Agenda 04/10/2012 Item #11F4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation to review and provide direction regarding the ABC Finance, LLC's
protest of the recommended award of RFP #11 -5785, Management of Pelican Bay Tennis
Center.
OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board direction in the matter of contracting for the management of the
Pelican Bay Tennis Center in light of an unresolved protest of the recommended award.
CONSIDERATION: The Parks and Recreation Department is seeking to outsource the
Tennis Center associated with Pelican Bay Community Park. The Department, with the
approval of the County Manager, issued a Request for Proposals seeking qualified vendors
interested in operating the tennis center and pro shop at Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis
Center. The County advertised RFP #11 -5785 on October 10, 2011, and forty -seven
proposal packages were downloaded by the vendor community. The County received two (2)
proposals by the November 9, 2011, submission deadline. A selection committee of six
individuals with varying areas of expertise reviewed the proposals, and by consensus, ranked the
firms in the following order:
1. The Naples Tennis Academy, LLC
2. ABC Finance, LLC
The Purchasing Department posted The Notice of Recommended Award on March 8, 2012,
indicating its intent to recommend awarding the contract to Naples Tennis Academy to the
Board.
ABC Finance, LLC, submitted a formal protest on March 12, 2012, consistent with the Board's
Purchasing Policy, Section XIX: Protest of Bid or Proposal Award. ABC's formal protest
raised, and is limited to, the following issues paraphrased from its protest:
1. ABC should have received a higher score in the Facility Investment category;
2. Naples Tennis Academy's commitment to "budgeting" does not constitute a
commitment or a guarantee as required by the RFP;
3. Naples Tennis Academy should have received a lesser score for infrastructure
investment;
4. Naples Tennis Academy provides no viable personal guarantees; and
5. Naples Tennis Academy has no business history that would establish a strong business
guarantee for this contract.
After reviewing ABC's formal protest, including all the documentation presented, the
Purchasing Department's Contract Administration Manager determined that the selection
committee had scored the solicitation properly and that there was no basis to overturn its
decision. Therefore, the selection committee's recommendation to award contract #11 -5785,
Management of Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis Center to The Naples Tennis Academy
was upheld.
Packet Page -494-
4/10/2012 Item 111.
Subsequent to the Contract Administration Manager issuing her written findings (see copy
attached), ABC submitted a timely formal protest of the recommended contract award on
March 20, 2012; as permitted by Purchasing Policy Section XIX F. The County Manager
decided not to exercise his discretion to appoint an independent hearing officer to hear ABC's
appeal, so this contested award is now before the Board of County Commissioners for a final
determination (see Purchasing Policy, Section XIX H.)
FISCAL IMPACT: ABC Finance, LLC submitted a check for $1,000 to the Purchasing
Department under the belief that it was required by Section XIX of the Purchasing Policy's
procedures for bid protests. Since this matter is not being heard by a hearing officer, staff is
making arrangements to return this payment to ABC Finance, LLC.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: The Board is acting in its legislative capacity
and not as a quasi - judicial body in determining whether it should to award, the
Management of the Pelican Bay Tennis Center contract to the Naples Tennis
Academy, LLC or to ABC Finance, LLC.
After reviewing both vendors' responses to the RFP, the County's selection
committee reached a consensus opinion to recommend that the Board award the contract to
Naples Tennis Academy. Thereafter ABC submitted a timely formal protest and the County's
Contract Administration Manager issued written findings that supported the Selection
Committee's recommended award to Naples Tennis Academy. Although the Board is not acting
as a judicial body, to assist the Board in reviewing ABC's protest of the recommended award, it
is important the Board know the standard a reviewing court would apply when considering
government procurement disputes.
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, its decision will
not be overturned even if it may be erroneous, and even if reasonable persons may disagree. See
Liberty Cnty. 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 Transp. 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 Cmy.
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 should not be 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 Constr. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798; citing Decarion v. Monroe
County, 853 F. Supp. 1415 (F.D. Fla. 1994). Finally, 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 -495-
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
This item has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office, is legally sufficient
for Board action and only requires a majority vote for approval —SRT.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: There is no growth management impact
associated with this action.
RECOMMENDATIONS: That the Board of County Commissioners after final review of
ABC's formal protest upholds staff's decision to award RFP #5785 to The Tennis
Academy.
Prepared by: Len Golden Price, Administrative Services Division Administrator
Attachments: ABC's Protest against the Recommended Contract Award; County's Reply to
ABC's Protest; and ABC's Objection against the Contract Award.
Packet Page -496-
4/10/2012 Item 111.
COLLIER COUNTY
Board of County Commissioners
Item Number: 11.F.
Item Summary: Recommendation to review and provide direction regarding the ABC
Finance, LLC's protest of the recommended award of RFP #11 -5785, Management of Pelican
Bay Tennis Center.
Meeting Date: 4/10/2012
Prepared By
Name: MarkiewiczJoanne
Title: Manager - Purchasing Acquisition,Purchasing & Gene
3/30/2012 3:39:28 PM
Submitted by
Title: Manager - Purchasing Acquisition,Purchasing & Gene
Name: MarkiewiczJoanne
3/30/2012 3:39:30 PM
Approved By
Name: MaguireErin
Title: Applications Analyst
Date: 4/2/2012 2:20:08 PM
Name: TeachScott
Title: Deputy County Attorney,County Attorney
Date: 4/2/2012 2:45:09 PM
Name: PriceLen
Title: Administrator, Administrative Services
Date: 4/2/2012 3:51:06 PM
Name: TeachScott
Title: Deputy County Attomey,County Attorney
Date: 4/2/2012 4:06:30 PM
Packet Page -497-
Name: FinnEd
Title: Senior Budget Analyst, OMB
Date: 4/3/2012 8:30:47 AM
Name: KlatzkowJeff
Title: County Attorney
Date: 4/3/2012 4:46:04 PM
Name: OchsLeo
Title: County Manager
Date: 4/3/2012 4:56:20 PM
Packet Page -498-
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
Protest against the recommended Contract Aw
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD DF COUNTy COMMISSIONERS
solicitation
11 -5785
Management of Pefican Bay Community Park Tennis Center
jaanne.Markiewicz, Acquisition Manager
239-252-8975 (Telephone)
239 -2S2- 6490 (Fax)
joannemarkiewicz @coiiiergav .net: /Email)
Protestinf: Partv
ABC Finance LLC
6911 Livingston Woods Lane
Naples, Fl, 34109
4/10/2012 Item 111.
and
Statement of Disputed issues
Critical error made in scoring of.ABC Finance Financial Proposal
on Infrastructure Investment.
3. Tablit commission Returned to the county and Annual Fawityinvestment(40points)
-rhe County is also interested in receiving the vendors aftr to provide any additional Tennis Program fadiity
infiastructum investment-
Packet Page -499-
I
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
The
Part A. Comparison of two investment offers
1, ABC Finance Proposals
on page 12 of our Proposal we wrote
"Pelican Bay' Community; Park tennis facility is very unique in whole Colder County.
The location and size of the park gives nearly unlimited options for the further development.
Further development of thefocilities will be continual —the same as our tennis program.
However, some improvements will need to be done very fast— namely a new clubhouse.
We will invest in and establish a new clubhouse — similar to the following picture.
The exact dimensions you can find in the ENCLOSURE.'
Page 53 of our Proposal details our creation of a new fully functional tennis clubhouse
facility.
The cost to ABC Finance for this facility exceeds $125;000:00
Page 13 details a first year binding financial 'commitment by Arthrex, Inc. to invest $80,000
into the construction of two new tennis courts expanding the earning potential of the park:
Additionally, on pages 29 and 30 we wrote:
"Depending on the success of this tennis project in the first year, Arthrex, Inc. has also said it °:will seriously
pursue additional financial donations far further improvements to the tennis facilities, possibly including the
future construction of a high quality stadium court that could be used for high profile tournament afferings.
We are of the opinion that it:will.be beneficial for all parties to give such a strong partner as Arthrex, Inc. the
chance to immediately add to the value of the Pelican Bay Community Facility and to hopefully, with good initial
success, continue in this project for the next several years. This 3 party, partnership (Collier County, Arthrex,
Inc. and ABC Finance, LLQ should prove very exciting for the community purticularly and for'tennis in the SW
Florida area ingeneral.
Based on all these facts, please consider the following table related only the first year of our operation.
it is important to understand that the new clubhouse would naturally last for the duration
of the contract (5 years) and therefore ourtotal projected investment amounts to
$206,000.00.
This amount was NOT taken into account in the Committee Scoring costing 40 critical points!
Based on these facts we -are of the opinion that 40 points for Annual Facility Investment
should have been granted to our company.
This would have also meant that our offer would have prevailed getting the most total
points.
2
Packet Page -500-
M
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
2, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy Proposal:
Facilities Enhancements" (timeline and dollar investment)
Court and Facilities: Upon award of the contract NTA will budget $53,000 towards the reconditioning of the
courts to include lines, screens and nets, as well as power washing the cabanas. The seating area for players
and spectators will be expanded.
Website, Marketing and Online Pro Shop Upon award of the contract, NTA will budget $28,000 towards a
professional web design that will include the capacity for Google integration, membership administration,
search link building, online shopping, photo gallery and press release capacity.
Onsite Pro Shop: Upon award of the contract Ss000 will be budgeted for the reudlization of the existing
structure to provide a fully stocked pro Shop-.
Plans for implementation of a fully stocked onsite Pro Shop will begin immediately. The initial plan is for the
redesign and reutiliiation of the existing structure to include shelving and counters for merchandise and
dressing rooms for customers.'
A "budgeting" of dollars for the above items is NOT a guarantee or investment. It only
indicates an intention to use cash flow to accommodate these things!
3, Required detailed scope of work according to RFP.
8. The vendor shall, to the satisfaction of the County project manager, provide normal and routine daily monthly,
yearly maintenance of the facilities designed to keep the premises and equipment in a good state of repair free
from hazardous conditions and deterioration, thus providing for the comfort and safety of visitors and patrons.
Maintenance and repairs shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the County's project manager:
Drag and line courts at least twice daily (prior to morning and evening play).
i. Daily / Weekly Maintenance on Clay Courts
1. Clean Tennis- Two-Steps at least twice daily.
2. Empty trash from court receptors at least once per day.
3. Empty large garbage cans and Recycle Cans as need and take to Maintenance
Building. Replace can liners.
4. Sweep or blow off sidewalks and cabanas at least once a day prior to morning
play.
S. Monitor Cal -Cap subterranean irrigation system and make adjustments as
needed.
6. Apply clay as needed weekly.
Z Apply algaecide to hard pan' areas as needed (minimally once a week).
8. Remove weeds as needed weekly.
9. Check condition of lines weekly. Level lines as needed.
ii. Annual Maintenance on Clay Courts
1. Resurface courts: remove old day, replace lines, add new material and level.
Courts should be resurfaced every 12 -18 months.
2. Replace tidy trays and buckets as needed.
None of the above mentioned "facilities enhancements" should have qualified under the
category of "additional tennis program facility infrastructure investment" requested by the
county as they are part of the annual maintenance. Maintenance is not the same as
infrastructure changes.
Packet Page -501-
3
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
Also, we do not believe that the existing building/pro shop could be "redesigned to a fully
stocked onsite Prig Shop"
Outside of the "court booking window" Inside of the "court booking window"
View from outside into the "Pro Shop"
Sack room of the "Pro Shop"
That can be achieved only through the new and much bigger clubhouse...
Packet Page -502-
4
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
Part B: Comparison of the bidding companies
Two legal entities submitted the bids:'
1, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy
2, ABC Finance
1, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy — registration # G 11000106859
The registration records show that four people became the owners of the Fictitious: Name
DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy.
The owners are Mr. Nau, William F 'Mr. Thomas, Jason M, Mr. Breger, Charles P and Mr.
Sweet, Gary F.
The fictitious name was registered on November 1, 2011, . just few days before the bidding
deadline.
Another similar Fictitious Name was registered on February 27, 2010.
At that time it was Naples Tennis Academy — registration # G10000018941- and the owner
of the fictitious name became Mr. Nau, William F.
The similarity of both of these names 'is so deep, that even Collier County managersthought
at the very beginning that the bid was submitted by this company.
But, that is not the end of "name story".
On August 29; 2008 under-the registration number P08000080630 Mr. Nau, William F.
together with Mr. Fogelman, Seth A. have filed for Naples Tennis Academy, Inc.
This company was on September 25, 2009 dissolved, after filing only for one annual, report.
Mr. Nau, William F; together with `Mr. Lawson, Don and Mr. Noonan, Robert and Mr. Cole,
Thomas C, have filed on September 26, 1991 for another company, Sports Line, Inc.
This company was dissolved administratively on October 09, 1992 after not filing even for
one annual report.
Mr. Nau, William F, has owned three legal entities with a very.sirnilar name —
Naples Tennis Academy, Inc., Naples'Tennis Academy, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy.
The first two ones did not show any business activity.
Mr. Nau, William F, has also owned companies created on a multiple owner principle—
Naples Tennis Academy Inc-, Sport Line, Inc.
Also these two business entities:did not show any business activity.
DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy was created by four tennis coaches just'few days before
the bidding deadline.
These coaches boast about their 100 years of the coaching experience — mostly from outside
of Naples.
But what about their local business experience? None is mentioned.
Wilt these four owners get financially satisfied when working at the place that achieved 'last
year a loss of $100;000?
Packet Page -503-
J
4/10/2012 Item 111.
2, ABC Finance LLC
ABC Finance LLC is a local company, "registered on June 1, 2005.
It is not a huge company, but it consistently serves the local tennis players for past 7 years.
Thousands of the satisfied clients are the best local references for this company.
Compared to the other company, we already have the tennis merchandise, we already have
the business software and we already have tennis court management software.
We already clothe local marketing activities and the local tennis players know us:
There are :t.housands'of local tennis players in our database.
Page 30 of our bid details, that in this project ABC Finance has partnered withthe local
medical company Arthrex, Inc.
Both of these companies have agreed that this tennis park should stay open to ALL Collier
residents and not only to those "more fortunate" who would be able to pay for the "world
class coaching".
We do not believe that the public parks should "recruit the players from around the world_."
but strongly believe that they should serve the local residents!
We understand the urgent need of facilities improvements.
New clubhouse at Pelican Bay is a must and vacant land gives the opportunity to add more
tenths courts into these facilities
Our investment is a -real enhancement of the existing facilities and not only regular yearly AO
maintenance as it was offered by the other party.
The involvement of Arthrex, .Inc. in this project brings a real guarantee that our investment
projections will also happen.
It is a much stronger,guaranteethan the one offered by the other entity without any
business history.
Arthrex, Inc. is ready to pay back to the local community, and together with our company
we are ready to bring tennis also to those less fortunate.
We believe that anybody can play tennis!
Otherwise this sport would not be played in poor countries at a'll.
We believe that our offer was the' best and that our bid should have won.
We believe that it was not only financially better, but also more secure, as it was based on .
both 7 years of our local business activities and financial stability of our partner, company -
Arthrex, Inca
Based on all of these facts we do not only protest againstthe recommended award to the
newly registered entity known as DBA/The Naples Tennis Shop, but.also ask you to grant this
award to our company.
0
Packet Page -504-
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
Summary:
1. ABC finance should have received 40 points in the scoring because of its $206,000
investment which is guaranteed.
2..DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy should not receive any paint for rcourt maintenance as
this :is not an "infrastructure investment".
3. DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy's `budgeting" does not constitute a commitment or a
guarantee as required by proposal guidelines.
4. DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy has no viable personal guarantees as does ABC
Finance proposal.
S. DBA /Naples Tennis Academy has no business history and therefore their business
guarantee has a low value.
Conclusion /Relief Sought
1. Reverse Award granted to Naples Tennis Academy
2. Re -score Proposals with specific reference to Infrastructure Investments
3. Grant Award to ABC Finance, LLC.
Naples, March 13, 2012
Jan David
ABC Finance LLC
Packet Page -505-
7
4/10/2012 Item 11. F.
Co per Co14�ty
Administrative Services Division
Contract Administration — Tel: 239 - 252 -8949 — Fax: 239 -252 -6594 — email: kelsevward @colliereov.net
March 15, 2012
Mr. Jan David
ABC Finance LLC
6911 Livingston Woods Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Re: 11 -5785 "Management of Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis Center" Protest Response to Award of
Contract
Dear Mr. David,
1 appreciate your taking the time to submit your protest against the recommended award of the above
referenced contract, and respectfully submit this letter in answer to your concerns. In regard to your protest
of the recommended award of the above referenced contact, please see my responses to your summary
statement of the 5 disputed issues below:
1. Issue raised: Critical error made in scoring of ABC Finance Financial Proposal —Tab III, Commission
Returned to the County and Annual Facility Investment (40 maximum points)
Response: The solicitation document clearly stated that the proposer must provide a minimum
monthly guarantee to the County and an annual guaranteed investment in the Tennis Program
facility infrastructure, which would be added together to get a dollar total. It was clearly defined that
the methodology for awarding points was based on this information. Although ABC Finance offered
information on other potential infrastructure investment, they declined to provide the required
information, therefore, it was not possible to award the maximum of 40 points. DBA /The Naples
Tennis Academy Proposal was fully compliant in providing the required scoring information.
2. Issue raised: DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy should not receive any points for court maintenance
as this is not an "infrastructure investment ".
Response: I find no evidence that DBA /The Naples Tennis Academy portrayed annual maintenance
as "facility infrastructure investment" as alleged by ABC Finance, and therefore, they did not receive
any associated points.
3. Issue raised: DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy's "budgeting" does not constitute a commitment or
a guarantee as required by proposal guidelines.
Response: This information was submitted under Tab II, Business Plan (20 maximum points), which
required proposers to provide responses to 9 bullet points. This specific response fell under the third
bullet point, "Detailed plan for facilities enhancements, including timeline and dollar investment ",
and was fully compliant with the requirements.
Pumha*g Depatrient • 3301 Tamiami Trail East • Naples, Florida 34112 • www.colliergov.neUpurchasing
Packet Page -506-
4/10/2012 Item 115.
Page 2
Qe: 11 -5785 "Management of Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis Center" Protest Response to Award of Contract
DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy affirmatively stated that they would budget specific dollar amounts upon award
of the contract, specifically $53,000 towards reconditioning of the courts as well as power washing the cabanas,
$28,000 towards a professional web design and $6,000 for the reutilization of the existing onsite pro shop. It is
reasonable to believe that this constitutes a commitment by the proposer, but in any case, this would be included
as a subsequent contractual requirement, which would then become a legal obligation.
4. Issue raised: DBA /Naples Tennis Academy has no viable personal guarantees as does ABC Finance proposal.
Response: There was no requirement for a "viable personal guarantee" in the solicitation, however, the committee
had the opportunity to review each proposers' response to the requirements of Tab 11, Business Plan, Tab IV,
Experience, Capacity, and Specialized Expertise of Firm, and Tab IV, References, in order to make a determination as
to each firm's capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the scope of services.
S. Issue raised: DBA /The Naples Tennis Academy has no business history and therefore their business guarantee
has a low value.
Response: Regardless of the individual owners' past registration history, there is no prohibition against the
creation of DBA /The Naples Tennis Academy by the four current owners, and the submitted proposal was
properly evaluated, scored and ranked according to the evaluation criteria as set forth in the solicitation document.
After review of the solicitation document, including the scope of services and associated evaluation criteria, the
proposers' responses and the scoring and ranking sheets submitted by the selection committee members, I find
no evidence that the firms' submitted responses to each of the required evaluation criteria were not scored
appropriately. It is my conclusion that there was a fair evaluation and comparison of proposals by the selection
committee, and I uphold the decision to award contract 11 -5785 "Management of Pelican Bay Community Park
Tennis Center" to DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy.
Yours truly,
i,
Collier County Contract Administration Manager
cc: Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator
Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing and General Services Director
Steve Carnell, Interim Public Services Administrator
Barry Williams, Public Services Director
Packet Page -507-
4/10/2012 Item 115.
'RECEIVED
-ffice caf the County Manager
MAR 19 2012
Action
Written Objection against the Contract Award
Solicitation
11 -5785
Management of Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis Center
ABC Finance LLC
6911 Livingston Woods Lv*
Naples, Fl, 34109
Packet Page -508-
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
Dear Mr. Ochs:
I have been in an appeals process to a contract that has been awarded by the Collier County
Purchasing Dept. I originally submitted a proposal on behalf of ABC FINANCE LLC to be awarded this
contract and came in second in the voting. The reasons for the rejection of our proposal were not
based on facts but rather on misunderstandings and /or narrow readings of the proposal
requirements. We filed a formal protest in a timely manner and Mrs. Kelsey Ward has ruled against
us on that protest. That ruling failed to advise us of our appellate rights as required, but nonetheless,
we would like to file a formal protest and request for a hearing with the appropriate party to have
our issues addressed more comprehensively and clearly. We strongly believe that once the clear facts
are presented that a different decision will result. We have partnered with ARTHREX, INC. to bring
about a profound positive change to the Pelican Bay tennis facility that will not only guarantee
financially positive results for the County and the public that use the Pelican Bay facility for many
years to come but will also result in the creation of a model that could be equally beneficial to all the
County tennis facilities in Collier County. Mr. Reinhold Schmieding has become an enthusiastic
supporter of what we are trying to accomplish to the point of guaranteeing initial cash investment of
$110,000.00 and being favorably disposed to future investments as well. in the review process we
were given zero points in the awarding evaluation for this investment because of the narrowness of
the interpretations by the reviewers.
We believe the Parks and Recreation Department agrees with our assessment on the benefits that
we, ARTHREX and our proposal would bring to Collier County. Unfortunately, our proposal did not fit
as neatly into the County review process as it could because of the unique nature of what we are
proposing and what ARTHREX is guaranteeing from their involvement. This unique offer deserves a
chance to be heard in a fuller and more comprehensive way than the standardized one size fits all
contract review process otherwise allows. Please feel free to contact me or Mr. Scott Price, VP at
ARTHREX, INC., to gain a better understanding of why this appeal makes sense and why the proposal
really is exceptional; especially in light of the alternative proposals.
I have attached hereto the original proposal by ABC FINANCE, the formal protest we filed to the
initial contract award, and the response from the Contract Manager, Kelsey Ward.
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Jan David
... '!��y'...
.....
Enclosures:
1. ABC FINANCE protest
2. Collier County answer
3. Cash surety ($1000 check)
Packet Page -509-
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
The Facts
Part A: Comparison of two investment offers
1 ABC Finance Proposal:
On page 12 of our Proposal we wrote:
"Pelican Say Community Pork tennis facility is very unique in whole Collier County.
The location and size of the.pork gives nearly unlimited options for the further development.
Further development of the facilities will be continual the same as our tennis program:
However, some improvements will need to be done very fast - namely a new clubhouse:
We wig invest in and establish o new clubhouse — similar to the following picture.
The exact dimensions you con find in the ENCLOSURE."
Page 53 of our Proposal details our creation of a new fully functional tennis clubhouse
facility.;
The cost to ABC Finance for this facility exceeds $126,000.00
Page 13 details a first year binding financial commitment by Arthrex, inc. to invest $80,000
into the construction of two new tennis courts expanding the earning potential of the park
Additionally, on pages 29 and 30 we wrote;
"Depending on the success of this tennis project in the first year, Arthrex, Inc. has also said it will seriously
pursue additional financial donations for further improvements to the tennis facilities, possibly including the
future construction of a high quality stadium court that could be used for high profile tournament offerings.
We are of the opinion that it will be beneficial for all parties to give such a strong partner as Arthrex, Inc. the
chance to immediately add to the value of the Pelican. Bay Community Facility and to hopefully, with good initial
success, continue in this project for the next several years. This 3 party partnership (Collier County, Arthrex,
Inc. and ABC Finance, LLQ should prove very exciting for the community particularly and for tennis in the SW
Florida area in general.
Based an all -these facts, please consider the following table related only to the first year of our operation."
It is important to understand that the new clubhouse would naturally last for the duration
of the contract (5 years) and therefore ourtotal projected investment amounts to
$206,000.00.
This amount was NOT taken into account in the Committee Scoring costing 40 critical points!
Based on these facts we are of the opinion that 40 points for Annual Facility Investment
should have been granted to our company.
This would have also meant that our offer would have prevailed getting the most total
points.
2
Packet Page -510 -
4/10/2012 Item 111.
2, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy Proposal:
"Facilities Enhancements" (timeline and dollar investment)
Court and Facilities: Upon awnrd of the contract AMA will budget $53,DDD towards the reconditioning of the
courts to include lines, screens and nets, as well as power washing the cabanas. The seating area for players
and spectators will be expanded.
Website, Marketing and Online Pro Shop Upon award of the contract, NTA will budget $28,000 towards a
professional web design that will include the capacity for Google integration, membership administration,
search link building, online shopping, photo gallery and press release capacity:
Onsite Pro Shop: Upon award of the contract $6000 will be budgeted for the reutilization of the existing
structure to provide a fully stacked Pro Shop—
Plum for implementation of a fully stocked onsite Pro Shop will begin immediately. The initial plan is for the
redesign and reutilization of the existing structure to include shelving and counters for merchandise and
dressing rooms for customers."
A "budgeting" of dollars for the above items is NOT a guarantee or investment. It only
indicates an intention to use cash flow to accommodate these things!
3, Required detailed scope of work according to RFP.
The vendor shall, to the satisfaction of the County project manager, provide normal and routine daily, monthly,
yearly maintenance of the facilities, designed to keep the premises and equipment in a good state of repair, free
from hazardous conditions and deterioration, thus providing for the comfort and safety of visitors and patrons.
Maintenance and repairs shall include the following, unless otherwise approved by the County's project manager.
Drag and line courts at least twice daily (prior to morning and evening play).
i. Doily l Weekly Maintenance on Clay Courts
1. Clean Tennis- Two-Steps at least twice daily.
2. Empty trash from court receptors at least once per day.
3. Empty large garbage cans and Recycle Cans as need and take to Maintenance
Building. Replace can liners.
4. Sweep or blow off sidewalks and cabanas at least once a day prior to morning
Play.
5. Monitor Cal -Cap subterranean irrigation system and make adjustments as
needed.
6. Apply clay as needed weekly.
7. Apply algaecide to 'hard pan" areas as needed (minimally once a week).
8. Remove weeds as needed weekly.
9. Check condition of lines weekly. Level lines as needed.
ii. Annual Maintenance on Cloy Courts
2. Peplucf, tidy trays and birrkets a.s needed.
None of the above mentioned "facilities enhancements" should have qualified under the
category of "additional tennis program facility infrastructure investment" requested by the
county as they are part of the annual maintenance. Maintenance Is not the same as
infrastructure changes.
Packet Page -511-
4/10/2012 Item 11.F.
Also, we do not believe that the existing building/pro shop could be "redesigned to o fully
stocked onsite Pro Shop ".
Outside of the "court booking window" Inside of the "court booking windo,r ",�
#'
View from ouPSdit, into the "�'ro �i op" Back rnmr a* 4'ro Siloy"
That can be achieved only through the new and much bigger clubhouse...
�( 1
RIP' .fM. ,s.�t•
4
f '
Y.
orrt ^an:�.
r
Packet Page -512-
4
v
4/10/2012 Item 115.
Part 13: Comparison of the bidding companies
Two legal entities submitted the bids:
1, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy
2, ABC Finance
1, DBA /The Naples Tennis Academy— registration # G11000106859
The registration records show that four people became the owners of the Fictitious Name
DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy.
The owners are Mr. Nau, William F, Mr. Thomas, Jason M., Mr. Breger, Charles P and Mr.
Sweet, Gary F.
The fictitious name was registered on November 1, 2011, just few days before the bidding
deadline.
Another similar Fictitious Name was registered on February 27, 2010.
At that time it was Naples Tennis Academy - registration # G10000018941— and the owner
of the fictitious name became Mr. Nau, William F.
The similarity of both of these names is so deep, that even Collier County managers thought
at the very beginning that the bid was submitted by this company.
But, that is not the end of "name story".
On August 29, 2008 under the registration number P08000080630 Mr. Nau, William F.
together with Mr. Fogelman, Seth A. have filed for Naples Tennis Academy, Inc.
This company was on September 25, 2009 dissolved, after filing only for one annual report.
Mr. Nau, William F, together with Mr. Lawson, Don and Mr. Noonan, Robert and Mr. Cole,
Thomas C, have filed on September 26, 1991 for another company, Sports Line, Inc.
This company was dissolved administratively on October 09, 1992 after not filing even for
one annual report.
Mr. Nau, William F, has owned three legal entities with a very similar name —
Naples Tennis Academy, Inc., Naples Tennis Academy, DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy.
The first two ones did not show any business activity.
Mr. Nau, William F, has also owned companies created on a multiple owner principle —
Naples Tennis Academy Inc., Sport Line, Inc.
Also these two business entities did not show any business activity.
DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy was created by four tennis coaches just few days before
the bidding deadline.
These coaches boast about their 100 years of the coaching experience — mostly from outside
of Naples.
But what about their local business experience? None is mentioned.
Will these four owners get financially satisfied when working at the place that achieved last
year a loss of $100,000?
5
Packet Page -513-
4/10/2012 Item 111.
2, ABC Finance LLC
ABC Finance LLC is a local company, registered on June 1, 2005.
It is not a huge company, but it consistently serves the local tennis players for past 7 years.
Thousands of the satisfied clients are the best local references for this company.
Compared to the other company, we already have the tennis merchandise, we already have
the business software and we already have tennis court management software.
We already do the local marketing activities and the local tennis players know us.
There are thousands of local tennis players in our database.
Page 30 of our bid details, that in this project ABC Finance has partnered with the local
medical company Arthrex, Inc.
Both of these companies have agreed that this tennis park should stay open to ALL Collier
residents and not only to those "more fortunate" who would be able to pay for the "world
class coaching".
We do not believe that the public parks should "recruit the players from around the world..."
but strongly believe that they should serve the local residents!
We understand the urgent need of facilities improvements.
New clubhouse at Pelican Bay is a must and vacant land gives the opportunity to add more
tennis courts into these facilities.
Our investment is a real enhancement of the existing facilities and not only regular yearly
maintenance as it was offered by the other party.
The involvement of Arthrex, Inc. in this project brings a real guarantee that our investment
projections will also happen.
It is a much stronger guarantee than the one offered by the other entity without any
business history.
Arthrex, Inc. is ready to pay back to the local community and together with our company
we are ready to bring tennis also to those less fortunate.
We believe that anybody can play tennis!
Otherwise this sport would not be played in poor countries at all.
We believe that our offer was the best and that our bid should have won.
We believe that it was not only financially better, but also more secure, as it was based on
both 7 years of our local business activities and financial stability of our partner, company
Arthrex, Inc.
Based on all of these facts we do not only protest against the recommended award to the
newly registered entity known as DBA/The Naples Tennis Shop, but also ask you to grant this
award to our company.
6
Packet Page -514-
4/10/2012 Item 115.
Summary:
1. ABC Finance should have received 40 points in the scoring because of its $206,000
investment which is guaranteed.
2. DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy should not receive any point for court maintenance as
this is not an "infrastructure investment".
3. DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy's "budgeting" does not constitute a commitment or a
guarantee as required by proposal guidelines.
4. DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy has no viable personal guarantees as does ABC
Finance proposal.
S. DBA/Naples Tennis Academy has no business history and therefore their business
guarantee has a low value.
Condusion /Relief Sought
1. Reverse Award granted to Naples Tennis Academy
2. Re -score Proposals with specific reference to infrastructure Investments
3. Grant Award to ABC Finance, I.I.C.
Naples, March 13, 2012
Jan David
ABC Finance LLC'
Packet Page -515-
7
4/10/2012 Item 11.F
co ,er cou�.ty
Administrative Services Division
Contract Administration — Tel: 239 - 252 -8949 — Fax: 239 - 252 -6594 — email: kelseyward@colliergov.net
March 15, 2012
Mr. Jan David
ABC Finance LLC
6911 Livingston Woods Lane
Naples, FL 34109
Re: 11 -5785 "Management of Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis Center" Protest Response to Award of
Contract
Dear Mr. David,
1 appreciate your taking the time to submit your protest against the recommended award of the above
referenced contract, and respectfully submit this letter in answer to your concerns. In regard to your protest
of the recommended award of the above referenced contact, please see my responses to your summary
statement of the 5 disputed issues below:
1. Issue raised: Critical error made in scoring of ABC Finance Financial Proposal —Tab III, Commission
Returned to the County and Annual Facility Investment (40 maximum points)
Response: The solicitation document clearly stated that the proposer must provide a minimum
monthly guarantee to the County and an annual guaranteed investment in the Tennis Program
facility infrastructure, which would be added together to get a dollar total. It was clearly defined that
the methodology for awarding points was based on this information. Although ABC Finance offered
information on other potential infrastructure investment, they declined to provide the required
information, therefore, it was not possible to award the maximum of 40 points. DBA /The Naples
Tennis Academy Proposal was fully compliant in providing the required scoring information.
2. issue raised: DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy should not receive any points for court maintenance
as this is not an "infrastructure investment ".
Response: I find no evidence that DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy portrayed annual maintenance
as "facility infrastructure investment" as alleged by ABC Finance, and therefore, they did not receive
any associated points.
3. Issue raised: DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy's "budgeting" does not constitute a commitment or
a guarantee as required by proposal guidelines.
Response: This information was submitted under Tab II, Business Plan (20 maximum points), which
required proposers to provide responses to 9 bullet points. This specific response fell under the third
bullet point, "Detailed plan for facilities enhancements, including timeline and dollar investment",
and was fully compliant with the requirements.
Purd>asQg Department • 3301 Tamiami Trail East • Naples, Florida 34112 - www.colliergov.neUpurchasing
Packet Page -516-
4/10/2012 Item 111.
Page 2
Re: 11 -5785 "Management of Pelican Bay Community Park Tennis Center" Protest Response to Award of Contract
DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy affirmatively stated that they would budget specific dollar amounts upon award
of the contract, specifically $53,000 towards reconditioning of the courts as well as power washing the cabanas,
$28,000 towards a professional web design and $6,000 for the reutilization of the existing onsite pro shop. It is
reasonable to believe that this constitutes a commitment by the proposer, but in any case, this would be included
as a subsequent contractual requirement, which would then become a legal obligation.
4. Issue raised: DBA /Naples Tennis Academy has no viable personal guarantees as does ABC Finance proposal.
Response: There was no requirement for a "viable personal guarantee" in the solicitation, however, the committee
had the opportunity to review each proposers' response to the requirements of Tab II, Business Plan, Tab IV,
Experience, Capacity, and Specialized Expertise of Firm, and Tab IV, References, in order to make a determination as
to each firm's capabilities to fulfill the requirements of the scope of services.
S. Issue raised: DBA /The Naples Tennis Academy has no business history and therefore their business guarantee
has a low value.
Response: Regardless of the individual owners' past registration history, there is no prohibition against the
creation of DBA /The Naples Tennis Academy by the four current owners, and the submitted proposal was
properly evaluated, scored and ranked according to the evaluation criteria as set forth in the solicitation document.
After review of the solicitation document, including the scope of services and associated evaluation criteria, the
proposers' responses and the scoring and ranking sheets submitted by the selection committee members, I find
no evidence that the firms' submitted responses to each of the required evaluation criteria were not scored
appropriately. It is my conclusion that there was a fair evaluation and comparison of proposals by the selection
committee, and I uphold the decision to award contract 11 -5785 "Management of Pelican Bay Community Park
Tennis Center" to DBA/The Naples Tennis Academy.
Yours truly,
ZAZ,e--,
I/
Collier County Contract Administration Manager
cc: Len Price, Administrative Services Administrator
Joanne Markiewicz, Interim Purchasing and General Services Director
Steve Carnell, Interim Public Services Administrator
Barry Williams, Public Services Director
Packet Page -517-