Item Q4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: November 20, 2001
Bulk Item: Yes 0 No )(
Division:
County Attorney
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
..
Approval of Resolution Ratifying Request for Key Largo Wastewater Treatment System(s)
Proposals, Directing and Scheduling Staff Evaluation of Proposals, Reserving Decision
Making Authority to the BOCC, Rescinding 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:
Based on BOCC ranking of proposals, FKAA and Ogden entered into a Design/,Build
Contract. That Contract was held to be void under the Sunshine Law; the Final Judgment so
holding was appealed, and the appeal was dismissed voluntarily. Florida Keys Water Quality
Improvement Act, enacted subsequent to Ogden contract, authorizes construction of
wastewater projects, including Key Largo.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Request for Proposal was issued September 8, 1999. Resolution 093-2000 was adopted
February 17. 2000.
CONTRACT IAGREEMENT CHANGES:
N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
COST TO COUNTY:
BUDGETED: Yes 0 No 0
APPROVED BY:
County Attorney Qi1 OMB/Purchasing 0 Risk Management 0
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
To Follow 0
Not Required 0
DOCUMENTAnON:
AGENDA ITEM #
/-~;/
NABORS, GIBLIN & NICK~RSON, P.A.
"TTORNE;YS AT \.AW
5UITl!: 200
11100 MAHAN DRIIIE
TA\.L.AHASSEE. F\.ORIO/l. 3i!3Qa
TttE POINT c.. $VI1't: lOCO
ilGQ& ROCKY POINT DAI"~
T."PA. '-LORIO^ ,)"..Q7
TeLePHONE 1850' ZZ...070
TEL.ECOPY 15501 2Z..40'3
CNL crNTf;R. ~UIH ~IO
.60 :lOuT.. ORA.NGf; ..."ENUE
ORL""'OO. FLORIDA. ~a.ol
''''07. ":!CI.".~S
'8,3' .01.;:Z:1:
'!t\.ccopv (.0'71428.802'
TELECOIJY IO,~1 t'BI.Olle
..
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
.. .
James Hendrick
August9,2001
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 workpJan 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 Jetter. 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
BPAladg
Attachments
cc: James L. Roberts
F.\WPDATAIf'AOJECTSI21' OOIIl."dJlCk 8_8."Ild
,
NABORS, GIBLIN & NICKERSON. P. A.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
'uoTt too
I ~oo .....~...N DRIVE
'TALLAHASStt. FLORIDA 32308
TIi[ POINlt. ~ull! 1060
1'001' ROC Ply POINT DRive
T,.Io4P". rLOAIO" ~~60'
It:Lt:Pt10ltt: .aaCl 2Z.....C70
TELECOPY .aaol .:2.....073
CNL Ct"Tt~ ~lIITE: 510
".0 SO\lT" ORANG&: AVC....Ut:
ORLANOO. "LOAIO,\. :alaOI
,al)' e81-11::1
t.07..Z6.'S..
lElteo.'t' le'.)1 ilel.O.Z.
TELCCOPY .407) ..C....Q21
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 AQueduct 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.
, .
-
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 t~e 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.
..,
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~~
Robert L. Nabors
RLN/adg
cc: James L. Roberts, Monroe County Administrator
Robert E. Sheets. CEO
Government Services Group, Inc.
I .
II OBJECTIVE II The objective of this outline is to develop a framework by which an analysis an.d
U : evaluation of the proposals received to design, build. and operate a waslewater
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. rNG&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 aI/ow 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 aI/ 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 11- 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 ;n 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 WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
. 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 requir.ed. would be developed and submitted to the County under this work order.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP. INC. - MONROE COUNTY. KEY !.ARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
2
The work plan outlined below is intended to be specific enough in nature to
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.
WORK PLAN
OUTLINE
PHASE I . PROPOSAL EVALUATION
TASK I: PROJE(;:T 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
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 -detailed
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 !.ARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
4
. .
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
$135/hr
In addition to such professional compensation, the project team shall be reimbursed for actual cost
incurred on long distance telephone charges, travel expenses, and overnight delivery charges.
Photocopies shall be billed at 25 cents per page. Any travel expenses shall be reimbursed in
accordance to section 112.061, Florida Statues.
Statements for professional services rendered and costs incurred shall be submitted monthly for the
fees and costs incurred in the previous month.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC - MONROE COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
5
..
APPENDIX A
HOURS AND FEES MATRIX
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP. INC. - MONROE COUNTY. KEY LARGO WASTEWA TER SYSTEM PROJECT
6
Task 1 - Pro 'sct Initiation
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 2 - Notification to All Pro osers
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 3 - Anal s/s of Technical Pro os8/$
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 4- Evaluation of Cost Pro oSlIls
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 5 _ Provide Anal sis of Technical and Cost Pro osals to Board
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
Task 6 - 1m I.mentation Plan
GSG
ENGINEERS
Task Total
GSG TOTAL *
ENGINEERS TOTAL",
168 $ 25 200.00
236 $ 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
....Travel and related expenses will be billed according to section 112.061, Florida Statutes.
GOVERNMENT SERVICES GROUP, INC. - MONROE COUNTY, KEY LARGO WASTEWATER SYSTEM PROJECT
7
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 ot 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
P3g& 1 of 11
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 I while "heroic, n were not effective for the following reasons:
In this case the eDCe did not retum 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 eDee 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
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 of the 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), (D) and. (E) of the RFP,
excluding that information requested in Section 2:5(0)(5) of the RFP.
Page 3 of 11
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.
(6) 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
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
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; an,d (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
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. 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
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.
Page 7 of 11
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. Notiflcatlon 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
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 fost 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
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 I 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 he~eby states its intent to
implement the evaluation process embodied in this Resolution under its constitutional and
statutory powers of local self-government.
SECTION 12.
AYTHORIY.TION TO COyt~TY ATTORNeY TO R[SOL.J[:
P'ENOINC APPEAL. TAB Ce~:lAty /\~erRey is t::leresy al:ltRerizea t9 seek Fe6ell:ltiBA aA&-
ei3missalef tRe 1geAeiRg appeal af the FiRal .JyEigmBRt iR a m~RR8r cOR.i;tSiRt '..'itA tR~
c..ah:lstieR f3reee33 emBeaiea iR tRis n6seltJtien.
SECTION ~ Q.. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Resolution shall become effective
immediately upon its adoption.
Page 10 of 11
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners, Monroe County,
,2001.
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:\WPOA T AIPROJECTS12 1 1 OOU"OIy,Ion_ ofp!."pd
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
Mayor/Chairperson
Page 11 of 11
SCHEDULE A
DESIGN/BUILD OR DESIGN/BUILD/OPERATE
A WASTEWATER TREATMENT SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
.
MONROE COUNTY
\ "'~{~i; 'b); r:r:I~;-I:~~[~;;~~'''('D' i':~ '(i;, ~(~ c~\;;; (")'~ '<\:t' ~, "".'
",.~ ,.t" .... .J')".~)', I! >. IJ, ,!' .t.._....'..!.. :- ,.~ ,./. .'
r . _ f. . ,. (~ . .,.
(""f<,-l;~rl) . '. ~ -.: ':,.' " , :' . , .
.,1:~ :f :_ _ ~. . ~s~-: _J:.. .' _ ". . _. ~::. _> . ~'.
Issue Dale: September 8, 1999
TltJe: DESIGN I BillLD OR DESIGN / BUILD I OPERATE A WASTEWATER
TREA TMENT SYSTEM(S) TO SERVE KEY LARGO
Purpose: Thc purpose oflhiJ RFP process is 10 solicillechnical and COSI proposals 6'om qualifacd respondents who can design I
build or wIlo can design! build/operate. WUle\Vaau treabnenl syslem(s) to serve lhe Key Lar&o area of Monroe County, Florida.
A mOre completc dcscription a(me technical spe<:ifications can be found in Put 4 oflhis RFP.
Jaqulry period: Seprt:mbcr I. 1999 to Oc1ober 16. 1999
. Inquiries may be made between the hows of 8:00 A;M. and 5:00 P.M. weokdays.
Point or CoatBcC (or Inquiries: All inquiries must be submined in wriling to:
Director ofPurchasingIPurcbaslDI: Department
Fn No. (305) 292.....515
Deadline For TecbDical aDd Cost Proposal Submissioas:
OCTOBER 29, 1999 - 4:00 P.M.
10 Copies to be Submitted, IDcludiag 2 Marked "Original-
Confinnalion of timely receipt may be made by calling (305) 292-4465
Proposals Must be Submitted (0 the Following Address:
Monroe County Purthasing Depanment
5100 College Road
Public Service Building
Stock Island. FL 33040
The scparately Sailed Cost Proposals will be publicly
opened:
":00 p.m.. December 16, '999, OMB.
Proposen are reminded Chat the deadline for &he cost proposals
is the same cime as the cechniAl proposal deadline.
Exhibils; .
This RJlP is COmprised or of S~ctions:
Seclion I Genenl Guidelincs. InslNctioos. sow
Section 2 Cost Proposal Form
Seclion 3 Supplemental Forms
Section 4 Exhibits
I. Map o("HO( Spoc" area
2. Overview of"Hol Spot" area
J. Signatol)' Page
Page 1 of 17; 00100
PART 1
GENERAL GUIDELINES AND
INFORMA TJON
I. J DEFTNmONS
"Design/Build Finn." A partnership, qJlpOration, or
other legal entity which is: ~.
J) certi fled WIder ChA89. 1 J 9 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
48 1.2) 9 F .S., to practice or to offer to practice
architecture; or certified under Ch 481.3]9 F.S., to
practice or to offer to practice landscape architecture.
All Submitting Firms should be DesignlBuild Firms.
"Proposer", "Respondent", or."Submitting Finn". All
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
conunodities and/or services. It shall be considered
as a formaJ offer, and shall be valid for a period of
t 80 days.
"Solicitation. It A formal request to obtain
commodities and/or services. It includes Requests
For Proposals, Proposals, Quotes, or Information.
"County." Monroe CoWlty
"Conoact." A binding written agreement, inclUding
ourchase orders, containing tenns and obligations
governing the relatio~hip between the County and
the other pmty.
1.2 INVlT AnON
lbis invitation is extended to all qualified which can
provide the requircment(s) specified herein.
Responses should be prepared simply and
economically, addressing the requirements in a
straightforward and concise manner. The
requirements presented in this solicitation represent
lhe County's anticipated needs.
\.3 POINTS OF CONTACT AND TIMETABLE
FOR lNOUIRIES
Respondents may contact the County to discuss this
solicilation. 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 answezs to substantive questions. in the
form of written addenda, may be distributed to all
who requested the solicitation.
104 A V AlLABILITY OF LANDS FOR WORK
The lands upon which the Work is to be perfonned.
rights-of-way and easements for access thereto and
other lands designated for use by the successful
respondent in performing the Work must be
provided by the successful Proposer. All additional
lands and access, thereto required for temporary
construction facilities, 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. This is for the
pwpose of dctennining the costs of the project and
the COWlty recognizes that the subject propcny 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 IDCAMINA nON OF
DOCUMENTs AND SITE
CONTRACT
PropOser's Responsibilities: It is the responsibility
of each Proposer befo~ sUbmitting a Proposal to:
I. Examine thoroughly the Contract Documents
and other related data identified in the Proposal
Docwnents;
2. Identify and visit the proposed Site to become
familiar with and .satisfy Proposer as to the
g~neraJ, local and Site' conditions that may
affect cost. progress, petfonnance 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
Documents and such other related data; and
Ii a Bidd~ protests my pzovisioa of the CD, .
Notice of Protest must be filed within 72 hours 1.1 DEVP-lnpM9ITCO~
after m::eiJ'l of~ ~ue.n for Bids. Failure ro ~c. '.
. prou:st within the timdnunc.presoribod-iDSec:tioA- --N~.DOr. JII-Irp-"i\a.Wll.k ___
J20.57(3) Florida SCa.bItcs, maU coastitute a liable for lID)' cxpc:o.sca iDcumd OJ ~o~ with
wamz of pra<<ediaS3 uadc:r C1aptct 120. Florid. 1bc'.~alhn.i..qOD or pr.:.vo.nhltiou of a
SraWtes. .,.. -.. ",\':' ..... r ~ to 1bii iolicilldiOn. AU Wormaboo'in the
I I'CSpoa:sc ahdJ be provided at DO cost 10 the Coaaty.
1.6 ADDEf'^
,
If my IOUcitadOO Ia'ISlODS becotDc ~.
indudiag ~ 10 the d.-Mlirv. for tcSpoDSe
submission, ~ CQud!y wiD JJlUYIdc wrUIeu ~.
10 1bose firm which responded 10 tbe bid IOliciWiOd.
All inquiries m~ be ~ved DO Iada tbau r= (10)
~endar days prior to the date fixed (or the opallag
o( Bi<h to be gival coosidaatioo. Each sddmdum
issued by Ilu; Coumy ~l include . receipt
ada1owledgemeat. A KpIU'1do m:ape for- CACh
addendum IDU5t be: sigm:d and subIniUal &0 the
CoUDly .
If issuDd. the Couuty will DI3iJ mdlor f4x Mitta1
addenda at least XVaI (7) celcndar dayJ before tbc
~ fixed for opc2WJg !be n=ponses. AU
~f. 5bou1d comact 1hc Couaty before the
$()lic1tatioa cbdIine to ~ wbclhcr my
IIddcnda hIIYe beeD iasucd. Rqxmdcut.s DWSl
aclcnowIedge receipt of the edd-nda 1D their Bid.
FaU= of i lID)' n:spandenr to mcciw. or to
ackn~ rteeipt of any such addalda shall not
relieve 'ueh~pc:mdcuz 1iom any obliptjon under ill
Bid ~!~. Rcspondcots ~ advixd to comact
Ibe ~. JXior 10 submitting bids to Rdisfy
tbansf.lves fS to dJe c:xi.!ta1ce 8Dd DUmber af such
~ A addenda. so issued shaD become pan of
the Doc:umT-
1.7 RA WAL OF RBSPON
s. Promptly notify tht ~umy of all conflicts.
erroa. smbiguities. or dixzC'pancies which
BIddez bas disco~ in the Bid Documads.
~ withdnlw their JU~ ft6ponse
~ . ~~Q~m~~Mm~
duo eo authori:z:lcd representBlive D1 lIOy time:
P...;.t:. b1d ..b....... dcadllac. lDdMduab
~ the ~wal shAll provide evidena: that
~ Pll8c3o(17
they are an authorized repr=ntative of the
respondent. ~ onre received, tmnne ~ .
property of the CouQry. and will DOt be rctumcd to
~ C\'tCl wbco tbr.y IIl'C witbdmwa &am
coasidera:tioa. ~ ODele opened, may not be
withdrawn or modified.
13 CONTRACT [)()C(JME).m:
If I l'eSpODdtDt pruIc:sU aD)' puvisioas of Cbc
Coornsa dnr..1m~. a ace of iDICu1 to protest
sbalJ be 61ed wi1b ~ Couoty in writiQg withln 72
boors after receipt otlbe Rafuest for Bids.
1.10 RESPONSE
OrENINO
SUBMISSION
AND
AD "Technical" IUd '"Cosr. bIds mUSl be submitlt:d
In sepamcJy seab:d aNd0pe3 by the dl'Nfli1l('
i...G~M OIl the cover ~ of this ~Iu.it.tion. The
bid aball i.dc:mily tbc 5Olicitarion rnuabc:2' aad title
lpCCified ClII1bo co\u pegc of tbls mlidtatiOD. This
rdeR:oa: iDf'CJJ1DIIioa dlaII abo be marbd an the
0UUldc of the scaled envelopes, lDc1udiDg 1hc
n:spondem's rc:cum Iddrcss. The County assumes 00
zapo~oWty for bids IlOC properly marbd.
Tbc County cautiooa rcspoadcnts 10 8SS1ft acrual
dellvay ofrcspoascl enbcr baud ddivcn:d or maiJcd
via U.S. mail or 0YCDJigbt courier. dheetly ~ the
Couaty's ~ Dept in the Public Scnice
Bulldiug in Kty West, mar to the dtMllnrJ ~ for
~ rC5~ 1'he County wiD DOC .ccx;pt
IapODSeS ddiYCred after 1he establi~ dMdlirV'l,
lbalpl' 01 . n:.poue II)' all)" Cuaney ofBn.
receptiolllat or paIODDeI ather tIwl PaJoc:buiq
does DO' cobltitlrte udcliTcry" .. rcqairal by this
IGJic:itlltiODo TeJr:phone c:onfimwioD of timdy
recdpt of rbc bid may be nmdc by calliDs (JOS) 292-
4465 before the opc:niDa time of the bids. The
~ dWJ ..... ~ 01" consIder ~
5Ubmiacd na fBCSimile transmission.
. .
2~2-446S 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.
I. J J DISCLOSURE
..
Upon receipt. responses become "public records"
and shall be subject to public disclosure ronsistent
with Chapter 119, Florida Statutes. In order to
protect confidential infonnation. 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 materiaJs 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 rontract
awards, or ten (l0) days after the response opening,
whichever is earlier.
1.12 REJECTION 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 all
infonnation requeSted herein (with the exclusion of
optional docwnents) or do nor meet other restricti~ns
contained herein shall be deemed non-reSponsive
and shaH not be considered for fwther 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 Count)' may also re-advertise and solicit for
other responses when it is considered to be in the
County's interests to do so. The COWlt)' further
reserves the right to cancel this solicitation at any
time ifit is in the County's imerest to do so.
1.13 AWARD
The respondent understands that this solicitation
and/or the response does not constitute a COntraCt
With the County. No COntract is binding or official
until responses are reviewed and accepted by the
Board of Monroe County COnunissioners, appr~ved
by the appropriate Jevc:J of authority within the
County, and either an official contract is duly
executed by the parties or a pW'Chase order is issued
to the respondent.
The respondent to whom the award is made shall
within thirty (30) calendar days after notice of award
has been given, provide evideqce of any required
insurance, performance bonds, payment bonds and
guarantee, and schedule of subcontractors (if
applicable) and sign the necessary rontract. Failure
to execute the contract and/or to provide evidence of
any required insurance or bonding covctage shall 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 readvertised as the
County may decide.
The County anticipates entering into contract
negotiations with the respondent whose proposal is
judged by the Technical Evaluation Panel and the
County to be the most advantageous to the County.
in accordance with the evaluation criteria herein
described. The TECHNICAL EV ALVA nON
PANEL wilI be established and coordinated by the
U.S. Environmental Prorection Agency (EPA) and
will be composed of wastewater experts from EP A,
the Florida Depanment of EnvirorunentaJ 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 inrerest of the Co\U1ty.
1.14 FORMAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO
AWARD
In compliance with Chaprer 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 Starute$. shall
constitute a waiver of proceedings under Chapter
120, Florida Statutes.
Page" of 17; 00100
,
1.15 TAX EXEMPT STA11JS
2.3 PUBLIC ENmv CRIMES
The Counl)' is exempt from Florida Sales and
Federal Excise taxes on direct purchase of tangible
property .
J .16 ORAL PRESENT A TlONS
Following the submission and evaluation of the
wrinen proposals, EP A and the County, at their
discretion. may ""'require the highest ranked
respondents to give an oral presentation explaining
and/or demonstrating each proposal. All oral
presentations shaH be scheduled by the County
and/or EP A.
PART 2
INSTRUCTIONS FOR PREPARING
RESPONSES
2.1 RULES
Proposals shall be tendered in [wo (2) separate
subminaIs. "Technical" and .ICost," Each proposal
envelope marked "Technical" shall contain the
Proposer's Construction I Technical I Managerial
qualifications and other required documents
described herein. The second sealed envelope
mark.ed "Cost" shall contain aU items related to cost
and referenced herein:
Each proposal by an individual or rum shall state the
name and address of all pe~ns or entities having an
interest in the proposal. Proposals shall be signed by
an authorized person or member of the finn making
the proposal. In no case may a proposal be
transferred or assigned by a respondent.
2.2 STATEMENT
ORGANlZA nON
OF
BUSINESS
All respondents to this solicitation shall complete the
attached Statement of Business Organization. This
fonn provides the CO\Ulty with vital information
concerning the responding organization as well as
joint venture or subcontractor participation levels (if
applicable).
Ar.y respondent, or any of hislher suppliers.
subcontractors. Or consultants who shall perfonn
worle which is intended to benefit the County. shall
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 fur1her
\Ulderstands and accepts that any contract issued as a
result of this solicitation shaJJ be either voidable by
the County or subject to immediate tennination 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, shalJ nOI incur any
liability to the respondent for any work or materials
furnished.
2.4 BONDS. INSURANCE
GUARANTEES
AND
Respondents shall be required to provide with the
proposal (in the "Costn subminaJ) 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 guarantccs in
order to be considered responsive and be further
evaluated.
AIJ proposals shall be accompanied by a Bid Bond,
equal to S% (five percent) of the estimated total
contract construction cost. In case a submitting 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
dclcnnincd that the Proposer bas abandoned the
Contract, and thereupon the Proposal Forms and
accepla.nce shall be null and void and the Bid
Secwity accompanying lIle Proposal 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 Proposcr to execute the Agreement. All Bid
Securities will be retumed on the execution of IIle
Contract or ifno award is made.
Page 5 of 17; 00100
11lc respondenl, if awarded a contract, shall maintain
insurance cover~ge reflecting, at a minimum, the
amounts 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
Iheir insW'8l)ce agent either (J) compl* and sign an
insurance certificate which meets all '~equirements,
or (2) issue a letter on the insurance agency's
stationery stating that the respondent quaJifies for the
required insuranCe coverage levels and that an
insurance certificate meeting the COWlly's
requirements will be submitted before final
execution or issuance of the contract. AU 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 responsibiliry
to meet the stated requirements. In addition, receipt
and acceptance of the certificate of insurance by the
County 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
gounds 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. Letter ofT ransmittal
B. "Technical" Proposal
C. Qualifications & Experience
D. Supplemental Infonnation
E. Attachments
F. Optional Information
"Cost" ProoosaJ
G. Cost Proposal and "Cost" Proposal Form
A. Letter of Transmittal
All responses must contain a transmittal lener
highlighting me respondent's reasons for responding
to the solicitation and unique attributes. The I~tter
must name any and a1l of the persons authorized to
make representations on behalf of Ole respondent,
including the titles, addresses and telephone nwnbers
of each person(s). The letter must declare that the
response was prepared without collusion with any
other person or entity submitting a response pursuant
to this solicitation. An authorized agent of me
respondent must sign the transmittal letter indicating
the agent's title or authority. The letter should not
exceed two pages in length.
B. Technical ProoosaJ
The County is seeking to qualify one or more
contractors for the rasIcs specified in the anached
Statement of Work. This section of the response
should explain the Statement of Work as
understood by the respondent. This ~ection should
aJso include any assistance, materials, equipment,
reports, space, etc. the County is requested to
provide to the respondent to complete the requtsted
Work Plan. h
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:
I. A statement oC 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 proposed site)
7. Detailed description of wastewater treatmenl
methodology and levels of treatment that the
Page 6 of 17; 00100
. .
. ,
Submitting Firm is willing to guarantee.
8. Li~ oflhe subdivisions MUch will be fre4ttrl by
~ propo:ltJd facility/faciIities. '. .
9. Scbcmt1tic of cn1Uc ~ )ay-ou1, lDCluding
paSb of all proposed !iDes, coUectiDn lIft
stations. dC. '
10. PLm for pR:CJudUag discharge 01 improperly
lrca1ed ~e. . Review 8Dd approval by she CounEy ot the
.. audit ",", I>>-li_....... n-..:_ DL___
] 1. Copy of II rc:a:oI pc:rfo1'tD8lJf:e.__.. _.-!;A.'lI.I\l...Y. _. _ __ _ ~_~ ~ _. _ _'_ _ _ ___ _ _._ _.
similar a WUIeWBICr ~l'rnl"I1t Iystcm to the
oae proposed as possible. 1'b.Id 8ystr:m Dll1St be
curmuJy uudc:r the dwge oftbe SobmiuiDg ','
rum UDda .Alternative One
(dmgDlbuiJdlo~). ThalI>'*m nmst have
been co~ by me Submiuiaa Firm BDd
less Ih4I1 five yaus old uuda AJtcnwivc TwO
(<bigWbuild). .
/2. Derailed.outliae ofmain""Jl""~ lC'~de for
tbc~ &cmty.
IJ. SAare Pn mvc:mosy (as outJiucd in CD
Seftioa Scope oCWork: .....2.)
.c. Copy ofPnJ'onde Safety Program f*luding
op~oaal fnaurws as described in Statement of
Wqrk; ~.) .
5. Color ~ of Proposed FacilitylFacWtic:s.
in4i~ :rurroundins lancbnJpiug (froDt, back,
~ each/side).
6. W~ T~eut System Pcdormaru:e
Auflit ClfckJid
I SamRle Template
7. B;~ of 1IUIbori1)' 10 ooodua business as an
o (. colpOnmoJl in the Slate ofFlodcJa.
if pJJ:e. sbaU be ,~. State ofPJorida
~ f-oDtmctor. liccme number, if any, aud
~:~ ~OD Dumbers must also be
f~: _ for faciUty/faoilltlco.
. CoustnJc:tion Silll Plans: 1110 plus
be 0 c::DOugh dctaillO allow t'I~.diOD of
lddcf's coastnIedon pi". 8it.c PI=s sbaU
.bowing exlsdng OODdidans IDd
1 'on 0 proposed faclUeylfacWdca. Plow
Scbfmaticr abalI show the ~ ~
eDt'l
ela t ~hoduh;; The
;submit . proposec1 project
lOPDJCDt schedule for IhU project,
alan, availability of required rcsOUTCe:l. As
PI&'G 7 of 17
I
"
a minimum, this schedule shall indicate a
specified timefiame foUowing the Notice to
Proceed tor the following items:
· Prepuatioa of Coastrudioo Docl~~ for the
~limiDaIy Dc:3ign Phuc
· PreparatIon of CoostructioD Documents for lbc
. ~ ~ID' Phase. _d 1inaJ selection -of aU
iatcri~ fioisb.cs
· Rmew aDd appzvval by the CoUD(y of rbc Final
Design Phase aud bderior f1n;~
. Bailmu, Pami! Prr-- ~i:ng (NOTE.: Obtainina
permils as n.qaired for this JIfOjcd IbaIJ be the
aolc 1'eSpOaSibility of the Comractor. Faihn of .
the CoDUlCtor to obtaha required pcrmfu in
ICCOrdancc with its proposed scbedu1c may not
be coosiden:d grouuds for au e:xtcmioa of Chc
Co~ Time for this project)
· Permit doc:umcm nNisiODS and ~ of
pmnits required for c:oDStnJctioa
. CoDStJuctiOD mobilizlltioa
. Coasttucdoo
. Substantial Completion
· rmal Completion Dale
. Acquisition orllDd including all easements
C. Oualifiadioasllbd ~.xp:rimce
This abalJ be a sepande &a:ti0ll aad include ddaUs as
follows:
1. DcDils OD the quaJifications of the firm.
iDcludiDs . summary of the film's histoEy and
c:xpc:riCDCC. with pu1jcu1ar cmpbuU OD
WlStewa%er tftafmeut desicD build capabmt.ies.
Iocludc quaWicalioDS for the individual (tr entity
thar will be providing 0e$igD ProCcssJoaal
:t. Details on the qualifications of the individuaI(s)
who will perform the design and operation work,
including experience in similar work. curriculum
vitae. and relevant coJJege, graduate or
professional courses and certifications.
3. Swrunariz.e the firm's record of safety
perfOI11)&nce for the past three y~, providing
safety perfonna.nce 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 linn has been refused surety, bond,
or liability insurance in the last .ten years.
6. Details if this finn, or any officer or partner of
this firm. has failed in the previous five (5) years
to complete a construction contract operating as
this organization or any other organization.
7. If ~ponding under AJternative One (d/b/o): a
Jist of at least five (5) current clients and
pertinent refere~ces (include name, address and
teJephone nwnber) that the County may contact.
If responding under Alternative Two (dIb), at
least five (S) fonner client.. reference letters 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
letters of recommendation must be from ejected
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 linn 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 atrangemenr is
involved in the response, the resPOndent musl
include a copy of the agreement with the
response, and list of such parties by name,
address and telephone number, including
supervisory and professional persoMel, and a
summary of how the work will be apportioned.
10. The same infonnation requested above in items
(J) through (8) ~ust be provided for each
subcontractor and/or or joint VClltw'e party.
D. SUDplementaJ lnfonnatioll
This section shall inclUde th~ following items:
I. Provide a staffing plan that clearly iUuslrares 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 reqwred services
shall be identified and past experience of each, as
it relates to this project, shalJ be discussed.
2. Provide detaiJs of the Q~ity ControJ 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 docwnent and
ntateriaVcons1ruction operations evaluation and
(quality) control.
J. 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 sWDmaJy
shall state the nature of the litigation, a brief
description of the case, the outcome or projected
outcome, and the monetary amoljnts 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 infonnation in order to determine
whether or not the respondent is financially
:itlabJc for successt\Jl perfonnance of any ensuing
contract award. Information requested includes
CUrrent rating with Dun & Bradstreet, Current
Page 8 of 17; 00100
. . working capital for the firm, 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 takc;n place since
the last statement of audited net worth provided.
Include information about experience with the
financing of sirpilar 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 addendwn issued by the
COWlty (if applicable).
2. Evidence from the surety company 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.
S. Certification from the Florida SecreWy 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 Slate of Florida.
6. Copies of required licenses (State of Florida
Registered Architect and/or Engineer, and State of
Florida General. Contractor or Buildihg
Contractor). Note: The Proposer shall have, at the
time of submission, an professional licenses
reqUired by law for their performance of me Work
in order to be considered responsible.
F. ODtional 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. Potential for Re-use at Proposed Wastewater
Treatment Facility. The ability to conserve water is
considered vital to the continuing weJl-being of our
communities. The COWlty would welcome an
optional proposal (or re-use at the proposed
facility/facilities.
2. A vaiJability of Affordable Housing for
Submitting Finn Employees. nus document 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 etfons the Submitting Finn will make to
ensure that housing is available for those
employees. There is a dire shortage of affordable
housing in Momoe County and service personnel in
all industries tIR struggling to find affordable
housing. The County would welcome an optional
proposal for the provision of affordable housing.
o. "Cost" Prooosal
The respondent shall state clearly the total proposed
cost and the reasons justifying why the proposed
approach could be the most cost effective approach
for the County. All pricing should exclude sales and
use taxes at both the Slate and Federal levels since
the County is exempt from paymenl of such taxes,
except where the Submitting Finn will be liable for
such -taxes on items and services purchased directly.
The Submining Finn. however, will not charge sales
and use we to either the County or the FKAA. The
proposed price and fees are to include the
furnishing of all materials, equipment, tools,
utilities, acquisition of 011 penni\s. approvals.
authorizations, certificates, including applicable
laxes, and all facilities and the performance of all
Paee 9 of 11; 00100
Jabor and professional services including design
costs necessary or proper for the completion of the
Work except as may be expressly provided in the
Request for Proposals. See "Cost Proposal Form"
for additional details.
I. For Alternative
proposals:
1, DesignlBuild/Operate
.
.'
8) Contract Price for Design/Construction (as
both a total cost and a cost per EDU)
..
b) Operating and Maintenance Costs (as both a
per year cost and a cost per month per EOU).
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 evaJuated.
d) If Proposer will provide financing for the
capiraJ costs of the project, the monthly
capital recovery fee per EOU for that
financing for the life of the contract 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
EDU) 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
. monthly fee per EDU per month for finanCing
to extend over the course of twenty years (240
months) and the proposed initial hook-up re~
per BDU
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
The proposal shall include details of how the
SUbmining Firm can help with the financing of the
Project.
PARTJ
EVALUATION .METHOD
3.1 EV ALUA TION PROCEDURE
The EPA, 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 evaJuation
committee will first evaluate the
'technical/managerial" proposals and will then short-
list the most-<tuaJified Proposers. That short list will
be further refmed as a result of scheduled oral
presentations of the Submitting rums. If a
Proposer's presentation is deemed inadequate by rhe
Technical EvaJuation Panel. that Proposer win be
removed from the short list.. At the'time and place
annoWlced on the cover page. the OMB Director will
publicly unseal the cost proposals. An adjustedseore
win be arrived at for each finn by dividing each
fum's total proposed cost, as expressed by cost per
EDU. by the technical review score. The Technical
EValuation Panel will recommend to the County that
the firm wirh the lowest adjusted score be awarded
the contract. The County-shaJl be the sole judge of its
own .,needs/requirements, the response(s). and' any
resulting negotiated contract(s). The CoUJity's
decisions will be final, with the caveat that no
pr8f3ssal contract will be awarded without the
agreement of the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority.
3.2 EV ALVA nON CRllERlA
The Technical Panel's evaluation criteria of the
technicaVmanageriaVproject proposals will include
paee 10 of 17; 00100
;
cori~ideration of the foJlowing:
Range of Evaluation Category
Points
o to 45 pis Technical Criteria. including:
· Technical soundness of proposal
. Adequacy of preliminary construction site plans
· Level of treatment I treatment methodoJogy
... Plan fOf precluding discharge of improperly treated sewage
. Treatment reliability
· Number of ED Us to be serviced
. Completeness of work plan
o to 35 pis Manucment Criteria. including:
· Qualifications of staff and firm
· Firm's past experience and performance with designlbuiJd on comparable projects or
with designlbuildloperatc as appropriate
. Competence and Qualification of Personnel assigned to the Project
· Accessibilityiresponsc time of key personnel to situations lhal 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
· Prc;>ject schedule
. ObstacJcsto acquiring land, casements, rights-of-way
Page II ofl7; 00100
PART 4
STATEMENT OF WORK
DESIGN I BUILD I OPERATE 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 cwrently treat their 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 filSt 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 FUA. which will designate its employee(s) to perform the Project Manager function. Upon compJetion
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 llave been closed
due to fecal contamination. Time is of the essence in preserving and enhancing Monroe County's surrounding
water quality.
If is the intent of Monroe County to contract with a Design/Build fJ.ml to either designlbujJd/operate or to
designlbuild a wastewater treabnenl system(s) to serve the designated hot spot and surrounding area, as
appropriate, on the island of Key Largo. 'This project must be implemented on a "fast trackh 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
HighJands, three subdivisions located in close proximity at approximately mile marker 106. (Those subdivisions
are included in the subdivision lay-outs provided and are clearly marked "HOT SPOT SUBDIVISION LA Y ~
OUT.") This area includes approximately 600 residential hook-ups, of which 358 are unknown systems, in all
probability cesspools and older, underperforming 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 5eWef
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 DesignlBuiJdlOpcrate (AJtemative J) and/or DesignlBuiJd (Alternative 2) as
the method by which they wish to apply. Proposers have the option to propose to provide onsite or clustered
onsite 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 of Items 1-19 of Pan 2.5.B. .
Alternative I: DesiRnlBuildlOoerate ("d/b/o") Scope of Servic~
A. The Submitting firm shall provide Monroe County, Florida with the cxpenise, materials and staff
Pate 12 ofl7: 00100
. .
necessary to perfonn all required design and construction. operations and maintenance (and possible financing)
necessary to complete the proposed wastewater treatment system(s) (Allemative 1).
B. The Submitting Firm shall 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
projecl must be in accordance with ~} applicable rules and regulations, including but not limited to those
established by Monroe County, Florida.. the Florida Department of EnvirorunentaJ Protection. the Florida
Depanment of Health. and the U. S. Environmental 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
treatment system. through the conclusion of the contract
C. Definition of Wastewater Treatment System(s): For the purposes of this Request for Proposals, the
wastewater treatment system shall include, but not be Jimited to the land. easements, rights-of-way, equipment.
structures. buildings, tanks, chemical feed systems. instnuncntation., access roads. buffer provisions. safety and
security provisions. fire protection, emergency and .stand-by power generation, and sewer collection systems,
including but not .fiDdted to land. easements, rights-of-way, buffer provisions. piping. pumps. vacuum
equipment (including valves, pits and tanks) and appurtenanCC$. structures, buildings, instrumentation. access
roads. and power supply. Where clustered onsite or individual onsite systems are proposed. the respondenr
would be responsible for operation.and maintenance of all such systems for the life of the contracL
D. The Submitting Firm will provide wastewater trcatJrient system operators as necessary to staff the
facilities in accordance with all 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 Stare of Florida. In addition. the Submittinc Finn shall provide experienced
project management throughout all phases of the project. The Opcrator-In-Rcsponsible-Charge (ORC) will
maintain the necessaIY certification of grade equivalent to the classification assigned to the wastewater
treatment system. The wastewater treatment syslem(s) shaJJ be staffed in accordance with State of Florida
Department of Environmental Protcction regulations governing the treatment system(s) designed by the
Submitting Firm and as approved by Monroe County.
E. The Submitting Firm will provide aU necessary power. chemicals. equipment. maintenance (predictive.
preventive and corrective), capital equipment, supplies. buildings and grounds maintenance (including
landscaping), and all ~ther goods and/or services necessary to provide aU day to day operations. maintenance
and mana"gement of the wastewater treatment system for the duration of the contract. The SUbmitting Finn will
assume aU costs of aU repairs (minor and/or major) for aU facilities. equipment. access roads I8IHl and collection
system components throughout the tenn of the contract.
F. The Submitting Firm wiJl develop and implement a predictive and preventive maintenance program for
lhe entire wastewater treatment system(s) (as defined herein)... This program shall include all lubrication,
adjustments and repairs as necessary to maintain the wastewater treatment system(s) for the duration of the
conlract term. The Submirting Firm shall provide and maintajn a spare parts inventory that delineates the critical
parts and equipment that are necessary to be maintained "on-shell" to insure continuous operation of the
wastewater rreatmenl system(s). The Submitting Firm shall utilize a "Wastewater Treatment Sysrem Audit
Checklist" of its own design 10 report monthly on the status of the wastewater treatment system(s) reliabiJiry to
be delivered monthly to the Sewage Authority in Monroe County (the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority). The
county ~hllll approve the design of the fonn in advance. The SUbmitting Firm shall submit a copy of a recent
audit from as similar a waslewater treatment system as possible that is now under their charge.
-
Plte 13 of 17: 00100
d~ The Submitting Finn will conduct routine process monitoring and alt required pennit monitoring of lhe
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 10
Monroe COWlty will also conduct any additional sampling and monitoring that may be required by. an)'
governing agency.
H. All permit renewal fees, annual i~pection fees, and laboratory certification fees shall be the responsibiliry
of the Submitting Finn.
I. The Submitting Firm shall maintain all insurance coverage and benefits required by Federal, State, and
Local Agencies lor its employees. The Submitting Finn shall be responsible for a corporate safety program,
including any or all of the following as available: safety manual. training schedules. and a 1998 Lost-Time
Injwy Report. The Submitting Firm shall provide experienced project management throughout aU phases of the
project The Operator.ln-Responsible-Charge (ORC) wilt maintain the necesSBl)' certification of grade
equivalent to the classification assigned to the wastewater treatment system(s). The persOIl the Submitting Finn
designates as having primary responsibility for the day-to-day operations of the project must be approved by
bolh MOnIoe County and the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, and must live within easy commute of the main
facility.
Alternative 2: Desif!nIBuild ("dIb") Scooe of Service
A. The Submining Finn shall provide MOnIoe County. Florida with the expertise. materials ane{ sraff necessary
10 perfonn all required design and construction (and possible financing) complete the proposed wastewater
treatment system(s) (Alternative 2).
B. The Submining Firm wi]} prepare all necessary designs (including proposed faciljty and collection line
locations), construction plans and specifications, provide construction management, and f~ilities startup for the
area specified above. All phases of this proposed project must be in accordance with all applicable rules 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. EnvironmentaJ 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 treatment system(s). '.
C. Defmition of Wastewater Treatment 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) buffer pro"isions, 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
equipmenl (including valves, pits and tanks) and appurtenances, Structures. buildings. instrumentation, access
roads, and power supply. Where clustered onsite or individual .onsite systems arc proposed, the respondent
would be responsible for operation and maintenance of all such systems for the life of the contract. .
D. The Submitting Finn will provide experienced project management throughout all phases of the project,
properly certified in accordance with all applicable environmental rules and regulation(s). The Project
Management Team will be identified and available for infonnation, reports and on-site visirs 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 andlor major) for all facilities, equipment.
lane access roads and collection system components throughout the term of the contract.
Page 14 ofl7; 00100
F. The Submining Finn will develop a predictive and preventive maintenance program for the entire
wastewater ueatment system(s) (as defined herein). This program shall include detail of all lubrication,
adjustments and repairs as necessary to maintain the wastewater treatment system(s) for the first twenty (20)
years of the system's life. The Submining Firm shall provide a spare parts inventory list that delineates lhe
critical parts and equipment that are necessary to be maintained "on-shelr' to insure continuous operation of the
wastewater treabnent system(s). The ~.ubmining Firm shall provide a "Wastewater Treatment System Audit
Checklist" of its own design (or the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority to use for monthly repons 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 Submjning Finn will submit a copy of B recent audit from as
similar a wastewater treatment system as possible that was constructed by their firm.
G. Owing the first six (6) months of operation of the facility, the Submining Firm will conduct routine
process monitoring and all required pennit monitoring of the wastewater system(s) and maintain a local team to
work with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority during the period of transition. The Submitting' Firm will
conduct aU monitoring required as directed by the regulatory agencies governing the wastewater treatment
system(s) during the length of this conlract. 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 during the
length of this contract
H. All permit renewal fees. inspection fccs, and laboratol}' certification fees shaH be the responsibility of the
Submitting Firm throughout the length of this contract.
I. The Submining Firm shall maintain all insurance coverage required by Federal, State, and Local
Agencies for its employees_ The Submitting Firm shaJJ be responsible for a corporate safety program during the
length of this contract, including any or all of the following as available: safety manual. training schedules, and
a 1998 1...o5t- Time Injury Repon.
4-3 PERFORMANCE GUARANTEE
A. The Submitting Firm shall guarantee that the proposed wastewarer treatment system(s) wiJl be operational
and meeting all discharge requirements within no more than thirty (30) months from the execution of a contract
between MOlUoe Count)' and the Submitting Firm. The Submining Finn will meet or exceed the requirements of
the law for the type of facility/facilities proposed.
B. The Submitting Firm will guarantee complete and total compliance with aU local, State and Federal
water quality rules and regulations as may be appJicable to this proposed project.
Under Alternative One (dlb/o), 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 Submitting Firm, including any and aU fines, penalties, lawsuits, or any other form
ofJiquidared damages as may result from such violation, during the life of this contract.
Under Alternative Two (d/b), 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 eontrol of the Submittins Firm, or other evem of Force Majeure) will be
the sole responsibility of the Submitting Finn, including any and aU fines, penalties, lawsuits, or any other form
of liquidated damages as may result from such violation. during the first three years of facility/facilities
P.ge IS of 17; ooroo
. ,
. . operation. Since it is difficult to quantify the precise dollar measure of damages to the environment resulting
from a system failure, the successful submining 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 PROJECT'COST GUARANTEE
~
A. For Alternative I DesignlBuildlO'Perate 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 billing. per month per
EDU shall not cxc&d $35. Any response reflecting an O&M cost in excess of S35per month per EDU will be
deemed non-responsive and will not be further evaJuated. Operating and Maintenance Costs are not to increase
over the life of the contrac~ except as adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to keep up with inflation. If that is
not agreeable fO the Proposer, the Submitting Finn must provide an explanation of how. price adjustments for
operation and maintenance wiJJ occur. Explanations that arc 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 a guaranteed maximum price.
For Alternative: 2 De:sign/Build Submitting Finns, the Cost for the proposed wastewater treabnent system(s)
shall be presented as 1\ total cost per EDU for all elements of the contract. The figures provided must be a
guaranteed maximum price.
B. The Submining Firm will determine 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 EDDs). but may include additional sWTounding 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 Firm 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 wiJI include a six (6) month transiti<?D period.after. .operation
begins. If the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority so chooses, it may be the contract signator on behalf of Monroe
County.
B. The time allowed for design and construction of the re:C9mmended 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 Submining Finn. It will be the sole responsibility of the
Submitting Firm 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, shaH be accepted as an excuse
for noncompliance With the design, construction and start-up schedule of thirty (30) months.
Page 16 of 17; 00100
4-6 METHOD OF REIMBURSEMENT
A. For the DesignIBuild/Operale (Alternative I) Submining Finn, reimbursemenr 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 DesignlBuikl (Alternative 2) Submitting Finn, which shall submit a funding plan, reimbursemenrs for
the design and construcrion of the wastewater treatment system(s) will take place on a schedule defined in the
contracr 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 billing and co))ection program. This selVice will have
associated costs. wh~ch will need to be included in the costs for operation and maintenance of the
facility/facilities.
C. Monroe County and/or the Florida 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 fiom the time
:he sewer wastewater collection s,!ilcm(s) is/arc ready for individual hook-up. It will be the responsibility of the
Submitting Finn to maintain an up-to-date 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 resulting from the Submitting Finn's proposed
wastewarer treatment system(s) for breach of any part of the resulting agreement. In the event of such
termination by Monroe County. final paymenllo the Submining 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 continue the project or if
grant funding is reduced or terminat~ then the BOCC may terminate the Submitting Finn contract with no
further liability or oblig~tion to the Submitting Firm other than the obligation to pay for work satisfactorily
completed up to the point of notification oftennination.
4-8 ASSIGNABILITY
The contract between the selected Submitting Finn and Monroe County (or the Florida Keys Aqueduct
Authority) may not be re-assig,led by the Submitting Finn without prior written consent of the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority and Monroe County.
4-9 ADDITIONAL INFORMA nON
Submitting Finn acknowledges that if Key Largo incorporates, the county may no longer be in a position to
make the decision on this CB, and may need 10 assign this contractual award to the government of the new
municipality. The County/Submitting Finn conrr3ct will require the submining finn to consent to such
assignment.
Page 17 of 17; 00100
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 Ogdei!/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
Page 1 of 11
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," 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 ranklngs 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
WIU:RCAS. the Final Jtldgment is now on appeal to the Third District Court of
Appeal, lea'ving th~ Cotlnt'y in the untenable position of being unable to contract for the
con3U't1ction of the J<ey Largo Wastewater System Project; and
WHfREAS. both the County and Ogden agree to dismi33 the appeal of the rinal
Judgment in order to expedite the selection of it eontraGtor to construct the Key L.~rgo
Wa3tewater 0)'31'8m Project 83 proiided in this R83oltltion; 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 COUNT'(. FLORIDA THAT:
P3ge 2 of 11
DRAFT NO.3
08108/01
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-00-1190.
"FKAAIt 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 ~argo 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.
Pag9 3 of 11
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.
eeI'Tln... .,
~.t.lnINt:~ It i~ hl>fAnV ~~r.p.rtRinArt ~nrt determined that:
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.
SECTION 2.
FINDINGS. It is hereby ascertained and determined that:
(A) The preceding findings are hereby confirmed and incorporated herein by
reference.
(B) 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 it the Board undid, reexamined, or redid the rankings assigned to
each ofthe proposers by the TEP and allowed the proposers to provide oral presentations
to the Board in full, fair and open meetings.
Pagel 4 of 11
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.
Pioeon Kev Historical Park, 64 So. 2d 857 (Fla. 3d DCA 1995), as an example of an
"
effective cute 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 ter~s 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
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.
ili1 Near shore water pollution in the seas adiacent to the Kev Laroo area
caused by seDtlc tanks. cess pits and otherwise poorlv maintained or ODerated
wastewater treatment systems constitutes a direct and Immediate threat to the
public 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 siQnificant 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
Pag/O! 6 of 11
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
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
..
sub!eqtJently in Dcetio" 6 of !n.thls 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. Azuri~ - 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 CQunty Administrator, his designees, and
all approved consultants shall start fresh with the proposals enumerated in this section of
pag9 7 of 11
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. 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 offederal 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 !W! 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:ag9 8 of 11
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
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
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
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~ CI:1~TER 120. FLORIDA ST A TU~ES.
NotwithstandinQ the references to the contrary in the RFP. the County rejects any
adoDtion or reliance on ChaDter 120. Florida Statutes. and the Board herebv states
its intent to ImDlement the evaluation Drocess embodied in this Resolution under its
constitutional and statutorY Dowers of local self-aovemment.
Page 10 of 11
DRAFT NO.3
08/08/01
SECTION 12.
!UTH~R1ZATION 1;-0 COU~TY ATTORNEY TO RESOLVE
PENDING APPEA~ The County Attornev is hereby authorized to seek resolution and
dismissal.9' the Dendina aDDesl of the Final Judament In a manner consistent 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
--'feS
(SEAL)
Danny L. Kolhage I Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA
By:
Deputy Clerk
By:
Mayor/Chairperson
F :\WPOA T ,.\CompereIREGOI.UTlON I
Page 11 of 11