Loading...
Agenda 05/26/2009 Item #16G1 Agenda Item No. 1681 May 26, 2009 Page 1 of 7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation to reject all proposals received under RFP #09-5154 for updating the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Redevelopment Plan and mixed use overlays and to authorize staff to re-solicit proposals. OBJECTIVE: To obtain Board action to reject all proposals under the referenced RFP and issue a new RFP. BACKGROUND: The Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA was created to remove slum and blight from within the CRA boundaries, As contemplated by Part III Chapter 163 Florida Statutes, a Community Redevelopment Plan was prepared to address the redevelopment needs in the Community Redevelopment Area. The Redevelopment Plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) on June 13,2000. In 2005, the BCC adopted specific Land Development Code (LDC)/zoning overlay provisions for the Bayshore and Gateway Triangle areas of the CRA, the BMUD and GTMUD overlays respectively. .,f- CONSIDERATIONS: The Redevelopment Plan of 2000 was developed using 1998 and 1999 economic data. Today's economic environment is significantly different and the Plan does not fully reflect the redevelopment needs of the community. Therefore, RFP #09-5154 was posted on November 19, 2008. One hundred eighty-eight notices were sent and eleven proposals were received by the due date of January 8, 2009. The committee shortlisted the proposers down to five firms, heard presentations from the shortlisted firms and re-ranked the firms. The result of this effort was that Q. Grady Minor was ranked first followed closely by RW A Inc. and Wilson Miller, who were tied for second place one point behind. Based on that information, the committee elected to award most of the work to Q Grady Minor and one task (updating of the Land Development Code) to RW A Inc, who the committee perceived to have more expertise with that particular task. Subsequently, the Purchasing Department learned that a scoring error had occurred during the ranking of the shortlisted firms and that when corrected, changed the final order of the rankings. In an effort to address this issue in the proper, public forum, the Purchasing Department re- convened the selection committee and informed the committee of the scoring error. Upon hearing this infonnation, the selection committee elected to change the award recommendation, choosing to award all of the work to RW A Inc., by consensus as the preferred consultant to perform the Plan and overlays update. This decision led to a formal protest being filed by Q. Grady Minor, objecting to the revised decision by the selection committee and alleging wrong doing on the part of RW A Inc. Specifically, Q Grady Minor asked the Purchasing Director to effectively cancel and supersede the committee's decision to award the entire contract to RW A Inc. and to revert back to the original award recommendation. - Agenda Item No. 16G1 May 26, 2009 Page 2 of 7 The Purchasing Director reviewed the protest and noted findings regarding each of the issues raised in the protest. A copy of the protest and the Purchasing Director's decision (which includes the Director's findings) is enclosed. In addressing the formal protest filed by Q. Grady Minor, staff considered several alternatives including proceeding with award to RW A Inc., splitting the award as originally recommended by the committee or appointing of a new selection committee to score and rank the current proposals. After discussions between the Purchasing Director, the County Attorney and the Bayshore Gateway CRA Executive Director, staff is recommending that all proposals be rejected and the contract be re-solicited at a future time. In doing so, staff will have an opportunity to clarify the scope of the contract and rectify any perceived problems with the original solicitation and evaluation process. Given that the work associated with updating the Land Development Code cannot be performed until the annual window for the update process re-opens (early 20 I 0), there is more than sufficient time to re-solicit proposals and award a contract prior to the next LDC evaluation cycle. FISCAL IMPACT: None associated with this action. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This item has been reviewed by the County Attorney and is legally sufficient for Board action. This is a regular item requiring simple majority vote. -JAK GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMP ACT: There is no impact to the Growth Management Plan related to this action. RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Board Commissioners reject all proposals received under RFP #09-5154 for updating the Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Redevelopment Plan and mixed use overlays and to authorize staff to re-solicit proposals. Prepared by: David Jackson on May 18,2009 Executive Director, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA - Item Number: Item Summary: Meeting Date: Page 1 of 1 Agenda Item No. 16G1 May 26, 2009 Page 3 of 7 COLLIER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 16G1 Recommendation to reject all proposals received under RFP #09-5154 for updating the Bayshore Gateway Triangle eRA Redevelopment Plan and mixed use overlays and to authorize staff to re-soliclt proposals. 5/26/2009 90000 AM Prepared By David Jackson Community Redevelopment Agency Executive Director Date Sayshore-Gateway Redevelopment 5/18/2009 1 :55:57 PM Approved By Jean Jourdan Community Redevelopment Agency Project Manager Date Bayshore-Gateway Redevelopment 5/18/2009 1 :55 PM Approved By Steve Carnell Administrative Services Purchasing/General Svcs Director Purchasing Date 5/18/20092:24 PM Approved By Jeff Klatzkow County Attorney County Attorney County Attorney Office Date 5/18/20092:30 PM Date Approved By OMS Coordinator County Manager's Office OMB Coordinator Office of Management & Budget 5/18/20093:01 PM Date Approved By Mark Isackson County Manager's Office Budget Analyst Office of Management & Budget 5/18/20096:33 PM Approved By Leo E. Ochs, Jr, Board of County Commissioners Date Deputy County Manager County Manager's Office 5/19/2009 1 :37 PM file://C:\AgendaTest\Export\ 130-May%2026, %202009\16. %20CONSENT%20AGENDA \ 1... 5/20/2009 cJt, CoMHIi)I ~ ~ ..-- Adnli .$bcdiwSelvials Division Purchasing Agenda Item No. 1681 May 26. 2009 Page 4 of 7 May 18, 2009 D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 RE: Protest Decision, RFP 09-5154, Bayshore Gateway Triangle CRA Area Master Plan Update Dear Mr. Arnold: I have reviewed your protest of May 1, 2009, regarding the recommended award of the referenced RFP. In considering the issues raised in this protest, it is important to briefly summarize the key events in the proposal evaluation phase. Those events are as follows: };> January 8, 2009: Proposals due to the Purchasing Department. 11 proposals received. };> January 20, 2009: Staff selection committee convenes and publicly reviews written proposals. Five firms are shortlisted. };> January 28, 2009: Shortlisted make presentations to the selection committee };> February 2, 2009: Selection committee re-scores and ranks proposals based on presentations. Committee ranks Q. Grady Minor (hereafter referred to as "QGM") first with RWA and Wilson Miller tied for second. Committee elects to award tasks 1,3-7 to QGM and task 2 to RW A. };> Purchasing and CRA staff commences negotiations with both firms. };> March 2, 2009: Purchasing Department re-convenes the selection committee to review scoring error from February 2, 2009, Committee meeting. Changes in scores results in a three-way tie. Committee invokes tie-breaking method set forth in the RFP, which places RWA first. Committee elects to award all work to RWA. The following is a summary of each of the specific issues raised in the protest and findings regarding each: 1. RWA should have followed proper protest procedures following the February 2, 2009, protest decision. Under Section X/X.C of the County's Purchasing policy, protests of recommended contract awards are to be filed with the Purchasing Director within two (2) business days of the posting of the contract award. In this instance, the posting of the contract award did not occur until April 23, 2009, as the award recommendation did not become final until negotiations with the selected firm had been completed. There is no discrete language in the purchasing policy governing the protest of a contract award orior to the posting of the staff (i) Purchasi1g0epirtne0l. 3301 Tamiami TI'9l1 EasI' Naples. Flooda 34112, www.txlIliergcw./letlpurctlBSing Agenda Item No, 16G1 May 26, 2009 Page 5 of 7 Mr. D. Wayne Arnold May 18, 2009 Page 2 of 4 recommendation. However. Section 10.1 of the RFP expressly allows firms to contact the Purchasing Department at any time during the procurement process. With regard to the award of this RFP, RWA contacted the Purchasing Department shortly after the February 2, 2009, selection committee decision and raised the issue of an apparent scoring error. QGM did likewise subsequent to the March 2, 2009, selection committee meeting. In both instances, the manner in which the firms contacted the Purchasing Department was acceptable. 2. RWA contacted members of the selection committee regarding the February 2, 209, award decision despite prohibitions from the Purchasing Department against private contact between proposers and individual committee members regarding the selection process at that stage of the process, Section 10.1 of the RFP advises firms not to contact elected commissioners or any County staff regarding their proposal "with the exception of the Purchasing Director or his designee". The section also states that the "Failure to abide by this provision may serve as grounds for disqualification for award of this contract to the firm. " Subsequent to the March 2, 2009, selection committee decision, the Purchasing Director privately interviewed each of the voting members of the selection committee. All of the committee members expressed support for and concurrence with the March 2, 2009, decision to change the award recommendation. Each was directly asked if they had felt pressured or coerced to vote in a certain way in that meeting. All responded that they had not felt any such pressure. Two of the members, (Bradley Mucke/, a planner with the Immoka/ee CRA and David Jackson, the executive director of the Bayshore Gateway CRA) told the Purchasing Director that they had been contacted by individuals from RWA regarding the selection process after the February 2, 2009, committee deliberation. Mr. Jackson told the Purchasing Director that he had received a visit from Mr. Bob Mulhere with RWA in which Mr. Mulhere advised him that a scoring error had occurred during the February 2, 2009, committee deliberations. According to both Mr. Jackson and Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Jackson directed Mr. Mulhere to address the issue with the Purchasing Department and terminated the conversation at that time. Subsequent to that conversation, Mr. Muckel indicated that he received a call from Mr. Patrick Vanasse on February 24, 2009, in which Mr. Vanasse informed him that the Purchasing Department was going to re-convene the selection committee to discuss the scoring error. Mr. Muckel indicated that he did not discuss the matter further with Mr. Vanasse at that time or subsequently thereafter. Upon interviewing the committee members and carefully reviewing the recording of the March, 2009, selection committee meeting, the Purchasing Director, after consulting with the Office of the County Attomey determined that the conversations initiated by RWA with Mr. Jackson and Mr. Muckel respectively were not consistent with the requirements set forth under Section 10. L. That said the Purchasing Director did not find any evidence that either of these conversations materially affected the outcome of the subsequent deliberations and .,..,........, Agenda Item No. 16G1 May 26. 2009 Page 6 of 7 Mr. D. Wayne Arnold May 18, 2009 Page 3 of 4 hence allowed the negotiations with RWA authorized by the committee on March 2, 2009, to continue forward. 3. The Selection Committee did not represent a fair and balanced panel. Three of the four members on the selection committee were staff from the Bayshore CRA. This information was disseminated and available to all of the competing consultants prior to submission of the proposals and none of the competing firms (including QGM) raised any objections to the composition of the committee prior to this issue being raised in this protest. As stated earlier and as documented in the protest, the Purchasing Director interviewed each of the committee members and specifically asked each if they had felt any undue pressure from anyone to change their vote or consent to something they didn't support in light of the March 2, 2009, decision. None expressed any reservations in this regard. Additionally, it is worth noting that in the March 2, 2009, deliberations, Mr. Jackson (to whom two of the other voting members report) openly and verbally deferred to the other committee members first and encouraged them to present their opinions before he shared his so as to encourage the full participation of the committee. The committee was originally authorized to also include two staff members from the Community Development Services Division. However, those staff members were withdrawn from the committee after the Community Development Services Administrator advised that the CRA would be charged for their services on the committee. 4. The Project Manager should have expressed his concerns with the QGM proposal during negotiations to the team and not taken the opportunity to use his information in the new negotiations with another team. When the Purchasing Director interviewed the CRA Director, Mr. Jackson indicated that the representations made by QGM regarding the use of a proposed sub-consultant were not consistent with the hours identified for that sub-consultant during negotiations with QGM. In other words, the CRA was going to be receiving considerably less direct participation from the sub-consultant than what he assumed would be the case based on the January 28, 2009, presentations. Mr. Jackson further explained that the presence of this sub-consultant figured prominently in his decision to personally rank QGM first in the February 2, 2009, deliberations. In reviewing the recording of the March 2, 2009, committee deliberations, this issue was not brought up by Mr. Jackson (or by any of the other committee members). Hence his thoughts on this point would not have influenced the opinions of the other committee members in the deliberations. In sharing this with the Purchasing Director, Mr. Jackson was simply making the point that he no longer felt as favorable about the QGM proposal after seeing the variation in the allocation of hours described above. Mr. Jackson explained that he did not bring up this consideration with the committee in the March 2, 2009, meeting as the consensus of the committee had changed to awarding the contract entirely to RWA. Agenda Item No. 16G1 May 26. 2009 Page 7 of 7 Mr. D. Wayne Arnold May 18, 2009 Page 4 of 4 5. The RFP process was confusing for committee members and respondents due to the addition of task 8 and the subsequent removal of that task. Subsequent to the submission of proposals and prior to presentations by the shortlisted firms, the selection committee provided each presenter with preliminary scope for a prospective additional task identified as "The Cultural District Development Initiative". Presenting firms were asked to be prepared to address three specific questions regarding the draft scope in their presentations. Subsequent to the presentations, the committee did not appear to be completely satisfied with any of the responses on this task and decided to procure it separately as originally planned. There was no evidence that the removal of this task affected the outcome of the selection. I have reviewed the issues raised in the protest and many other aspects of this RFP process. The decision to reconvene the committee to address the apparent scoring error was correct and appropriate as the appointed selection committee is the designed decision maker in the process. By reconvening the committee, the public (including the competing consultants) was made aware of the fact that the error occurred and how the committee sought to rectify it. ,....- That not withstanding, the appearance of possible discrepancies at various points in the process may create the argument of an appearance of impropriety and could call the decision making of the committee into question. Though there is no clear evidence that any of these events meaningfully altered the decision making of the committee, this office, in consultation with the Office of the County Attorney and the Executive Director of the Bayshore Gateway CRA, has elected to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the proposals received under this RFP be rejected and that the RFP be re-solicited competitively. This recommendation is tentatively scheduled to be submitted to the Board of County Commissioners on the May 26, 2009, Board agenda, The re-solicitation of this contract will give staff the opportunity to address these concerns and further clarify the scope of the project. Under Section XVIII.C of the County's purchasing policy, the decision of the Purchasing Director shall be considered final and conclusive unless the protestor delivers a subsequent written objection to my attention within two business days from the date of receipt of this decision or not later than close of business on Wednesday May 20,2009. ~inc~, rei;, /" .,/ ,,/;7 k c- ~2Y v'i /;}c. /,:/ Steve \'Carnel( Purchasing/General Services Director ~_.