HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 2019-2951 RESOLUTION NO. 2019 - 2151
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA, ADOPTING A PROPOSED
RECOMMENDED ORDER RELATING TO A BID PROTEST
FILED BY SHIFF CONSTRUCTION FOR INVITATION TO BID
NO.i 19-01-01 FOR THE GATEWAY PARK CENTER; PROVIDING
O IDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on January 25, 2019, the City issued Invitation to Bid ("Bid") No. 19-01-01
for the Gateway Park Center project; and
WHEREAS, on March 13, 2019, the City received 6 (six) sealed bids in response thereto;
,and
WHEREAS,
on April 15,
2019, the City's Purchasing Agent issued a Notice of
Recommendation to Award, recommending
that the Bid be
awarded to Nune
z Construction, Inc.
after determining it was the lowest responsible and responsive bidder; and
WHEREAS, on April p 22, 2019, Shiff Construction ("Shiff'), filed a bid protest letter with
the City; and
WHEREAS, the City Attorney's Office referred the matter for a formal bid protest hearing
before a Hearing Examiner, pursuant to Section 62-15 of the City Code; and
WHEREAS, the bidrotest hearing p a ng was held bythe HearingExaminer at h
the City's
Commission Chambers on May 14, 2019; and
WHEREAS, on May 28, 2019, the Hearing Examiner issued a Proposed Recommended
Order, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", denying Shiff s requested relief and finding that the City's
decision to award the bid to Nunez Construction, Inc. was supported by competent and
substantial evidence.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Adoption of the Hearing Examiner's Proposed Recommended Order. The City
Commission hereby adopts the Hearing Examiner's Proposed Recommended Order dated May
28, 2019, attached hereto as Exhibit "A", in the matter of the bid protest filed by Shiff
Construction concerning Invitation to Bid B d No. 19-01-01.
Section 2. Effective Date. This Resolution is effective upon adoption.
p p
PASSED and ADOPTED2011
this day of J .ne 2019.
Georg- . Scholl, Mayor
R2019 Resolution approving Hearing Examiner's Final Order Page I of 2
ATTEST:
I 1
etijita
•: t,.1
Mauricio Betanc, r„CMC, City Clerk
0414 _-r--..r ;.: ry.;”
APPROVED�'AS TO FORM
AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
Edward A. Dion, City Attorney
Moved by: ComlvtA .4„06)-02- �/�
Oalv4&t!
Second by: \ACE (�A{O�- sVE'(• t4
VOTE: /
Mayor Scholl J (Yes) (No)
Vice Mayor Svechin I(Yes) (No)
Commissioner Goldman —T(Yes) (No)
Commissioner Lama T(Yes) (No)
Commissioner Viscarra If (Yes) (No)
•
R2019 Resolution approving Hearing Examiner's Final Order Page 2 of 2
.. 1 .
PROTEST OF SHIFF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT TO THE
CITY'S NOTICE OF RECOMMENDATION TO AWARD BID NO. 19-01-01 GATEWAY
PARK CENTER TO NUNEZ CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF SUNNY ISLES BEACH
PROPOSED RECOMMENDED ORDER
A hearing was held on May 14,2019 at City of Sunny Isles Beach Government Center,
18070 Collins Avenue, Sunny Isles Beach,Florida, 33160, on the Protest of Shiff Construction
and Development to the City's Notice of Recommendation to Award Bid No. 19-01-01.Gateway
Park Center to Nunez Construction before Rafael Suarez-Rivas appointed as Special Master
pursuant to section 62-15 of the Code of the City of Sunny Isles Beach.
APPEARANCES
For Shiff Construction and Development: Rod Feiner,Esq.
Coker&Feiner
1404 South Andrews Ave.
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33316
For City of Sunny Isles Beach: Gregory T. Stewart,Esq.
Nabors, Giblin&Nickerson,P.A.
110 East Broward Blvd.
Suite 1700
Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33301
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT
On April 15, 2019, the City issued its Notice of Recommendation to Award Bid 19-01-10
Gateway Center to Nunez Construction. The project that was the subject of Bid 19-01-01 was to
obtain a contract with a licensed contractor to furnish all labor,material,supplies,equipment,
transportation, etc. to provide construction and infrastructure improvements per the plans and
specifications to the existing municipal building, Gateway Park.
1
. Shiff Construction and Development("Shift") filed a timely protest on April 22, 2019 of
the Notice of Recommendation to Award issued by the City. Pursuant to section 62-15 of the •
Code of the City of Sunny Isles Beach,the Special Master was appointed by the City Attorney to
hear the matter. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, the hearing was held on May 14,2019
at the City Commission Chambers in the City of Sunny Isle Beach. Shiff called as witnesses,
Justen Shiff, Genesis Cuevas, Purchasing Agent of the City and Jacob Pfeffer. The City called
Christopher Russo,its City Manager. The parties jointly introduced into evidence,Exhibits 1
through 15. Shiff introduced Exhibit 16.All Exhibits were n accepted into evidence.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On January 25, 2019, the City issued Invitation to Bid No. 19-01-01 (the"ITB"),
titled Gateway Park Center. (Jt. Ex. 1). Four addendums were issued (Jt. Ex. 1 A,B, C and D),
and a non-mandatory bid conference was held between January 29, 2019 and March 6,2019. The
purpose of the bid was to"secure a contract with a licensed contractor to furnish all labor,material,
supplies, equipment, transportation, etc. to provide construction and infrastructure improvements
per the plans and specification to the existing municipal building, Gateway Park." (Jt. Ex. 1,
Section 2.1). The Gateway Park renovations are intended to result in a Community Center. The
indoor facility will include,but not be limited to office space,reception area,multi-purpose rooms
that can accommodate classes,meetings,banquets,and an indoor e
sta -a catering g kitchen,arts&
crafts space, restroorns, and storage area, totaling approximately 17,039 square feet. (Jt. Ex. 1,
Section 2.1). The ITB included language that advised prospective bidders that time is of the
essence for the performance of the Project.
2. The original submission date under the ITB was March 6, 2019 but that date was
revised to March 13, 2019 by Addendum No. 4. (Jt. Ex. 1 D). On March 13, 2019, the City
• 2
received submissions from the following entities: 1)Azulejo Inc.;2)Emerald Construction Corp.; •••
3)Nunez Construction;4)Shiff Construction&Development("Shiff');and 5)TGSV Enterprises, •
Inc. (Jt. Ex. 3). Upon receipt, the City's staff, began its review and investigation of the
submissions.
3. The City reviewed the submissions and requested clarification from Shiff on certain
matters related to its bid. More particularly on March 15, 2019, the City, through its Purchasing
Agent Genesis Cuevas, requested that Shiff submit its references which it had failed to submit
originally. (See Jt. Ex. 7). The City also sought clarification from Shiff as to whether the total
construction cost on page 1 of their submittal included the project mark—up(See Jt.Exhibit 8)and
whether loose furniture was included in its bid. (See Jt. Ex. 9). On April 3, 2019, Justen Shiff
asked for a status of the bid and Ms. Cuevas responded on the same day that the "bids are still
under review."(Jt. Ex. 10).
4. After a full review was conducted,the City,through its City Manager, determined
that certain bids were unresponsive. These consisted of the submittals of Shiff, Emerald
Construction Corp. and TGSV Enterprises, Inc.' (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas).
5. As to the bid submitted by Shiff in response to the ITB, there were two required
submissions,that is, what are known as"must"submittals in procurement,that were not included,
and which resulted in the bid being determined to be unresponsive. (Jt. Ex. 10). Must submittals •
normally are mandatorily to be included in bid responses, as opposed to "should" or "may"
submittals which can generally be furnished prior to award. First, under the ITB, the proposer
was to provide a"project schedule"for the completion of the proposed work. The requirement of
•
Emerald Construction was determined to be unresponsive due to its failure to include required documents and
TGSV Enterprises,Inc was found to be unresponsive in that it failed to submit a bid for all items required to be
included within the bid.(Jt.Ex.2 and 15).
3
a project schedule was contained in both sections 2.4 and 2.7 of the ITB, (Jt. Ex. 1, pages 10-11)
and under section 3,paragraph 4 of the ITB,which sets forth the Bid Response Format,the specific
requirement of the inclusion of the project schedule was set forth. (Jt. Ex. 1, page 31). Shiff's
bid also failed to attach its "...financial statement including bidder's latest balance sheet and
income statement." This requirement was set forth in section 3,Paragraph 9 of the ITB(Jt.Ex. 1,
page 31).
6. On April 15, 2019, following the investigation and evaluation of the various bids,
•
a Notice of Recommendation of Award to Nunez Construction (Jt. Ex. 6) was issued. The
Recommendation, which determined that Nunez Construction was the lowest responsive and
responsible bidder, was uploaded to Demandstar,the private posting service used by the City,on
April 16,2019. (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas). On April 17,2019,Justen Shiff made an inquiry
to Ms. Cuevas regarding the bid. (Jt.Ex. 10). In response Ms. Cuevas provided him with a copy
of the posted Notice of Recommendation of Award and notified him that tSlniff's bid had been
deemed unresponsive and the reason therefore:
Primarily, amongst other itemized requirements, Shiff Construction
failed td submit the mandatory proposed project schedule for
construction (Section 2.7, Section 2.4, and Section 14 of the bid)
and financial statements (Section 3.9), thus, resulting in an
unresponsive bid.
(Jt.Ex. 10)
7. On April 22, 2019, Shiff submitted its protest claiming that the "City waived its
ability to declare the Contractor's bid as non-responsive due to the failure to attach a Financial
StatementSchedule"
or Project because the City did not immediately declare its bid unresponsive
at the time of the opening of the bid or that the Cityshould have
p g requested the documents from
Shiff,which it is allowed to do. (Jt. Ex. 13).
4
8. In testimony provided by Justen Shiff, he agreed that the ITB required the
submission of both a project schedule and a financial statement and admitted that they had failed
to provide the requested documents in its response. (Testimony ofJusten Shiff). He also admitted
that the failure to provide the documents was the result of an oversight by staff at Shiff(Testimony
ofJusten Slriff). However,Shiff provide several reasons as to why its bid was not unresponsive or
• that the omission of the material should be overlooked or waived. Initially, Shiff argued that City
staff should have notified them of the deficiencies at the time of opening of the bids g and allowed
them to supplement their bid as they had done with the request for references and that the failure
of the City to do so constituted a waiver of that requirement. (Testimony ofJusten Shiff). They
further provided testimony that in section 2.7 of the ITB it contained a limitation of three hundred
and five (305) days for the project and that as they had not claimed any exception to that section,
this was sufficient to meet the requirements of a project schedule. (Testimony of Justen Shift.
Shiff also suggested that they had agreed to post the bid bond and as such that was sufficient
demonstration of their financial capacity to perform the project. They also testified that they
believed that the financial statement and project schedule of Nunez Construction submitted as part
of its bid were inadequate. (Testimony of Justen Shiff). Finally, as its bid was approximately$1.1
million dollars lower than the bid of Nunez Construction,that the City had the ability under section
2.4 of the ITB (Jt. Ex. 1,page 10) and section 62-8 of the Purchasing Code (Jt. Ex. 14)to award
the bid to that which, "...best serves the interests of and represents the best value to the City...,"
regardless of the specific requirements of the ITB. (Testimony of Justen Stiff).
9. The City presented testimony that the requirements of the ITB were to provide a
fair and.even standard for all potential contractors to fairly compete for the contract on the project
and that the standards must be applied in an even handed and non-arbitrary mariner. (Testimony
1
5
of Genesis Cuevas). The City followed a procurement custom of comparing bids on an"apples to
apples"basis. The various requirements of the ITB were material and important in the evaluation
of the various bidders. (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas). The Code of the City specifically sets
forth the standards to be applied in reviewing a bid which contains an error or omission. Though
g
the City Commission has the authority to waive any and all irregularities in any and all proposals,
that authority is not granted to the City Manager or staff. (Jt. Ex 14,section 62-7 B. 6 (c)). Even
that authority is limited by the Code. Section 62-7 B.(6)of the Purchasing Code provides that no
changes es in bid prices or other provisions of bids prejudicial to the interest of the City, or fair
competition shall be permitted. (Jt.Ex. 14). The City also presented evidence that the requirement
of a project schedule is material and pertinent to the completion of the project and provided
protections should delays occur. (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas; testimony of Christopher Russo).
Similarly, the City presented evidence that the inclusion of the financial statement is necessary to
evaluate each bidder as it demonstrates the financial resources to perform the work in a satisfactory
manner as is contained within the Minimum Qualifications of Bidder contained within section 2.5
of the ITB. (Jt.Ex. 1,page 11). (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas).
10. The Special Master has considered the written protest, the response, supporting
documents, the documents in evidence, the City recommendation and related documents, and all
evidence presented at the hearing. The Special Master has also considered the testimony of all
witnesses testifying at the hearing; though it is not necessary to expressly recount their testimony
here it is available in the record of the hearing.
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW •
11. In Florida a public body has wide discretion in soliciting and accepting bids for
public improvements and its decision,when based on an honest exercise of this discretion,will not
6
•
be overturned by a court even if it may appear erroneous and even if reasonable persons may
disagree. Intercontinental Properties,Inc. v. State Dep't of Health&Rehabilitative Services,606 •
So. 2d 380, 384 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1992). To overturn the award of a bid, it would need to be
•
determined that the City's actions were arbitrary and capricious or evidence of the City's bad faith.
See Capeletti Bros.v. State Dep't of General Servs.,432 So.2d 1359(Fla. 1st DCA 1983);Liberty •
County v. Baxter's Asphalt & Concrete, 421 So. 2d 505 (Fla. 1982); Kimball International •
Marketing, Inc., et al v. Pinellas County School Board, et al, 1990 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS
6642 (DOAH 1990) (Upholding the decision to reject petitioners'bid where the absence of some •
information in the submission was waived and where other more material information that was •
absent from the submission was not waived).
•
•
•
•
12. Section 1.31 of the ITB provides that the award of the contract was not based solely
on price but rather it set forth a variety of factors that should be considered in determining the
lowest responsible and responsive bidder. (Jt. Ex. 1, section 1.31). This provision is also •
•
consistent with section 62-8 of the Purchasing Code (Jt. Ex. 14)which establishes factors to be
considered when awarding contracts to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. "Price is
only a factor" and the lowest bidder is "not the bidder with the lowest dollars and cents bid".
Administrative notice is taken of section 62-8 of the Purchasing Code,as codified in the City Code
of Sunny Isles Beach. It provides that for the award of this ITB a listing of stated criteria, not
limited to the lowest price, was employed in the evaluation of the responses by the City. The
requirement to solicit bids should be distinguished from the evaluation criteria used in selecting
the successful bidder.A public body may be required to bid out a project, but this does not, by
itself,mandate selection of the lowest responsible bidder in the absence of a directive to that effect
ff ct
in the controlling legislation. Volume Services Division of Interstate United Corp. v. Canteen
•
•
•
Corp., 369 So. 2d 391(FIa. 2nd DCA 1979). In these situations, the public entity has greater
discretion. William A . Berbusee, Jr., Inc. v. North Broward Hospital District, 117 So. 550 (Fla.
2nd DCA 1960).
1
13. The factors to be considered in the award of the bid are set forth in the ITB. For 1
example,in section 1.11 of the ITB titled"Evaluation of Bids,"it states:
The City, at its sole discretion, reserves the right to inspect any/all
bidders' facilities to determine their capability of meeting the
requirements for the Contract. Also, price, responsibility, and.
responsiveness of the bidders, the financial position, experience, •
staffing, equipment, materials, references, and past history of the
serve to the City and/or with other units of state, and/or local
governments in Florida,or comparable private entities,will be taken
into consideration in the Award of the Contract.
(Jt.Ex. 1,page 4)
14. Similarly,under Section 2.4 of the ITB titled"Method of Award"it states in part:
The term"lowest responsible and responsive Bidder"as used herein
shall mean the Bidder whose bid is the lowest of those Bidders
. possessing the skill, ability, and integrity necessary for the faithful
performance of the work,whose bid best serves the interests of and
represents the best value to the City, as determined by the City
Commission and/or the City Manager. The bidder will also be 1
evaluated as part of their"responsible"on their quality control plan,
safety plan and proposed project schedule.
(Jt.Ex.1,page 10).
i
15. A material term in the context of procurement is one that would deprive the
governmental entity of its assurances that the contract will be entered into,performed and
guaranteed
in accordance with specific requirements of the project or whether it is of such a
nature that its omission would adversely affect competitive bidding by p lacus a bidder int
g
position of advantage over other_ bidders. Robinson Elec. Co.v. Dade County,417 So.2d 1032
•
•
8
(Fla. 3DCA 1982); Leitner-Poma of America, Ins. V. Greater Orlando Aviation Authority,2013
U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195327 (M.D.Fla. 2013).
16. The requirement of a project schedule is addressed in several sections within the
terms of the ITB and was a required submittal under section 2.7. (Jt. Ex. 1,page 11). Further, it
was specifically included as part of the evaluation process under section 2.4 of the ITB. As the
inclusion of the project schedule is a mandatory submission and required to be considered in the
evaluation,it is deemed to be a
material requirement.
17. Similarly,the requirement of submittal of financial statements is expressly set forth •
•
in the ITB
which provides that "a financial statement including bidders latest balance sheet and •
income statement",must be provided as part of the submittal (Jt. Ex 1,page 31). The evaluation
of the financial capabilities of the bidder is a component within the ITB that is addressed in several
•
sections of the ITB. These include sections 1.11 and 2.5 of the ITB. (Jt. Ex. 1,pages 4 and 11).
As the inclusion of the project schedule is a mandatory submission and required to be considered
in the evaluation,it is deemed to be a material requirement. Public work bids may also be rejected
as nonresponsive where they fail to include items requested to be submitted with the bid.
18. i Thou Shiff suggests that because their bid was gg approxumately $1.1 million
dollars lower than Nunez Construction that the City has the ability to award the contract to the
bidder that"...best serves the interest of and represents the best value to, the City..." and that it
may ignore the deficiencies in the submittal. (Jt. Ex. 1,page 3). However, that language within
the ITB does not entitle the City to omit or alter material provisions in the ITB. State Dep't of
Lottery v. Gtech Corp., 816 So. 2d 648 (Fla. App 1 DCA 2001); Emerald Corr. Mgmt. v. Bay
Count Bd.Of CountyCommissioners
County ,955 So.2d 647Fla.App. DCA 2007). In Cityof
( pp Opa-
Locka v. Trustees of Plumbing Industry Promotion Fund, 193 So.2d 29(Fla. 3`d DCA 1966),the
9
•
appellee sought to bid on a contract to install certain sanitary sewer services for the City of Opa-
Locka. As a condition precedent to any bid being filed, a bidder had to have a certificate of
competency from Dade County. Following submission of bids it was discovered that the appellee
had submitted the lowest bid but did not possess the required ceitificate. The trial court enjoined
the Cityfrom recognizing a «
p b appellee's bid.In affirming the trial court,our appellate court stated, If
the City may in its discretion waive this section it woulde
b conducive to favoritism by allowing
some bidders to qualify after their bids are accepted . . ." 193 So.2d at 32. The Opa-Locka case
is legally somewhat analogous insofar as here the City required the submittal of the financial
statement andro'ect schedule� as "must"submittals, that is,mandatory submittals to be tendered
by each bidder when submitting its response to this ITB. Factual notice is taken that a responsive
bid is commonly defined as one that conforms in all material respects to the solicitation, and
includes the correct or required forms, signatures, and notarization.
19. Shiff suggests that the City should have notified them of the deficiency at the
opening of the bids and provided them an opportunity to remedy any deficiency and that the failure
to do constitutes a waiver of the ability to assert that deficiency. First,the evidence presented was
Y
the Bid Opening Report is confined with to the dollar amounts of the respective bids and not a
detailed summary of all of these provisions. (Testimony of Genesis Cuevas) (Jt.Ex. 3). Further,
there is no provision of the Purchasing Codewhich would mandate that the City allow a bidder to
conform its submittal to the requirements of the ITB. Though Shiff was asked to provide omitted
references and clarify its bid amount, this does not create an obligation where none previously
existed. Merely because the City sought this information does not mean that it is now obligated
to allow all proposers the opportunity to correct omissions in their bid. There has been no waiver
of the ability to assert these deficiencies. Estoppel is seldom an effective mechanism to shackle
10
a public entity's efforts to comply with its bidding obligations. This is true even if a public
employee misconstrues information and misinforms a bidder. When a bureau chief, for example,
told a prospective bidder to submit a bid despite the bidder's lack of a necessary license from the
Florida Construction Industry Licensing Board, the public entity was permitted to reject the bid
for noncompliance with the licensing statute in Greenhut Construction Co.v.Henry A.Knott,Inc., .••
247 So. 2d 517 (Fla 1sT DCA 1971. I do not find that the exchanges between City Purchasing
Agent Genesis Cuevas and Shiff professional staff rise to the level of creating an estoppel or
waiver precluding the City from establishing material variances or omissions in the Shiff ITB
response prior to a recommendation by the Manager for an award. The essential elements of
estopppel recognized by case law are simply not present based on the evidence presented at the
hearing. See, Quality Shell Homes&Supply v.Roley, 186 So.2d 837,841(Fla. 151 DCA 1966).
20. Though section 62-9 of the Purchasing Code does require written notification under
certain circumstances,that requirement applies only when a bidder who would have been awarded
the contract is deemed non-responsible and does not apply where the bidder was found to be
unresponsive. (It. Ex 14).
21. Shiff also suggests 'that the requirement of the Financial Statement was not
necessary as it had agreed to a provide a bid bond. However, the ITB was clear as to what
information was required from all bidders. It is the City's responsibility Y p y t o determine what
information the solicitation required so as to best evaluate the responsive bids and responsible
sponsible
bidders. The ITB was clear that the latest Financial Statements were required. Yet, they were
simply omitted from Shift's bid response. Though Shiff argues that Nunez Construction's •
Financial Statement should not be considered as it was marked as a draft, the submission satisfied
the minimum requirements of the ITB.
11
•
22. Shiff also argues that its failure to take an exception to section 2.7 of the ITB,as to
the maximum final completion project length allowed following the issuance of the Notice to
Proceed was the equivalent of a project schedule. However, the mere acceptance of the project
length does not constitute a project schedule as it fails to provide any information as to the various
components om o sof the Project. The submission of a project schedule allows the Cityto evaluate a
p
bidder's understanding of the scope of the Project, sets forth the critical path for its completion,
and establishes the approximate amount of time the bidder contemplates for the various
components of the Project. It also protects the City by providing a timeline for anticipated
progress should there be a delay in the completion of the Project. (Testimony of Christopher
Russo). Though it criticizes the project schedule submitted by Nunez Construction,its submission
•met the requirements of the ITB.
23. In any bid protest proceeding contesting an intended City or agency action the
standard of review by an administrative law judge,hearing officer or special master,as applicable,
iI
is whether the City or agency's intended action is illegal, arbitrary, capricious, dishonest, did not
afford due process,departed from the essential requirements of law,or is fraudulent.This standard
has not been met in this instance.There is sufficient evidence to support the recommendation made
by the City Manager for this contract award.
Based.upon the evidence and testimony presented, it is determined that the protest of
Shiff is without a sufficiently meritorious basis to uphold the protest,pursuant to the applicable
standard of review, and is therefore denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is
12
RECOMMENDED that the City Commission of the City of Sunny Isles Beach award
contract 19-01-01 to Nunez Construction,the lowest responsive and responsible bidder.
DONE AND ENTERED this e day of (12 2019.
I
'f A L SU• '
`Special Master
Filed with the Clerk of
City this IT' of � ,2019.
DIRECTIVE TO CITY CLERK: CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The City of Sunny Isles City Clerk is directed to electronically transmit a signed copy of this
order to all legal counsel of record indicated at the commencement of this Order within three
business days of the City's receipt of such order.
13
SJpf�Y 15�� • City , . •
isies,Beach
18070 Collins Avenue
7y3 ; Sunny Isles Beach, Florida 33160
'tie 9)• fso" " 4'7 (305)947-0606 City Hall
r
,rr .K�a
305
OF sr ( )949-3113 Fax
MEMORANDUM
The Honorable Mayor and City Y Commission
FROM: Christopher J. Russo, City Manager •
DATE: 6/20/2019
Approval of a Proposed Recommended Order relating
RE: to a Bid Protest Filed by Shiff,Construction for ITB No.
19-01-01 - Gateway Park Center
RECOMMENDATION:
This Resolution is presented for your consideration.
REASONS:
On January 25, 2019, the City issued Invitation to Bid ("Bid") No. 19-
01-01
for the Gateway Park Center project for which a total of six (6)
bids were received. On April 15, 2019, the City's Purchasing Agent
issued a Notice of Recommendation to Award, recommending that the
Bid be awarded to Nunez Construction, Inc. after determining it was the
responsive
lowest responsible
bidder.
and
on April 22, 2019, Shiff Construction ("Shiff"), filed a bid protest letter
with the City, and pursuant to City Code Section 62-15, th City
Attorney's Office referred the for a formal bid protest hearing before a •
The bid protest hearingwas held bythe
Hearing Examiner. p Hearing
Commission Chambers on May2019. The Hearing
in the 14�
Examiner issued a Proposed Recommended Order on May 28, 2019,
denying Shiff Construction's requested relief, and finding that the City's
decision to award the bid to Nunez Construction, Inc. was supported
competent and substantial evidence:
ATTACHMENTS:
Description
151