|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The $716,089 Questions About our taxpayer’s monies By: J. P. Morgan Publisher CityDebate.Com Miami Beach April 5, 2008 - At its December 12, 2007 meeting, pursuant to Resolution No. 2007-26731, sponsored by Commissioner Jonah Wolfson, the Mayor and City Commission authorized the Administration to issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for parking cashiers, attendants, and supervisors for the City of Miami Beach Parking System, in an attempt to save the City money during this year of budget reduction due to lack of funding, while retaining the same quality of services. In trying to achieve this goal, on January 8, 2008, the City of Miami Beach issued the Request for Proposals (RFP #11-07/08). These RFP’s were due to the City of Miami Beach by February 15, 2008. An Evaluation Committee, appointed by the City Manager, met to evaluate each Proposal in accordance with the predetermined requirements. It is imperative to consider that this is a labor contract and not a management or lease contract. Under this labor contract, the chosen respondent shall provide the City with trained cashiers, attendants, and supervisors for the Parking Department and, in turn, charge the City a flat hourly rate for those services. The chosen respondent will act as an employment agency for the City by providing a trained labor pool. Therefore, the company that is selected must have the trained personnel to supply the parking department’s demands. The Evaluation Committee made its recommendations based on the following factors, for a total of 100 possible points: Experience and Qualifications of the Proposer 20 pts Experience and Qualifications of Management Team and Key Personnel 10 pts Hourly Billing Rates 40 pts Methodology and Approach 15 pts Past Performance (based on surveys and the Administration’s due diligence) 15 pts Total: 100 pts
The seven (7) member committee evaluated all respondents and recommended the following companies as their preferred choice:
Although Standard Parking received the most recommendations from the selection committee, has been the City’s service provider since 1999, with a successful performance record, received administration recommendation from Mr. Saul Frances (Parking Director), and was the lowest bidder to the RFP, the following final ranking came out of committee: 1. IMPARK 2. LAZ Parking 3. Standard Parking How could this happen? Today we are going to analyze the top three ranked companies and display exactly how the variety of possible points were awarded by the each selection committee member. This is you the readers’ opportunity to be the judge whether or not these committee members acted in the best interest of the City. Or were these points awarded by those representing their own agenda? Or were these committee members simply not given the proper instructions by the Procurement Department? Selection Criteria # 1 Experience and Qualification of Proposer – 20 Possible Points Impark Impark included seven total references, including three local references. LAZ Parking LAZ Parking provided nine total references, including three local references for parking meter collections and enforcement. Standard Parking Standard Parking provided twelve total references, including five Florida municipal references, five local references, and two national references. In addition, Standard Parking highlighted its nine successful years of experience in operating this contract and its existing staff, which exceeds 200 trained employees dedicated to the City of Miami Beach. Looking at the voting below some members of the selection committee gave more points to Impark than Laz or Standard and with Standard with 9 years experience providing these services to Miami Beach clearly shows they did not understand the criteria being examined. If they did logic would be that at the least all being rated the same.
Selection Criteria # 2 Experience and Qualification of Management Team and Key Personnel 10 Points (This is the team that will actually deliver the work) Impark Parking Promotes a local management team composed of:
LAZ Parking Promotes a local management team composed of:
Standard Parking The current service provider for the last nine years, to the City of Miami Beach, highlights a Contract Operations Team composed of:
Now here we go again. A pattern is starting to form. It appears that again some selection committee members can not tell the difference between a company with a well trained Management Team and Key Personnel from one that has 2 managers that has to recruit and train personal from one with over 200 well trained personal in place.
Selection Criteria # 3 Hourly Billing Rate – 40 Points
As they say in the movies “The Plot Thickens” some selection committee members must have gone to some failing school. A grade school student can tell what costs more by looking at the price differences. The lowest bidder should have been given the highest ranking in this category, considering this section is only about price. The pattern is now starting to look like Ignorance or collusion. Look at the numbers and see for yourself. · It is imperative to consider that the City is trying to save money and keep the same level of services. Therefore, this category has been assigned the highest possible points allocated among all categories (40 points).
There is clear incongruity in point assignment, when committee members do not award the total possible points (40) to the qualified lowest proposer. On the contrary, these members awarded the lowest score (20) to Standard Parking, while the same member awarded an additional 10 points (30) to another company that was over $1 million greater than Standard Parking. At the same time, some members allocated equivalent scoring to companies with over $700,000 difference. Selection Criteria # 4 Methodology and Approach 15 Points
Selection Criteria # 5 Past Performance (based on surveys and the Administration’s due diligence) 15 Points Impark Received only two performance evaluation surveys.
LAZ Parking Received only two performance evaluation surveys.
Standard Parking Received six (6) performance evaluation surveys.
Standard Parking received top marks in their surveys. Most importantly, a committee member (Marc Gidney) inquired of Mr. Saul Frances, Parking Director for the City of Miami Beach about the performance of Standard Parking. Mr. Frances stated “Standard Parking has met or exceeded the expectations of the Parking Department.” Based on the information provided above and within, below are the scoring sheet totals from the selection committee, which are not consistent with the evaluation criteria defined in the RFP.
Final Analysis In reviewing all of the information that has been provided, it is clearly evident that a pattern of points has been awarded by certain members of the selection committee, which are not consistent with the responses from the three highest ranked proposers and the evaluation criteria defined in the five scoring criteria outlined in the RFP. Keeping this in mind, we must ask ourselves: The $716,089 Question About our taxpayer’s monies
Once again, congratulations to Commissioner Jonah Wolfson for sponsoring the resolution to issue this RFP, and to the Mayor and the rest of the Commissioners for supporting it and trying to save our taxpayer’s monies, while maintaining the same level of service. We invite your analysis and comments on this or any other article. |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
