File Name: SECURITY CONTRACTS FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FACILITIES
Agenda Item Number:
SECURITY CONTRACTS FOR MIAMI-DADE COUNTY FACILITIES
Jose "Pepe" Diaz, Prime Sponsor
Public Safety & Healthcare Admin Cmte
Mr. Miguel DeGrandy appeared before the Committee and spoke on behalf of security companies who presently provided their services at various County facilities under the County’s security contract. He noted, as part of the RFP process, two two-year extensions were approved on this contract and the companies were currently operating under the first two year extension.
Mr. DeGrandy explained the quality of security service each awarded company had provided the County to date and how each company dealt with the current economic crisis by cutting back on employees and work hours while still managing to provide excellent service. He noted, upon the County Administration’s request, over one year ago each company submitted documentation identifying additional savings. He asked they be given the opportunity to meet with the County Administration to complete the process of finding alternatives to create better efficiencies and achieve savings in order to continue providing security services under the second contract extension.
In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Heyman regarding the type of security services each company provided, Mr. DeGrandy clarified that the RFP incorporated various levels of security service in all County facilities.
Commissioner Heyman requested each company specify what type of security service they provided and at what location.
Mr. David Ramirez, Security Alliance, 8323 NW 12 Street #218, Doral, concurred with Mr. DeGrandy and noted Security Alliance provided security service at County facilities in downtown Miami. He expressed his desire to continue providing service to the County.
A representative of Feick Security, 8869 SW 131 Street, 2nd Floor, Miami, noted his company provided security services at parks and various County facilities located in the southern portion of Miami-Dade County.
Mr. John Williams, 50 State Security, 915 NE 125 Street, Miami, noted his company provided security services at County courthouses north of Flagler Street, special taxing districts, and Metrorail stations. He requested the opportunity to continue providing service to the County and to meet with the County Administration to negotiate the terms for the second contract extension.
Responding to Commissioner Bell concern’s on reopening the RFP process when extentions were included in the original contract, Ms. Wendy Norris, Internal Services, noted attempts to renegotiate with the current security companies did not achieve significant reductions. She explained that since awarding the contract, certain sectors, including field supervision, had to be scaled back, which the County Administration felt resulted in an inequitable contract.
Commissioner Bell questioned whether the County could renegotiate with the existing contract awardees.
Ms. Norris noted that possibility remained, however, staff was concerned with the disproportionate size of the sectors and was seeking to rectify that issue.
Mr. DeGrandy explained the County Administration never responded to the savings plans each security company submitted 18 months ago. He noted the existing vendors were willing to renegotiate with staff and amend their contracts to remove the field supervision requirement. Furthermore, despite sector reductions, the affected companies accommodated the County and sought to continue providing security services for an additional two years. He requested the opportunity to meet again with the County Administration.
Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal clarified the County Administration and the contractors had the ability to negotiate better rates, and it was an administrative policy decision to be made by the County Commissioners to either exercise the second two year extension on the current contract or rebid to obtain a better product.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Jordan regarding issues with the terms and conditions of the current contract, Ms. Norris explained the companies proffered savings ranging from one to three percent, however, the County Administration felt more significant savings were needed.
Ms. Norris noted the first two-year extension that the companies currently operated under would expire August 31, 2013, and this discussion pertained to the second two-year extension that would expire in August, 2015.
Commissioner Jordan suggested staff present a counter offer to the companies that was comparable to the special taxing districts. She requested the security company that provided services in the Stephen P. Clark Center ensure their employees received adequate breaks during their twelve hour shifts.
Upon inquiry by Commissioner Heyman, Deputy Mayor Lisa Martinez confirmed the County had no problems with the quality of service provided by the current contracted companies. She further explained the primary issues were reducing costs and reassessing security needs at County facilities.
Commissioner Heyman commented on the issue of reducing costs and stressed the need to prioritize public safety. She expressed concern that the quality of service would be compromised. She noted the type of security services provided was an important variable to consider when negotiating cost and expressed support for continuing the existing contract.
Commissioner Heyman also expressed concern with where reductions would be made and asked Deputy Mayor Lisa Martinez to prepare a detailed report on where the ISD Director proposed to make cost adjustments to the services provided under this contract as soon as possible. She also asked that this report be provided to each Commissioner and each security company associated with this contract.
Commissioner Bell concurred with Commissioner Heyman and urged the County Administration to renegotiate with the existing contracted companies.
Deputy Mayor Lisa Martinez indicated she would follow up on Commissioner Heyman’s request, renegotiate with the existing contracted companies, and would report back to the Committee if no consensus was reached during renegotiations.
There is no text currently available online for this item.