Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 050795
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  

File Number: 050795 File Type: Ordinance Status: Deferred by the Board
Version: 0 Reference: Control: County Commission
File Name: REVIEW CONTRACTOR INTEGRITY BY INSPECTOR GENERAL Introduced: 3/23/2005
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action:
Agenda Date: 4/5/2005 Agenda Item Number: 7C
Notes: Title: ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR BUSINESS INTEGRITY BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; DEFINING CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BUSINESS INTEGRITY; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING REVIEW AND WITHHOLDING OF CONTRACT AWARD DURING PENDENCY OF INVESTIGATION; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; AMENDING SECTIONS 2-8.1 AND 2-1076 OF THE CODE; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE [SEE ORIGINAL ITEM UNDER FILE NO. 050317]
Indexes: CONTRACTS
  INSPECTOR GENERAL
Sponsors: Katy Sorenson, Prime Sponsor
  Sally A. Heyman, Co-Sponsor
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed


Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners 4/5/2005 7C Deferred P
REPORT: First Assistant County Attorney Murray Greenberg read the foregoing proposed ordinance into the record. Commissioner Sorenson noted she was open to adding a section to this proposed ordinance that “may not be construed as limiting the Ethics Commission’s jurisdiction over contractors as provided in the conflict of interest ordinance.” Commissioner Souto asked that this proposed ordinance be amended to insert the following language: “Including the commission of any criminal act relating to fraud or misrepresentation or pleading of guilty or no contest to charges of fraud or misrepresentation.” He suggested that this apply to a situation in which a company with a County contract removed persons from its Board of Directors. Assistant County Attorney Hugo Benitez clarified for Commissioner Sorenson that Commissioner Souto’s proposed amendments would be inserted under the reasons for the finding of no business integrity. There would be an addition of 2 clauses: pleading of guilty or no contest to criminal violations, and removal from corporate office for acts of malfeasance, Mr. Benitez explained. Commissioner Sorenson noted Commissioner Souto’s proposed amendments were acceptable. Commissioner Sorenson said she would meet with Mr. Mazella, Commission on Ethics Executive Director Robert Meyers, the County Attorney’s Office and Roger Hernstadt about contractor responsibility and submit the results to a Committee. The Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution.

County Attorney 3/23/2005 Assigned Hugo Benitez 3/23/2005

Internal Mgmt. & Fiscal Responsibility Committee 3/10/2005 2Gamd Forwarded to BCC without recommendation with committee amendments P
REPORT: Chairwoman Carey-Shuler opened the public hearing. Mr. Michael Murawski, Advocate, Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, appeared before the Committee on behalf of Mr. Robert Meyers, Executive Director, Commission on Ethics and Public Trust, who was out of town. Mr. Murawski stated Mr. Meyers had sent a memorandum to the members of the Committee expressing concern regarding the foregoing proposed ordinance. Commissioner Sorenson requested the Committee suspend consideration of this proposed ordinance until later in the meeting, in order to allow her time to review Mr. Meyers’ memorandum. Chairwoman Carey-Shuler stated copies of Mr. Meyers’ memorandum would be distributed to the Committee members, and this item would be considered later in the meeting. The Committee members proceeded to consider the balance of the day’s agenda and then returned their consideration to Agenda Item 2G. Commissioner Sorenson summarized the intent of the foregoing proposed ordinance and noted it was her intent to ensure the County did business with ethical companies. Commissioner Sorenson addressed the concerns raised by Mr. Meyers relating to conflict of interest and requested that he call her office if he had any additional concerns regarding the foregoing proposed ordinance. There being no further persons to appear in connection with this matter, the public hearing was closed. Chairwoman Carey-Shuler asked that any concerns the Commission on Ethics had on proposed legislation be submitted to the appropriate parties more timely in the future. Commissioner Sosa expressed concern that additional tasks were being given to the Inspector General regarding conflict of interest issues when the Commission on Ethics and Public Trust had been established to address such matters. She also expressed concern with elected officials being placed in a position to request investigations without the facts, but based on good faith; and the ability to use this as a means for political retribution. Commissioner Sorenson addressed Commissioner Sosa’s concerns. She noted a Commissioner would have to provide written documentation to the Inspector General when requesting an investigation. Discussion ensued regarding possible amendments that could be included in the foregoing proposed ordinance. Commissioner Sosa recommended that staff’s responsibility for detecting integrity violations by contractors at the front end of the process, should be included in the foregoing proposed ordinance. Chairwoman Carey-Shuler requested the foregoing proposed ordinance be amended as follows: --to place the responsibility of ensuring the County did business with ethical contractors on the county manager --to delete the limited number of investigations that could be requested per year --that the provisions of the ordinance not be limited to contracts costing $500,000 or more --to define the phrase “short statement” and list what supporting documents would be required Commissioner Heyman indicated the County must raise the bar of integrity of its contractors, and she noted the due process procedures that were part of County contracts would remain. She suggested the use of the words “review” and “investigation” be clarified. Commissioner Heyman requested she be listed as a co-sponsor of the foregoing proposed ordinance. Commissioner Sorenson accepted the foregoing amendments. Chairwoman Carey-Shuler recommended the foregoing proposed ordinance be forwarded to the full Board with no recommendation.

Legislative Text


TITLE
ORDINANCE PROVIDING FOR REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR BUSINESS INTEGRITY BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; DEFINING CRITERIA FOR DETERMINATION OF BUSINESS INTEGRITY; ESTABLISHING PROCEDURE FOR CONDUCTING REVIEW AND WITHHOLDING OF CONTRACT AWARD DURING PENDENCY OF INVESTIGATION; PROVIDING ADDITIONAL AUTHORIZATION AND RESPONSIBILITY TO THE INSPECTOR GENERAL; AMENDING SECTIONS 2-8.1 AND 2-1076 OF THE CODE; PROVIDING SEVERABILITY, INCLUSION IN THE CODE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE

BODY

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. Section 2-8.1 of the Code of Miami-Dade County is hereby amended as follows:1
* * *
Sec. 2-8.1. Contracts and purchases generally.


(a) Scope. Except as provided in subsections (b), (f) >>,<< [[and]] (h) >>and (j),<< this section shall apply to all contracts for public improvements and purchases of all supplies, materials and services other than professional services.

...
>>(j) Inspector General Review of Business Integrity.
(1) Contract awards shall be made only to contractors with business integrity. In making the determination of business integrity provided for in this subsection, the following criteria may be considered relating to the contractor, its officers or principals or the employees directly engaged in the performance of government contracts:
(i) the commission of bribery, fraud, or misrepresentation,
(ii) conflicts of interest,
(iii) violations of any laws bearing on contractor integrity and responsibility,
(iv) attempts to cure any alleged problem in contractor performance or responsibility,
(v) history of performance with the County and general business history, except that the mere absence of business existence or history shall not standing alone bear on the business integrity of the contractor, or
(vi) any other conduct bearing on the business responsibility and integrity of the contractor.
(2) In the event that upon consideration of the criteria set forth in this subsection any member of the Board of County Commissioners has a good faith belief that a current or proposed County contractor may not have the business integrity to enter into or perform a County contract, he or she may request an Inspector General review in a writing addressed to the Inspector General specifically identifying this Section. The written request for a review shall contain a short statement of the basis for invoking the review.
(3) Upon receipt of a request for review pursuant to this Section, the Inspector General shall conduct such investigation and audit as he or she may deem necessary to determine the business integrity of the contractor. It shall be the affirmative duty of the contractor to demonstrate its business integrity and specifically to address any doubts with respect to its integrity raised as the basis for invoking the review. The Inspector General shall be entitled to rely on such information as prudent persons rely on in the conduct of serious affairs, and shall not be required to adhere to formal proceedings or rules of evidence in the conduct of the investigation.
(4) For any contract which is to be awarded by the Board of County Commissioners pursuant to this Section, the award shall not be made during the pendency of the Inspector General review, provided that a request for review pursuant to this subsection is made prior to the Board enactment of a resolution approving the Contract. By exception, the Board may award the contract by majority vote notwithstanding the investigation upon a finding that the resulting delay in award would compromise the delivery of essential County services.
(5) The review provided in this Section shall be concluded within sixty (60) days of the initial request, unless such period is extended by the Board of County Commissioners upon request of the Inspector General.
(6) Upon conclusion of the review, the Inspector General shall file with the Board of County Commissioners a written report of his or her findings. The findings of the Inspector General shall be considered by the Board in connection with any pending award. A finding by the Inspector General that the contractor has failed to demonstrate affirmatively its business integrity shall constitute a request for debarment of the contractor pursuant to this Code.
(7) Nothing in this Section is intended to limit or derogate the County's authority and responsibility to evaluate and determine the responsiveness, qualifications or responsibility of a contractor. The Inspector General's finding with respect to one request for investigation shall not be deemed conclusive of any other requests with respect to the same or other contractors.<<


Section 2. Section 2-1076 of the Code of Miami-Dade County is hereby amended as follows:

Sec. 2-1076. Office of the Inspector General.

* * *

(c) Functions, authority and powers

* * *

>>(12) The Inspector General shall be authorized to review the business integrity of County contractors and provide reports relating to the same as provided elsewhere in this Code.<<



Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity.
Section 4. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners, and it is hereby ordained that the provisions of this ordinance, including any Sunset provision, shall become and be made a part of the Code of Miami-Dade County, Florida. The sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re-lettered to accomplish such intention, and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section," "article," or other appropriate work.
Section 5. This ordinance shall become effective 10 days after the date of enactment unless vetoed by the Mayor, and if vetoed, shall become effective only upon an override by this Board.
1 Words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted. Words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed. Remaining provisions are now in effect and remain unchanged.



Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2014 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site 2014 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.