Item H11H.11
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
C ounty of M onroe
Mayor David Rice, District 4
Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
TheFloridaKeys
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
George Neugent, District 2
Heather Carruthers, District 3
County Commission Meeting
November 20, 2018
Agenda Item Number: H.11
Agenda Item Summary #4893
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Assistant County Administrator Kevin
Wilson
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Kevin Wilson (305) 292-4441
No
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to pose clarifying questions to the submitters of the
highest ranked proposals for the "Tiny House" project.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
As part of its review the selection committee developed an alternate
selection list, as well. Following the BO
committee selected four separate vendors and models representing a range of sizes (360 SF 1,094
SF), installed prices ($101,000 $223,500), and vendors (four). Many of the submissions had minor
irregularities that may require BOCC waivers. The selection committee generated a list of questions
for each of the tentatively selected proposals, including confirmation of wind speed design criteria,
missing answers to questions about legal issues, confirmation of compliance with flood elevation
requirements, and failure to list the optional cost for increased elevation above code requirements.
The selection committee recommends that the BOCC authorize it to pose the required questions to
the vendors tentatively selected (1st & alternate) and convene another selection committee meeting
to finalize the proposed vendor / styles / sites for BOCC contract approval.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: At its 16 May 2018 meeting, the BOCC authorized
issuance of the Request for Proposals (RFP) soliciting proposals for four (4) County owned parcels.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
No
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
DOCUMENTATION:
2018-11-13 Memo-Tiny House Questions
Packet Pg. 1269
H.11
Minutes of Selection Committee 10-29-18
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date: N/A
Expiration Date: N/A
Total Dollar Value of Contract: N/A
Total Cost to County: N/A
Current Year Portion: N/A
Budgeted: N/A
Source of Funds: Infrastructure Sales Surtax
CPI: N/A
Indirect Costs: Staff Time
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: N/A
Revenue Producing: No If yes, amount:
Grant: N/A
County Match: N/A
Insurance Required: N/A
Additional Details: N/A
N/A
REVIEWED BY:
Kevin Wilson Completed 10/28/2018 4:00 PM
Christine Hurley Completed 11/01/2018 3:29 PM
Helene Wetherington Completed 11/01/2018 6:09 PM
Reynaldo Ortiz Completed 11/02/2018 11:08 AM
Patricia Eables Completed 11/02/2018 1:31 PM
Budget and Finance Completed 11/05/2018 9:55 AM
Maria Slavik Completed 11/05/2018 10:59 AM
Kathy Peters Completed 11/05/2018 11:06 AM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 11/20/2018 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 1270
H.11.a
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe
Mayor David Rice, District 4
Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
The Florida Keys
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
George Neugent, District 2
Heather Carruthers, District 3
Memorandum
DATE: 13 November 2018
TO: Commissioners CC: Gastesi, Hurley, Wetherington, Ortiz, Eables, Jones
FROM:Kevin G. Wilson, P.E.
SUBJECT: Proposed Questions for “Tiny House” Respondents
Action Requested: BOCC approval to pose the attached questions to a selection of “Tiny House”
RFP respondents.
Next Step: With approval to pose the questions and receipt of acceptable answers, the
committee will review and finalize its recommendation for contracts with vendors at each site.
Background:
Attached is the list of questions that the “Tiny House” selection committee wishes to pose to the
four mostly highly rated vendors. The agenda item requests BOCC approval to pose the
questions to the vendors identified on the attached list. With their responses, the committee
expects that it can then reach a consensus recommendation for BOCC approval of contracts
The committee found that many of the submissions included generic plans with code citations
that did not appear to meet the conditions of the Request for Proposals (RFP). The RFP was clear
that the proposed structures were to be installed at one of four specific sites in Monroe County
and that the installations were required to meet all building and flood requirements applicable at
those sites. Before recommending that the BOCC approve a waiver of the apparent irregularity,
the committee decided to review the submittals with the presumption that the submitters
understood the requirements but to withhold a final BOCC recommendation until they could be
asked for explicit confirmation.
1100 Simonton Street tel: (305) 292-4529
Key West, FL 33040 fax: (305) 295-4321
Packet Pg. 1271
H.11.a
SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR VENDORS
OF “TINY HOUSES” RFP
Advanced ConstructionTechnologies, LLC:
1.Please confirm that the 755 sq. ft.homewill meet the current Florida Building Code
wind load requirementsapplicable in Monroe County. What are the wind load design
bases?
2.Please confirm how the 1,012 sq. ft. home willmeet the current Monroe County Code
elevation requirements with regard to the Cudjoe Key site.What is the finished floor
elevation (FFE) proposed for the proposed house?
3.Please clarify whethereachunit price includesmeeting all elevation requirements with
regard to the current Monroe County Code and Florida Building Code.If not, explain
any additional costs that must be included to meet all elevation requirements.
4.Please clarify the relationship between Advanced Construction and Perma House.
5.Please clarify whetherAdvanced Construction, or some another entity such as Perma
House,would be providing the performance bond if Advanced Construction is selected as
a vendor.
6.Please confirm that each of your proposed homesmeet all current Monroe County Code
and Florida Building Code requirementsapplicable in Monroe County.
7.Please describe how the proposed plan will incorporate the stormwater management
requirements of thesite.
8.Please provide details on past experience with the proposed type of house: How many
have been constructed? Where? How many by yourfirm?
Cypress Community Development Corp.:
1.Please confirm if eachof yourproposed homesmeet the current Florida BuildingCode
wind load requirementsapplicable in Monroe County. What are the wind load design
bases?
2.Please clarify how you plan to address the stormwater runoff issue at the Big Coppitt site
with regard to each of the homesproposed for that particular site.
3.Please confirm thattheproposed unit cost on each particular type of home includes
minimum required elevated costs.What is the proposed finished floor elevation (FFE)?
If not, please explain any additional costs that must be included to meet elevation
requirements.On the Cypress Community Development RFP Checklist, two sections are
Attachment: 2018-11-13 Memo-Tiny House Questions \[Revision 1\] (Tiny House Clarifying questions)
identified as “Cost to Elevate Unit Above Grade” and “Cost to Elevate Unit above
Parking”. Please clarify this further as to whether these amounts are additional fees or
have been included in your base proposal amountfor each type of home.
4.Please confirm that each of your proposed homesmeet all current Monroe County Code
and Florida Building Code requirements.
1
Packet Pg. 1272
H.11.a
5.Please provide details on past experience with the proposed type of house: How many
have been constructed? Where? How many by your firm?
Ducky Johnson Home Elevation, LLC:
1.Please confirm whether the homeproposed for the Ramrod site meetsthe current Florida
BuildingCode wind load requirementsapplicable in Monroe County. What are thewind
load design bases?
2.Please confirm thatthe proposal for the Ramrod site meetsthe current Monroe County
Code flood elevationrequirements.
3.Please confirm that the homeproposed for the Ramrod site meetsthe current Monroe
County Code elevation requirements.
4.Please confirm that the individual cost sheet submitted for each proposed home included
any costs associated with elevation requirements.
5.Please clarify the difference in the submitted individual home costs as compared to the
total bid amount of $440,700.
6.Please confirm that each of your proposed homesmeet all current Monroe County Code
and Florida Building Code requirementsapplicable in Monroe County.
7.Please provide details on past experience with the proposed type of house: How many
have been constructed? Where? How many by your firm?
Cornerstone Design Build, Inc.:
1.Please confirm thatyour proposed homemeetsall current Monroe County Code and
Florida Building Code requirements.
2.Please confirm that your proposed home meets the current Florida BuildingCode wind
load requirementsapplicable in Monroe County. What are the wind load design bases?
3.Please confirm that your proposed home at theunit price you provided meets all Monroe
County Code elevation requirementsfor finished floor elevation (FFE).What are the
proposed FFEs?
4.Please clarify and provide a breakdown of the cost for the proposed unit to be delivered
and installedmeets all Monroe County Code requirements.
5.Please provide responses to questions1. A. through E (a. through e.) of “Information
Required to be Provided” found at pages 21 through 23 of the Request for Proposals.
6.Please provide details on past experience with the proposed type of house: How many
Attachment: 2018-11-13 Memo-Tiny House Questions \[Revision 1\] (Tiny House Clarifying questions)
have been constructed? Where? How many by your firm?
2
Packet Pg. 1273
H.11.b
Minutes of Selection Committee for “Tiny Houses”
Meeting convened at 1:00 on 25 October 2018
Attendees in person: Tricia Eables –Assistant County Attorney –observer; Reynaldo Ortiz;
Christine Hurley; Helene Wetherington; Kevin Wilson; Juanita Jones -observer
Attendees via Zoom video meeting –none
After some discussion about the incompleteness of some submissions and the substandard wind
design criteria shown on others, the committee chose to develop a preferred list of proposed site
selections and list questions which needto be answeredto finalize selectionsandthatthe BOCC
would be askedto authorize the committee to pose clarifying questions to the selected proposers
as follows:
Advanced Construction Technologies --The wind loads shown on their documents were 140
mph.The proposershould verify that proposed structures can meet the windload standard in the
Florida Building Code (FBC) applicable in Monroe County, explicitly state the standard that has
been used, and explicitly state that theproposalcan meet all other building code standards
required in Monroe County.There was no confirmation that they had considered the flood
elevation requirements; and, they did not provide the cost to elevate the structure in compliance
with the National Flood Insurance Program(NFIP). Theapplicant should verify the cost of flood
elevation as detailed in the request for proposals requirements. The committee would like to
pose these questions to them.
Cornerstone Construction --Their submission shows maximum wind speeds of 160mph and
says they do not need local inspections. The applicant should verify that proposed structures can
meet the FBCstandardapplicable at the sites proposed; explicitly state the standard applied,and
that they can meet all other building code standards required in Monroe County.Thecommittee
wants to confirm that actual unit meets Monroe County wind codes. Plans submitted show unit
on grade only. No costs for elevation are shown. Committee wants to confirm they have
considered flood requirementsand verify the cost associated with elevation as detailed in the
request for proposals. They also did not answer questions about prior litigationand, thus, the
Committee will ask for those questions to be answered.
Attachment: Minutes of Selection Committee 10-29-18 (Tiny House Clarifying questions)
Ducky Johnson --There were no specific references to wind speed or flood code requirements.
The committee wants to confirmthat the submitted structures will meet all requiredbuilding
codes.The committee will ask the proposer to confirm that the proposed structures will meet
the required FBC wind loads applicable at the proposed sites and to have the proposer explicitly
state the wind loads used. No costto elevate structure above flood code requirements was
submitted. The committee wants to confirm they have considered flood requirements and verify
Packet Pg. 1274
H.11.b
the cost associated with elevation as detailed in the request for proposals. Finally,the individual
cost sheets showed $223,500 as the costs,but the bid sheet shows$440,700.The proposer should
verify the construction costs associated with each structure submitted in the proposal.
Attached is the matrix showing the committee’s proposed primary proposal and an alternate.
Attachment: Minutes of Selection Committee 10-29-18 (Tiny House Clarifying questions)
Packet Pg. 1275
H.11.b
OVERALL RANKING SHEET
VendorTypeSiteAlternate Choice1st Choice
Y$148,000
Advanced construction755 SFBig Coppitt
y$189,600
Advanced construction1,012 SFCudjoe
Y$101,000y$101,000
Cornerstone360 SFKey Largo
Cypress1,175Big Coppitt
Cypress1,175Cudjoe
Cypress1,175Ramrod
Cypress1,175Key Largo
Cypress1.094Big Coppitt
Y$296,000
Cypress1.094Cudjoe
Cypress1.094Ramrod
Cypress1.094Key Largo
y$212,000
Cypress760Big Coppitt
Cypress760Ramrod
Cypress760Key Largo
Ducky Johnson864 SFBig Coppitt
Ducky Johnson864 SFCudjoe
Y$223,500y$223,500
Ducky Johnson864 SFRamrod
Ducky Johnson864 SFKey Largo
RAS640 / 640 SFBig Coppitt
RAS640MT / 960 SFCudjoe
RAS960 / ?? SFRamrod
Attachment: Minutes of Selection Committee 10-29-18 (Tiny House Clarifying questions)
RAS320 SFKey Largo
Tomca Kier1,560 SFBig Coppitt
Tomca Kier1,560 SFCudjoe
Tomca Kier1,560 SFRamrod
Tomca Kier1,560 SFKey Largo
Packet Pg. 1276