Skip to code content (skip section selection)
(A) The city hereby adopts F.S. § 255.065, “Public-Private Partnerships,” as amended, and expressly incorpo-rates it by reference into the City Procurement Ordinance.
(B) Definitions. For purposes of this section, the words defined in F.S. § 255.065(1), (entitled “Definitions”), as amended, including, without limitation, “qualifying project,” shall have the same meaning in this section.
(C) Conditions for use.
(1) Competitive negotiations/competitive sealed proposals may be used for a qualifying project in which it is both practicable and advantageous for the city to consider a range of competing plans, specifications, standards, terms and conditions so that adequate competition will result and award be made not principally on the basis of price, but to the respondent whose proposal contains the most advantageous combination of price, quality or other features. All contracts shall be approved by the City Commission and shall be signed by the City Manager, City Attorney and City Clerk.
(2) A contract may be entered into by use of the competitive negotiation/competitive sealed proposal methods when:
(a) The Director of General Services determines that the complex specialized nature or technical details of a particular procurement make the use of competitive sealed bidding either not practicable or unreasonable, or not advantageous to the city;
(b) Specifications or scope of work cannot be fairly or objectively prepared so as to permit competition in the invitation for bids; or
(c) Qualifications and the quality of the service to be delivered can be considered more important than price.
(D) Competitive sealed proposal method. Where the contract exceeds $75,000, the city may utilize the following competitive sealed proposal methods:
(1) Request for Proposals (RFP), Request for Letters of Interest (RFLI), or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) setting forth the terms and conditions of the professional or personal services sought for the qualifying project, including but not limited to, scope of work and evaluation factors, shall be issued.
(2) Financing. Public-private partnerships tradi-tionally involve long-term financing agreements between the parties. RFPs, RFLIs or RFQs for a qualifying project that contemplate long-term financing wherein the city would incur a debt obligation must be reviewed and approved in advance of advertisement as to form by the Director of Finance and the City Attorney.
(3) Public notice. Adequate public notice in a newspaper of general circulation shall be provided pursuant to F.S. § 255.065(3)(b), as amended.
(4) Pre-proposal conference. A pre-proposal conference may be conducted to explain the requirements of the proposed procurement and shall be announced to all prospective proposers known to have received an RFP, RFLI, or RFQ. Conferences should be held long enough after the RFP, RFLI, or RFQ has been issued to allow prospective proposers to become familiar with the proposed procurement, but sufficiently before receipt of proposal to allow consideration of the conference results in preparing their proposals. Nothing stated at a pre-proposal conference shall change the RFP, RFLI, or RFQ unless a change is made by written addendum, which shall be supplied to all those prospective proposers known to have received a RFP, RFLI, or RFQ. All pre-proposal conferences shall be recorded and be maintained as a public record.
(5) Receipt of proposals. Sealed proposals must be received by the General Services Department no later than the time and date specified for submission in the RFP, RFLI, or RFQ. The name of each proposer shall be recorded by the department, and the record and each proposal, to the extent consistent with applicable state law, shall be open to public inspection.
(6) Proposal evaluation. An evaluation com- mittee shall be appointed by the City Manager or designee for the purpose of evaluating proposals based upon the criteria contained in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ. This evalu-ation committee shall be comprised predominantly of individuals who are city personnel and are deemed subject matter experts in the project areas concerned (for example: an architect, engineer, certified public accountant, financial advisor, etc. who are certified or registered as required by the law). No other factors or criteria shall be used in the evaluation. As may be provided in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ, proposers may be invited to make oral presentations regarding their proposals. The recommendations of the evaluation committee shall be submitted to the City Manager.
In the event only one proposal is received, the evaluation committee may proceed with the evaluation, or request the City Manager to recommend to the City Commission to reject all proposals, whichever is in the best interests of the city.
(7) Award. For comprehensive agreements that involve long-term financing wherein the city would incur a debt obligation, the City Manager’s award recommendation shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Finance and the City Attorney before being submitted for consideration by the City Commission. Award shall be made to the responsive and responsible proposer whose proposal is most advantageous to the city as determined by the City Commission in accordance with the evaluation criteria contained in the RFP, RFLI or RFQ.
(a) After reviewing the City Manager’s recommendation, the City Commission may:
1. Approve the City Manager’s recommendation and authorize contract negotiations;
2. Reject all proposals;
3. Reject all proposals and instruct the City Manager to reissue a solicitation; or
4. Reject all proposals and instruct the City Manager to enter into competitive negotiations with at least three individuals or firms possessing the ability to perform such services and obtain information from said individuals or firms relating to experience, qualifications and the proposed cost or fee for said services, and make a recommendation to the City Commission.
The decision of the City Commission shall be final. Written notice of the award shall be given to the successful proposer.
Threshold amounts referenced herein shall include the values associated with potential options of renewal. Awards made by the City Commission shall include authority for all subsequent options of renewal, if any. The aforementioned options of renewal shall be exercised at the option of the City Manager, subject to confirmation by the City Commission if, after review of past performance under the contract, the City Manager determines in his/her sole discretion that exercise of the option of renewal is in the best interest of the city.
(Ord. 2018-05, passed 10-10-17)