Item D29_AIS D29
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY of MONROE Mayor Craig Cates,District 1
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tern Holly Merrill Raschein,District 5
Michelle Lincoln,District 2
James K.Scholl,District 3
David Rice,District 4
Board of County Commissioners Meeting
July 19, 2023
Agenda Item Number: D29
2023-1281
BULK ITEM: Yes DEPARTMENT: Solid Waste
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Cheryl Sullivan
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval to award and enter into a 5-year contract with Ashbritt
Toppino, LLC., for Disaster Response and Recovery Service, effective August 1, 2023, and upon
receipt of fully executed contract direction to the County Administrator to execute agreement on behalf
of the Monroe County BOCC.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Staff prepared an RFP to solicit bids for a new Disaster Response and Recovery Service Agreement, to
support debris removal in times of emergency. The RFP posted to Demand Star on April 19, 2023.
Bid opening took place on Thursday, June 8, 2023, at which time 6 proposals were received from the
following firms.
1. Ashbritt-Toppino, LLC.
2. CTC Disaster Response, Inc.
3. D & J Enterprises, Inc.
4. DRC Emergency Services, LLC.
5. SDR— Southern Disaster Recovery, LLC.
6. TFR Enterprises, Inc.
On June 23, 2023, a selection committee reviewed the proposals, and ranked/scored them. The
committee was comprised of the following employees: Julie Cuneo —Budget and Finance, Cheryl
Sullivan—Director, Solid Waste Management, Shannon Weiner—Director, Emergency Management,
and Kevin Wilson-Assistant County Administrator.
The selection committee's ranking and scoring (see attached)resulted in: DRC Emergency Services,
LLC., being the highest in rank (lst. ranked) and score(506 total points). TFR Enterprises and Ashbritt-
2158
Toppino, LLC. were tied for second in raking with TFR having a score of 469 and Ashbritt-Toppino,
LLC., with a score of 465.
After discussion (see minutes attached) the committee's recommendation was to award contracts to:
DRC Emergency Services LLC., TFR Enterprises and Ashbritt-Toppino, LLC., with the
recommendation to list DRC Emergency Services, LLC., as primary contractor since they were the
highest ranked proposer. A "Notice of Intent" (see attached)was posted on DemandStar, June 27, 2023.
After further discussions among the County Administrator and his staff, it was decided only 2 contracts
would be awarded and no primary would be listed on contract. An "Amended Notice of Intent" (see
attached) was posted on DemandStar, July 7, 2023.
Additional Information:
1. The Disaster Response and Recovery Service contracts were solicited following County
Purchasing Policy. The RFP identified the evaluation criteria, the points for each and the method
of evaluation by the selection committee, and the evaluation methods outlined in the RFP were
followed by the selection committee.
2. The Disaster Response and Recovery Service agreement may be eligible for reimbursement from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency in the event of a declared disaster. Procurement of
services must, therefore, comply with the County's codes and policies and, also Federal
regulations for procurement. Awarding multiple contracts is permissible and in accordance with
federal regulations and county procurement policies, the County must award the contract to the
firm(s)whose proposal is(are) most advantageous.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
N/A
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: The County Administrator and his staff recommend approval.
DOCUMENTATION:
Combined Ra cing Sheet- Signed.pdf
Selection Committee Minutes.pdf
Notice of Intent to Award.pdf
02 AMENDED Notice of Intended Decision Reviewed.pdf
Stamped 02 ASHERITT TOPPINO LLC INDIVIUAL Disaster Response and Recovery Contract June
2023 (003)-signed.pdf
2159
2023 07 COI Ashbritt Toppino Signed Exp 5 22 2023.pdf
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
N/A
2160
Mz
�a
w
a:
c
0
oc
&n m N rl w m w N m m J!
fn m 1-4 w
':)NI`S3SIUd)J31N3 a3 c
y 's
Y
g
C Rr � vono N � .m-�
N rt m
H 11 `Aa3AO:)3a M31SVSlG Na3H1f10S-a0
M rl N NLn 1-1 rl fn ey G LPI
rl rl e-1 r-1 1A
S3:)#AU3S ADN39a3W3 Na
LU
N � N
Z Ln N1 .rl-1 o C v in
cn
W ':)NI `S3SIadb31N3 r v 0
s � � � � � � ( � Ln N
m
ZO ':)NI `3SNOdS3a M31SVSia:)n
C
1� N N m Ln N w F4 Ln m
W q-4 9 rl 4 to
fA ill`ONIdd01-1LIa9H
a�
W
N
8 }
W
a
W U
N
Z
0
N
W W W W W
O O O O
_j 2
Y a a Y Jii a Y
c OR o o o o
r. C
1 23 d
c
m d � •� a+
r r a� •,
-, U to I Ix -I
Disaster Response and Recovery RFP Selection Committee Ranking Meeting
June 23, 2023
Meeting Began at: 1:03 pm
Monroe County Staff Present
• Cheryl Sullivan—Director of Monroe County Solid Waste—305-292-4536
• Kevin Wilson—Assistant County Administrator for Monroe County—
• Shannon Davis Weiner—Director of Monroe County Emergency Management—305-797-1167
• Julie Cuneo—Assistant Purchasing Director for Monroe County/Grant Manager for Hurricane
and Disaster Recovery Grants—305-292-4460
• Mandy Vidal— Executive Assistant for Monroe County Solid Waste—305-295-4328
• Christine Limbert
Members of the Public Present
• Roman Crofino—Charlie Toppino& Sons—General Manager—305-797-6807
• Danielle Sanabria—Partner at LSN Partners—305-673-2585
• Evan Fancher—DRC Emergency Services—205-478-6400
• Brandi Green—Smith Hawks—Paralegal—305-296-7227
• Tracy Doyle—Synergy Disaster Recovery—Director Client Relations—850-728-3104
• Sydney Kendrick—Phillips&Jordan—325-998-1023
• Brian Thomason—President of Disaster Response Ashbritt—954-240-1110
• Rob Ray—Senior Vice President Ashbritt
• Jackie Ryan—Ashbritt—954-258-6717
• Cissy Proctor—LSN Partners—850-294-1099
• Rey Martinez—Charlie Toppino & Sons—305-797-1003
• Michael Urentay—LSN Law representing DRC
Legend
• AT=Ash Britt Toppino LLC
• CTC=CTC Disaster Response
• D&J = D&J Enterprises
• DRC= DRC Emergency Services
• SDR=Southern Disaster Recovery, LLC
• TFR=TFR Enterprises, Inc
2162
Tab 1 Executive Summary
• Julie—
o Found it interesting how different respondents presented.
o Some were brief to the point of not getting the information we were looking for while
others covered it quite nicely.
o Followed same as Kevin not addressing all the elements was important.
o Similarly found AT DRC TFR with top scores.
• Kevin
o Three of them have very good executive summaries—AT DRC and TFR.
o Notes on CTC didn't provide any of the elements of tab 1 like technology and referred to
us as Florida City so they didn't prepare so well.
o D&J—perfunctory not specific with respect to Monroe County and they didn't describe
their technology.
o SDR—same notes doesn't provide any elements of tab 1 simply says "we're good and
you will be happy with us".
o Top 3—AT DRC TFR the other two guys were a distant 4t", 5t", and 6t"-
0 Cheryl
o Top 3—AT DRC and TFR.
• Shannon
o Agrees going alphabetically those were the same top 3.
Tab 2 Relevant Experience, References, Past Performance on Similar Projects
• Kevin
o Found 2 outstanding ones AT DRC.
o Didn't find TFR as good.
o D&J a little better showed only a few projects over 10 mil on its own. They were a
subcontractor to AT in a lot of them.
o Found AT DRC about equal D&J behind them and then TFR.
o TFR highlighted 6 projects above 1 mil and only 2 above 10 mil.
o SDR listed few if any projects in FL no reference letters from FL municipalities—came out
at bottom end.
o Ranked AT DRC D&J followed by others.
• Shannon
o Ranking DRC AT& D&J.
• Julie—
o Ranks DRC AT same
o TFR 3rd
o CTC lowest because 5 mil was the top of their contracts and after Irma,we know it can
get significantly higher and need a lot more manpower.
o D&J SDR ranked them same slightly lower than TFR.
o TFR had some larger 35-50 mil so gave them a little higher.
o Some references weren't as strong related to what we need.
• Cheryl
2163
o Ranks CTC lowest, SDR next lowest, AT DW DRC TFR were next highest.
Tab 3 Project Approach and Management
• Kevin
o One of the 3 most important tabs (tab 3,tab 4 and tab 7).
o How do you do your job, who do you have doing it, and how much are you going to
charge us for it.
o Everyone did a good job tab 3 —everyone is a professional in this business.
0 5 out of 6 within 2 points at the top—lowest was SDR—AT CTC DRC about equal TFR DW
a little behind.
o One reason SDR did badly was because they kept talking about burning and we were
explicit in RFP that burning is not going to be allowed—everyone mentioned it at some
point which means we got some pre-canned responses and understand that can't create
a unique one for each application.
• Shannon
o All within a few points—AT DRC both at the same TFR 1 point behind them DW 1 point
behind them.
• Cheryl
o Everyone did really well.
o Lowest CTC they didn't understand some of the uniqueness in regard to housing of the
keys and limited landfills they referenced landfills and thought they didn't realize that
we don't have landfills in close proximity.
o Noticed burning in everyone's proposals.
• Julie
o AT highest DRC TFR the same other 3 a bit lower.
o Some didn't address some of the specifics in RFP relating to scope of work—first push 5
crews withing 12 hours but some said would have people within 24 hours—sand
screening and replacement which we've had to do—everything going on with gas right
now—them not discussing how they would handle these.
o Scored lower when people did not address everything that was in the scope of work.
o Some had shorter lists of equipment.
Tab 4 Staffing for this Project and Qualifications of Key Personnel
• Julie
o Very close scores.
o Highlighted having staff that were subject matter experts with FDEM and FEMA and
subcontractors with a good list of ones from the keys.
o DRC had 8/10 were from the keys.
o A lot of them had a database with much more but didn't hold it against them for those
that didn't address too much on their subcontractors.
o TFR liked how they addressed having letters from the subs within intent to work.
o Area some didn't address well was in reference how they would work with the ICS
structure.
2164
o Again,took points off for not including all of the information even if their skills were
great.
o SDR proposal had ICS structure in tab 3 pg. 43.
o Things were not in the tab and tabs weren't labelled in one case.
• Kevin
o D&J middling score had no nonsense resumes made comments about how proud they
are that they can self-perform but had 9 pages of subs.
o Only one proposal listed the NIMS ICS certification for each of the personnel that were
listed as participants.
o Most cases listed a whole page of certification but never listed who had which—will
assume the appropriate people have the appropriate certifications but should be listed.
o Top 3 in alphabetical order AT D&J DRC.
o Did give SDR credit for their ICS chart.
• Shannon
o same top 3 as Kevin.
o Liked the use of local subs.
o Several didn't respond with "how you would operate within the ICS structure".
o Didn't see in any of the proposals even though they list qualifications and classes but not
how they would respond and utilize ICS themselves with their organizations.
o There were org charts but not ICS org charts.
• Cheryl
o Would like to have seen more assignment titles by name.
o Did like the easy read resumes.
o Top 3 AT D&J DRC—had a 4t"that was close too.
Tab 5 Financial Information & Litigation
• Kevin
o All over the map in bonding capacity—one company didn't even mention—three biggest
were more than 10 times more than the others.
o Everyone seems to have decent financials—won't talk about confidential information.
o Top 2—AT DRC with huge bonding capacity—next was D&J and the TFR—other two drop
off the map.
o One of them lost money last year.
o Legal front TFR had one lawsuit against DOT.
o AT disclosed recent litigation that was settled.
o D&J didn't answer the yes/no questions but gave worded response—didn't suffer badly
—weren't as good financially as AT and DRC.
o AT and DRC both have long lists of litigation a lot of personal injury and cars running into
trucks is not the things we're looking for—looking for non-performance or non-payment
particularly with government entities.
o The difference between AT DRC D&J was the financials the bonding capacity and doing
business where there are huge amounts of money—for us compared to a large county
this is a small project so if they have 100 mil bonding capacity, you're going to be able to
do the job here.
2165
o If you're doing as much business as those big companies are doing you are going to have
pesky lawsuits around.
o Didn't see anything except the DOT legal encumbrances that would be a showstopper.
• Julie
o CTC had a blanket statement that used their current name that became in affect this
year but didn't address former name.
o Irma total cost was over 60 mil and debris- 26 mil.
• Cheryl
o In a lot of categories scores were close so got picky.
o One company didn't print out the cover page of Sunbiz-they had the report but didn't
attach the Sunbiz report.
o Someone else didn't fill out the actual questions and answers they just attached a
litigation page.
o Someone else didn't answer yes or no just said see attached details-wanted to see
acknowledgement of the yes or no.
o Really important to follow the guidelines.
• Shannon
o Questioned some of the missing information as well.
o One applicant because the Sunbiz report was missing wasn't sure if they were eligible to
do business in Florida.
o Takes points off for missing information.
o Appreciate the recognition of AT on the litigation side.
o Took a hard look at DRC's litigation but there wasn't anything concerning was read what
the litigation was about.
o Top 2 DRC AT everyone else was close in scoring.
o AT was recently incorporated and provided everything for both previous companies.
Tab 6 Additional Services
• Julie
o Only AT addressed as asked for services and cost.
o Some did not even provide it.
o Some mentioned it without detail.
o Gave points for attempting.
• Kevin
o Only saw two that listed additional services and only one provide prices AT provided an
exhaustive list.
o Not sure we'll use any additional services we learned during Irma it has to be
documented well in advance-we'd have a chance with AT not so much with DRC and
not at all with the others.
o Some listed cute things about their company.
o AT DRC got points the others got nothing.
• Cheryl
o Points to AT DRC and minimal points to a couple other companies.
• Shannon
2166
o same as Cheryl.
Tab 7 Cost Summary
• Schedule 1
o Kevin
■ If use just unit prices and quantities provided there's a wide range of totals that
would have resulted in from 9 mil-16.9 mil.
■ Took those numbers and ranked 1-6. TFR was cheapest,then CTC, D&J next,
DRC 4th, SDR 5t", AT 6"
■ Removing less likely categories—hauling 0-60 miles will be a lot less than
hauling more than 120 miles—summed up by most likely to use gave a range of
6.6 mil-12 mil—TFR CTC D&J DRC SDR AT.
■ Added back in categories—collecting and hauling non vegetative more than 30
miles—TFR CTC D&J DRC SDR AT.
■ Final ranking-TFR CTC D&J DRC SDR AT.
o Cheryl
■ Took cross analysis schedule 1 against schedule 2 &3—had TFR CTC DRC SDR
D&J AT.
o Julie
■ Took unit price and came up with average and ranked—came pretty similar to
Kevin & Cheryl.
o Shannon
■ Looked at unit price and took a random sampling of items what was the most
likely scenario and compare across each proposal—TFR CTC.
• Schedule 2
o Kevin
■ Equipment rental rates—two analysis—whose got the lowest price and highest
price on each line—there are 28 lines—AT was highest on 17/28—D&G 7/28—
DRC 2/28—CTC lowest on 13/28 TFR 3/28 DRC 6/28 SDR 4/28 AT 1/28(rental
rate on flatbed truck).
■ Using as secondary indicator these are things that will be used for push and
recovery/debris management—generally AT highest CTC DRC TFR in that order
are the lowest—Schedule 1 is the controller because that is where most of the
money is going to be spent.
o Cheryl
■ Schedule 1 is the meat of it—broke up the 50 points and assigned 25 to
schedule 1 as majority schedule 3 has some cost because of labor rates.
• Schedule 3
o Kevin
■ AT highest across the board except one place tied with next company for tree
climbers which we'll probably use the least.
■ These are hourly rates and they all range$60-95 except in four place—3 out of
4 are in the AT column.
• Schedule 4
2167
o Kevin
■ Such a small probability of needing it—getting rid of RVs—not a big
discriminator.
■ All over the map -$300-1800 for RVs—we'll deal with RVs on an ad hoc basis if
we have to.
■ Spread out the points based on Schedule 1 and adjusted gaps based on Schedule
2.
■ TFR highest CTC DRC SDR AT.
■ AT down because of Schedule 2.
■ DW up because of schedule 2.
o Shannon
■ Didn't look at Schedule 4 with calculations.
■ AT more expensive TFR least expensive.
■ Points assigned based on most to least expensive ranking—TFR CTC DRC.
o Julie
■ Average unit cost and then each schedule did a summary to get an average—
CTC lowest TFR ties w/ DRC SDR DW AT.
■ 15T gets 50 points and so on
• Kevin
o made small adjustments on scoring based on conversation.
Additional Comments and Discussion
• Kevin
o Did anyone find county forms for SDR?
• Julie
o SDR forms are in the front.
o CTC did not complete their MBE form included but not completed and signed—DW did
put tabs with headings.
• Cheryl
o CTC might not have understood what the MBE form was.
o DW didn't put a title under their non-inclusion signature.
2168
Everyone recalculates if they want—Scores and rankings given in alphabetical order.
AT CTC D&J DRC SDR TFR
Julie Cuneo Total Score: 127 86 95 132 101 125
Rank: 2 6 5 1 4 3
Cheryl Sullivan Total Score: 117 94 111 129 114 132
Rank: 3 6 5 2 4 1
Shannon Weiner Total Score: 105 78 94 115 87 96
Rank: 2 6 4 1 5 3
Kevin Wilson Total Score: 116 92 105 130 67 116
Rank: 2 5 4 1 6 2
Total Points: 465 350 405 506 369 469
Ranking: 9 23 18 5 19 9
• Kevin
o Cheryl and Shannon need to weigh in on 1 or 3 companies.
o Will depend where other disaster are simultaneously who among these are deployed
there.
o Some can cover half the US but if all in northwest that's a long way from here.
o Recommend to Shannon and commission to retain flexibility.
o Three under contract we can decide who,where,when depending on current situation
priorities or geographical areas.
o Agreement to recommend 3 AT DRC TFR.
o Would want to maintain flexibility without primary but okay.
• Cheryl
o After Ian spoke with directors and others responsible for debris removal and clean up in
northern counties—one of them had 4 or 5 debris contractors and said that was too
many but the recommendation is to have more than one.
o Agree because of our geography here in the keys and we never know where it's going to
hit or how bad it will be in one place and mild in another, but we still have 110 miles to
get debris off of the island chain.
o If we have more than one storm within a week of each other resources will be pulled
thin for every county in the state.
o Even companies say they have this equipment and manpower if we're in this situation
we all know it is going to be stretched really thin.
o Recommend primary DRC and other two AT TFR.
o Thank you to all companies on the line that submitted bids.
• Shannon
o Agree more than one is better and can respect that 4 or 5 is too many—at least two and
good with three.
o Each of these businesses has a different network—some of them cross within the state
and some reach out of the state—we leverage our resources better and increases our
2169
chance of getting cleaned up quicker and back together if we have more than one—
makes us a more agile response organization.
o Agree to recommend 3 AT DRC TFR.
o Okay with primary.
• Julie
o Defer to Cheryl on preference from primary.
Open to public for comment
• (No comments)
Meeting concludes: 2:23 pm
2170
Exhibit A
Notice of Intended Decision
for Disaster Response and Recovery.
June 27, 2023
To: All Bidders
Re: Notice of Intent to Award a Contract for
Disaster Response and Recovery,
Monroe County Florida
RFP 504-0-2023/LA
To Whom it May Concern:
This letter will serve as notice of Monroe County's intent to award a contract to
DRC Emergency _Services, TFR Enterprises, Inc., and Ashbritt-ToServices, TFR Enterprises, Inc., and Ashbritt-Toppino, LLC, the top-
ranking responsible bidders for the Disaster Response and Recovery contract at the July 19,
2023 Board of County Commissioner's Meeting.
Proposals for the Disaster Response and Recovery contract were received by the Monroe
County Purchasing Department on June 8, 2023.
Sincerely,
Cheryl Sullivan
Director of Solid Waste Management
2171
Amended Notice of Intended Decision for Disaster Response and Recovery
July 7, 2023
To: All Bidders
Re: Notice of Intent to Award a contract for
Disaster Response and Recovery
Monroe County Florida
RFP 504-0-2023/1-A
To Whom it May Concern:
At the direction of the County Administrator, this Amended letter will serve as
notice of Monroe County's intent to award contracts, to DRC Emergency Services
and Ashbritt-Toppino, LLC, as responsible bidders for the Disaster Response and
Recovery contract at the July 19, 2023, Board of County Commissioners meeting,
Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Hwy., Marathon, Florida 33050.
The meeting is open to the public and can also be attended via Communication
Media Technology at: ZOOM webinar: Ih tt.1p ,, li „ ,� „ , ,,„ „ ,lid,,,,,, „ , ,, , „ , „ „ , ,,, , „ , ,•
Information can also be found at: ww o „��„i!;i r;,�ec,-1'��„ ',rLt..Y,,,,,,, ,ll,,,g, ,y oTn„� , ,ii!!;;IE;.•
Sincerely,
Cheryl Sullivan, Director — Monroe County Solid Waste Management
2172