|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 131627 |
|
|
Miami-Dade
Legislative Item File Number: 131627 |
Printable PDF Format
Clerk's Official Copy
|
| File Number: 131627 | File Type: Resolution | Status: Adopted | ||||||
| Version: 0 | Reference: R-732-13 | Control: Board of County Commissioners | ||||||
|
||||||||
| Requester: Aviation Department | Cost: | Final Action: 9/17/2013 | ||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
| 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 | 9/17/2013 | 8A2 | Adopted | P | |||
| REPORT: | During consideration of changes to the agenda, it was noted this item contained scrivener's errors and the following dollar amounts would replace those on typewritten Page 5 under Contract Measures Achieved and J. Bonfill Associates is added under CBE (CIS): CSBE Formrite Construction $761,117.96 Allied Demolition $682,158.44 Interlink Group $315,838.07 CBE MC Harry and Associates Inc $1,830,686.00 CBE (CIS) SDM Consulting Engineers Inc $41,400.00 J. Bonfill & Associates $40,250.00 SBE Integrity Janitorial Services Corp $371,685.21 | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Office of the Chairperson | 9/16/2013 | Scrivener's Errors | |||||
| REPORT: | The following dollar amounts replace those on typewritten Page 5 under Contract Measures Achieved and J. Bonfill Associates is added under CBE (CIS) : CSBE Formrite Construction $761,117.96 Allied Demolition $682,158.44 Interlink Group $315,838.07 CBE M.C. Harry and Associates, Inc. $1,830,686.00 CBE (CIS) SDM Consulting Engineers, Inc. $41,400.00 J. Bonfill & Associates $40,250.00 SBE Integrity Janitorial Services Corp. $371,685.21 | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Transportation & Aviation Committee | 8/28/2013 | 3D | Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation | P | |||
| REPORT: | Assistant County Attorney Bruce Libhaber read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Chairman Moss noted today’s discussion on this item was not intended to be a bid protest hearing; however, he would allow the Administration to comment on the concerns raised regarding the proposed contract and bid process, and provide Committee members with an opportunity to ask additional questions or comment on the proposal. He stated that the rules of the procurement process were very clear and the bidders could file a bid protest if they believed that the procurement process was not conducted properly. Mr. Ken Pyatt, Deputy Director, Miami-Dade Aviation Department (MDAD), noted this procurement involved the Miami International Airport (MIA)’s Satellite E Automatic People Mover (APM), otherwise known as the E Satellite Train, connecting the low E Concourse with the high E Concourse. He explained that the APM south-bound train was involved in an accident in 2008 after it failed to stop at the passenger platform and struck a wall at the end of the guideway and that currently only the north-bound train was operating. Mr. Pyatt stated that the County was awarded a $4 million legal settlement from Johnson Controls Inc. (JCI), and an $8 million insurance settlement for the malfunction. Mr. Pyatt noted, in 2011, MDAD issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) to replace the existing Satellite E APM system; however, the bids were much higher than expected at around $62 million. He said that MDAD subsequently hired Bermello Ajamil & Partners, Inc. to conduct an independent review of the bid proposals and the consultants recommended that all bids be rejected and the project rebid. Mr. Pyatt indicated that MDAD considered constructing a pedestrian bridge/walkway between the two concourses in lieu of the train; however, decided to proceed with the original plan to replace the train largely because the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) committed $22 million for it. Mr. Pyatt noted MDAD revised the Request for Proposal (RFP) in December 2012 and received three bids in April 2013 that were deemed responsive: Beauchamp Construction Co., Inc. (Beauchamp)/Leitner-Poma of America, Inc. (Leitner-Poma) was the lowest bidder; Parsons-Odebrecht, J.V. (Parsons) /Dopplemayr Cable Car (Dopplemayr) was the highest bidder; and Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America Inc. (Mitsubishi) was the mid bidder. He explained that the bid consisted of two phases which were bid independently; phase one was for the construction portion and phase two was for 15 years of Operation & Maintenance (O&M) services of the AMP system. Mr. Pyatt explained that the bids for both phases were combined for a total bid, and the award was made to Beauchamp, the lowest bidder at $75,945,000. Mr. Pyatt stated that MDAD received correspondence from Mitsubishi complaining that the lowest bidder did not follow the spirit of the RFP; however, MDAD’s consultants (from Lea & Elliot, Inc.) examined the proposal and documentation provided and verified that Beauchamp met the requirements of the bid. Mr. Pyatt noted MDAD provided Mitsubishi written notification of the consultant’s findings; and MDAD recommended that Beauchamp, the lowest bidder, receive the contract award. Upon conclusion of Mr. Pyatt’s comments, Chairman Moss asked him to address the specific allegations raised concerning the procurement process, and how the department responded to them. Mr. Pyatt said that he and a staff member personally contacted five airport authorities, which recommended Beauchamp/Leitner-Poma, including airport authorities in Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis-St. Paul; Perugia, Italy; Zurich, Switzerland; and Cairo, Egypt. He stated that of the five airport authorities contacted, four were extremely favorable and one was moderately favorable. Mr. Pyatt said the airport that was moderately favorable noted the maintenance was more complicated than expected, but expressed no safety or passenger comfort concerns. He noted two of the airports said that the cars were designed for short distances of about 3 kilometers; however, the County would operate it for 1,100 feet, which clearly met the criteria. Mr. Pyatt explained that the proposed system was a cable car with a motor on the ground and not fixed to the cars, similar to an APM or a tram seen at any airport. He noted the system could accommodate up to 3,000 passengers per hour for roundtrip transport. Mr. Pyatt introduced Mr. Sanjeev Shah and Mr. Dan McPhaddon, Principle/Transportation Consultants from Lea &Elliot, Inc., who were hired by MDAD to determine the bid responsiveness. He asked Mr. Shah to address the bid dispute regarding the requirement for availability of a test track. Mr. Shah noted the purpose of the test track was to test and ensure the trains worked properly before being shipped out to the site. He pointed out that Mitsubishi proposed a self-propelled system with independent propulsion, braking and motor components, whereas Beauchamp, Leitner-Poma offered a cable-propelled technology, with a passive car attached to a cable; and in this type of system, the propulsion and braking functions occur through the drive equipment. Mr. Shah said Beauchamp provided written clarification indicating that they had a test track available in France that could be used. Mr. Pyatt asked Mr. Shah to clarify the allegations made that Leitner-Poma had worked on the Tokyo-Narita System. Mr. Shah said he evaluated the proposals and written clarifications submitted by Beauchamp, and performed a word search of the proposal which identified work performed by Leitner-Poma for Tokyo-Narita in two places. He stated that according to Beauchamp, the HDI Group, which was the parent company of Leitner-Poma and owned multiple subsidiaries that supplied parts, specifically indicated that the Leitner-Poma rope-propelled APM benefitted from the Poma-Odis joint venture. Poma had been identified as being one of the subsidiary companies which was owned by their parent company; and Leitner-Poma as one entity was a subcontractor to Beauchamp, said Mr. Shaw. He stated that in terms of direct experience, Leitner did not identify Tokyo-Narita as a reference to support its qualifications for the proposed project. Mr. Pyatt asked Mr. Shah to address the concerns regarding the bonding issue. Mr. Shah noted the bid process required a Bid bond and a Payment & Performance bond for Phase I-the capital construction portion of the bid. He stated that Phase II-the O&M portion of the bid, initially required a performance bond, but it was later removed through an addendum. Mr. Shah assured the Committee members that Beauchamp provided the required bid bond and Payment and Performance bond. Mr. Pyatt clarified that Beauchamp was the prime contractor that submitted the bid; and that Leitner-Poma were the subcontractors. He asked Mr. Shah to address the concern regarding the bid requirement that subcontractors demonstrate direct experience with systems technology. Mr. Shah noted Leitner-Poma identified several projects in response to the bid requirements for direct experience, including projects in Innsbruck, Austria; Frankfort, Germany; Perugia, Italy; and at airports in Detroit, Michigan; Minneapolis, Minnesota; Zurich, Switzerland; and Cairo, Egypt; and included reference letters from most of these airports. Mr. Shah indicated that the project identified in Innsbruck was similar to the proposed shuttle, but with a single lane and a middle bypass, and the project in Perugia was a rubber tire system propelled by rope. He noted the project in Cairo was the most relevant because its drive system was similar to the proposed system. Mr. Shah explained that the bid specifications allowed for technical modifications or evolutions to an existing system in order to ensure that advanced technology was applied; however, they did not allow for systems that were in the research and development phase. Mr. Shah said that after examining the information provided and determining whether the proposal consisted of technology modifications or evolutions, he concluded that Leitner-Poma had direct relevant experience demonstrating that they qualified for the job, and MIA would not be used as a research and development facility. At Mr. Pyatt’s request, Mr. Shah addressed the concerns raised regarding the O&M portion of the bid. He noted Leitner-Poma referred to airport projects in Frankfort, Germany; Perugia, Italy; and Cairo, Egypt where they provided the O&M services. They also identified the aerial Tram in New York, but it was not directly comparable to MIA’s system; and identified one of their subsidiaries as providing the O&M services for a project in San Raffaele, Italy. Mr. Shah noted the two projects at Cairo and Perugia alone were enough to satisfy the bid requirements; thus, he concluded that the information and clarifications provided in the proposal demonstrated that Leitner-Poma was capable of providing the O&M services. Mr. Pyatt pointed out that the bid process provided for a bid protest period after the award, but it had since expired. Commissioner Monestime asked the Chair if he would permit the Attorney representing Mitsubishi an opportunity to place comments on the record, since the bid protest period had already expired. Chairman Moss pointed out that if he allowed one speaker to place comments on the record, he would have to allow others an opportunity to make a presentation, and this would result in a bid protest hearing, which he did not want to entertain. He noted he would allow Committee members to ask specific questions. Commissioner Monestime asked why a bid protest was not filed. Mr. Mitch Bierman, attorney representing Mitsubishi, explained that his client did not file a bid protest because the bid protest process was limited and was an inadequate forum to address business judgment issues. He indicated that the Hearing Examiner could only decide whether the award was legal under the RFP or the County’s bid rules. Mr. Bierman noted if he had raised both legal and business judgment issues, and not prevailed on the legal issues, a 2/3 vote of the County Commissioners would be required to overturn the bid protest decision, before the commissioners could even consider the business judgment issue. Commissioner Monestime noted his respect for the Chair’s decision to not conduct a bid protest hearing today. While acknowledging the Chair’s prerogative, Mr. Bierman pointed out that the Commission was charged with exercising final business judgment on behalf of County residents, and said he believed that it would be appropriate to allow bid protestors an opportunity to present written or oral facts that could assist the Commission in making a final recommendation on business judgment. He also noted as indicated by Mr. Shah, the recommendation received by staff was based on information reviewed within the four corners of the proposal; however, he expressed concern that Leitner-Poma took credit for projects that were performed by the OTIS Company. Commissioner Bovo said he was disturbed that the proper channels were not used for the bid protest, and inquired about the discrepancy in the proffered bid prices. Mr. Pyatt reiterated that the two bid phases were combined for one total bid, and Beauchamp/Leitner-Poma was determined to be the lowest bidder. He indicated that Beauchamp/Leitner-Poma submitted a higher bid than Mitsubishi for the construction phase, but submitted a considerably lower bid for the O&M portion of the bid, which resulted in a price discrepancy of approximately $9 million. Mr. Pyatt noted Leitner-Poma’s bid was $27.5 million for 15 years of O&M services, while Mitsubishi’s bid was $43 million. He pointed out that Leitner-Poma mirrored the County’s current contract for maintaining/staffing the East Satellite train. Mr. Pyatt noted MDAD staff wanted to ensure that the successful vendor would maintain the train, and were confident that Beauchamp/Leitner-Poma met the O&M bid requirements. In response to Commissioner Bovo’s question regarding the vast difference in the two bid prices, Mr. Carlos Jose, Assistant Director, Division of Facilities Maintenance and Engineer, MDAD, noted that Beauchamp/ Leitner-Poma proposed a much simpler system with less mechanical components than Mitsubishi’s proposal. Pursuant to Commissioner Bovo’s inquiry, Mr. Pyatt clarified that Mitsubishi was the highest bidder for the O&M services. Commissioner Bovo asked, and Mr. Pyatt confirmed, that combining the two bid phases made the process consistent. Responding to Commissioner Bovo’s question as to why each company proposed a different train or technology, Mr. Pyatt explained that the Aviation Department engaged Bermello Ajamil & Partners to review the proposals when the contract was first put out for bid, and the consultant, Dr. Bonzon, spoke extensively about the cable car technology and its application to MIA. He said that Dr. Bonzon recommended the cable car system because it was a viable means that had evolved and was used in several airports, especially for short distances. He noted based on Dr. Bonzon’s recommendation, the bid specifications were written to allow for either a cable car or a motor car. Commissioner Bovo asked if this contract included provisions to guarantee that the awardee would not come back before the Board in the future to ask for more money. Mr. Jose noted staff raised these issues with the consultants from Lea &Elliott and the matter was investigated, and staff was satisfied that Beauchamp/Leitner-Poma could do the work proposed. Mr. Pyatt added that the rules of the County’s Procurement process were very specific and staff followed them scrupulously. He said staff believed that Leitner-Poma qualified for the award because they had met all of the requirements of the bid specification. Commissioner Monestime noted he understood the original bids were rejected and the contract rebid for a new recommendation; however, he shared Commissioner Bovo’s concern regarding the awardee coming back before the Board in the future asking for more money. He asked if the Administration believed that the awardee’s bid was high enough that it would not require further consideration by the commissioners. Mr. Pyatt assured that it was. He pointed out that the existing train was in poor condition, averaging ‘one week per month’ in down time. He also pointed out that constructing another train was a 27-month process and that unless the process was started immediately, staff would have to initiate a full bus operation to transport passengers between the concourses while the train was being built. In response to Commissioner Monestime’s question regarding whether staff had planned to negotiate with the company after the award was approved, Mr. Pyatt indicated that staff only planned to award the contract to the lowest bidder. Commissioner Monestime asked if the contract contained provisions which would prevent the awardee from coming back before the Board to ask for more money because the work was more costly than anticipated. Mr. Pyatt said he had no reason to believe that would occur or that Leitner-Poma would not fulfill their obligations. He reiterated that staff reviewed the O&M portion of the bid specifications and Leitner-Poma mirrored the County’s existing contract for staffing the APM train. Regarding the concerns expressed by Commissioners Bovo and Monestime concerning the contractor returning before the Board in the future to ask for more money, Mr. Shah reassured the Committee members that this was an all-inclusive, performance-based contract involving proprietary technologies. He noted the awardee would be responsible for the entire scope of the contract, including retrofitting or modifications made to their system to fit it into the existing facility, and would be expected to comply with every aspect of the contract. Chairman Moss asked the Aviation Director and the Deputy Mayor whether they supported the Administration’s recommendation and would stand by it. Aviation Director Emilio Gonzalez assured the Committee members that he supported the recommendation and the process followed, which resulted in the recommendation. He noted he believed the process was open and fair and that Beauchamp/Leitner–Poma would perform the work required. Mr. Gonzalez indicated that the existing train was no longer fully functional, that its safety and cost were a cause for concern, and that he believed the recommendation was the right decision. Deputy Mayor Jack Osterholt stated that he shared the Committee members’ concerns, but after reviewing the information and working through the issues with departmental staff, he was comfortable that the recommendation was the best decision and would stand by it. Commissioner Bovo asked the Aviation Director whether he would have done anything differently in this process had he been involved in it since the beginning. Mr. Gonzalez assured him that he would not have done anything differently. He said that both the technology and price were appropriate for meeting the airport’s needs and that it was urgent for this project to move forward. Hearing no further comments or questions, the Committee members proceeded to vote on this resolution, as presented. | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| County Attorney | 8/19/2013 | Assigned | David M. Murray | 8/21/2013 | |||
| |
|||||||
| County Mayor | 8/16/2013 | Assigned | Jack Osterholt | 8/16/2013 | |||
| |
|||||||
| County Mayor | 8/16/2013 | Assigned | County Attorney | 9/17/2013 | |||
| REPORT: | Aviation - Attorney: David Murray - Sponsorship: None - pending cmte assignment - Attachment: Contract | ||||||
| |
|||||||
| Legislative Text |
|
TITLE RESOLUTION APPROVING AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE SATELLITE E APM SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND O & M SERVICES AT MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, PROJECT NO. ITB MDAD-04-12, IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $87,113.907.87 TO BEAUCHAMP CONSTRUCTION CO.; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR OR MAYOR�S DESIGNEE TO EXECUTE SAME AND TO EXERCISE ALLOWANCE ACCOUNT, RENEWAL, CANCELLATION AND TERMINATION PROVISIONS THEREOF BODY WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is incorporated herein by reference, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board hereby approves award of a contract for the Satellite E APM System Replacement and O & M Services at Miami International Airport, Project No. ITB MDAD-04-12, in substantially the form attached hereto and made a part hereof, in an amount not to exceed $87,113,907.87, to Beauchamp Construction Co., and authorizes the Mayor or Mayor�s designee to execute same and to exercise allowance account, renewal, cancellation, escrow and termination provisions thereof. HEADER Date: To: Honorable Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa and Members, Board of County Commissioners From: Carlos A. Gimenez Mayor Subject: Award Recommendation for the Miami International Airport Satellite E APM System Replacement and O&M Services Contract, ITB No. MDAD-04-12, to Beauchamp Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $87,113,907.87 STAFF RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve the award of the Satellite E Automated People Mover (APM) System Replacement and Operation & Maintenance (O&M) contract at Miami International Airport (MIA) to Beauchamp Construction Co., Inc. in the amount of $87,113,907.87, and authorize the Mayor or designee to execute the attached contract summary. SCOPE Miami International Airport is located primarily within Chairwoman Rebeca Sosa�s District Six; however, the impact of this item is countywide as MIA is a regional asset. DELEGATED AUTHORITY In accordance with Miami-Dade County Code Section 2-8.3 related to identifying delegation of Board authority contained within the subject contract, the County Mayor or designee is authorized to exercise i) the cancellation, termination, renewal, and allowance account provisions of this contract; ii) extension of the O&M contract in two five-year increments; and iii) the owner option to train owner-designated personnel. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE The total contract amount of $87,113,907.87 is divided into $48,491,677.00 for Phase I and $38,622,230.87 for Phase II. Phase II includes two (2) County-exercised renewal options and an economic price adjustment allowance. The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is providing $22,906,743 towards the Phase I cost. These grants may only be used for an APM. Insurance and settlement proceeds resulting from an accident on the E Satellite APM in November 2008 will provide an additional $12 million. The balance will be funded from the Miami-Dade Aviation Department (MDAD) Improvement, Reserve Maintenance, and Revenue funds. TRACK RECORD/MONITOR Beauchamp acted as the general contractor for MDAD Project B761A - Regional Commuter Facility, and MDAD was very satisfied with its performance. MDAD Project Manager Franklin Stirrup, P.E., will monitor this project. DUE DILIGENCE Pursuant to Resolution R-187-12, due diligence was conducted to determine Beauchamp�s responsibility, including verifying corporate status, and there were no performance or compliance issues found. The reviewed lists include:� convicted vendors, debarred vendors, delinquent contractors, suspended vendors, federal excluded parties, and the myflorida license website. There were no adverse findings relative to Beauchamp�s responsibility.� MANAGER'S BACKGROUND BACKGROUND On December 4, 2012, the Board rejected the Satellite E APM Replacement and O&M Services solicitation under ITB No, MDAD-05-10 and authorized MDAD to issue a new solicitation for the subject services. The new solicitation was advertised on January 14, 2013, and three (3) bids were received on April 12, 2013, from Mitsubishi Heavy Industries America, Inc.; Beauchamp Construction Co., Inc.; and Parsons-Odebrecht Joint Venture (POJV). A review of the bid pricing was conducted and it was concluded that Beauchamp was the low bidder (bid tab attached). MDAD�s review of the technical portion of the Beauchamp bid deemed it responsible to the requirements of the bid. After MDAD originally bid the Satellite E APM Replacement project and received bids over budget and in excess of $62 million, independent A/E Consultant Bermello Ajamil & Partners (B&A) evaluated alternatives to connect the Terminal E and Satellite E buildings. The study concluded that the best alternative would either be to replace the train with a cable technology or construct a temporary pedestrian walkway. At the time, MDAD had received an unsolicited proposal from Doppelmayr that proposed replacing the existing Satellite E APM with a new cable-propelled APM costing $27 to $31 million, depending on the options. The B&A report estimated that the high-level cost to construct a temporary pedestrian bridge would be in the range of $36 million. MDAD then decided to again competitively solicit bids to replace the Satellite E APM and also reduced the work scope from the original solicitation. The Invitation to Bid also included a statement that the bids must be in the competitive price range of a pedestrian bridge and any bids received greater than $36 million for the Phase 1 capital cost MAY be rejected. All bids received, including the one from Doppelmayr's team (POJV), were over the defined threshold cost. After further analysis of options, MDAD is recommending award to the lowest bidder Beauchamp for the replacement of the APM system. While the total project cost, including O&M, is above MDAD�s initial projection, the availability of $22,906,743 from FDOT FY 2013 and FY 2014 work programs, which can only be used for an APM system, has made it possible to move forward on the APM system option at this time. Apart from being less desirable from a customer service perspective, a pedestrian bridge option would further postpone a solution for the connection of the Terminal E and Satellite E buildings. Groundbreaking on such a project would be delayed by a minimum of 2 years while bridge design and construction documents are drafted, -solicited and awarded. The recommendation to award to Beauchamp, however, will expedite the APM replacement, achieving partial service (one lane) within two years from award and full completion (with service on both lanes) within three years. Bid Summary Phase I Beauchamp POJV Mitsubishi $48,491,677 $63,139,288 $41,688,590 Phase II $27,453,403 $34,217,318 $43,232,369 Total $75,945,080 $97,356,606 $84,920,959 Phase I of the project includes the replacement of the existing dual-lane shuttle, which currently provides passengers a connection between the MIA Main Terminal at Concourse E and the Satellite E Building. The existing Satellite E APM System carries both �sterile� and �non-sterile� passengers. A sterile passenger is an international arriving passenger who is segregated from the rest of the population until cleared by Customs and Border Protection [CBP] or a departing passenger who has cleared Transportation Security Administration [TSA] screening and held in a sterile/non-public area until aircraft boarding. Currently, the south lane of the shuttle is not in service and the APM only provides service on the north lane. The replacement APM must be able to operate doors on both sides of the station platforms to establish �sterile� and �non-sterile� cars for each three-car unit. The north lane must remain in service during installation and testing of the south lane. Once the south-lane work (Phase IA) is completed and passenger service initiated, work on the north lane (Phase IB) will begin. The contractor is fully responsible for providing an operating system compatible with the existing infrastructure. Any modifications to the existing facilities necessary to accommodate the contractor's operating system must be completed in accordance with County guidelines and are the responsibility of the contractor. Phase II of the project includes O&M services for the Satellite E APM System. Under Phase II, the contractor shall be responsible for the maintenance of all equipment, facility spaces, routine janitorial services for the maintenance facility, cleaning the vehicles, and training and supervising all personnel hired for these purposes. PROJECT: Satellite E APM System Replacement and O&M Services PROJECT LOCATION: Miami International Airport CONTRACTOR NAME: Beauchamp Construction Co., Inc. CONTRACTOR ADDRESS: 2100 Ponce de Leon Blvd., Ste. 825 Coral Gables, FL 33134 COMPANY PRINCIPALS GENDER/ETHNICITY & OWNERSHIP BREAKDOWN: * James B.D. Beauchamp, Chief Executive Officer, Anglo Male, 32.33% * Donald L.Crissey, Executive Chairman of the Board, Anglo Male, 26.30% * Dean A. Thomas, President, Anglo Male, 25.34% * Benjamin K. Artzt, Senior Vice President, Anglo Male, 4.80% * Daniel L. Beauchamp, Senior Vice President, Anglo Male, 7.82% * Maribel Hart, Corporate Treasurer, Hispanic Female, 0% * Blaik P. Ross, Corporate Secretary, Anglo Male, 2.07% * Scott Crissey, Vice President, Anglo Male, 1.34% PREVIOUS CONTRACTS WITH THE COUNTY IN THE PAST FIVE (5) YEARS: MIA-B761A2-MIA Regional Commuter Facility $35,044,836.00; Award date: 9/25/2008 YEARS IN BUSINESS: 33 TERM/RENEWAL OPTIONS: The term for Phase I is three (3) years. The term for Phase II is five (5) years with County renewal options of two (2) additional five (5) year terms. CONTRACT AMOUNT: $87,113,907.87 Phase I $43,983,381.00 General Allowance Access $ 4,398,338.00 Inspector General Account $ 109,958.00 Phase I Total $48,491,677.00 Phase II - Years 1 through 5 $ 7,934,912.00 - Years 6 through 10 (County exercised OTR) $ 8,370,997.00 - Years 11 through 15 (County exercised OTR) $ 8,473,105.00 - B2. Demobilization for Convenience $ 57,279.00 - B3. Employer Training Option $ 77,261.00 - B4. General Allowance Account $ 2,477,901.00 - B5. Inspector General Audit Account $ 61,948.00 Phase II SubTotal $ 27,453,403.00 Phase II *Economic Price Adjustment Allowance: $ 11,168,827.87 Total � Phase II $ 38,622,230.87 *Because the contract may potentially span 15 years, the economic price adjustment allowance contained in the contract adjusts for inflation the annual lump-sum fixed prices at the beginning of each year of Phase II. SUBCONTRACTORS/ SUPPLIERS: Leitner Poma of America MC Harry & Associates, Inc Formrite Construction Allied Demolition Hypower, Inc. Interlink Group Professional Services IPSIG/INSPECTOR GENERAL: Provisions included MANDATORY CLEARING HOUSE: Yes LIVING WAGES: Yes (Phase II) RESPONSIBLE WAGES: Yes (Phase I) ART IN PUBLIC PLACES: Not Applicable RECOMMENDED CONTRACT MEASURES: CSBE goal: 12.77% CBE goal (*A&E CIS): 27% CBE goal (A&E): 35% SBE goal: 1.5% *Architect & Engineering Construction Inspection Services CONTRACT MEASURES ACHIEVED: CSBE: Formrite Construction������������5.88%� ($2,586,222.81) Allied Demolition����������������5.27%� ($2,317,924.18) Interlink Group������������������2.44%� ($1,073,194.50) CBE: M.C. Harry and Associates, Inc.��� 35%���($15,394,183.35) CBE (CIS): SDM Consulting Engineers, Inc.��� 36%�� ($ 2,856,568.32) SBE: Integrity Janitorial Services Corp.��1.5%� ($119,023.68) USING AGENCY: Miami-Dade Aviation Department __________________________________ Jack Osterholt, Deputy Mayor |
|
Home |
Agendas |
Minutes |
Legislative Search |
Lobbyist Registration |
Legislative Reports
Home | Using Our Site | About | Phone Directory | Privacy | Disclaimer
E-mail your comments,
questions and suggestions to
Webmaster
|
