Item J1 J.1
County �� � .�� �y,4 ' �, "tr, BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Mayor Michelle Coldiron,District 2
�1 nff `ll Mayor Pro Tem David Rice,District 4
-Ile Florida.Keys Craig Cates,District 1
Eddie Martinez,District 3
w Mike Forster,District 5
County Commission Meeting
May 19, 2021
Agenda Item Number: J.1
Agenda Item Summary #8086
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Airports
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Richard Strickland(305) 809-5200
N/A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to reject all bids for the Construction Manager At Risk
Services for Key West International Airport Concourse A and Terminal Improvements program due
to an ambiguity in the scoring criteria AND approval to re-advertise the competitive solicitation with
a reduced period of advertisement from 45 days to 30 days for the Construction Manager At Risk
Services for Key West International Airport Concourse A and Terminal Improvements program.
ITEM BACKGROUND: The RFP for the KWIA Terminal Improvements Project CMAR was
published and advertised on Dec. 10, 2020. The bids were opened on Jan. 26, 2021 and the selection
committee met on Feb. 10, 2021 for the first phase of the selection process which was to review and
"shortlist" the responses. On Feb. 24, the 3 highest ranked respondents, Turner, Balfour Beatty and
NV2A were invited back for the second phase of the selection process during which the shortlisted
firms were interviewed and were asked to provide their proposed cost of work fees in sealed
envelopes. The selection committee then met on Feb. 26 for the final ranking of the respondents.
Prior to considering the final ranking, the selection committee opened the sealed fee proposals in
order to score the fee proposals. The scoring criteria set forth in the RFP is as follows:
"The scoring criteria for pricing will be based on the provided fee percentage markup on
the cost of work. The respondent with the lowest fee percentage will be awarded 10
points. The other respondent's will be awarded on a pre-rated based the percentage
differences between their fees and that of the lowest respondent."
Turner submitted the lowest fee and was awarded 10 points. Pursuant to the scoring criteria, as stated
above, staff calculated and awarded the remaining 2 respondents, Balfour Beatty and NV2A, a
prorated points allocation of 8.35 and 8.05 points, respectively. The points total and final ranking of
the respondents were announced with NV2A ranked 1st with a total of 109.72 points, Balfour Beatty
ranked 2nd with a total of 109.02 points and Turner ranked 3rd with a total of 108.67 points.
However, following the announcing of the scoring, it has become clear to staff that the second
sentence of the scoring criteria (bolded above) contains an ambiguity that has led to at least 3
different interpretations of the scoring criteria.
Following the announcement of the scoring Turner submitted an e-mail to staff requesting a review
Packet Pg. 1113
J.1
of the scoring. Under the interpretation of the scoring criteria employed by Turner, Turner again
receives 10 points and the remaining 2 respondents, Balfour Beatty and NV2A, received a prorated
points allocation of 4.9 and 3.1 points respectively with the final score now awarding the highest
point total to Turner at 108.7, Balfour Beatty next at 105.9 and NV2A lowest at 104.8.
NV2A also submitted an e-mail upon learning that the delay in announcing an award was due to a
review of the calculations used for final scoring. NV2A candidly acknowledged that the county may
have committed an error in its calculations and also provided a scoring matrix based on NV2A's
interpretation of the scoring criteria. The e-mail was then followed up with a letter explaining a third
scoring methodology. Under the NV2A method Turner again receives 10 points and the remaining 2
respondents, Balfour Beatty and NV2A, received a prorated points allocation of 9.1 and 8.8 points
respectively with the final score again awarding the highest point total to NV2A at 110.47, Balfour
Beatty next at 109.77 and Turner lowest at 108.67.
Both the Turner and NV2A scores, and scoring methods, differed from the staff score and scoring
method as a result of the ambiguity in the scoring criteria. The ambiguity impacts the final rankings
therefore staff believes the appropriate course of action is to reject all bids, clarify the ambiguity and
re-issue the bid solicitation.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On October 21, 2020, the BOCC granted approval to
advertise the competitive solicitation for the Construction Manager At Risk Services for Key West
International Airport Concourse A and Terminal Improvements program.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval.
DOCUMENTATION:
Turner- Scoring e-mail
NV2A - Scoring letter
Staff Scoring Matrix
NV2A - Scoring e-mail
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract: Approx. $500.00 for bid notices
Total Cost to County: -0-
Current Year Portion: same
Budgeted: yes
Source of Funds: Airport Operating Fund 404
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Packet Pg. 1114
J.1
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing: If yes, amount:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required: No
Additional Details:
05/19/21 404-63001 - KEY WEST AIRPORT O & M $500.00
REVIEWED BY:
Beth Leto Completed 05/01/2021 2:05 PM
Richard Strickland Completed 05/03/2021 5:17 PM
Pedro Mercado Completed 05/04/2021 11:37 AM
Purchasing Completed 05/04/2021 11:52 AM
Budget and Finance Completed 05/04/2021 1:18 PM
Maria Slavik Completed 05/04/2021 1:19 PM
Liz Yongue Completed 05/04/2021 2:48 PM
Board of County Commissioners Pending 05/19/2021 9:00 AM
Packet Pg. 1115
J.1.a
C r •°• °
N' X
� A
N 0! 7 O
D m -• o n ac
em*l p 7•
A c 0 7
p 0p < 3 3.= n
a7� T C fD 00 O W
+ ^
H T o o d d
S 7 N ° < W
°o.-0 m... Ac. � �
OI 10 O r. F+ O O N m !QS 00 H S .. S
-• - T
N tD M A O: G T fD 3 t0 �-
I a
I _ A '° m �$ O m � nm0n
._.__..._.. 23
ti ! O'
!D f`Si < N - tWU O O
..... ..._.. _• .Oe
N m O T S y .X{y m m S N O S A
Rf t F+ O O F O m ufDi �.`.A 3 N Oi O
w ;f m M a �- v o 0
(D �y �-' m c 3
N O v
_... ....... .._... T v T d O.^' O c
!D N
Z k A� � N m
... .....m. 25 A ` o " o
Z � _ LL
a
O pn�'"' ' n Q
<
m„ °
•, ; � � wn
a _
.._ ,........... , fjs� 7 �' 1
r I( 7?
1 + + � r N
o a
--"' �Ai lj.is to �o �o m r p v°
" rt
j �c w f+ s m .. (D u
-tr'- __� fit 't• f+ ro W.0 C)
r)
...... _„ } w cr O 009 .fit
.-
00 O
f m
T cn
f0
O .
t� ttty fD a O. N
CD
oo io ^V O n oI-
T„
j }7 A 3 N
Ali tt l;� 'a C .0
Am
� NO,
IS Sip his, �s,
qr
D
8 G G 7t
000
Packet Pg.1116
MOYE, O'BRIEN, PICKERT, DILLON& MASTERSON, LLP
ATTORNEYS AT LAW"
800 SOUTH ORLANDO A VENUE
.1 A M E S E, M O 1 E* MAITLAND,FLORIDA 32751
'MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA BAR TELEPHONE(407)622-5250 STEPHEN W,PICKERT
'MEMBER OF THE GEORGIA BAR TELEFAR(a07)622-5410
-NIENIBER OF THE TE�CAS BAR 1 `'e, mDOpd.com OF COUNSEL
°'MEMBER OF THE VIRGINIA BAR
'SOLICITOR,ENGLAND AND HALES
*BOARD CERTIFIED IN CONSTRUCTION LAW
BY THE FLORIDA BAR
May 3, 2021
Mr. Richard Strickland
Monroe County Director of Airports CL
tr ka - ichard,.'t' onroeCounty- L. ov
3491 South Roosevelt Boulevard
Key West Florida 33040
SUBJECT: Selection of Construction Manager at Risk Services for
Monroe County Key West International Airport >
Concourse A and Terminal Improvements Program
Dear Mr. Strickland:
This firm represents NV2A Gulf Keystar, A Joint Venture, LLC ("NV2A/Gulf Keystar"), the a_
number one ranked proposer on Monroe County's Request for Proposals for Construction
Manager at Risk Services for Key West International Airport Concourse A and Terminal
Improvements Program. We write this letter to urge the County to uphold the results of this W
competitive solicitation and award the contract to NV2A/Gulf Keystar.
As you are aware, under the RFP, there was a maximum of 120 points the proposers could have
received on their proposals — a maximum of 100 points under the Phase I evaluation of the
proposers' submittals, a maximum of 10 points under Phase 2 for the duality of the proposers'
presentations, and a maximum of 10 points for the proposers' pricing which was based on the fee
submitted.
The RFP set forth specific criteria that the Selection Committee was to use in scoring the
proposals. The RFP provided the following for scoring the pricing component: E
Respondent shall provide the fee percentage markup on the cost of work. This fee
shall include profit, overhead and G&A expenses.
The scoring criteria for pricing will be based on the provided fee percentage
markup on the cost of work. The respondent with the lowest fee percentage will
be awarded 10 points. The other respondent's will be awarded on a pre-rated
based the percentage differences between their fees and that of the lowest
respondent.
Using the criteria in the RFP, NV2A/Gulf Keystar received the highest point total, as set forth
below:
Packet Pg. 1117
Mr. Richard Strickland
May 3, 2021
Page 2
Balfour NV2A Gulf
Be Turner K Stu
Phase 1
points 2.244M 9L67 91A0 9L67 r't•k °� a 10
35
P Phase 2 POLMR.Strk Mand 35 el fir) O "r m as
B.leto Ft$5ja f r6
subtotal
Phase 2 total points °7
Grand Total Points W
Final Nanking,
r �
NO R Fasrd S 1# @4au C
We, 'b4anel¢.'S89 ttt Me., QIBMLW6v Fiat""�� den6i = ' (U
It has come to NV2A/Gulf Keystar's attention that Turner Construction Company, the third-
ranked proposer, has made an after-the-fact challenge to how the Selection Committee scored the
proposals as to the pricing component. It is our understanding that Turner contends either that (i)
all proposals should be rejected and the RFP re-issued because there should have been a formula
set forth in the RFP on how to calculate the percentage difference in the proposers' submitted fee
markup or(ii) the County should re-score the pricing component based on a formula provided by )
Turner which, unsurprisingly, would catapult Turner into being the number one ranked proposer. '
N
The County should reject Turner's contentions. Turner waived any ability to protest the lack of a
detailed formula for the pricing component of the scoring criteria by not raising the issue prior to
submitting its proposal. Section 1-5 of the RFP mandated that "Respondents and Sub- E
Respondents requiring clarification or interpretation shall submit their questions in writing to the
County no later than ten (10) business days prior to the date for receipt of Responses, to the
following address: S rickland-Richard ..MonroeCounty-FL.Gov." Section 1-5 further explains
that:
Any answer, interpretation, correction of the solicitation documents will [be]
made by publishing an addendum/addenda. . . Interpretations, corrections, or
changes of the solicitation documents made in any other manner will not be
bindin . . Submission of a Response constitutes representation by the
Respondent that he/she has complied with all requirements of the solicitation and
Packet Pg. 1118
J.1.b
Mr. Richard Strickland
May 3, 2021
Page 3
that the solicitation documents are sufficient in scope and detail and convey
understanding of all terms and conditions for performance of the Work.
Turner had every opportunity to protest, object to or seek clarification as to the pricing
component of the scoring criteria. It purposely chose not to do so and has waited until after it
came in third place to do so. A losing proposer, such as Turner, who prior to proposal submission
does not protest, object, or question the criteria for scoring proposals cannot complain after the
fact about the criteria. This is contrary to fair competition, it would open up every solicitation to
criticism by a losing proposer, and it would defeat the purpose of requiring that a proposer seek
clarification of an RFP prior to submission of its proposal.
The County should also reject Turner's suggestion that the County "re-score" the proposals
based on Turner's clearly biased formula. It would be completely contrary to fair competition to
retroactively apply a formula after the scoring is complete and all proposers know the scores
based on a formula that was not stated in the RFP and not used by the Selection Committee. See
City of Sweetwater v. Solo Constr. Corp., 823 So. 2d 798 (Fla. 3d DCA 2002) (holding that the
City's decision to award a contract to the third lowest bidder based on criteria that was not
included in the bid documents was invalid as arbitrary and capricious).
The RFP set forth specific criteria that the Selection Committee was to use in scoring the
proposals. The Selection Committee applied the formula set forth in the RFP. Turner's criticism
of the Selection Committee's number one ranking of NV2A/Gulf Keystar based on all of the
criteria set forth in the RFP should be summarily rejected. Florida law is absolutely clear that
"second guessing" how evaluating committee members rank proposers is not grounds for a bid 0
protest and the judgments made by committee members cannot be substituted with that of others ,
upon review. Emerald Correctional Mgmt. v. Bay County Bd. of County Comm'rs, 955 So. 2d N
647, 651 (Fla. 1 st DCA 2007).
If the County were to entertain a new scoring formula for the pricing component of the a
evaluation (it should not), the clearly skewed, self-serving formula suggested by Turner should
not be used. Instead, the formula below, if utilized by the County is reasonable and validates the
scoring calculated by the Selection Committee.
Packet Pg. 1119
J.1.bI
Mr. Richard Strickland
May 3, 2021
Page 4
Ba[fanx Beatty Turner M/2A Gulf Keystar
Average Phase 1 Points 2.24=1 92-67 91.00 91.67
Phase 2 Presentation(10 points max)
Phase 2 Presentation Alvin Wtley 7.00 8.00 i0.00
Phase 2 Presentation R Strickland 8.00 7.00 10.00
Phase 2 Presentation B.Leto 9.00 8.00 10.00
Total Phase 2 Presentation Founts 24.00 23.00 30.00
Average Phase 2 Presentatim Points 8.00 7.67 10.00
Phase 2 Price(10 points max)
Proposed Fee Percen a 2.65 1.75 2.95 y
Lowest Proposed Fee Percentage 1.75 1.75 1.75
Fee percenntage dfference between 0.90 0.00 1-20
proposM fee and lowest nnpondled
Pricing Points(10 points minus fee
percentage difference) 9.70 10.00 8.80
Total Points 109.77 108.67 110.47
Final Ranking 2 3 1 ,
r9
This scoring methodology tracks the language of the RFP by using the "percentage difference"to
score pricing, and it is simple and straightforward. "Percentage difference" means 295% minus 03
1.75%. If Turner is awarded 10 points, then NV2A/Gulf Keystar should be awarded 10 minus
1.2 points, which equals 8.8 points. When this pricing score is added to NV2A/Gulf Keystar's 0
other scores, it ends up with 110.47 and is still the highest ranked firm. Neither party should be
allowed to change the scoring criteria after the fact but, as may be seen, NV2A/Gulf Keystar can N
also come up with a formula that is consistent with the terms of the RFP.
In conclusion, NV2A/Gulf Keystar requests that the County uphold the final rankings made by
the Selection Committee, reject Turner's improper attack on the County's entirely valid
procurement process, and award the contract to NV2A/Gulf Keystar.
Sind ely,
J MES E. MOY
Packet Pg. 1120
J.1.b
Mr. Richard Strickland
May 3, 2021
Page 5
cc: Bob Shillinger, hillirkggL ob""'__ onroeCountv.- L. ov
Roman Gastesi, Gastesi. o and onroeCounty-FL.Gov
Pedro Mercado, erca o- ro onroecount® - L.Gov
Beth Leto, Leto-Beth:,,' =MonroeCounty-FL.gov
Charles Spottswood, c as i w°star c.co
Robert Spottswood, robert ;s pottswood. o -�
John Scherer, ro erticstaotts ood. or
Rick Derrer, rickdQgulfbuilding.com,m
Gilberto Neves, QNev s_.'g,,nv2a rou .com
0
u
N
Packet Pg. 1121
J.1.c
Key West International Airport
CMAR Phase 2 Ranking Matrix
2.26.2021
Presentation Phase 1 Grand
Rate submitted Proration Allocation Points Scores Total Ranking
Turner 1.75 10 7.67 91 108.67 3
Balfour 2.65 1.65 8.35 8 92.67 109.02 2
NV2A 2.95 1.95 8.05 10 91.67 109.72 1
1.75 10.00
2 1.00 9.00
3 2.00 8.00
3.25 2.25 7.75
4 3.00 7.00
4.25 3.25 6.75
5 4.00 6.00
6 5.00 5.00
7 6.00 4.00
8 7.00 3.00
9 8.00 2.00
r9
10 9.00 1.00
x
0
U
Packet Pg. 1122
J.1.d
Yongue-Liz
From: Gilberto Neves <GNeves@nv2agroup.com>
Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 5:20 PM
To: strickand-Richard@monroecounty-fl.gov
Cc: gastesi.roman@monroecounty-fl.gov; Shillinger-Bob; Mercado-Pedro; Chas
Spottswood; Robert; Gilberto Neves
Subject: Key West Airport CMAR Contract award
Attachments: Key West Evaluation Rankings (002).xlsx; Key West Evaluation Rankings (001).pdf
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County. Whether you know the sender or not, do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
CL
Dear Richard,
The award of the CMAR Contract for the Key West Airport Concourse A/Terminal Improvements was not yet shown on
the agenda for approval.
We understand that the reason for this delay may be an issue regarding the calculations utilized by the Selection
Committee to determine scoring and the final rankings.
We have gone back and reviewed the method outlined in the RFP and the score sheets.
Based upon our understanding of the RFP through interpretation of the text regarding the award for points for the
percentage fee portion of the scoring, it appears there may have been a mathematical error in the calculations.
However, such mathematical error does not change the final rankings. W
To illustrate that, please refer to the attached spreadsheet which shows the same method that was adopted per the
RFP, but with the correct mathematical formula.
Therefore, we look forward to your review of the attached and stand ready to receive the Award of the Contract. U
cv
Should you have any question, please feel free to contact us.
Respectfully,
Gilberto Neves
President&CEO
C 305.469.7783
O 786.233.5028
E naves nv2agroup.com
W Ny2ACROUP.CO
GET
VCi D
1
Packet Pg. 1123
J.1.d
NVKI GROUP
0
N
z
Packet Pg. 1124
Turner
MONROE COUNTY COMMISSION MEETING
May 19. 2021
Agenda Item Number: J.1:
Approval to reject all bids for the Construction Manager At Risk Services for Key West
International Airport Concourse A and Terminal Improvements program due to an ambiguity in
the scoring criteria AND approval to re-advertise the competitive solicitation with a reduced
period of advertisement from 45 days to 30 days for the Construction Manager At Risk Services
for Key West International Airport Concourse A and Terminal Improvements program
RE: Turner Construction Company's Formal Written Protest, Filed May 14,2021
I. RELIEF REQUESTED BY TURNER
Turner respectfully requests the following relief from the BOCC:
1. that the BOCC not approve the rejection of all bids;
2. that the BOCC direct the Selection Committee to re-score the fee points in
accordance with RFP's scoring criteria;
3. that the BOCC approve award of the CMAR contract to Turner after the re-
scoring confirms Turner's status as the highest-ranked respondent; and
4. should there still be confusion, Turner suggests that the BOCC retain an
independent accounting firm to "audit" the results of the scoring criteria. Turner
has done a similar exercise, confirming the RFP calculation, below.
II. THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY
Ambiguity: a word or expression that can be understood in two or more reasonable wars.
The alleged "ambiguous" language the County references in the RFP is:
"The scoring criteria for pricing will be based on the provided fee percentage markup on the cost
of work. The respondent with the lowest fee percentage will be awarded 10 points. The other
respondent's will be awarded on a pre-rated based the percentage differences between their
fees and that of the lowest respondent"
This scoring requirement references two criteria: Pro-rated and Percentage. By definition:
• Pro-rated: to make a pro rata distribution. To divide, distribute, or assess
proportionately.
• Percentage: a rate, any proportion or share in relation to a whole.
Wage
JI
Turner •
A. Turner (Proper Calculation)
Based on the RFP, the proper calculation is:
FEE Ranking Score= 1— Feeiny,o,,, ,.,v — Lowest feel x Rank Scale (10)
Lowestst Fee (pi Grotto)
/
The proposed fees of the respondents were:
1. Turner: 1.75% (Lowest)
2. Balfour: Beatty: 2.65% (Second lowest)
3. NV2A: 2.95%(Highest)
These fees are then plugged into the proper calculation:
FEE Ranking Score for Turner (1.75%) = 10 points (Lowest Fee)
(2.65 - 1.75)
FEE Ranking Score for Balfour (2.65%) = 1 - 1.75 x 10 = 4.86 points
(2.95 - 1.75)
FEE Ranking Score for NV2A (2.95%) = 1 - 1.75 x 10 = 3.14 points
When the proper calculation is used, the rankings are:
'. .Above Final Score
Score for Based on
Fee Per the Phase 1 Score for
CM RFP for Score Interview the RFP Ranking
Prorated Cale for
Distribution Fee Score
Turner 10.0 + 91 + 7.7 = 108.7 1.0
BB 4.86 + 93 + 8 = 105.9 2.0
NV2A 3.14 + 91.7 + 10 = 104.8 3.0
B. County (Improper Calculation)
The County did not apply the proper RFP calculation because it did not "divide"the difference
between the fees (it only subtracted-highlighted below), resulting in an inequitable score. In
other words, the County did not "Pro-rate", as required by the RFP.
Example (NV2A): 2.95(fee)- l = 1.95
10-1.95 = d'.u5 (Score)
2IPag
•
Turner
CM fin a.bid Proration Aeewien RexnYlien Phase Grand.ad µdory
Pain" Mores
L%.net 175 10 91 e661
BA 365 155 �':'$ 'dl 9I67 1C902
NV2A 295 195 1C 9167 169.71 1
Nee-ll ID Mmalic60
175 10
3 1
9 5 2_5 ,. 5 MCAA allocated the score based on
,_ 5 9. 5 6. 5 I subtracting the fee from a score of 10 to 1.
MCAA did not calculate based on the
"percentage difference between the fees
and that of the lowest respondent".
1
C. NV2A (Improper Calculation)
NV2A also did not apply the proper RFP calculation because it did not "divide"the
difference between the fees (it only subtracted—highlighted below), resulting in an even
more inequitable score. In other words.NV2A did not "Pro-rate", as required by the RFP.
Example (NV2A): 2.95(fee)-1.75 = 1.2
10- 1.2 =880 (Score)
snow Be!/ rues MrLA Get—
IATOMpePewelPoole 2.21.20Z1 I WC ern 9110
Phew I Pnaasee 1N Wine Mai
MNrf
�atn=e rW II
Phase 2 ]a 1aD.a
b ffiaprhae2 Pas m , s
pin s.a
00eo0eP00012Martlaa Paris as r.0r ba
0$2,0 3 Itlpernren
12.�% 1Tp y@5
ree Pe�sNrpetlnieiir4reea Q1Q CStl 120
PICOONOINIIIIIIONIMMWOfiden
PaMMrn_PrrNeMM a% Ipm ao
PaatlpatlmBri
Tad Porn lair lair 114*47
rMel peetlrtl 2 s 1
Ill. CONCLUSION
There is no ambiguity and so Turner should be awarded the contract. Keep in mind,just because
it may be difficult to understand does not make something ambiguous. Turner only asks that
the BOCC take its time in reading the clear requirement of the RFP and fairly apply it. Thank
you for your consideration.
3IPage
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of
Monroe May or Michelle Coldiron.District 2
The Florida Keys / �' f - Nhk,or Pro I eni ° 1 Rice,District
Craig Cates. Diytrict I
A Eddie NDistrict in e3
Mike 1<rst. District 5
Robert B.Shillinger,County Attorney**
Pedro J.Mercado.Assistant County Attorney" Office of the County Attorney
Cynthia I.Hall.Assistant County Attorney`* 111112"'Street,Suite 408
Christine Limben-Barrows.Assistant County Attorney" Key West,FL 33040
Derek V.Howard.Assistant County Attorney" (305)292-3470—Phone
Peter H.Morris.Assistant County Attorney** (305)292-3516—Fax
Patricia Fables,Assistant County Attorney
Paunece Scvl 1,Assistant County Attorney
Joseph X.DiNovo,Assistant County Attorney
•* Board Certified in City,County&Local Bout Law
MEMORANDUM
From: Pedro J. Mercado, Assistant County Attorney
Date: 3/31/21
Re: KWIA Terminal Improvements—CMAR"Cost of Fees" scoring
The RFP for the KWIA Terminal Improvements Project CMAR was published and advertised
on Dec. 10, 2020. The bids were opened on Jan. 26, 2021 and the selection committee met on
Feb. 10, 2021 for the first phase of the selection process which was to review and "shortlist"
the responses. On Feb. 24 the 3 highest ranked respondents were invited back for the second
phase of the selection process during which the shortlisted firms were interviewed and were
asked to provide their proposed cost of work fees in sealed envelopes.The selection committee
then met on Feb. 26 for the final ranking of the respondents. Prior to considering the final
ranking, the selection committee opened the sealed fee proposals and pursuant to the language
of the RFP, awarded 10 points to the respondent with lowest proposed fee —Turner. Pursuant
to the scoring criteria contained in the RFP, staff calculated and awarded the remaining 2
respondents, Balfour and NV2A, a prorated points allocation of 8.35 and 8.05 points
respectively. The points total and final ranking of the respondents were announced with NV2A
ranked 1`t with a total of 109.72 points, Balfour ranked 2"d with a total of 109.02 points and
Turner ranked 3`d with a total of 108.67 points.
The following week a representative from Turner contacted the Director of Airports. Turner
asked for a review of the final scoring based on their interpretation of the scoring criteria used
to determine the "cost of work fees" points allocation. Turner provided an e-mail analyses in
support of their reading of the scoring criteria. The language in question reads as follows;
"The scoring criteria for pricing will be based on the provided fee percentage markup
on the cost of work. The respondent with the lowest fee percentage will be awarded
10 points. The other respondent's will be awarded on a pre-rated based the percentage
differences between their fees and that of the lowest respondent."
As a result of the scoring discrepancy that resulted from the interpretation of the scoring criteria
language, the Director of Airports contacted the County Attorneys to review the language of
the RFP as applied to the scoring methodology employed by Turner and as applied by airport
i
staff. The County Attorney's office, in turn, contacted outside construction counsel, Ira
Libanoff and a professor of mathematics employed at the College of the Florida Keys. Dr.
Marcial Echenique.
Following several meetings with staff, Mr. Libanoff and Dr. Echenique to review the scoring
criteria language and the methodologies employed, it was determined that Turner had
demonstrated the more appropriate methodology for calculating the "cost of work fees".
Employing this methodology (Turner receives 10 points) Balfour received and allocation of
4.857 points and NV2A received and allocation of 3.143 points for the cost of fees. The
recalculation of the awarded points resulted in a change in the rankings with Turner now
receiving being ranked 1st with a total of 108.7 points, Balfour being ranked 2nd with a total
of 105.9 points and NV2A being ranked 3rd with a total of 104.8 points.
Grazio'si, Joseph - (MidAti)
From: Marcia) Echenique <mechenique314@gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2021 9:06 AM
To: Mercado-Pedro
Subject: Re: Points allocation
Attachment: Computation Description.pdf
ICAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County.Whether you know the sender or not,do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
Good Morning Mr. Mercado,
Attached you will find the details of the calculation based on the information you provided. I computed the percent
increase for the lowest bids from Respondent B and C. I used this percent to subtract the same percentage from the 10
points awarded to the lowest bid.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Marcial Echenique, Ed.D.
On Fri, Mar 26,2021 at 2:19 PM Mercado-Pedro<Mercado-Pedro@monroecounty-fl.goy>wrote:
Dr. Echenique,thank you again for your help in this matter.Attached above is the page from the solicitation with the
criteria for scoring the construction managers fees for the cost of the work. Respondent A submitted the lowest fee at
1.75, respondent B submitted a fee of 2.65, respondent C submitted a fee of 2.95.
Respondent A will be awarded 10 points, how many points should respondents B and C be awarded?
�`p[tfc9 Pedro Mercado
�,5 6 . Assistant County Attorney
F.( S. 1111 12th Street,Suite 408
e• Key West, FL 33040
oo44'0-.... <vF•� (305)292-3470
CI Y.D' NAY (305) 292-3516 (fax)
b LOCAL
GOVLRN44N1 LAW
Marcia) L. Echenique, Ed.D.
m ec h e n iq u e 314 @gm a i I.c o rn
Cell 954-319-1811
1
Mr. Mercado,
You will find a description of the computation of the weighted score for the second and third place bids.
The computations are based on the criteria in the RFP.The description on page 20 of the FRP states that
"The scoring criteria for pricing will be based on the provided fee percentage markup on the
cost of work.The respondent with the lowest fee percentage will be awarded 10 points.The
other respondent's will be awarded on a pre-rated based the percentage differences
between their fees and that of the lowest respondent."
The lowest bid submitted by Respondent A is 1.75. It is awarded a score of 10 points.
Respondent B submitted of a bid of 2.65.This bid is 51.429 percent higher than the lowest bid.The
computation of the points awarded is done in two steps.
a. 51.429 percent of the initial bid of 1.75 is 0.9. Adding 1.75 and 0.9 you obtain the bid amount
2.65 for respondent B.The percent increase is 51.429.
b. The points for Respondent B are calculated by subtracting the percentage increase of 51.429 in
the bid amount from the 10 points awarded to the Respondent A.Taking 51.429 percent of 10
gives 5.143.Subtracting this amount from 10 points gives a pro-rated amount of 4.857 points.
Respondent C submitted of a bid of 2.95.This bid is 68.571 percent higher than the lowest bid.The
computation of the points awarded is done in two steps.
a. 68.571 percent of the initial bid of 1.75 is 1.2.Adding 1.75 and 1.2 you obtain the bid amount
2.95 for respondent C.The percent increase is 68.571.
b. The points for Respondent C are calculated by subtracting the percentage increase of 68.571 in
the bid amount from the 10 points awarded to the Respondent A.Taking 68.571 percent of 10
gives 6.857. Subtracting this amount from 10 points gives a pro-rated amount of 3.143 points.
Proportion of 10 points based on bid amount Points Awarded(Max 10)
Fee %Increase Points
Respondent A 1.75 1 10
Respondent B 2.65 51.429 4.857
Respondent C 2.95 68.571 3.143
Respondent A awarded 10 points for having the lowest bid
Respondent B and C we have the following
%Increase is the percent above the lowest bid
Points awarded are computed by using the percent increase of the bid and subtracting
this percent of the points from the maximum of 10 points.
Graziosi,-Joseph - (MidAtl)
From: Marcia) Echenique <mechenique314@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, March 29, 2021 8:22 PM
To: Mercado-Pedro
Subject: Re: Points allocation Zoom meeting
Attachments: Computation Description2.pdf
CAUTION:This email originated from outside of the County.Whether you know the sender or not,do not click links or
open attachments you were not expecting.
Hello Mr. Mercado,
I looked at the three documents you sent and analysed what was stated in the document. The allocated point ratios do
not match the increase in the bid ratio. Understanding that the bid values increased while the allocated points decrease.
We can discuss further at the meeting, but I have attached further details.
Please see the two-page document attached.
Regards,
Marcial
On Mon, Mar 29,2021 at 9:58 AM Mercado-Pedro<Mercado-Pedro@monroecounty-fl.Kov>wrote:
Dr. Echenique,you should have received a zoom invitation earlier with a link to the zoom meeting room.Attached are
documents that are relevant to our discussion tomorrow. I wanted to provide these to you to give you an opportunity
to review them before we discuss them tomorrow.The first attachment contains the equation staff used.The second
and third attachment contain percent increase calculations and percent difference calculations.
A,Qgfn Pedro Mercado
pq A "9 Assistant County Attorney
t:& 9v 1111 2th Street,Suite 408
e ����tll_Lf/._���.-,,//,,• Key West, FL 33040
O�ky C[Rt~c1 (305) 292-3470
GI'Pi
(DAlr (305)292-3516(fax)
8 L0CAL
G7e10N LNI LAW
Marcia) L. Echenique, Ed.D.
mechenique314@gmail.com
Cell 954-319-1811
1
Mr. Mercado,
We will discuss the results that your team made, but I wanted to get a head start on the meeting by
showing you and your team the computation ahead of time.
For Respondent B,you list an allocation of 8.35.This percentage is computed by taking 10—8.35= 1.65.
This number is 16.5%of 10.The dropped from the highest allocation is 16.5%.
However,the bid for respondent B is 2.65.This bid of 2.65 is 51.4%higher than the lowest bid of 1.75.
The numbers in the report that I received do not make sense to me as the bid increased by 51.4%but
the points, 1.65,subtracted from the 10 is 16.5%.The proportions are not the same.
For Respondent 0, you list an allocation of 8.05.This percentage is computed by taking 10—8.05= 1.95.
This number is 19.5%of 10. The dropped from the highest allocation is 19.5%.
However,the bid for respondent B is 2.95.This bid of 2.95 is 68.6%higher than the lowest bid of 1.75.
The numbers in the report that I received, again,do not make sense to me as the bid increased by 68.6%
but the points, 1.95, subtracted from the 30 is 19.5%.The proportions are not the same.
I have also attached a detailed spreadsheet showing the proportions for values for the range 1.75—2.65
for respondent A and 1.75—2.95 for respondent B.This spreadsheet shows how the increase in the bid
price has a proportional drop in the allocated points.
The table and computations are on the next page.
Proportion for Respondent B and C based on Increase of bid for A,lowest bid.(Proportion Work)
Respondant Bid Points
A 1.75 10
B 2.65 4.857
C 2.95 3.143
B % Increase Points Proportions C %Increase Points Proportions
1.75 10 1.75 10
1.8 2.86% 9.714 9.714 1.8 2.86% 9.7143 9.714
1.85 5.71% 9.429 9.429 1.85 5.71% 9.4286 9.429
1.9 8.57% 9.143 9.143 1.9 8.57% 9.1429 9.143
1.95 11.43% 8.857 8.857 1.95 11.43% 8.8571 8.857
2 14.29% 8.571 8.571 2 14.29% 8.5714 8.571
2.05 17.14% 8.286 8.286 2.05 17.14% 8.2857 8.286
2.1 20.00% 8.000 8.000 2.1 20.00% 8.0000 8.000
2.15 22.86% 7.714 7.714 2.15 22.86% 7.7143 7.714
2.2 25.71% 7.429 7.429 2.2 25.71% 7.4286 7.429
2.25 28.57% 7.143 7.143 2.25 28.57% 7.1429 7.143
2.3 31.43% 6.857 6.857 2.3 31.43% 6.8571 6.857
2.35 34.29% 6.571 6.571 2.35 34.29% 6.5714 6.571
2.4 37.14% 6.286 6.286 2.4 37.14% 6.2857 6.286
2.45 40.00% 6.000 6.000 2.45 40.00% 6.0000 6.000
2.5 42.86% 5.714 5.714 2.5 42.86% 5.7143 5.714
2.55 45.71% 5.429 5.429 2.55 45.71% 5.4286 5.429
2.6 48.57% 5.143 5.143 2.6 48.57% 5.1429 5.143
2.65 51.43% 4.857 4.857 2.65 51.43% 4.8571 4.857
2.7 54.29% 4.5714 4.571
2.75 57.14% 4.2857 4.286
2.8 60.00% 4.0000 4.000
2.85 62.86% 3.7143 3.714
2.9 65.71% 3.4286 3.429
2.95 68.57% 3.1429 3.143