrary, the Board of County Commissioners shall retain the authority
to make the final award decision.
Failure to file a formal protest within the time and manner prescribed by this policy shall
constitute a waiver of the right to protest by any protesting party as defined by subsection "A" of this
policy.
J. As a condition of filing a formal appeal to the Procurement Services Division Director's initial
finding, the protesting party shall submit a non-refundable filing fee for the purpose of defraying the
costs of administering the protest. The filing fee shall be submitted with the formal protest. Failure to
pay the filing fee shall result in the denial of the protest. The amount of the filing fee shall be as
follows:
Estimated Contract Amount Filing Fee
$250,000 or less $500
Packet Page-323-
11/10/2015 11 .C.
$250,000.01 to $500,000 $1,000
$500,000.01 to $5 million $3,000
$5 million or more $5,000
This fee may be modified by Resolution of the Board of County Commissioners.
Packet Page-324-