Item O10
AUG-07-01 18,24 FROH,HONROE COUNTY ATTY OFFICE
10,3052923516
PAGE
1/1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: August 15. 2001
Division: County Attorney
Bulk Item: Yes 0
No 0
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Approval of Resolution Ratifying Request for Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System(s)
PropoS2lls, Directing and Scheduling Staff Evaluation of Proposals, Reserving Decision
Making Authority to the Board of County Commissioners, Resdnding References to
Evaluation by Others, Reconfirming Entitlement to Update Cost Proposals, Finding Potential
Diminution or Loss of Funding, and providing an Effective Date.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
8ased on BOCC ranking of proposals, FKAA and Odgen entered into a Design/Build Contract.
That Contract was held to be void under the Sunshine Law; the final Judgment so holding is
now on appeal and will not be decided for several months. Rorida Keys Water Quality
Improvement Act, enactE!d subsequent to Odgen contract, authorizes construction of
wastewater projects, including Key Largo.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BaCC ACTION:
Request for Proposal was issued September 8, 1999. Resolution 093-2000 was adopted
February 17, 2000.
CONTRACT/ AGREEMEN"r CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATJONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
COST TO COUNTY:
BUDG!TED: Yes 0
NoD
APPROVED BY: County Attorney)( OMB/Purchaslng 0 Risk Management 0
DOCUMENTATION:
Included 0
To Follow 0 /_ (Jj()ired 0
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
AGENDA ITEM #
AUi-Og-Ol 11 :35am From-
T-883 P 02
F-870
NAeoRs, GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A.
ATTORNeyS AT l,.AW
l;UITo!: 200
I!lOO MAHAN DRIVE
TAL.I.....HASSEE. f"L.ORIOA 323Q8
T"~ P01NT[.. SUIT! .OGO
.ala "OCKY I'O,NT DRIVE
TeLCPHONE 181101 224-.070
TI:L.I:COPY <8501 224'40'"
CNL C("'T~R. $IJITt ~.o -
660 SCuT.. DRANet A"t.~UE
ORLA"'DO. .LOIllDA ~Z.OI
TAMPA. F"lORIDA 3~G07
t81.11 ;al.~Z::;:~
14071 "~G.?Il~S
Tt.L~CO~Y 10'~) tal.Oll9
Ttl.CCOPY (40'71 428.&02!
August 9, 2001
Via Facsimile
James Hendrick, Esquire
Monroe County Attorney
310 Fleming Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Re: Special Counsel Services Relating to the Key Largo Wastewater System
Project
Dear Mr. Hendrick:
We have completed our review of the current status of the request for proposals
("RFP") process in light of the final judgment of the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial
Circuit of Monroe County (the "Final Judgment") which found certain violations of section
286.011, Florida Statutes (the "Sunshine Law") such that the process previously used by
the County was invalidated. With your assistance, we have drafted a resolution for Board
consideration which would implement a process for re-evaluation of the bids previously
submitted which we believe will be consistent with the provisions of Flonda's Sunshine Law
and the instructions for compliance therewith identified in the circuit court opinion. The
latest draft of the resolution, and a blacklined copy are attached.
Should the Board pass the proposed resolution and authorize implementation ofthe
re-evaluation process, our Firm would be prepared to assist the County Manager and staff
with legal issues which might arise during the re-evaluation process. As we also have
discussed, we will identify, evaluate and, if it is your desire, present to the Board potential
governance alternatives for the oversight and management of the Key Largo Wastewater
System. We will bill for our services on an hourly basis as indicated in our letter dated
July 2, 2001, a copy of which is attached, and we estimate legal fees to provide these
services will not exceed $40,000. We will not exceed this amount without prior notification
to you as to the necessity to expend hours beyond those included in our estimate.
Also, consistent with our proposal stated in the letter dated July 2, 2001. attached
please find a proposed workplan prepared by Government Services Group, Inc. ("GSG").
As you know, GSG is affiliated with and partially owned by shareholders of our Firm. The
\0
o.
Aua-D9-Dl 11:35am From-
1-883 P 03
F-BTO
James Hendrick
August 9, 2001
Page 2
workplan identifies the tasks and associated costs for completing the proposed re-
evaluation process. As indicated in the workplan, GSG has selected Hartman and
Associates as the consultant to assist them with this project. It is our understanding that
this workplan will be presented to the Board on August 15, 2001 for its approval.
We hope that the arrangements described in this letter are satisfactory to the
County. Please do not hesitate to call Bob or me if you have any questions concerning the
information provided in this letter. As always. we appreciate your retaining our Firm to
assist you in these matters. I look forward to working with you to bring these matters to a
conclusion beneficial to the County and its residents.
Very truly yours,
$/
Brian P. Armstro
BPNadg
Attachments
cc: James L. Roberts
F .IWPDATAIPROJECTS\21 l00"ll'lIll1ICk a_a.WIld
Aua-OB-Ol 11 :35am From-
T-BB3 P.04
F-BTO
\
NABORS, GIBLIN & NICKERSON, P.A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
$\,lITt '00
I ~oo ....."...N DRIVE
rALI.AHASStt, FI.ORIDA 3Z308
T"t POINT[. ~UITt '060
Z'OOoZ' ROCKY POINT DRive
TAMPA. F"LORlIDA S360'
TELEPHONE "501 22'''407Q
TELtCOPY 185011124.4073
CNL CtNTt~ :>LIITI: IlIO
..cSO~T"ORAHCCAVCNU[
ORLANDO. IP\..OAIO-" 3.280_
'.')1281-1'1::2
l"'O'~.Z6"S9&
l[LteOP'f la.3. ial-DI'zD
'rELE:COPY ."'07'" i;.-.Q~Z
July 2, 2001
Overnight Delivery
James Hendrick, Esquire
Monroe County Attorney
310 Fleming Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Re: Special Counsel Services Relating to Construction and Operation of a
Wastewater Treatment Facility to Serve Key Largo
Dear Mr. Hendrick:
Pursuant to our previous telephone conversations, this letter is intended to
document the scope of our engagement by Monroe County (the "County") to assist in
evaluating the proposals previously received in response to the Request for Proposals
issued by the County, dated September 8. 1999, and entitled Design/Build or
Design/Build/Operate a Wastewater Treatment System(s) to Serve Key Largo (the "RFP").
Specifically, such scope of services includes the following:
1. Recommend and implement a process for the Board of County
Commissioners of the County (the "Board") to evaluate the proposals submitted pursuant
to the RFP and to award a contract to the proposer selected that is consistent with the
provisions of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, and the instructions for compliance with
such statutory requirements provided in the Final Judgment, dated May 16, 2001, entitled
Florida Kevs Aaueduct Authority v. Board of County Commissioners. Monroe County. et
aI., Case No. CA-K-00-1170 in the Circuit Court of the 16th Judicial Circuit of Monroe
County, Florida.
2. Provide an evaluation of the proposals submitted pursuant to the RFP
sufficient to allow the Board to select a proposal and award a contract in compliance with
the RFP procedure.
AUi-OQ-Ol 11:3Sam From-
T-BB3 P 05
F-B70
...
James Hendrick
July 2,2001
Page 2
3. Assist your office in preparing and negotiating a contract with the proposer
selected by the Board consistent with the proposal submitted and policy decisions of the
Board.
4. Be available, if requested, to provide services in the supervision and
administration of the construction and performance of the awarded contract or other
matters relating to the construction and operation of wastewater facilities.
It is contemplated that we will use the services of Governmental Services Group,
Inc. ("GSG") in the performance of the contemplated services. In particular, it is
contemplated that GSG would have the primary responsibility for the evaluation of the
proposals contemplated in paragraph 2 above. As you know, GSG is affiliated with and
partially owned by Stockholders of our Firm.
We have requested that GSG prepare a workplan to describe the specific tasks
required to perform the evaluation of the proposals contemplated in paragraph 2 above.
Such workplan would include a method of compensation for the services provided by GSG
and a cost matrix of the time and estimated costs to complete each task. Such cost matrix
would also identify any required subcontractors necessary for the performance of the
outlined tasks. Any additional subcontractors subsequently determined to be necessary
by our Firm and GSG to complete any of the contemplated scope of services would be
sUbject to prior approval by the County.
The method of compensation for legal services for the Firm shall be on an hourly
basis calculated pursuant to the following hourly rates:
(a) stockholders
(b) senior associates
(c) junior associates
(d) law clerks
$200 per hour
$175 per hour
$150 per hour
$ 70 per hour
In addition to such professional compensation, the firm shall be reimbursed for
actual costs incurred on long distance telephone charges, travel expenses and overnight
delivery charges. Photocopies shall be billed at .25~ per page. Any travel expenses shall
be reimbursed in accordance with section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
A statement for profeSSional services rendered and costs incurred shall be
submitted monthly for the fees and costs incurred the previous month.
It is contemplated that the method of compensation for services provided by GSG
shall also be calculated on an hourly basis. As discussed previously, such method of
compensation and an estimation of costs will be included in the workplan GSG has been
requested to prepare.
Aua-OQ-O 1 11: 35am F fom-
T-883 P 06
F-870
.,
James Hendrick
July 2,2001
Page 3
I trust the scope of services outlined in this letter meets your expectations. Thank
you for your consideration of our Firm on this important public works project.
Very truly yours,
(2'1~
Robert L. Nabors
RLN/adg
cc: James L. Roberts, Monroe County Administrator
Robert E. Sheets, CEO
Government Services Group, Inc.
Au.-09-01 11 :36am From-
T-883 P 07
F-B70
II OBJECTIVE ~ The objective of this outline is to develop a framework by which an analysis and
~ ~ evaluation of the proposals received to design, build, and operate a wastewater
system or systems in the Key Largo wastewater service area can be conducted in a manner
consistent with the Sunshine Laws of the State of Florida and the goals and objectives of the Board of
County Commissioners.
To accomplish this objective. this work plan articulates three phases that when brought to their
normal conclusion, will result in the County having selected a respondent to design, build, and
operate the wastewater facilities in Key Largo. plus a series of the governance alternatives. by which
this operation can be managed. Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson, P.A. ("NG&N"), will focus their efforts in
addressing governance alternatives for presentation back to the Board, therefore, any references in
the following work plan to governance alternatives simply reflects the logical relationship to the work
being proposed here, and not the work effort proposed by GSG and its consulting engineers. In
addition, an implementation plan to oversee the construction implementation of the recommendations
and actions taken by the Board will be developed.
This analysis is intended to be extensive enough to allow the Board to make fully informed decisions
regarding all aspects of this issue. This work plan has been divided into three phases. They are as
follows:
PHASE 1- PROPOSAL EVALUATION
This proposal evaluation consists of the following components, and it is intended to be broad enough
to cover all the general issues necessary for the Board to make a decision regarding selection of a
successful respondent:
. Technical review of the proposals received consistent with the directions provided by the
Board
. A preliminary review and evaluation of governance options (prepared by NG&N)
. A preliminary review of financial considerations and how they may be impacted by the
decisions made by the Board
PHAse II - CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
Once the Board has selected a successful respondent, an agreement will be developed. It will be
essential that a method be developed by which a contract work plan and agreements can be
articulated in a manner consistent with the County's objectives. To accomplish this, the following
categories will be addressed:
. Contract negotiations and development
. Detailed financial analysis
. Development of project management and implementation plan
PHASE III-IMPLEMENTATION
At the point in which the County has successfully completed the contract negotiation. project
oversight and management will be critical for the successful implementation of such a comprehensive
program. The following bullets highlight the functions to be performed during this phase:
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE COUNTY, KEY LARGO WASTEWATER SYSTEM PROJECT
AUi-09-01 11 :36am From-
T-883 P DB
F-m
. Implementation of work plan and project controls
. Implementation of governance and/or management structure required to oversee the Key
Largo wastewater system
. Ongoing project management and oversight
. Implementation of governance options (prepared by NG&N)
This work plan will outline in detail those tasks necessary to complete Phase I, along with an
estimation of hours and professional fees required. At the end of Phase I, a detailed work plan and
an estimation of hours for Phase II will be completed. Also at the end of Phase II, a work plan for
Phase III, if required. would be developed and submitted to the County under this work order.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC, - MONROE COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
2
Aua-09-o1 11 :36am From-
T-883 P 09/66 F-8To
WORK PLAN The work plan outlined below is intended to be specific enough in nature to
OUTLINE articulate to the County the intended level of service required to carry out
an evaluation of the respondent's proposals, and an analysis of the governance options. In addition,
the County will be provided with sufficient input and information to move forward with the selection of
a provider for wastewater services in Key Largo.
PHASE 1- PROPOSAL EVALUATION
TASK I: PROJECT INITIATION
During this task, NG&N and the consulting team will meet with the County Administrator to clearly
articulate the evaluation process and criteria that will be utilized for the respondent's proposals. In
addition. the identification of any additional stake holders will be completed during this task to insure
that analysis and evaluation will be conducted in a fair and open manner. At the conclusion of Task I,
the County and project team will come to a final conclusion on goals, objectives, and time frame for
Phase I.
TASK II: NOTIFICATION TO ALL PROPOSERS
Notification will be provided to all proposers. This notification will outline any modifications to the
evaluation procedures and criteria, plus request updated cost proposals and qualification verification
necessary to conduct a thorough and impartial evaluation.
TASK III: ANALYSIS OF TECHNICAL PROPOSALS
The project team during this task and after updated responses from the respondents will begin the
evaluation of the proposals consistent with section 3.2 of the RFP. This will include, but not be limited
to, the following technical review:
A. Technical Criteria
B. Management Criteria
C. Project Schedule and Other Considerations
It is anticipated that the project team will utilize the criteria categories stipulated in section 3.2 of the
RFP. The project team may make inquiries of the respondents for clarification.
TASK IV: ANALYSIS OF COST PROPOSALS
At the conclusion of Task III, the project team will have evaluated all proposals from a technical,
managerial, and scheduling standpoint. Upon completion of that task, the cost proposals will be
evaluated by the project team consistent with section 3.2 of the proposal. The project team will
conduct an analysis of the funding implications of the various proposals and their sChedules, and will
provide the County Administrator with a preliminary outline and discussion regarding any funding
implications from both a total dollar impact to a timing and flow of funds standpoint.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
3
AUi-09-01 ll:37am From-
T-993 P 10/66 F-970
TASK V: PROVIDE EVALUATION OF TECHNICAL AND COST PROPOSALS TO BOARD
Within 90 days of project initiation, the project team will submit to the County Administrator our
findings and analysis of the technical and cost proposals. This analysis will provide a detai!ed
evaluation and analysis of all respondents and identify any critical questions or issues which may
remain. In addition, the project team will provide guidance to the County Administrator as to a
method and process by which the Board may conduct its analysis of the proposals, including potential
oral interviews with all respondents. It is anticipated that at the end of the Board's analysis, the
County will make a decision regarding which respondent to initiate contract negotiations.
TASK VI: IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
At the Conclusion of Task V, the Project Team will develop an action plan which will articulate those
tasks necessary in Phase II to:
A. Initiate contract negotiations
B. Draft the appropriate documents
C. Outline a project schedule and construction management program
D. Formalize governance options
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
4
AUf-OB-Ol 11 : 37 am From-
T-BB3 P.11/66 F-B70
PHASE 11- CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
A detailed scope of work and work plan for Phase II will be developed at the conclusion of the
selection process. This work plan will include an estimation of hours and professional fees requi~ed
to successfully negotiate and begin project implementation.
COMPENSATION
To complete Phase I, the project team has estimated the total of 404 professional hours, for an
estimated fee of $60,600. A detailed breakdown of an estimation of hours and fees is provided in
Appendix A.
The fees presented are an estimate only, since at this point. it is difficult to predict the number of
meetings and presentations that will be required during the evaluation process. However, the project
team will not exceed the fees presented without prior notification to the County as to the necessity to
expend hours beyond those estimated.
Hourly fees for GSG are as follows:
Senior Project Manager
Senior Consultant
Consultant
$150/hr
$135/hr
$120/hr
Hourly fees for Hartman and Associates are as follows:
Senior Project Manager
Project Manager
Consultant
$175/hr
$150/hr
$135/hr
In addition to such professional compensation. the project team shall be reimbursed for actual cost
incurred on long distance telephone charges, travel expenses, and overnight delivery charges.
Photocopies shall be billed at 25 cents per page. Any travel expenses shall be reimbursed in
accordance to section 112.061, Florida Statues.
Statements for professional services rendered and costs incurred shall be submitted monthly for the
fees and costs incurred in the previous month.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJE.CT
5
Aua-09-01 11 :37am From-
T-883 P lZ/66 F-870
APPENDIX A
HOURS AND FEES MATRIX
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE. COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
6
Au.-oe-o! 11 :37am Fram-
T-BB3 P 13/66 F-B70
KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTeM PROJECT
Task 1 - Pro 'eet Initiation
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 2 - Notification to All Pro osers
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 3 - Anal s/s of Technical Pro osals
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 4- Evaluation of Cost Pro osals
eSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
I. ".'
Task 5 - Provide Anal sis of Technical and Cost Pro osals to Board
eSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 6 - 1m I.mentation Plan
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
GSG TOTAL ·
ENGINEERS TOTAL"
168 $
236 $
25 200.00
35,400.00
-GSG's total has been calculated at a fee of $150/hr
"Engineers total has been calculated at a fee of $150/hr
.uTravel and related expenses will be billed according to section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE COUNTY, KEY L4RGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
7
Aua-OQ-Ol 11:37am From-
T-BB3 P 14/66 F-B70
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
RESOLUTION NO. _-2001
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners issued on
September 8, 1999, a Request for Proposals to Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate a
Wastewater Treatment System(s) To Serve Key Largo; and
WHEREAS, four (4) firms submitted a total of seven (7) Technical Proposals in
response to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, one firm withdrew one of its Technical Proposals leaving six (6)
Technical Proposals and six (6) accompanying Cost Proposals for consideration; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 093-2000, adopted on February 17, 2000, the Board
approved the commencement of contract negotiations between the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority and Ogden Water Systems, Inc. to design/build/operate a wastewater treatment
system in Key Largo serving an area from Tavernier Creek to approximately US 1 Mile
Marker 106 pursuant to the proposals submitted by Ogden in response to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the FKAA and Ogden entered into a Design/Build Contract, dated
July 5, 2000, for the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System pursuant to the direction
authorized in Resolution No. 093-2000; and
WHEREAS. the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Monroe County in
Case No. CA-K-00-1170 entered a Final Judgment on May 16, 2001, holding that the
selection of Ogden by the Board and the Ogden/FKAA Design/Build Contract was void
based upon the Court's findings that the Technical Evaluation Panel utilized by the Board
to evaluate and rank the proposals received pursuant to the RFP was an advisory board
P3ge 1 of 11
Au,-09-01 tl:3Bam FrDm-
T-BB3 P 15/66 F-BTO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
subject to the public meeting requirements of section 266.011, Florida Statutes, and that
the TEP engaged in conduct that violated such statutory provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Court in the Final Judgment further found that attempts by the
Board to cure the Sunshine Law violations by the TEP in its evaluation of the proposals
submitted pursuant to the RFP, while "heroic,"were not effective for the following reasons:
In this case the Baee did not return to or reevaluate the
original proposals of each of the proposers or the technical
compliance of the proposers with the BOCC's RFP. It did not
undo, reexamine or re-do the rankings assigned to each of the
proposers by the TEP. It did not anow the proposers to
provide oral presentations to the eace in full, fair, and open
public meetings.
and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements Act which provides for a $100 million authorization for the construction of
vital wastewater projects within the Keys including that portion of Key Largo that is the
subject of the RFP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Resolution, the following words and
terms shall have the following meanings. unless the context clearly requires a different
meaning.
"Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of the County.
"Cost Proposal" means the cost proposal submitted by a proposer pursuant to the
RFP.
Page 2 of 11
Aua-09-01 11 :38am From-
T-BB3 P 16/66 F-B70
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
"County" means Monroe County, Florida.
"County Administrator" means the chief administrative officer of the County or his
designee.
"Final Judgment" means that Final Judgment entered on May 16, 2000, by the
Circuit Court ofthe Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Monroe County in Case No. CA-K-00-1190.
"FKAA" means the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
"Key Largo Wastewater Service Area" means that portion of the Key Largo area
that could potentially be the subject of a wastewater treatment system proposal under the
terms of the RFP.
"Key Largo Wastewater System Project" means the construction and operation
of a wastewater system or systems in the Key Largo Wastewater Service Area within the
parameters and framework contemplated in the RFP.
"Ogden" means Ogden Water System, Inc. or Ogden Water Systems of Florida,
Inc.
"Ogden/FKAA Design/Build Contract" means that Design/Build Contract entered
into between Ogden and FKAA. dated July 5. 2000, for the Key Largo Wastewater
Treatment Plant entered into pursuant to Resolution No. 093-2000 of the Board.
"Qualification Requirements" means that part of a proposer's Technical Proposal
that contains the information requested in Sections 2.5(C), (0) and (E) of the RFP.
excluding that information requested in Section 2.5(D)(5) of the RFP.
Psge :3 of 11
Aua-09-01 11:39am From-
T-883 P IT/66 F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
"RFP" means the Request for Proposals to Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate
a Wastewater Treatment System(s) To Serve Key Largo, dated September 8, 1999.
"Sunshine Law" means the provisions of section 286.011, Florida Statutes.
"Technical Proposal" means the technical proposal submitted by a proposer
pursuant to the RFP.
"TEP" means the Technical Evaluation Plan utilized previously by the Board to rank
the proposals received by the County pursuant to the RFP.
SECTION 2.
FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained and determined that:
(A) The preceding findings are hereby confirmed and incorporated herein by
reference.
(8) Paragraph 19 of the Final Judgment provides instructions that the evaluation
process contained in the RFP as applied by the TEP could be cured of the Sunshine Law
violations of the TEP if the Board undid, reexamined, or redid the rankings assigned to
each of the proposers by the TEP and allowed the proposers to provide oral presentations
to the Board in full, fair and open meetings.
(C) Paragraph 16 of the Final Judgment provided further instructions that
Sunshine Law violations by an advisory board can only be cured by the Board by
scheduling a new meeting covering the same subject matter and that utilizing the work
product of the advisory committee that is tainted by the Sunshine Law violations as a basis
for the Board's deliberations on the RFP responses was not a legally sufficient cure.
Page 4 of 11
AUi-09-01 11:39am From-
T-BB3 P 1B/66 F-B10
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
(0) Paragraph 16 of the Final Judgment cites the decision in Monroe County v.
Piaeon Key Historical Park, 64 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), as an example of an
effective cure of a Sunshine Law violation since, in that case, the Board restarted the
deliberative process in full compliance with the Sunshine Law.
(E) The potential availability of federal and state funds for the construction of
water quality improvements in .the Florida Keys authorized in the Florida Keys Water
Quality Improvement Act and other initiatives by the Florida Legislature will be placed in
jeopardy unless the Board acts with dispatch to place the Key Largo Wastewater System
Project in a position to apply for and receive such grant funds.
(F) The terms and conditions of the RFP have been publicly aired and debated
and the fact that such terms and conditions are readily understood is evidenced by the
number of detailed responses to the RFP that were received by the County.
(G) Section 255.20( 1 ){a)7, Florida Statutes, establishing the process for the
award of construction contracts with anticipated construction costs in excess of $200,000,
provides an exception when:
7. The funding source of the project will be
diminished or lost because the time required to competitively
award the project after the funds become available exceeds
the time within which the funding source must be spent.
If this Board was to seek new proposals under a revised RFP or pursuant to a new request
for proposals. the ability of the Board to receive anticipated federal and state grant funds
would be diminished or lost because of the inherent delays involved in such replacement
or revision of the existing RFP. Such federal and state grant funds are essential
Page 5 of 11
Au.-09-01 11 :39am From-
T-883 P 19/66 F-870
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
components to the financial feasibility of the construction of water and wastewater facilities
within the Key Largo Wastewater Service Area.
(H) Near shore water pollution in the seas adjacent to the Key Largo area caused
by septic tanks. cess pits and otherwise poorly maintained or operated wastewater
treatment systems constitutes a direct and immediate threat to the pUblic health and safety
and endangers the health and continued existence of the coral reefs off-shore of Key
Largo. The coral reefs are not only a national and world ecological treasure, they also
draw to Key Largo visitors from the United States and abroad and thus help to support a
significant portion of the local economy.
SECTION 3.
INTENT. It is the intent of this Board to restart its decision
making process to evaluate the proposals received in response to the RFP under a
process consistent with the instructions contained in the Final Judgment with the objectives
to: (1) cure any Sunshine Law violations in the evaluation of and actions by the TEP that
tainted the prior deliberations and decisions of this Board; (2) maintain the integrity of the
selection process contemplated in and initiated by this Board in its adoption and publication
of the RFP; and (3) maximize the potential of this Board to receive anticipated federal and
state grant funds to construct the Key Largo Wastewater System Project on a timely basis
consistent with the anticipated availability of such state and federal grant funds.
SECTION 4.
RATIFICATION OF THE RFP. Except as modified in this
Resolution, the Request for Proposals with the issue date of September 8, 1999. defined
Pag9 6 of 11
Au,-09-01 11 :39am From-
T-883 P 20/66 F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
in this Resolution as the "RFP" is hereby ratified and confirmed. A copy of the RFP is
attached hereto as Schedule"A" and incorporated herein by reference.
SECTION 5.
EVALUATION PROCEDURE. The County Administrator,
assisted by such consultants as approved by the Board, shall apply the evaluation criteria
specifically provided in Section 3.2 of the RFP and generally stated throughout the RFP
in evaluating the following Technical Proposals and accompanying Cost Proposals
received pursuant to the RFP, as they may be updated pursuant to Section 9 herein:
No. Proposal
1. Azur;x - Primary
2. Azurix - Alternate #1
3. Azurix - Alternative #2
4. Daniels Contracting Co. - SBR
5. Ogden Water Systems. Inc.
6. R.J. Sullivan Corp.
In the application of such evaluation criteria, the County Administrator, his designees. and
all approved consultants shall start fresh with the proposals enumerated in this section of
this Resolution, as updated in the manner provided in Section 9 of this Resolution. All
references to the TEP in the RFP and all work product of the TEP. including its conclusions
and deliberations, shall be ignored by the County Administrator in his application of such
evaluation criteria.
P~ge 7 of 11
Aua-D9-D 1 11: 39am F r om-
T-883 P 21/66 F-87D
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
SECTION 6.
TIMING OF EVALUATION PROCESS BY COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR. To minimize the diminution or loss of federal or state grant funds, to
expedite final decision on the selection of a proposer by the Board pursuant to the RFP,
and to finalize the implementation by the Board of the governance structure to be used in
the construction and operation of a wastewater system or systems in the Key Largo
Wastewater Service Area, the County Administrator is directed to proceed with the
application of the evaluation procedures as directed in Section 5 of this Resolution in
conformity with the following deadlines:
No. Action Deadline
1. Notification to Proposers of the Within 5 days of Resolution Date
Reevaluation Process Under this
Resolution
2. Receipt of Updated Cost Proposals and Within 30 Days of Resolution Date
Qualification Requirements
3. Submittal to Board of Governance Within 60 Days of Resolution Date
Options for the Key Largo Wastewater
Service Area
4. Provide Analysis of Technical and Cost Within 90 Days of Resolution Date
Proposals to Board
SECTION 7.
RESERVATION OF DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO
BOARD. It is the stated intent of the Board to reserve onto itself all decision making
authority concerning the selection of a Technical Proposal and Cost Proposal, for the
wastewater treatment system(s) to serve the Key Largo Wastewater Service Area from
those proposals submitted pursuant to the RFP and enumerated in Section 5 of this
Resolution. None of the decision making authority of this Board is intended to be
Page;) 8 of 11
AUi-09-01 11 :40am From-
T-883 P.ZZ/55 F-870
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
delegated to the County Administrator, or his designee, or any consultants approved to
assist the County Administrator in his application of the evaluation criteria in the manner
contemplated in Section 5 of this Resolution. Further, in the application of such evaluation
criteria, the County Administrator is deemed to be operating as staff to the Board and is
hereby directed not to make choices among proposers or eliminate options, such decision
making being hereby reserved to this Board.
SECTION 8.
AMENDMENT OF RFP. Any reference in the RFP as to an
evaluation by any entity or agency other than the County Administrator as provided in
Section 5 of this Resolution is hereby rescinded.
SECTION 9.
UPDATE OF COST PROPOSALS AND QUALIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS. Each proposer is required to confirm or update its Cost Proposal and
update its Qualification Requirements prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 14, 2001, in the
format previously submitted. Aside from the Qualification Requirements, no updates to the
Technical Proposal previously submitted by any Proposer enumerated in Section 5 of this
Resolution shall be considered.
SECTION 10.
FINDING OF POTENTIAL DIMINUTION OR LOSS OF
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING. The essential funding source represented by federal
and state grants may be diminished or lost unless the Board decides on the method and
manner in which the construction of a wastewater treatment system in the Key Largo
Wastewater Service Area will be provided and on the identification of the construction and
operation costs of the Key Largo Wastewater System Project to be incurred. The Board
Page 9 of 11
Au,-D9-DI 11:4Dam From-
1-883 P.Z3/66 F-81D
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
hereby finds and determines that the Key Largo Wastewater System Project falls within the
exception provided in section 255.01 (1 )(a )7. Florida Statutes, to the state requirements for
the award of construction contracts. Notwithstanding this finding and the inapplicability of
section 255.01, Florida Statutes, to the award of a construction contract for the Key Largo
Wastewater System Project, the Board hereby determines that reevaluation of the
Technical Proposals and Cost Proposals pursuant to an evaluation process contained in
the RFP to cure the Sunshine Law violation of the TEP in a manner consistent with the
Final Judgment is a preferable process to ensure the widest public understanding of the
authorization of this valid project and to secure and finalize the most cost effective
construction and operational costs.
SECTION 11.
INAPPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 120, FLORIDA STATUTES.
Notwithstanding the references to the contrary in the RFP, the County rejects any adoption
or reliance on Chapter 120, Florida Statutes, and the Board hereby states its intent to
implement the evaluation process embodied in this Resolution under its constitutional and
statutory powers of local self-government.
SECTION 12.
AUTHORIZATION TO COUNTY ATTORNEY TO RESOLVE
PENDING APPEAL. The County Attorney is hereby authorized to seek resolution and
dismissal of the pending appeal of the Final Judgment in a manner consistent with the
evaluation process embodied in this Resolution.
SECTION 13.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
Page 10 of 11
Aua-09-01 11 :40am From-
T-883 P 24/66 F-870
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners, Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the _ day of
Mayor George Neugent, Mayor
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Nora Williams
Commissioner Murray Nelson
(SEAL)
Danny L. Kolhage, Clerk
By:
Deputy Clerk
F:IWPDA T AIPROJECTSI21 1001'.501"110"_ rfps...p<l
Page 11 of 11
,2001.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor/Chairperson
AUI-09-01 11 :40am From-
T-BB3 P Z5/66 F-B70
SCHEDULE A
DESIGN/BUilD OR DESIGN/BUilD/OPERATE
A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Aua-D9-Dl 11:41i1m From-
1-BB3 P Z6/66 F-B7D
MONROE COUNTY
: '. ~ ~~-; /c')' \ (':r "f.,:'~~-r~; I ~;I c' ~ t') li~ ~) '('\~~ (.) ~ \' I' ~ I. " .
~ L"P<....t!, '." .JJ_t/"\:)j,, Ir(~ .jIJ~' r~' rt-S_ \....'J ,'~-).\..;. I ~ .
. r ~ , . '.. . ....
;. (-ql-l;~tl) . . '.. . ..' , . . I
~ .!. ~ :f :~ ~ . - \~.-, _ ~ _'.. _ .' ~.' ~ _ _ '. ~
Issue Date: September 8, 1999
TltJ~: DESIGN / BUILD OR DESIGN / BUILD / OPERATE A WASTEWATER
TREA TMENT SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Purpose: Thc purpose oflhis RFP proc:ess is to solicit technical and cost proposals fi"om qualified respondent! who c:an d~sign I
build or who can design( buildlope...r.e a wastewater treatmcnt S)'$lcm(s) 10 scrve lhc Key l..ar&o area o(Monroe County, Florida.
A mOre c;omplctc description orlbe technical specifications can be round in Pan 4 or Ibis RFP.
IDqulry period: Scptember I. 1999 to October 16, 1999
Inquiries may be made between the hours of'8:oo A~M. and 5:00 P.M. weokdays.
Point oC Coo tact Cor InquIries: All inquiries must be submincd in writilJ8 to :
Dircctor o( Purchasing!Purchaslae Department
Fax No. (305)292-4515
Deadline For Tecbnical and Cost Proposal Submissioas:
OCTOBER 29, 1999 - 4:00 P.M.
JO Copies to be Submitted, Includiag 2 Marked "Origina.-
Confinnation of timely receipt may be made by calling (305) 292-4465
ProposlIls Must he Submitted to tbe FollowiDg Address:
Monroe County Purchasing Depanment
5100 College Road
Public Scrvice Building
Slock Island, fL 33040
The sep....tely saled Cost Propos. Is will be publicly
opened:
~:OO p.m., December 16,1999, OMB.
Proposen are mninded thai the deadline for the cost proposals
is the same limc as the technic:;al proposal deadlinc.
E_hibits: .
This RFP is Comprised of .. S~ctions;
Seelion J General Guidelines, InstnJctions, SOW
Section 2 Cost Proposal Form
Section J Supplemental FOmls
Section 4 Exhibits
I. Map o("Hoc Spoc" area
2. Overview of "Hot Spot" area
3. Signatory Page
Page I ofl7; 00100
AUf-OD-Ol 11:41am From-
T-BB3 P,Z7/66 F-B70
"
PARTl
GENERAL GUIDELINES AND
INFORMATION
1,1 DEFINITIONS
UDesign/Build Finn." A partnership, q>rporation, or
other legal entity which is: ~.
I) certified WIder Ch.489. J 19 F.S.. to engage in
contracting through a certified or registered building
contractor as the qualifying agent, and:
2) certified under Ch. 471.023, F.S., to practice or
to offer to practice engineering; certified under Ch
481.219 F.S., to practice or to offer to practice
architecture; or certifjed under Ch 481.319 F.S., to
practice or to offer to practice landscape architecture.
All Submitting Finns should be DesignlBuild Firms.
"Proposer'" "Respondent", or"Submitting Finn", AU
contractors, consultants, organizations, finns, or
other entities submitting a response to this RFP.
"Proposal" or "Response." The Proposer's written
response to this RFP offering to provide the specified
commodities and/or services. It shall be considered
as a formal offer. and shan be valid for a period of
180 days.
"Solicitation." A fonnal request to obtain
commodities and/or services. It includes Requests
For Proposals, Proposals, Quotes, or Information.
"County." Monroe County
"Conlracl." A binding written agreement, incJudin~
DW'thase orders, containing tenns and obligations
governing the relationship between the County and
the other party.
1.2 lNVlT AnON
nus invitation is extended to all qualified which can
provide the requirement(s) specified herein.
Responses should be prepared simply and
economically. addressing the requirements in a
stJaightforward and concise manner. The
requirements presented in this solicitation represent
[he County's anticipated needs.
1.3 POINTS OF CONTACT AND TIMETABLE
FOR INQUIRIES
Respondents may contact the County to discuss this
solicitation. The point of contact is specified on the
cover page. All respondent's inquiries must be in
writing either through the mail or via facsimile
transmission.. Inquiries will not be entertained
beyond the cut-off date indicated on the cover page
in order that answers to substantive questions, in the
form of written addenda, may be distributed to all
who requested the solicitation.
1.4 A V AILABILITY OF LANDS FOR WORK
The lands upon which the Work is to be performed,
rights-of-way and easements for access thereto and
other lands designated for use by the successful
respondent in pedomUng the Work must be
provided by the succcssful Proposer. All additional
lands and access. thereto requin:d for temporary
construction faci1ities, construction equipment or
storage of materials and equipment to be
incorporated in the Work are to be obtained and paid
for by the successful Proposer. lbis is for the
purpose of detennining the costs of the project and
the County recognizes that the subject property may
no longer be available at the time of the contract
signing, and that the finally selected site must have
separate County approval.
1.5 EXAMINATION OF
DOCUMENTS AND SITE
CONTRACT
Proposer's Responsibilities: It is the responsibility
of each Proposer before sUbmitting a Proposal to:
I. Examine thoroughly the Contract Documents
and other related data identified in the Proposal
Documents;
2. Identify and visit the proposed Site to become
familiar with and ,satisfy Proposer as to the
g~neral, local and Site' conditions that may
affect cost. progress. performance or furnishing
of the Work;
3. Consider federal. state and local Laws and
Regulations that may affect cost, progress,
perfonnance or furnishing of the Work;
4. Study and carefully correlate Proposer's
knowledge and observations with the Proposal
Pate 2 of 17; 00100
AUi-09-01 11 :41 am From-
T-883 P Z8/SS F-810
Documents and such other related data; and
If a Bidder protests aD)' provisjou of the CH. 8
Notice of Protest must be filed within 72 hours 1.1 DEVELOPMENT CO~
after rea=ipt of the Request for Bicb. Failure ro ~c. '.
protr.It withiu the ~&amc'presaribed--iD SectioD- --NciaIa-* -C-ouuty .a<<.I~Iti\U .Wll.k ___
~20.S7(J) Florida Stalutcs, shall coastin= a IisbJe for IIIl)" c:xpc:asea iucumd iIJ MUrlf:etjo~ with
. of poc<<ediaSlI uada Chapter 120. Florida rhe'jlqJennioa.aIJwnM'liOD or ~tiOll or a
=- .... - . . '.\'~. ,. . . . r ~ to thiii .olicibitiOu.. AD iDformaiiOD. in the
I rcspoase IbID be provided at DO east to the Coaz:dy.
1.6ADDBF^
,
U my IOQcitadOO n:risiODS become ~.
iDcIudiag ~ to the .1.-41;.... ft)r !espoDSe
sabmfsslOD, ~ CoUd!y will proyfdc wriaeu ~.
10 1hosc firm whiah I'C:lpoadcd to the bid IOlic:itatioa.
All inquiries muse be rea:ived DO bda- than tal (10)
&;alendu days prior to Ole _ fixed for the opmiag
o( Bids to be giYal c:oosidcntioo. Each addendum
i6~ by ~ Coumy .all include . receipt
acla10wteclgemeat A sepal1d.o n:ceipe for each
addendum must be sigmld and suhD:Uual 10 tbc
CoWJ1y.
S. Promptly notify tht County of all conflicts.
emn, ambiguities, or diJacpancies which
Bidder has disco~ in the Bid Docummb.
If issued. tbeCounty will mail ladIor fax wnUCll
addeada at Icast X'\'m (7) c:alc:ndar dayI before the
date fixed for opcDiDg tbc ~ AU
R:SpODdc:ab 5bou1d COIIbICl 1bc CoUDly before the
solic.ltatioa dcad1inc to ~ wbelber lIlY
addenda tine bcca iISIItld. hrpoDdcrm mu.sl
IdcnowIedge receipt of the Idd-ndll 1D their Bid.
F,u= of; my n:!pOndmr to n:a:lw. or to
ackn~ receipt of any such add=da sball not
rcli~ 'uch~poodeuI.fi:oDJ aD)' obUption und.cr ill
Bid ~~~ RespoDdcats lire advised to CX1IISI.ct
Ibe ~ prior to submittiag bids to raJisf;y
~ fS to Ibc exbt=ce sad bUmber of IIIda
~ A .dda1da.:PO issued ahaIJ become pan of
the Docum"..
1.7 RA WAL OF RESPONS
~ witbdnrw their submiued mponse
by ~ Co~ cithc:r in writing or ill pctSOD
1hro IQ authorized representlllive 111 lID}' tUDe
prier- Ua~ bid aoblDiaioa deadJIBc. lDdividUZlb
~ the ~wal shall provide evidence that
~ PllBclofl7
they are an authorized repmtative of the
respondent. Rap>nses, onre received, Irt.ome ~ _
pIOJ)efty of the Counry. and will DOt be n::tumcd to
n:spood.c:ats CVQl wbc:D they lire witbdnwa &om
coasicle:miOll. ~ 0&1CX opc:zx:d, may not be
withdrawn or 1nOdificd.
13 roNTRAcr ~
If I nlSpODdeat JlIUIr*S lIlY JZUYisloos of Ibc
ComIiIct "'-m.~ I ace of iatcal to J2n*sl
s1uI1J be IDeeS with 1bc Couory ill writiQs withJn 72
boor! after IeCCipt orllle Rafu= for Bids.
1.10 RESPQMSE
OPENING
SUBMISSION
~
AD 'Tedmical" IUd "'Cosr" bids must be submitk:d
in ~ seaIaI eavd0pc3 by the d"-""lilll"
i..d:'-"M OIl .. COWl' ~ of this JOIh-it.tion. The
bid IbaU idcadfy tbc fOlicitarion J1UZDb&r aud title
lpCCi1ied C11111be CO~ pile 0( dds m1idtatiOD. This
Rfen:oa: iDf'0IIIWi0n cbaII abo be: mabd an tbe
ouISIdc or 1be ICIIIcd envelopes. IDclIIdias 1hc
respoudem's IdUm IddIas. The Couoty assumes 00
~olUty (or bids DOt JIRlpetJy nwbd.
Tbc Q)uaty c:aWoaa respoadcnts to ISSUI1: ac:tuaJ
dcllvccy of n:spDDSCI eida' baDd deUvaaI or mailed
via u.s. mail or cm:migbt courier. dnct1y to 1be
Couatys ~ Dcpt .in the Public ~
BuJJdiDg in Kqt West. mar to the ~Iinft set for
~ I~~ The CoUDly will DOC ~
responses ddift:ft'.d after the ~ ~.Ad1i"",.
Jbcietpa. ot . rapoIIH by UI)' Cotmar aftke,
nceptioaJlt or pcnOllDel ather tIwl Pardauiq
does Dot colllfilute UclclWay" .. Rquiral by this
lO1idtatioa. TeJrpbonc c:on1imwicm of tUndy
rccdpt of the bid may be lDBdc by cal1iDg (JOS) 2n.
4465 before the opc:niDg time of tbc bids. The
CouIuy duill DOC ~ or OODSlder responses
submiacd via fBaimile traASmission.
Aua-09-01 11:41am From-
292-446.5 before the opening time of the proposals.
The County shall not accept or consider responses
submitted via facsimile transmission.
The public is welcome to attend the technical
solicitation and the cost proposal openings.
l. J 1 DISCLOSURE
"
Upon receipt. responses become "public records"
and shaH be subject to public: disclosme consistent
with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. In order to
protect confidential information, respondents must
invoke the exemptions to disclosure provided by
law, in the response to the solicitation, by providing
the specific statutOI}' authority for the claimed
exemption. identifying the data or other materials to
be protected, and stating the reasons why such
exclusion from public disclosure is necessary.
Responses will be, made available for public
inspection at the time the County posts notice of its
decision or intended decision concerning contract
awards, or ten (J 0) days after the response opening,
whichever is earlier.
1.12 RFJECnON OF RESPONSES
The County reserves the right to reject any and all
responses when such rejection is in the County's
interests. Responses that do not contain aU
information requested herein (with the exclusion of
optional docwnents) or do not meet other restrictions
contained herein shall be deemed non-responsive
and shall not be considered for further evaluation.
Minor irregularities contained in a response may be
waived by the County. A minor irregularity is a
variation from the solicitation that does not affect the
price of the contract or does not give a respondent an
advantage or benefit not enjoyed by other
respondents. or does not adversely impact the
interests of the County.
The Counry may also re-advertise and solicit for
other responses when it is considered to be in the
County's interests to do so. The County further
reserves the right to cancel this solicitation at any
time if it is in the County's imerestto do so.
1.13 AWARD
T-BB3 P 29/66 F-B70
The respondent understands that this solicitation
and/or the response does not constitute a COntract
with the Cowu)'. No contract is binding or official
until responses are reviewed and accepted by the
Board of Monroe County Commissioners, appr~ved
by the appropriate level of authority within the
Co\Ulty. and either an official contJ'act is duly
executed by the parties or a pW"Chase order is issued
to the respondent.
The respondent to whom the award is made shaU,
within thirtY nO) calendar days after notice of award
has been given, provide evidence of any required
insurance, performance bonds. payment bonds and
guarantee. and schedule of subcontractors (if
applicable) and sign the necessary contract. Failure
to execute the contract and/or to provide evidence of
any required insurance or bonding covaagc shalJ be
just cause for the annulment of the award, A ward
may then be made to the next highest ranked
respondent or the work may be readvenised as the
County may decide.
The County anticipates entering into contract
nesotiations with the respondent whose proposal is
judged by the Tcclullcal Evaluation Panel and the
County to be the most advantageous to the Counry,
in accordance with the evaluation criteria herein
described. The TECHNICAL EV ALVA nON
PANEL will be established and coordinated by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
win be composed of wastewater expens from EP A.
the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP). and other agencies as deemed appropriate.
The County anticipates awarding one contract, but
reserves the right to award more than one contract. or
not to make any award whatsoever. if to do so is in
the interest of the County.
1.14 FORMAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO
AWARD
In compliance with Chapter 120 of the Florida
Statutes, the Notice of A ward will be posted at the
Monroe County Office of Purchasing. This notice
will remain posted for a period of seventy-two (72)
hours. Failure to file a protest within the time
prescribed in Rule 40E-7.302 Florida Administrative
Code and Section 120.53(5), Florida Starutes, shall
constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter
120, Florida Statutes.
Page" of 17; 00100
AUi-09-01 11:4Zam From-
T-BB3 P.30/55 F-B70
1.1 5 TAX EXEMPT ST AruS
2.3 PUBLIC ENTITY CRIMES
The County is exempt from Florida Sales and
Federal Excise taxes on direct purchase of tangible
property .
J .16 ORAL PRESENT A TJONS
Following the submission and evaluation of the
written proposals, EPA and the County, at their
discretion, may require the highest ranked
respondents to give an oral presentation explaining
and/or demonstrating each proposal. AU oral
presentations shall be scheduled by the County
and/or EP A.
PART 2
INSTRUcrJONS FOR PREPARING
RESPONSES
2.1 RULES
Proposals shaJl be tendered in two (2) separate
submittals, "Technical" and ,cCost." Each proposal
envelope marked C<Tecfmical" shall contain the
Proposer's Construction / Technical I Managerial
qualifications and other required documents
described herein. The second sealed envelope
marked "Cost" shall contain aU items related to cost
and referenced herein.
Each proposal by an individual or fum shall state the
name and address of ail persons or entities having an
interest in the proposal. Proposals shall be signed by
an authorized person or member of the firm making
the proposal. In no ease may a proposal be
transferred or assigned by a respondent.
2.2 Sf ATEMENT
ORGANIZA nON
OF
BUSINESS
All respondents to this solicitation shall complete the
anached Statement of Business Organization. This
fonn provides the COWlty with viral information
concerning the responding organization as well as
joint venture or subcontractor participation levels (if
applicable).
Arty respondent, OJ any of hislher suppliers,
subcontractors, or consultants who shall perform
work which is intended to benefit the COWlty, shaH
not be a convicted vendor or. if the respondent or any
affiliate of the respondent has been convicted of a
public entity crime, a period longer than 36 months
has passed since that person was placed on the
convicted vendor list. The respondent further
undeatands and accepts that any contract issued as a
resuJt of this solicitation shaJJ be either voidable by
the County or subject to immediate termination by
the County, in the event there is any
misrepresentation or lack of compliance with the
mandates of Section 287.133. F.S. The County, in
the event of such tennination, shall not incur any
liability to the respondent for any work or materiaJs
furnished.
2.4 BONDS. INSURANCE
GUARANTEES
AND
RespondentS shall be required to provide with the
proposal (in the "Cost" submittal) evidence from the
surety company guaranteeing the respondent's ability
to provide a Payment Bond and a Conunon Law
Performance. in addition to Performance Guarantees
specified in the Scope of Work, part 4-3. Proposals
must contain the required evidence and guarantees in
order to be considered respo~ive and be further
evaluated.
All proposals shaJI be accompanied by a Bid Bond,
equal to 5% (five percent) of the estimated total
contract construction cost. In case a submining finn
to whom a Contract is awarded shall fail or neglect
to execute the Agreement and furnish the satisfactory
bonds within the time specified. the County may
determined that the Proposer has abandoned the
Con~ct. and thereupon the Proposal Forms and
acceptance shall be null and void and the Bid
Security accompanying the ProposaJ shall be
forfeited to the County as liquidated damages for
such failure or neglect and to indemnify the County
from any loss which may be sustained by failure of
the Proposer to execute the Agreement. All Bid
Seeuritic$ will be returned on the execution of lIle
Contract or ifno award is made.
Page 5 of 17; 00100
Aua-D9-Dl 11 :4Zam From-
The respondenl; jf awarded a contract, shall maintain
insurance cove~ge reflecting, at a minimum, the
arnoWlts and conditions as specified within the
Insurance Requirements attached to this solicitation.
Evidence of appropriate insurance coverage shall be
provided as an attachment to the response.
Respondents may fulfill this requirement by having
their insural)ce agent either (J) complt"de and sign an
insurance certificate which meets all'~equirements,
or (2) issue a letter on the insurance agency's
stationery stating that the respondent qualifies for the
required insurance coverage levels and that an
insurance certificate meeting the COWlty'S
requirements will be submitted before final
execution or issuance of the contract. All insurers
must be qualified to lawfully conduct business in the
State of Florida Failure of the County to notify the
respondent that the certificate of insurance provided
does not meet the contract requirements, shall not
constitute a waiver of the respondent's responsibility
to meet the stated requirements. In addition, receipt
and acceptance of the certificate of insurance by the
COWlty shall not constitute approval of the amounts
or types of coverage listed on the certificate.
Misrepresentation of any material fact, whether
intenlional or not, regarding the respondent's
insurance coverage. policies or capabilities, may be
groWlds for rejection of the response and recision of
any ensuing contract.
2.5 RESPONSE FORMAT AND CONTENTS
In order to facilitate County review, responses
should be organized in the follOwing sequence:
"Technical" ProDOsals:
A. Lener of Transmittal
B. "Technical" Proposal
C. Qualifications &. Experience
D. Supplementallnfonnation
E. Attacmnents
F. Optional Infonnation
"Cost" ProoosaJ
G. Cost Proposal and "Cost" Proposal Fonn
T-883 P 31/88 F-87D
A. Letter of Transmittal
All responses must contain a transmittal 1ener
highlighting lbe respondent's reasons for responding
to the solicitation and unique attributes. The letter
must name any and all of the persons authorized to
make rcpresentations on behalf of the respondent,
including the titles, addresses and telephone numbers
of each person(s). The Ictter must declare thai the
response was prepared without collusion with any
other person or entity submitting a response pursuant
10 this solicitation. An authorized agent of the
respondent must sign the transmittal letter indicating
the agent's title or authority. The letter should not
exceed two pages in length.
B. Technical Prooosal
The County is seeking to qualify one or more
contractors for the tasks specified in the attached
Statement of Work. This section of the response
should explain the Statement of Work as
understood by the respondent. This section should
aJso include any assistance, materials, equipment,
reports, space, etc. the County is requested to
provide to the respondent to complete the requested
Work Plan."
Technical submittals shall also contain drawings,
project development schedule and other docwnents
that delineate and describe the character of the
entire project.
The following details should be included:
1. A statement of the proposed work objective and
scope.
2. A list of resources and/or equipment, including
the site, to be provided by the respondent.
3. Methodology and rationale for the proposed
approach.
4. Proposed work plan addressing specific tasks,
nulestones, and deliverables.
S. Proposed project management plan.
6. Provide an estimated footprint of the proposed
main facility or facilities (include square
footage of the facility, acreage of property
required and an estimate of how the
facility/facilities would sit On a propo~ed site)
7. Detailed description of wastewater treatment
methodology and levels of trealment that the
Page 6 or 17; 00100
Aua-D9-DI tl:43am From-
1-883 P 3Z/GG F-870
Submitting Firm is willing to guarantee.
8. Li~ of the subdivisions which mn be treaft4 by
~ propolltJd facility/facilities. .
9. ~lIrti~ of cntUc ~ lay-oul. including
paab of aU proposed liDes, coUedion Uft
stations. dc. .
10. Plan for ]mCJudWg cfisc:barge of improperly
tlated ~e. . Rniew aDd approval by the Cowlry ot Cbc
audit~, P-1;_:_.... n....:_ DLu_
JI. Copyofarax:ntpc:rfo~~___._._~~\!.Ill..R _. _ ---~-~WG."dO._.__._ __ ____ ___.
aimllar a wutewBIm' ar-nn,."t I)'5tcm to die
ODe proposed lIS possible. That 8)'5tmI must be
c:um:nr1y amder the ebarge of tho SUbmiItiDg .:
rum UDder A1tcmative One
(dmgDlbuildlo~). ThalI)'m2D JIIllSt have
been c:o~ by the 8ubmiuJaa Finn Bad
It.ss than five yc:aa old uudc:l' AJtcrmrD~ TwO
(<bi8Wbui1d). .
/2. DeraiIed.outliae ofmainf'"Jlftl'.e K.hNhtJe (or
the J'lU~ fadlity.
fJ. S.,Fe p~ mvc:mol)' (11:1 outfincd in CB
SeftiOIl ~pe oCWon:: 4-2.)
.c. Copy oCPnPonde Safety Program f*1uding
op~oaal fnaurws as described in Statement of
W9lJc 4j.) .
5. Color ~ ofProposcd FacilitylFlCiIitid.
iu4i~ $UJIVundins llUld.~ng (froat. bIclc,
~ each/side).
6. W~ T~=t System Performance
AuflilC~
ISamp.le Tanphttc
7. E;~ of ntbarily to oooduc:c business as GJ
o C- COlpOratiOJl in the Slate ofFlodda.
if pU:e. sha1J be .~.hl'~r'- State oCPJodda
~ ~Dtractor licc:mc number, if uy, eud
essiOflAl registra!i0ll numbers must also be
wnif'rccuiml
f""P - for foeiUl)'Ifocilmco.
. CoostnJction Sitll PIms: The plus
be 0 CDDUgh dctaill.O allow t'1~iildOJ1 of
iddcf"s coastNedOll pi". Site Plms sbaU
1bowins exlstins couditfons IDd
I 'on 0 proposed faclUlylfa::Wtica. Plow
Scbfmaticr man show the psopo-d WUfewtd.cr
eI1t.j
cIa t Sc;heduJe: The
;Jummt . propose4 project
lOPDfCDt schedule (or this project.
catin, availability of required rcsoUl'CC3. As
Pace 7 of 17
I
"
a minimum, this schedule shall indicate a
specified timeftame following the Notice to
Proceed (or the (oUowiDg items:
· Prcparadon of CoIIstrudiaa Doc'~ for the:
Pr1:limirwy Dc3i1D Pbaac
· Preparatioo of CODStNc:tfoD Documents for the
. I)UJal DcsJga' Phase . aDd final selectioD 'of all
iottzior fiDislw
· Review IIId appzoval by the Coun1)' of die final
Desiga Phase ad izderior fin;~
· BaildiaB Pamit Ptt,...<l -_:"8 (NOm: Obtaimna
pcmUts lIS reqqired for dJis project shaD be the
aolc n:spoIISibility of tbc Comractor. FaiIun: of .
the CoalnCtor to oblaJn RqUired pc:rmfu in
ac:cordancc with its proposed scbeduIe may DOt
be eoosiden:d grouuds for 111 extensiOD of ~
Coanct Time for this projClCl)
· Permit documeDI ~isiOllS _6 ~ of
pamilS required for constnJctiOD
· Coostruct:ion mobilization
. CoasttUClioo
. Subs1aatial Completion
· F'mal Complcdon Dare
· Acquisition orllDd including all easemcnu
C. Oualifiadions IIDd J:~
This ahaU be . &cpanIIe ra:tiOQ 8Dd include ddaUs as
foUows:
1. Dc:tai1s oa !be qualifications oC die firm.
incIwfiDe . summary of the film's histozy aDd
cxpcriCDCC. with particular emphasis On
wastewarcr treatmeut des:iCD build capabWties.
Iucludc quaU1ic:atioDS for tbc individual or entity
that wiJl be providiug Desip Prof=fooaJ
AUi-09-01 11:43am Frcm-
T-BB3 P 33/66 F-BTO
2:' Details on the qualifications of the individual(s)
who will perform the design and operation work,
including experience in similar work. cwriculum
vitae, and relevant college, graduate or
professional courses and. certifications.
3. Summarize the firm's record of safety
performance for the past three yews, providing
safety performance figures for experience
modification rate, and describing any citations
from OSHA.
4. In the operation or construction of wastewater
treatment facilities, detail any complaints
received regarding noise or odor. Such detail
should include nwnber of complaints recorded
and time elapsed before problem was identified
and corrected. Details should include aU
incidents within the last five years.
5. Details if this fumhas been refused surety, bond,
or liability insurance in the last ,ten years.
6. Details if this firm, or any officer or paltner of
this firm, has failed in the previous five (S) years
to complete a construction contract operating as
this organization or any other organization.
7. If responding Wlder Alternative One (dlblo): a
list of at least five (5) current clients and
pertinent references (include name, address and
telephone nwnber) that the County may contact.
If responding under Alternative Two (dIb), at
least five (S) former client reference letter.:; of
recommendation pertaining to similar past
projects including col)tact name, address and
telephone number, summary of each project
scope as it relates to this project (one paragraph),
and date that each project was completed. These
leners of recommendation must be from elected
officials, government staff or agencies that have
worked with the Submitting Finn. The five (5)
letters should reflect at least three (3) different
wastewater treatment facilities, with the
Submitting Finn providing facility detail for
each.
8. Indicate the availability of the firm and the
individuals proposed to provide the services
Identify the extent and nature of any anticipated
outside support.
9. If a joint venture or subcontractor aJTangemem is
involved in the response, the respondent musI
include a copy of the agreement with the
response, and list of such parties by name,
address and telephone nwnber, including
supervisory and professional persoMel, and a
surrumuy of how the work will be apportioned.
10. The same information requested above in items
(I) through (8) ~ust be provided for each
subcontraClor and/or or joint venture party.
D. SUDplementaJ Information
This section shall include th~ foUowing items:
I . Provide a staffing plan that clearly iJJusrrares the
key elements of the orgaiUzational struCtures
proposed to accomplish the management,
technical. construction and administrative
services required. Project management and key
personnel within each area of ~uired services
shaH be identified and past experience of each, as
it relates to this project, shall be discussed.
2. Provide details of the Quality Control program
proposed for this project. The Quality Control
program shall include an explanation,' of the
policies and procedures that will be used to
assure the complete and accurate doc:wnent and
materiaVconstruction operations evaluation and
(quality) control.
3. Provide a summary of any litigation filed against
the respondent in the past five (5) years which is
related to the services that respondent provides in
the regular course of business. The sUJ1lmaJy
shall s1ate the nature of the litigation, a brief
description of the case, the outcome or projected
outcome, and the monetary amotplts involved.
4. Provide financial statements for the past two
years, annual reports, or other similar evidence of
respondent's (mandaI stability. The County
reserves the right to perform a detailed review of
financial information in order to determine
whether or not the respondent is financially
stable for succ.cssful performance of any ensuing
contract award. Information requested includes
current rating with Dun & Bradstreet. current
Page 8 of 17; 00100
AUi-D9-DI II :44am From-
T-883 P 34/55 F-8TD
. . workil1g capital for the finn, any history of
bankruptcy or reorganization, total bonding
capacity (and name, address and telephone
number of the firm's predominant insurance
and bonding company), percentage of capacity
currently committed to other work, and audited
net worth. Please provide details for any
transaction or event which has lakCill place since
the last statement of audited net worth provided.
Include information about experience with the
financing of similar capital projects and the
ability of the Submitting Finn to finance capital
projects.
S. Any additional information which the respondent
considers pertinent for consideration should be
included in this part of the proposal.
6. Signatory Pace (provided)
7. Recent performance audit from a similar
wastewater system
E. Attaclunents
The following attachments shall be provided with the
response:
1. Signed receipts for each addendum issued by the
County (if applicable).
2. Evidence from the surety COffipiU1y guaranteeing
the respondent's ability to provide a Payment
Bond and a Common Law Perfonnance. in
addition to Perfonnance Guarantees specified in
the Scope of Work, part 4-3.
3. Statement of Business Organization.
4. Evidence of current levels of insurance.
5. Certification from the Florida Secretary of State, if
respondent is a corporation or partnership,
verifying respondent's corporate status and good
standing. If respondent is also an out-of-state
corporation, provide evidence of authority to
conduct business in the State of Florida.
6. Copies of required licenses (State of Florida
Registered Architect and/or Engineer, and State of
Florida General. Contractor or Building
Contractor). Note: The Proposer shall have, at the
time of submission, all professional licenses
required by law for their performance of the Work
in order to be considered responsible.
F. OotionaJ Documents:
Documents detailing the foJJowing are requested,
but not required. If a proposal is presented as part
of the proposal response, indicate cost impacts and
considerations on the cost proposal fonn.
1. Potentia) for Re-use at Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facility. The ability to conserve water is
considered vital to the continuing we1J-being of our
conununities. The County would welcome an
optional proposal for Ie-use at the proposed
facility/facilities.
2. Availability of Affordable Housing for
Submitting Finn Employees. This docwnent should
provide the number of employees expected to work
for the proposed sewer treatment system(s)
(including those involved in line maintenance and
in any other capacity). what is likely to be their pay,
and what effons the Submitting Finn will make to
ensure that housing is available for those
employees. Then: is a dire shortage of atTordable
housing in MODIOC County and service personnel in
all industries are struggling to find affordable
housing. The County would welcome an optional
proposal for the provision of affordable housing.
G. "Cost'" ProoosaJ
The respondent shall state clearly the total proposed
cost and the reasons justifYing why the proposed
approach could be the most cost effective approach
tor the County. All pricing should exclude sales and
use taxes at both the State and FedemJ levels since
the Co\Ulty is exempt from payment of such taxes,
except where the Submitting Fhm win be liable for
such taxes on items and services purchased directly.
The Submitting Finn, however, will not charge sales
and use tax to either the COWlty or the FKAA. The
proposed priCl! and fees are to include the
furnishing of all materials, equipment, tools,
utilities, acquisition of 011 permits, approYll1s,
authoriutions, certificates, inCluding applicable
taxes, and all facilities and the performance of all
Page 9 of 17; OOJOO
AUi-OQ-Ol II :44am From-
labor .and prefessional services including design
costs necessary or proper for the completion of the
Work except as may be expressly provided in lhe
Request for Proposals. See "Cost Proposal Fonnn
for additional details.
I. For Alternative
proposals:
1, DesignlBuildlOperate
..
.'
a) Contract Price {or Design/Construction (as
both a total cost and a cost per EDD)
b) Operating and Maintenance Costs (as both a
per year cost and a cost per month per EDU).
c) Cost of land, easements and rights-of-way
acquisition. These costs are to' reflect local
conditions. Any responses which do not
realistically reflect local conditioils may be
considered non-responsive and may not be
further evaluated.
d) If Proposer will provide financing for the
capital oosts of the project, the monthly
capital recovery fee per EOU for that
financing for the life of the oontract and the
initial hook-up fee per EDU
e) Optional: If Proposer has provided proposals
for Re-use or Affordable Housing, provide
cost figures (both as total cost and cost per
EOU) and expected revenue impacts
2. For Alternative 2 Design/Build Proposals:
a) Contract Price for Design/Construction. (as
both a total cost and a cost per EOU)
b) Expected Operating and Maintenance Costs
for the facility/facilities (as both a per year
cost and a cost per month per EDU)
c) Cost of land. easements and rights-of-way
acquisition. These costs are to reflect local
conditions. Any responses which do not
realistically reflect local conditions may be
considered non-responsive and may not be
further evaluated.
d) Optional: If Proposer will provide financing
for the capital costs of the project, the
T-883 P 35/66 F-870
monthly fee per EDU per month for financing
to extend over the course of twenty years (240
months) and the proposed initial hook-up fee
per BOU
e) Optional: If Proposer has provided propOsals
for Re-use or Affordable Housing. provide
cost figwes (both as total cost and cost per
EDU) and expected revenue impacts
The proposal shan include details of how the
Submitting Finn can help with the financing of the
Project.
PART 3
EVALUATION ,METHOD
3.1 EV ALUA TION PROCEDURE
The EP A, in partnership with the Florida Department
of EnviroMlental Protection (FDEP). will provide
evaluations of the Submitting Finns through a
Technical Evaluation Panel. Both the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and Monroe County may
designate a member for the Panel. The evaluation
conunittee will first evaluate the
'technical/managerial" proposals and will then short-
list the most-quaJified Proposers. That short list will
be further refmed as a result of scheduled oral
presentations of the Submitting Firms. If a
Proposer's presentation is deemed inadequate by the
Technical Evaluation Panel. that Proposer will be
removed from the short 1ist..,At the' time and place
announced on the cover page. the OMB Director will
publicly unseal the cost proposals. An adjusted score
win be arrived at for each fino by dividing each
fann's total proposed cost. as expressed by cost per
EDU. by the technical review score. The Technical
Evaluation Panel will reconunend to the CoWlty that
the firm with the lowest adjusted score be awarded
the contract The County-shall be the sole judge of its
own ,.needslrequirements, the respOnse(s). and' any
resulting negotiated contract(s). The County's
decisions will be final, with the caveat that no
pref*tsal contract win be awarded without the
agreement of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
3.2 EV ALUA TION CRlTERlA
The Technical Panel's evaluation criteria of the
technicaVrnanagerialJproject proposals will include
paee 10 or 17; 00100
AUf-09-0! 11 :45am F rom-
T-BB3 P 36/66 F-BTO
...
con~1deration of the foHowing:
Range of E'Vafuafion Category
Points
o to 4S pts Technical Criteria. including:
· Technical soundness of proposal
. Adequacy of preliminary construction site plans
· Level of lTeatment I treatment methodology
· Plan for precluding discharge of improperly treated sewage
. Treatment reliability
· Number of ED Us to be serviced
· Completeness of work plan
o to 3S pts Manae.ement Criteria. including:
· Qualifications of staff and firm
· Firm's past experience and performance with design/buiJd on comparable projects or
with designlbuildloperate as appropriate
· Competence ~d Qualification of Personnel assigned to the Project
· Acc.essibiJity/response time of key persoMelto situations lhat may arise in Monroe
County
· References
· Quality control systems and procedures
· Experience with the fmancing of capital projects
· Ability to finance capital projects
. Financial Stability
o to 20 pts. Proiect Schedule and Other Considerations:
· A vailabiJity of resources for the project
· Location and appearance of proposed facility
· Project schedule
· Obstacles to acquiring land, casements, rights-of-way
Page I I of 17: 00100
Aua-09-01 II :45am From-
T-883 P 37/66 F-870
PART 4
STATEMENT OF WORK
DESIGN / BUILD / OPERA TE A W ASTEW A TER TREAMENT SYSTEM
TO SERVE THE KEY LARGO AREA OF MONROE COUNTY
4-1
INTRODUCTiON:
.
,.
Unincorporated Monroe County is plagued by inadequate wastewater treatment facilities. The majority of the
residents currently treat lheir wastewater through the use of septic systems or cesspools. The Governor and
Cabinet of the State of Florida. in agreement with the local Monroe County Commission, have determined that
identified "hot spots;' areas with known water quality problems. will be the first priorities in instituting
upgraded wastewater treatment systems. The upgraded wastewater treatment system(s) may include centralized,
neighborhood, clustered onsite and individual onsite systems. Individual onsite systems would have to be
approved by the Florida Dept. of Health before they are found pennittable. The County.s Project Manager will
be the FKAA. which will designate its employee(s} to perform the Project Manager function. Upon completion
of the Project. all County managerial oversight will be performed by the FKAA through its designated
employees.
These projects are considered to ~ on a fast track schedule and of dire import for the future of Monroe County
and its citizens. In this year alone. viruses have been fOWld in local canals and certain beaches have been closed
due to fecal contamination. Time is of the essence in preserving and enhancing Monroe County's surrounding
water quality.
It is the intent of Monroe County to contract with a DesignlBuild fum to either designlbuiJd/operate or to
designlbuild a wastewater treannent system(s) to serve the designated hot spot and surrounding area, as
appropriate, on the island of Key Largo. nus project must be implemented on a "fast track" schedule and be
operational within thirty (30) months from contract execution.
The Key Largo Hot Spot to be treated combines the neighborhoods of Lake Surprise, Sexton Cove and Largo
Highlands. three subdivisions located in close proximity at approximately mile markcr 106. (Those subdivisions
are included in the subdivision lay-outs provided and are clearly marked "HOT SPOT SUBDIVISION LA Y ~
OUT.") nus area includes approximately 600 residential hook-ups. of which 358 arc unknown systcms, in all
probability cesspools and older, underperfonning septic systems. While this area need not be the only area
treated by the proposed sewer system, at a minimum this entire area must be treated by the proposed sewef
wastewater treatment system(s). The proposals that do not provide for service to these three neighborhoods will
be deemed non-responsive and will not be further considered.
4-2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
Firms have the option of selecting DesignlBuiJd/Operatc (Alternative J) and/or DesignIBuiJd (Alternative 2) as
the method by which they wish to apply. Proposers have the option to propose to provide onsite or clustered
on site systems. In the event such systems are to be provided, the Proposer shall develop the details of the
Technical Proposal under Part 2 "Instructions for Preparing Responses." appropriate to the facilities proposed
and consistent with the requirements ofItems 1-19 of Pan 2.5.B.
Alternative 1: DesiltnlBuildlOperate ("d/b/o") Scope of Servic~
A, The Submitting Finn shall provide Monroe County, Florida with the expertise, materials and starr
Page 12 of 17; 00100
AUi-OQ-Ol 11:.Sam From-
1-883 P 38/66 F-87D
necessary to perfonn all required design and construction. operations and maintenance (and possible financing)
necessary to complete the proposed wastewater treatment system(s} (Ahemative I).
B. The Submitting Firm shan prepare all necessary designs (including proposed facility and collection line
locations), construction plans and specifications, provide construction management, and facilities startup
necessary to provide sewage collection and treatment for the area specified above. All phases of this proposed
project must be in accordance with ~ applicable rules and regulations, including but not limited to those
established by Monroe County. Florida. the Florida Department of Envirorunental Protection, the Florida
Department of Health, and the U. S. Envirorunental Protection Agency. This shall be accomplished through
responsible. efficient, effective, on-site management. supervision. staffing. equipment maintenance and repair,
and predictive and preventive maintenance of all inclusive facilities and equipment included in the Wastewater
treaunent system. through the conclusion of the contract
c. Definition of Wastewater Treatment System(s): For lbe purposes of this Request for Proposals, the
wastewater treatment system shall include. but not be limited to the land. easements. rights-of-way. equipment,
structures, buildings. tanks, chemical feed systems. instnunentation. access roads, buffer provisions, safety and
security provisions, fire protection, emergency and stand-by power generation, and sewer collection systems,
including but not limited to land, easements, rights-of-way, buffer provisions, piping, pumps. vacuum
equipment (inclUding valves. pits and tanks) and appurtenances, structures. buildings, instrumentation. access
roads, and power supply. Where clustered onsite or individual onsite systems are proposed, the respondent
would be responsible for operation JUld maintenance of all such systems for the life of the contract.
D. The Submitting Firm will provide wastewater treatment system operators as n~ssary to staff the
facilities in accordance with aU applicable environmental rules and regulations, on-site, and who shall be in
responsible charge of the treatment system(s). All operators shall have all certifications required by law. and at a
minimum. must be certified by the Stale of Florida. In addition, the Submininl Finn shall provide experienced
project management throughout all phases of the project. The Opcrator-In-Responsible-Charge (ORe) will
maintain the necessary certification of grade equivalent to the classification assigned to the wastewater
treatment system. The wastewater treatment system(s) shall be staffed in accordance with State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protection reguJations governing the treatment system(s) designed by the
Submitting Firm and as approved by Monroe Count)'.
E. The Submitting Finn will provide all necessary power. chemicals. equipment. maintenance (predictive.
preventive and corrective), capital equipment. supplies. buildings and grounds maintenance (including
landscaping). and all other goods and/or services necessary (0 provide aU day to day operations. maintenance
and management of the wastewater treatment system for the duration of the contract. The Submitting Finn will
assume an costs of aU repairs (minor and/or major) for aU facilities. equipment, access roads J8ftEl and collection
system components throughout the tenn of the contract.
F. The Submitting Firm will develop and implement a predictive and preventive maintenance program for
the entire wastewater treatment system(s) (as defin~ herein)... This program shall include aU lubrication,
adjustments and repairs as necessary to maintain the wastewater treatment system(s) for the duration of the
conlract term. The Submitting Finn shall provide and maintain a spare pans inventory that delineates the critical
partS and equipment that are necessary to be maintained "on-shelf" (0 insure continuous operation of the
wastewater rreatment system(s). The Submitting Finn shall utilize a "Wastewater Treatment System Audit
Checklisl" of its own design to report monthly on the status of the wastewater treatment system(s) reJiabi)iry 10
be delivered monthly to the Sewage Authority in Monroe County (the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority), The
county ~h(lll approve the design of the fonn in advance. The SUbmitting Finn shall submit a copy of a recent
audit from as similar a wastewater treatment system as possible that is now under their charge.
Par.e 13 of 1'7; OOtoo
AUI-09-01 11 :48am From-
T-883 P 39/88 F-870
G. The Submitting Finn will conduct routine process monitoring and all required pennit monitoring of the
wastewater system(s). The Subcommittee Finn will conduct all monitoring required as directed by the
regulatory agencies governing the wastewater treatment system(s). The Submitting Finn at no additional cost to
Monroe County will also conduct any additional sampling and monitoring that may be required by. any
governing agency.
H. All permit renewal fees, annual iQSpection fees, and laboratory certification fees shall be the responsibility
of the Submitting Firm. .'
I. The Submitting Firm shall maintain all insurance coverage and benefits required by Federal, Slate, and
Local Agencies for its employees. The Submitting Finn shall be responsible for a corporate safety program,
including any or all of the fOllowing as available: safety manual, trajning schedules, and a J 998 Lost-Time
lnjwy Report. The Submitting Finn shall provide experienced project management throughout all phases of the
project. The Operator-ln-ResponsibJe-Charge (ORC) will maintain the neccsS8J)' certification of grade
equivalent to the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment system(s). The person the Submining Finn
designates as having primary responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the project must be approved by
both Monroe County and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, and must live within easy commute afthe main
facility.
Alternative 2: OeshmlBuild (UdIb") Scope or Service
A. The Submining Finn shall provide Monroe County, Florida with the expenise, materials and sr.atT necessary
\0 perform all required design and construction (and possible financing) complete the proposed wastewater
treatment system(s} (Alternative 2).
B. The Submitting Finn wiJl prepare all necessary designs (including proposed facility and collection line
locations), construction plans and specifications, provide construction management, and facilities startup for the
area specified above. All phases of this proposed project must be in accordance with all applicable roles and
regulations. including but not limited to those established by Monroe County, Florida., the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, the Florida Department of Health and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
through responsible, efficient, effective, on-site management, supervision. staffing, equipment maintenance and
repair. and predictive and preventive maintenance of all inclusive facilities and equipment included in the
wastewater treaunent system{s). .
C. Defmition of Wastewater Treabnent System(s): For the purposes of this Request for Proposals, the
wastewater treatment system shall include, but not be limited to the land, easements, rights-of-way, equipment,
structures, buildings, tanks, chemical feed systems. instrumentation, access roads, butTer provisions, safety and
security provisions, fire protection, emergency and stand-by power generation, and sewer colJection systems,
including but not limited to land, easements, rights-of-way, buffer provisions, piping, pwnps, vacuwn
equipment (including valves, pits and tanks) and appurtenances, structures, buildings, insttumentation, access
roads, and power supply. Where clustered onsite or individual .onsite systems are proposed, the respondent
would be responsible for operation and maintenance of all such systems for the life of the contract.
D. The Submitting Firm will provide experienced project management throughout aU phases of the project,
properly cenified in accordance with all applicable environmental rules and regulation(s). The Project
Management Team will be identified and available for information, reports and on-site visits with Monroe
County and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority during all phases of the contract.
E. The Submitting Finn will assume all cost of all repairs (minor and/or major) for all facilities, equipment,
laA6 access roads and collection system components throughout the term of the contract.
Page 14 of)?; 00\00
AUI-09-01 11:46am From-
T-883 P.40/SS F-810
F. The Submitting Finn will develop a predictive and preventive maintenance program for the entire
wastewater treatment system(s) (as defined herein), This program shall include detail of all lubrication,
adjustments and repairs as necessazy to maintain the wastewater treatment system(s) for the first twenty (20)
years of the system's life. The Submitting Firm shall provide a spare parts inventory list that delineates the
critical parts and equipment that are necessary to be maintained "on-sheJf" to insure continuous operation of the
wastewater treaUnent system(s). The S,ubmining Firm shall provide a "Wastewater Treatment System Audit
Checklist" of its own design (or the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority 10 use for monthly ropons subsequent to
the beginning of operations of the system(s). The County and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority shall
approve the design of the form in advance. The Submitting Finn will submit a copy of a recent audit from as
similar a wastewater treatment system as possible that was oonstructed by their firm.
G. During the first six (6) months of operation of the facjJjty, the Submitting Finn will conduct routine
process monitoring and all required permit monitoring of the wastewater system(s) and maintain a I~ team to
work with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority during the period of transition. The Submitting Firm will
conduct all monitoring required as directed by the regulatory agencies governing the wastewater lreattnent
system(s) during the length of this contract. The Submitting Firm at no additional cost to Monroe County will
also conduct any additional sampling and monitoring that may be required by any governing agency during the
leneth of this contract.
H. All permit renewal fees, inspection fees, and JaboratolY certification fees shall be the responsibility of the
Submitting Finn throughout the length of this contJact.
I. The Submining Finn shall maintain all insurance coverage required by Federal, State. and Local
Agencies for its employees. The Submitting Firm shall be responsible for a corporate safety program dW"ing the
length of this contract, including any or all of the following as available: safety manual, training schedules, and
a I 998 Lost-Time Injury Repon.
4-3 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
A. The SUbmitting Firm shall guarantee that the proposed wastewater lrealment system(s) will be operational
and meeting all discharge requirements within no more than thirty (30) months from the execution of a contract
between Monroe County and the Submitting Finn. The Submitting Firm will meet or exceed the requirements of
the law for the type of facilityffacilities proposed.
B. The Submitting Firm will guarantee complete and total compliance with all local, Slate and Federal
water quality rules and regulations as may be applicable to this proposed project.
Under Alternative One (dlbfo), any water quality violations concerning the operations. maintenance and
management of the proposed wastewater treatment system, with the exception of Acts of God (hurricanes,
floods, fires from sources outside the control of the SUbmitting Firm, or other event of Force Majeure) will be
the sole responsibility of the Submilting Finn, including any and all fines, penalties, lawsuits, or any other form
ofliquidaled damages as may result from such violation, during the life of this contract.
Under Alternative Two (dIb), any water quaJily violations concerning the operations, maintenance: and
management of the proposed wastewater treatment system, with the exception of Acts of God (hurricanes,
noods. fires from SOUrces outside the control of the Submittins Firm, or other event of Force Majeure) will be
the sole responsibility of the Submitting Firm, including any and all fines. penalties, lawsuits, or any other form
of liquidated damages as may result from such violation, during the first three years of facility/facilities
Page 150f17;00100
Aua-09-01 11:4Tam From-
T-883 P 41/66 F-8TO
oper~tion.' Since it is difficult to quantify the precise dollar measure of damages to the environment resulting
from a system failure, the successful submitting firm will agree by contract that the reasonable liquidated
damages for each incident of failure to treat to guaranteed levels will be a minimum of $5000.
4-4 PROJECTCOST-GUARANTEE
to
A. For Alternative I DesignIBuildlOj,erate Submitting Finns, the Cost for the proposed wastewater treatment
system(s) shall be presented as: (I) total designlbuild costs per EDU, and (2) Operating Costs per month per
EDU. The maximwn operating and maintenance costs, including administrative costs for biJling. per month per
EDU shall not exceed $35. Any response reflecting an O&M cost in excess of $35 per month per EDU win be
deemed non-responsive and will not be further evaJuated. Operating and Maintenance Costs are not to increase
over the life of the contIac~ except as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to keep up with inflation. If that is
not agreeable to the Proposer, the Submitting Finn must provide an explanation of how. price adjustments for
operation and maintenance will occur. Explanations that are considered unacceptable will disqualify Proposers
from further consideration. These monthly fees must be defined in tenns meaningful to the full length of the
project. The figures provided must be 8 guaranteed maximum price.
For Alternative 2 Design/Build Submiuing Firms, the Cost for the proposed wastewater treatment system(s)
shall be presented as ~ total cost per EDU for all elements of the contract. The figures provided must be a
guaranteed maximum price.
B. The Submining Finn wilJ detennine the number of sewer hook-ups necessary within the proposed
wastewater treatment service area. Proposals must include the hook-ups present within the priority hot spot
defined above (approximately 600 EnUs), but may include additional surrounding area hook-ups on the island
as required to make the project cost-effective and feasible.
4-5 TERM OF CONTRACT
A. It is the intent of Monroe County to enter into an agreement with a Submitting Finn for either Alternative
One or Alternative Two.
Under Alternative I, DesignlBuildlOperate, it is the intent of Monroe County to enter into an agreement with
the Submitting Finn for an operations and maintenance contract for twenty (20) years from the starting date of
operations for the proposed wastewater treatment system(s). If the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority so chooses,
it may be the contract signator on behalf of Monroe County.
Under Alternative 2, DesignlBuild, it is the intent of Monroe County to enter into an agreement with the
Submitting Firm for a construction contract which wHl include a six (6) month transitiC?D period ,after. .operation
begins. If the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority so chooses, it may be the contract signator on behalf of Momoe
County .
B. The time allowed for design and construction of the recommended wastewater treatment system(s) shall
be no longer than thirty (30) months from execution of 8 contract between Monroe County and the Submitting
Firm. Any delays in this design and construction schedule will result in construction liquidated damages of one
thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day against the Submitting Firm. It will be the sole responsibility of the
Submitting Finn to make all necessary effons to comply with this "fast track" design, construction and start-up
schedule. No mediating circumstances, excluding Acts of God or Force Majeure, shall be accepted as an excuse
for noncompliance wtth the design, construction and start-up schedule of thirty (30) months.
Page 16 of 11; 00100
4-6 METHOD OF REIMBURSEMENT
A. for the DesignIBuildlOperale (Alternative I) Submiuing Finn, reimbursement for the design; and
construction shall be from the' initial hook~up fees and the additional capital recovery charge identified on the
Cost Proposal Fonn. On-going operations, and maintenance of the proposed wastewater treatment system(s)
shall come from the monthly sewer use charges proposed by the Submitting finn.
.
For the DesignlBuild (Altemative 2) S~bmitting Firm, which shall submit a funding plan, reimbursements for
the design and construction of the wastewater treatment system(s) will take place on a schedule defined in Ihe
contract itself, with payments made with no greater frequency than monthly in each calendar year. The signing
of the contract may be deferred until such time as necessary funding is secured~ with the agreement of all
signing parties.
B. The Submitting Finn may choose to utilize the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority as the mechanism by
which to develop a sewer hook~up program and sewer use bilJing and collection program. This selVice will have
associated costs, which will need to be included in the costs for operation and maintenance of the
facility/faciJities.
C. Monroe County and/or the Plorida Keys Aqueduct Authority will enforce the sewer hook~up schedule for
both residential and commercial hook.ups. requiring mandatory hook-up within thirty (30) days from the time
:he sewef wastewater collection sy~em(s) is/are ready for individual hook-up. It will be the responsibility of the
Submitting Finn to maintain an up-to~ate sewer hook-up schedule and to coordinate same with the Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority.
4-7 TERMINA nON OF CONTRACT
Monroe County may at any time tenninate the contract resultilli from the Submitting finn's proposed
wastewater treatment system(s) for breach of any part of the resulting agreement. In the event of such
termination by Monroe County. final payment to the Submitting Finn shall be decided by arbitration between
Monroe County and the Submitting Firm under the applicable laws of the state of Florida. If the Board of
Monroe County Commissioners declines to appropriate sufficient funds to complete or oontinue the project or if
grant funding is reduced or terminated. then the BOCC may terminate the Submitting Finn contract with no
further liability or obligation to the SUbmitting Finn other than the obligation to pay for work satisfactorily
completed up to the point of notification of tenni nat ion.
4-8 ASSIGNABILITY
The contract between the selected Submitting Finn and Monroe County (or the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority) may not be re-assil91ed by the Submitting Finn without prior written consent of the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and Monroe County.
4-9 ADDITIONAL JNFORMA llON
Submitting Finn acknowledges that if Key Largo incorporates, the county may no longer be in a position lO
make the decision on this CB, and may need to assign this contractual award to the government of the new
municipality. The Counly/Submining Firm contract wiJI require the submining finn to consent to such
assigrunent.
Page 17 of 17; 00100
Au.-D9-Dl 11 :48am From-
T-883 P 4Z/66 F-81D
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
RESOLUTION NO. .2001
-
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners issued on
September 8, 1999, a Request for Proposals to Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate a
Wastewater Treatment System(s) To Serve Key Largo; and
WHEREAS, four (4) firms submitted a total of seven (7) Technical Proposals in
response to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, one firm withdrew one of its Technical Proposals leaving six (6)
Technical Proposals and six (6) accompanying Cost Proposals for consideration; and
WHEREAS. by Resolution No. 093-2000, adopted on February 17,2000. the Board
approved the commencement of contract negotiations between the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority and Ogden Water Systems. Inc. to design/build/operate a wastewater treatment
system in Key Largo serving an area from Tavernier Creek to approximately US 1 Mile
Marker 106 pursuant to the proposals submitted by Ogden in response to the RFP; and
WHEREAS, the FKAA and Ogden entered into a Design/Build Contract. dated
July 5. 2000, for the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System pursuant to the direction
authorized in Resolution No. 093-2000; and
WHEREAS, the Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Monroe County in
Case No. CA-K-00~1170 entered a Final Judgment on May 16, 2001, holding that the
selection of Ogden by the Board and the Ogden/FKAA Design/Build Contract was void
based upon the Court's findings that the Technical Evaluation Panel utilized by the Board
to evaluate and rank the proposals received pursuant to the RFP was an advisory board
Pags 1 of 11
Au.-09-01 11 :4Bam From-
T-883 P43/66 F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
subject to the public meeting requirements of section 286.011, Florida Statutes, and that
the TEP engaged in conduct that violated such statutory provisions; and
WHEREAS, the Court in the Final Judgment further found that attempts by the
Board to cure the Sunshine Law violations by the TEP in its evaluation of the proposals
submitted pursuant to the RFP, while "heroic, II were not effective for the following reasons:
In this case the BOCC did not return to or reevaluate the
original proposals of each of the proposers or the technical
compliance of the proposers with the BOCC's RFP. It did not
undo, reexamine or re-do the rankings assigned to each of the
proposers by the TEP. It did not allow the proposers to
provide oral presentations to the BOCC in full, fair. and open
public meetings.
and
WIII:R~AS, the Final .Jtldgment is now on 8ppe81 to the Third DistriGt Court of
Appe81, le8vin9 tl'\8 Ootlnty in the untenable position of being unable to Gontl'8ct for the
constft:lction of the Key Largo 'tJastev.t8ter System Prejeet; and
WHEREAS, both the County and Ogder. agree to dismiss the appeal of tne rinal
Judgmer.t in order to expedite the selection of a contractor to construct the Key Lsrgo
Wastewater Oystem Project 83 prev'ided in this Reseltltie"; and
WHEREAS, the United States Congress passed the Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvements Act which provides for a $100 million authorization for the construction of
vital wastewater projects within the Keys including that portion of Key Largo that is the
subject of the RFP.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
Page 2 of 11
AUi-OQ-Ol 11:48am From-
T-883 P.44/66 F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Resolution, the following words and
terms shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires a different
meaning.
"Board" means the Board of County Commissioners of the County.
"Cost Proposal" means the cost proposal submitted by a proposer pursuant to the
RFP.
"County" means Monroe County. Florida.
"County Administrator" means the chief administrative officer of the County or his
designee.
"Final Judgment" means that Final Judgment entered on May 16. 2000, by the
Circuit Court of the Sixteenth Judicial Circuit of Monroe County in Case No. CA-K-OO-1190.
"FKAA11 means the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
"Key Largo Wastewater Service Area" means that portion of the Key Largo area
that could potentially be the subject of a wastewater treatment system proposal under the
terms of the RFP.
"Key Largo Wastewater System Projectll means the construction and operation
of a wastewater system or systems in the Key Largo Wastewater Service Area within the
parameters and framework contemplated in the RFP.
..Ogden" means Ogden Water System, Inc. or Ogden Water Systems of Florida,
Inc.
pagg 3 of 11
Au.-09-01 It:4Bam From-
T-BB3 P 45/66 F-B70
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
"Ogden/FKAA Design/Build Contract" means that Design/Build Contract entered
into between Ogden and FKAA, dated July 5, 2000, for the Key Largo Wastewater
Treatment Plant entered into pursuant to Resolution No. 093-2000 of the Board.
"Qualification Requirements" means that part of a proposer's Technical Proposal
that contains the information requested in Sections 2.5(C), (D) and (E) of the RFP,
excluding that information requested in Section 2.5(0)(5) of the RFP.
"RFP" means the Request for Proposals to Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate
a Wastewater Treatment System(s) To Serve Key Largo. dated September 8, 1999.
"Sunshine Law" means the provisions of section 286.011, Florida Statutes.
"Technical Proposal" means the technical proposal submitted by a proposer
pursuant to the RFP.
"TEP" means the Technical Evaluation Plan utilized previously by the Board to rank
the proposals received by the County pursuant to the RFP.
eel"Tlnt.1 .,
I:INnINn~ It i~ h~rAhv ~~r.p.rtRinAn ::lnci determined that:
AUf-09-0t 12:2tpm From-
T-885 P 45/66 F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
"Ogden/FKAA Design/Build Contract" means that Design/Build Contract entered
into between Ogden and FKAA, dated July 5, 2000, for the Key Largo Wastewater
Treatment Plant entered into pursuant to Resolution No. 093-2000 of the Board.
"Qualification Requirements" means that part of a proposer's Technical Proposal
that contains the information requested in Sections 2.5(C), (0) and (E) of the RFP,
excluding that information requested in Section 2.5(0)(5) of the RFP.
"RFP" means the Request for Proposals to Design/Build or Design/Build/Operate
a Wastewater Treatment System(s) To Serve Key Largo, dated September 8, 1999.
"Sunshine Law" means the provisions of section 286.011, Florida Statutes.
"Technical proposal" means the technical proposal submitted by a proposer
pursuant to the RFP.
IOTEP" means the Technical Evaluation Plan utilized previously by the Board to rank
the proposals received by the County pursuant to the RFP.
SECTION 2.
FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained and determined that:
(A) The preceding findings are hereby confirmed and incorporated herein by
reference.
(8) Paragraph 19 of the Final Judgment provides instructions that the evaluation
process contained in the RFP as applied by the TEP could be cured of the Sunshine Law
violations of the TEP if the Board undid, reexamined, or redid the rankings assigned to
each of the proposers by the TEP and allowed the proposers to provide oral presentations
to the Board in full, fair and open meetings.
Page 4 of 11
Au,-OQ-Ol lZ:Z1pm From-
T-885 P 46/66 F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
(C) Paragraph 16 of the Final Judgment provided further instructions that
Sunshine Law violations by an advisory board can only be cured by the Board by
scheduling a new meeting covering the same subject matter and that utilizing the work
product of the advisory committee that is tainted by the Sunshine Law violations as a basis
for the Board's deliberations on the RFP responses was not a legally sufficient cure.
(D) Paragraph 16 of the Final Judgment cites the decision in Monroe County v.
Piaeon Kev Historical Park, 64 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), as an example of an
effective cure of a Sunshine Law violation since, in that case, the Board restarted the
deliberative process in full compliance with the Sunshine Law.
(E) The potential availability of federal and state funds for the construction of
water quality improvements in the Florida Keys authorized in the Florida Keys Water
Quality Improvement Act and other initiatives by the Florida Legislature will be placed in
jeopardy unless the Board acts with dispatch to place the Key Largo Wastewater System
Project in a position to apply for and receive such grant funds.
(F) The terms and conditions of the RFP have been publicly aired and debated
and the fact that such terms and conditions are readily understood is evidenced by the
number of detailed responses to the RFP that were received by the County.
(G) Section 255.20(1 }(a)7, Florida Statutes, establishing the process for the
award of construction contracts with anticipated construction costs in excess of $200,000,
provides an exception when:
7. The funding source of the project will be
diminished or lost because the time required to competitively
Page 5 of 11
Au,-OS-01 12:22pm From-
1-BB5 P 4T/66 F-BTO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
award the project after the funds become available exceeds
the time within which the funding source must be spent.
If this Board was to seek new proposals under a revised RFP or pursuant to a new request
for proposals, the ability of the Board to receive anticipated federal and state grant funds
would be diminished or lost because of the inherent delays involved in such replacement
or revision of the existing RFP. Such federal and state grant funds are essential
components to the financial feasibility of the construction of water and wastewater facilities
within the Key Largo Wastewater Service Area.
t!1l Near shore water pollution in the seas adiacent to the Kev Laroo area
caused by seDtic tanks. cess pits and otherwise Doorlv maintained or oDerated
wastewater treatment systems constitutes a direct and Immediate threat to the
Rublic health and safety and endanoers the health and continued existence of the
coral reefs off-shore of Key Laroo. The coral reefs are not onlY a national and world
ecolooical treasure. they also draw to Key Laroo visitors from the United States and
abroad and thus helD to SUDDort a sionificant Donion of the local economy.
SECTION 3.
INTENT. It is the intent of this Board to restart its decision
making process to evaluate the proposals received in response to the RFP under a
process consistent with the instructions contained in the Final Judgment with the objectives
to: (1) cure any Sunshine Law violations in the evaluation of and actions by the TEP that
tainted the prior deliberations and decisions of this Board; (2) maintain the integrity of the
selection process contemplated in and initiated by this Board in its adoption and publication
of the RFP; and (3) maximize the potential of this Board to receive anticipated federal and
Page 6 of 11
Au.-09-01 lZ:ZZpm From-
T-885 P 49/66 F-91D
DRAFT NO.3
08108/01
state grant funds to construct the Key Largo Wastewater System Project on a timely basis
consistent with the anticipated availability of such state and federal grant funds.
SECTION 4.
RATIFICATION OF THE RFP.
Except as modified
subsequently in Oection 8 of In this Resolution, the Request for Proposals with the issue
date of September 8, 1999, defined in this Resolution as the "RFP" is hereby ratified and
confirmed. A copy of the RFP is attached hereto as Schedule"A" and incorporated herein
by reference.
SECTION 5.
EVALUATION PROCEDURE. The County Administrator,
assisted by such consultants as approved by the Board, shall apply the evaluation criteria
specifically provided in Section 3.2 of the RFP and generally stated throughout the RFP
in evaluating the following Technical Proposals and accompanying Cost Proposals
received pursuant to the RFP, as they may be updated pursuant to Section 9 herein:
No. Proposal
1. Azurix - Primary
2. Azurix - Alternate #1
3. Azurix - Alternative #2
4. Daniels Contracting Co. - SBR
5. Ogden Water Systems, Inc.
6. R.J. Sullivan Corp.
In the application of such evaluation criteria, the County Administrator, his designees, and
all approved consultants shall start fresh with the proposals enumerated in this section of
Page 7 of 11
AUI-09-01 lZ:Z2pm From-
T-885 P.49/SS F-8TO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
this Resolution, as updated in the manner provided in Section 9 of this Resolution. All
references to the TEP in the RFP and all work product of the TEP I including its
conclusions and deliberations, shall be ignored by the County Administrator in his
application of such evaluation criteria.
SECTION 6.
TIMING OF EVALUATION PROCESS BY COUNTY
ADMINISTRATOR. To minimize the diminution or loss of federal or state grant funds, to
expedite final decision on the selection of a proposer by the Board pursuant to the RFP,
and to finalize the implementation by the Board of the governance structure to be used in
the construction and operation of a wastewater system or systems in the Key Largo
Wastewater Service Area, the County Administrator is directed to proceed with the
application of the evaluation procedures as directed in Section 5 of this Resolution in
conformity with the following deadlines:
No. Action Deadline
1. Notification to Proposers of the Within 5 days of Resolution Date
Reevaluation Process Under this
Resolution
2. Receipt of Updated Cost Proposals !WI Within 30 Days of Resolution Date
Qualification Reauirements
3. Submittal to Board of Governance Within 60 Days of Resolution Date
Options for the Key Largo Wastewater
Service Area
4. Provide Analysis of Technical and Cost Within 90 Days of Resolution Date
Proposals to Board
P~9Q 8 of 11
Au.-D9-Dl tZ:ZZpm From-
T-885 P.5D/66 F-81D
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
SECTION 7.
RESERVATION OF DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY TO
BOARD. It is the stated intent of the Board to reserve onto itself all decision making
authority concerning the selection of a Technical Proposal and Cost Proposal, for the
wastewater treatment system(s) to serve the Key Largo Wastewater Service Area from
those proposals submitted pursuant to the RFP and enumerated in Section 5 of this
Resolution. None of the decision making authority of this Board is intended to be
delegated to the County Administrator, or his designee. or any consultants approved to
assist the County Administrator in his application of the evaluation criteria in the manner
contemplated in Section 5 of this Resolution. Further, in the application of such evaluation
criteria, the County Administrator is deemed to be operating as staff to the Board and is
hereby directed not to make choices among proposers or eliminate options, such decision
making being hereby reserved to this Board.
SECTION 8.
AMENDMENT OF RFP. Any reference in the RFP as to an
evaluation by any entity or agency other than the County Administrator as provided in
Section 5 of this Resolution is hereby rescinded.
SECTION 9.
UPDATE OF COST PROPOSALS AND QUALIFICATION
REQUIREMENTS. Each proposer is required to confirm or update its Cost Proposal and
update its Qualification Requirements prior to 5:00 p.m. on September 14, 2001, in the
format previously submitted. Aside from the Qualification Requirements, no updates to the
Technical Proposal previously submitted by any Proposer enumerated in Section 5 of this
Resolution shall be considered.
Page 9 of 11
Au.-OQ-Ol lZ:Z3pm From-
T-BBS P.St/66 F-BTO
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
SEcnON 10.
FINDING OF POTENTIAL DIMINUTION OR LOSS OF
FEDERAL AND STATE FUNDING. The essential funding source represented by federal
and state grants may be diminished or lost unless the Board decides on the method and
manner in which the construction of a wastewater treatment system in the Key Largo
Wastewater Service Area will be provided and on the identification ofthe construction and
operation costs of the Key Largo Wastewater System Project to be incurred. The Board
hereby finds and determines that the Key Largo Wastewater System Project falls within the
exception provided in section 255.01 (1 )(a)7, Florida Statutes, to the state requirements for
the award of construction contracts. Notwithstanding this finding and the inapplicability of
section 255.01, Florida Statutes, to the award of a construction contract for the Key Largo
Wastewater System Project, the Board hereby determines that reevaluation of the
Technical Proposals and Cost Proposals pursuant to an evaluation process contained in
the RFP to cure the Sunshine Law violation of the TEP in a manner consistent with the
Final Judgment is a preferable process to ensure the widest public understanding of the
authorization of this valid project and to secure and finalize the most cost effective
construction and operational costs.
SECTION 11.
INAPPLICABiliTY O~f1APTER 120. FLORIDA STATUTES.
NotwithstandinQ the references to the contrary in the RFP. the County rei.cts any
!doDtion or reliance on Chaater 120. Florida Statutes. and the Board hereby states
its intent to imolement the evaluation Drocess embodied in this ~esolution under its
constitutional and statutorY DOwers of local self-Government.
Page 10 of 11
AUI-OS-01 1Z:Z3pm From-
T-885 P.5Z/66 F-870
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
~
SECTION 12.
~THORlZATION TO COU~JY ATTORNEY TO RESOLVE
PENDING APPEAL. The County Attornev is hereby authorized to seek resolution and
dismissal of the Dendina aDDeal of the Final Judament in a manner eonsistent with
the evaluation Drocess embodied in this Resolution.
SECTION 13.
EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners, Monroe County.
Florida at a regular meeting of said Board held on the _ day of
,2001.
Mayor George Neugent. Mayor
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Commissioner Nora Williams
Commissioner Murray Nelson
-yes
-yes
-yes
-yes
-yes
(SEAL)
Danny L. Kolhage. Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA
By:
Deputy Clerk
By:
Mayor/Chairperson
F~WPOATA\COll'lJ)el'e\REGOI.UTION ,
Page 11 of 11