TITLE
RESOLUTION WAIVING THE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 2-8.4 OF THE MIAMI-DADE COUNTY CODE PERTAINING TO BID PROTEST PROCEDURES BY A TWO-THIRDS VOTE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT; AWARDING CONTRACT NO. 487B-1B TO BARTON PROTECTIVE SERVICES LLC D/B/A ALLIEDBARTON SECURITY SERVICES, AND CONTRACT NO. 487B-1A TO SECURITY ALLIANCE OF FLORIDA, LLC TO PROVIDE SECURITY GUARD AND SCREENING SERVICES; DIRECTING THE COUNTY MAYOR OR DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE THE ATTACHED AGREEMENTS AND TO EXERCISE ALL OTHER RIGHTS CONTAINED THEREIN; AND REJECTING ALL BIDS FOR CONTRACT NO 487B-1C AND DIRECTING THE ITEM BE READVERTISED

BODY
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
Section 1. This Board finds that it is in the best interest of the County to waive the formal bid protest procedures pursuant to Section 2-8.4 of the Miami-Dade County Code by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board members present.
Section 2. This Board awards Contract No. 487B-1B to Barton Protective Services LLC d/b/a AlliedBarton Security Services and Contract No. 487B-1A to Security Alliance Of Florida, LLC in substantially the form attached hereto and made a part hereof, to provide security guard and screening services, for and on behalf of Miami-Dade County and directs the County Mayor or his designee to execute these agreements and to exercise any cancellation and renewal provisions and any other rights contained therein.

Section 3. This Board rejects all bids for Contract No. 487B-1C and directs the County Mayor or his designee to advertise a new solicitation for the award of Sector 1C.

HEADER
Date:

To: Honorable Chairman Bruno A. Barreiro
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: George M. Burgess
County Manager

Subject: Security Guard and Screening Services: Revised Recommendation for Approval to Award Contract Nos.
487B -1A, 487B -1B, 487A -1D, 487A � 1E, 487A - 2A, 487A - 2B, 487A-3A, 487A-3B and Reject the Award
of Contract No. 487B � 1C

OTHER
Overview & Recommendation
Request for Proposals (RFP) Nos. 487A and 487B for security guard and screening services have a long and complicated history. RFP 487A was advertised in February 2006 and RFP 487B in March 2006, both under full and open competition. A qualitative selection process resulted in a first series of recommendations in October 2006 for RFP 487A and January 2007 for RFP 487B. Subsequently, certain firms were under Small Business Enterprise (SBE) decertification process, audit investigation (The Wackenhut Corporation) and litigation as detailed in the background and timeline. In an effort to bring this issue to closure, the item before the Board recommends awarding five contracts as competitive, three as bid waivers and rejecting to re-advertise one contract. Specifically, it is recommended that the Board approve the awards of a total of eight security contracts as specified in Table 1 to provide security guard and screening services for the General Services Administration (GSA), and to reject the award of Contract No. 487B-1C.

In light of the decertification of Security Management Innovations, Inc. (SMI) on July 27, 2007 and graduation of Security Alliance of Florida, LLC (Security Alliance) from the SBE Program, the award recommendation of December 11, 2007 for RFP 487A is hereby rescinded and this new recommendation to award is submitted. In addition, the award recommendation of May 22, 2007 for RFP 487B is hereby rescinded and this new recommendation to award Sectors 1A and 1B, and rejecting/re-advertising Sector 1C is submitted.

In accordance with Section 2-8.3 and Section 2-8.4 of the Code and in consultation with the County Attorney�s Office (CAO), this recommendation gives rise to the right to protest unless waived by a two-thirds (2/3) vote of the members present. In order not to further delay the contract awards, it is recommended that the Board waive the bid protest requirements of Sections 2-8.3 and 2-8.4 in connection with this recommendation.

It is also recommended that Board waive formal bid procedures and approve the award of 487A - Sectors 1E (Security Alliance), 2B (McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc. with Security Alliance as a sub-contractor), and 3B (Security Alliance) as bid waivers. Security Alliance was originally recommended following a RFP process under full and open competition. At the time this solicitation was issued, the Code allowed SBE certified firms to receive awards for up to one year after notification of formal graduation from the program (The Code has since been revised to delete this somewhat confusing one year period). Security Alliance�s graduation expired on September 30, 2007. Were it not for the significant unforeseen delays, this contractor would have been awarded these sectors. Since these delays were not caused by the firm, in the interest of fairness and consistent with the recommendations of the Evaluation/Selection Committee, it is recommended that Security Alliance be awarded these sectors.

CONTRACT TITLES: Security Guard and Screening Services (487A)
Security Guard Services (487B)
DESCRIPTION: These contracts are being awarded to provide security guard and screening services at County facilities organized in three tiers and nine sectors. See Table 1.

APPROVAL TO ADVERTISE: January 9, 2006

TERM: Three years with two, two-year options-to-renew at the County�s sole discretion.

METHOD OF AWARD: An open, competitive RFP process was used to select the two top-ranked firms in each tier under RFP 487A and three top-three ranked firms for RFP 487B.

CONTRACT NOs., AMOUNTS,
MEASURES & RECOMMENDED
VENDORS: Approximately $ 38.3 million per year depending upon hours of service required.

Table 1
RFP 487A
TIER 1
(Security Guard Services)
Sector
Contract No.
Projected Yearly Contract Amount
Recommended Vendor
Contract Measure*
1D
487A-1D
$3,906,552.72
Feick Security Corporation
SBE Set-aside
1E
487A-1E
$6,185,827.33
Security Alliance of Florida, LLC
SBE Set-aside
TIER 2
(Electronic Screening Services alone, or a combination of Screening & Security Guard Services)
Sector
Contract No.
Projected Yearly Contract Amount
Recommended Vendor
Contract Measure*
2A
487A-2A
$4,768,344.27
50 State Security Service, Inc.
(Sub: Feick Security Corporation)
20% SBE Subcontractor goal
2B
487A-2B
$4,411,099.04
McRoberts Protective Agency, Inc.
(Sub: Security Alliance of Florida, LLC)
20% SBE Subcontractor goal
TIER 3
(MIA & Seaport: Electronic Screening Services alone, or a combination of Screening & Security Guard Services)
Sector
Contract No.
Projected Yearly Contract Amount
Recommended Vendor
Contract Measure*
3A
487A-3A
$5,642,720.19
Barton Protective Services LLC d/b/a Allied Barton Security Services
SBE Selection Factor
3B
487A-3B
$3,652,720.14
Security Alliance of Florida, LLC
SBE Selection Factor
RFP 487B
Sector
Contract No.
Projected Yearly Contract Amount
Recommended Vendor
Contract Measure**
1A
487B-1A
$4,068,427.41
Security Alliance of Florida, LLC
None
1B
487B-1B
$5,673,295.79
Barton Protective Services LLC d/b/a Allied Barton Security Services
None
1C
487B-1C
Reject and Re-advertise
* RFP 487A - The Review Committee (RC) of December 28, 2005 recommended a SBE set aside for Tier 1, a SBE 20 percent subcontractor goal for Tier 2, and a SBE selection factor for Tier 3 of the solicitation.

** RFP 487B - The RC of December 28, 2005 did not recommend a SBE measure as the services will be paid using some federal funds for Miami-Dade Housing Agency (MDHA) facilities only. At a November 22, 2005 meeting with the CAO, GSA, Small Business Development (SBD), and Department of Procurement Management, it was decided to divide the security guard and screening services into two RFPs: RFP 487A and RFP 487B in order to make MDHA a separate sector. Since MDHA facilities are spread throughout the County, it would not be cost effective for the awarded vendor to effectively manage the contract. MDHA federal funding for these contracts is covered under Section 3 of the US Department of Housing and Development Act of 1968 for MDHA. Section 3 requires that job training, employment and contracting opportunities be directed toward low and very-low income persons, and to businesses that provide economic opportunities to those persons.


PERFORMANCE DATA: There are no performance issues with these vendors.

COMPLIANCE DATA: There are no compliance issues with these vendors.

VENDORS NOT RECOMMENDED
FOR AWARD: 487A Tier 1
1. Security Management Innovations, Inc. (See p-7)
2. JMG Insystem, Inc. d/b/a Sereca Corporation (See p-7)
3. Side Bar & Associates, Inc.
4. Extreme Security Networks, Corp.
5. Delad Security, Inc.
6. Guard One Security, Inc.
7. American Guard Services, Inc. (Non-responsive)
8. Art Hall Protective Services, Inc. (Non-responsive)* SBD determined that American Guard Services, Inc. is not in compliance with the SBE participation provisions. Accordingly, the proposal submitted by American Guard Services, Inc. was deemed non-responsive.
* The proposal submitted by Art Hall Protective Services, Inc. was deemed non-responsive as the proposal guaranty check submitted was not made payable to the County.

487A Tier 2
1. Security Management Innovations, Inc.
2. JMG Insystem, Inc. d/b/a Sereca Corporation
3. Vanguard Security, Inc.
4. DSI Security Services
5. Milex Corporation (1985), Inc. d/b/a Milex Security Services
6. Alanis, Inc. d/b/a Alanis Security
7. Guard One Security, Inc.
8. American Guard Services, Inc. (Non-responsive)
9. Safeland Security Services, Inc. (Non-responsive)

* SBD determined that American Guard Services, Inc. is not in compliance with SBE participation provisions. Accordingly, the proposal submitted by American Guard Services, Inc. was deemed non-responsive.
* The proposal submitted by Safeland Security Services, Inc. was deemed non-responsive as the required proposal guaranty bond was not submitted by the proposer.

487A Tier 3
1. 50 State Security Service, Inc.
2. Security Management Innovations, Inc.
3. American Guard Services, Inc.
4. Vanguard Security, Inc.
5. Communitel Airport Services, Inc. d/b/a Field Force Protective Services Corp.
6. JMG Insystem, Inc. d/b/a Sereca Corporation
7. Alanis, Inc. d/b/a Alanis Security
8. DSI Security Services
9. Masdeu Five Corporation d/b/a General Patrol Services
10. Safeland Security Services, Inc. (Non-responsive)

* The proposal submitted by Safeland Security Services, Inc. was deemed non-responsive as the required proposal guaranty bond was not submitted by the proposer.
* Tier not specified by the Proposer
Eagle Lion Security (Non-responsive)
The proposal submitted by Eagle Lion Security was deemed non-responsive as the required proposal guaranty bond was not submitted by the proposer.

487B
1. Delad Security, Inc.
2. Forestville Corporation
3. American Guard Services, Inc.
4. Barkley Security Agency, Inc.
5. DSI Security Services
6. Feick Security Corporation
7. Union Security Services, Inc.
8. Bayus Security Services, Inc.
9. JMG InSystems, Inc. d/b/a Sereca Corporation
10. Alanis, Inc. d/b/a Alanis Security, Inc.
11. Abena Security Corporation (Non-responsive)
12. First American Security Services (Non-responsive)
13. Eagle Lion Security (Non-responsive)
14. The Wackenhut Corporation (see page 7)PROJECT MANAGER: Daniel Payne, Chief of Security, GSA

FUNDING SOURCE: 487A - County funds for all departments
487B - County funds for all departments and Federal funds for MDHA

USING AGENCY: Multiple County departments will use these services.

MANAGING AGENCY: General Services Administration

LIVING WAGE: The services being provided are covered under the Living Wage Ordinance.

USER ACCESS PROGRAM: RFP 487A
The contracts include the 2% User Access Program provision. The program discount will be collected.

RFP 487B
The contracts do not contain the 2% User Access Program provision due to the utilization of the Federal funds.

LOCAL PREFERENCE: RFP 487A
Applied in accordance with applicable ordinances, but did not affect the outcome.

RFP 487B
The Local Preference Ordinance does not apply due to the utilization of the federal funds.

ESTIMATED CONTRACT
COMMENCEMENT DATE: To be determined after adoption by the Board and expiration of 10-day Mayoral veto period.

BACKGROUND
Currently, security guard and screening services are provided under emergency contract No. EM7797-2/07. GSA manages the contracts which are organized in two tiers and eight geographic sectors: security guard services only, and security guard and screening services. The contracts originally became effective on April 1, 2005. Since then, the Board has approved several options-to-renew and extensions bringing the contract expiration term to September 30, 2008. The services are currently being provided by Security Alliance of Florida, LLC, 50 States Security Services, Inc., Vanguard Security Inc., Alanis, Inc., Forestville Corporation, and Delad Security, Inc.

Sector 2A was originally awarded to Milex Corporation Inc. which was subsequently purchased by Empirical Protective Services, Inc. The contract was transferred to Empirical following consultation with the CAO, approval by GSA Security Management, and approval of insurance and performance bond by the County. In November 2007, Empirical was terminated due to breach of contract resulting from failure to comply with performance bond and Living Wage requirements. Services for Sector 2A are now provided by Vanguard Security.

In an effort to improve the County�s security services and enhance performance requirements for safeguarding County buildings, the County utilized an RFP process in order to evaluate firms using a combination of qualitative factors, including prior experience of the firm and its key personnel, financial capability, and quality of service delivery plan and approach. Consideration of these qualitative factors and the negotiations of additional technical items by the County staff have resulted in a recommendation with enhanced services for the County. The following are results of negotiations involving technical aspects of proposals:

a) Scheduling Software: Contractors will use scheduling software to track the scheduling of guards and to ensure that all posts are staffed by guards qualified to work the designated post. The contractor will provide user access to this software for GSA Security Management at no additional cost to the County. The system will allow the County to view reports generated by this software.
b) Guard Checks: Contractors will implement and use available systems, at no additional cost to the County, to ensure that guards are providing coverage and performing duties on the assigned posts. This may include the use of guard tour systems or similar, radio calls, or Global Positioning Systems (GPS).
c) Tabletop Exercises and Drills: Contractors will conduct, at no additional cost to the County, tabletop exercises and drills to simulate contingency events based on the security plan. These drills and exercises will be used to identify weaknesses and refine the current procedures.
d) Customer Satisfaction Program: Contractors will implement a customer satisfaction program to include a minimum of bi-annual customer satisfaction surveys to be conducted by Contractors. The contract administrator will determine the format for the surveys. Any negative feedback received shall eventually be followed by a corrective action plan to be approved by the contract administrator.

Contract RFP 487A
The original award recommendation for RFP 487A was filed with the Clerk on October 3, 2006. Contract RFP 487A includes: SBE set-asides for Sectors 1D and 1E; SBE 20 percent goal for Sectors 2A and 2B; and SBE selection factors for Sectors 3A and 3B. This recommendation was protested by JMG Insystems Inc. d/b/a Sereca Corporation, and was withdrawn in November 2006. Following a series of meeting cancellations, on February 13, 2007 the Budget and Finance Committee deferred the item due to an on-going Inspector General (IG) investigation regarding the possible affiliation of one of the recommended firms.

The second recommendation, which resulted from actions taken at the March 13, 2007 Budget and Finance Committee meeting, was filed on May 8, 2007. This recommendation withheld award of Sector 1D pending the results of the IG investigation and certification review of SMI, the second ranked firm for Sector 1D. A third recommendation was immediately filed on May 22, 2007, in order to remove the request for the waiver of the protest period and rescind the May 8 recommendation. Both of these recommendations were protested by Feick Security Corporation and 50 States Security Service, Inc. In August 2007, 50 States withdrew its protest.

On July 27, 2007, following an appeals hearing conducted by the RC, SMI was decertified due to failure to provide full disclosure of its relationship with Paramount Security and its owners/officers as required by Administrative Order 3-41. Therefore, SMI is not eligible for award of this sector. The next highest ranked firm, JMG Insystem, Inc. d/b/a Sereca Corporation, was also decertified from the SBE program on January 4, 2007, therefore not eligible for award of this sector. The fourth recommendation, filed with the Clerk on December 11, 2007, recommended award of Sector 1D in Tier 1 to the next highest ranked firm, Feick Security.

On December 14, 2007, Feick Security filed a new protest objecting to the award of Sector 1E to Security Alliance claiming the proposal is non-responsive due to their ineligibility to participate in the SBE Program. At the time this solicitation was issued, the Code allowed SBE certified firms to receive awards for up to one year after notification of formal graduation from the program. Security Alliance�s graduation expired on September 30, 2007. Were it not for the unforeseen delays, this contractor would be awarded these sectors, through full and open competitive procurement process. Since these delays were not caused by the firm, it is recommended that that Board waive formal bid procedures and that Security Alliance be awarded Sectors 1E, 2B (as a sub-contractor) and 3B.

In February 2008, Feick Security and Security Alliance approached the County administration with an alternative offer to settle this protest. This alternative offer included transferring one thousand hours per week from Sector 1E (Security Alliance) to Sector 1D (Feick Security). Upon review of the settlement offer, there were no operational benefits or savings to the County. Therefore, that offer was rejected, and the recommendation remains to award to Security Alliance.

Contract RFP 487B
The original recommendation for RFP 487B was filed with the Clerk January 2, 2007. Contract RFP 487B does not include contract measures. On February 13, 2007, the Budget and Finance Committee deferred this companion item to RFP 487A. The second recommendation, which resulted from actions taken at the March 13, 2007 Budget and Finance Committee meeting, was filed on May 8, 2007. This recommendation withheld award of Sector 1C to Wackenhut Corporation pending the results of an on-going audit being performed by Audit and Management Services (AMS). A third recommendation was immediately filed on May 22, 2007, in order to remove the request for the waiver of the protest period and rescind the May 8 recommendation. The two latter recommendations were protested by Wackenhut. The protest hearing was held on June 25, 2007. On July 2, 2007, the hearing examiner ruled in favor of the County.

In addition to the on-going AMS audit, Wackenhut is also currently involved in a qui tam action. Qui Tam is a provision of the Federal Civil False Claims Act that allows a private citizen to file a suit in the name of the U.S. Government charging fraud by government contractors and other entities that receive or use government funds, and share in any money recovered. While the Evaluation/Selection Committee took this into consideration during the evaluation process, due to the overwhelming operational need to move forward with the award of RFP 487B, it is recommended that the Board reject the award of Sector 1C and re-solicit under full and open competition.




__________________________
Assistant County Manager