1. Upon motion by Mr. Friel, second by Mr. Engle, vote carried and motion passed to approve the minutes of October 22, 2018, as written.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "1. Upon motion by Mr. Friel, second by Mr. Engle, vote carried and motion passed to approve the minutes of October 22, 2018, as written."

Roderick Small
5 years ago
Views:

1 On NOVEMBER 5, 2018, the CONCESSIONS/PROCUREMENT COMMITTEE of the GRETER ORLNDO VITION UTHORITY met in the Carl T. Langford Board Room at Orlando International irport, One Jeff Fuqua Boulevard, Orlando, Florida, Chairman nderson called the meeting to order at 1:30 p.m. The meeting was posted in accordance with Florida Statutes and a quorum was present. Committee members present: Staff/Others present: Raymond nderson, Chair Kathleen Sharman, Vice Chair (joined meeting at 1:35 p.m.) Bradley Friel, Director of Planning Brian Engle, Director of Customer Service Denise Schneider, ssistant Director of Purchasing bdu El-Baroudi, Operations dministration nne van den Berg, Legal Counsel, Marchena and Graham Jo Thacker, Legal Counsel, Nelson Mullins Broad and Cassel Ruye Hawkins, Legal Counsel, Marchena and Graham Larissa Bou, Recording Secretary Chairman nderson announced to all present that if anyone is aggrieved by any of the proceedings of today s meeting and wishes to appeal the results of actions made by this Committee, they must file an appeal stating the item they wish to appeal and the basis for which they wish to appeal, and it must be received in writing by the Chief Executive Officer, Mr. Phillip N. Brown, in his office at One Jeff Fuqua Boulevard, Main Terminal Building, by Monday, November 12, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. For individuals who conduct lobbying activities with viation uthority employees or Board members, registration with the viation uthority is required each year prior to conducting any lobbying activities. statement of expenditures incurred in connection with those lobbying instances should also be filed prior to pril 1 of each year for the preceding year. s of January 16, 2013, lobbying any viation uthority Staff who are members of any committee responsible for ranking Proposals, Letters of Interest, Statements of Qualifications or Bids and thereafter forwarding those recommendations to the Board and/or Board Members is prohibited from the time that a Request for Proposals, Request for Letters of Interests, Request for Qualifications or Request for Bids is released to the time that the Board makes an award. s adopted by the Board on September 19, 2012, lobbyists are required to sign-in at the viation uthority offices prior to any meetings with Staff or Board members. In the event a lobbyist meets with or otherwise communicates with Staff or a Board member at a location other than the viation uthority offices, including the Mayor of the City of Orlando or the Mayor of Orange County, at their offices, the lobbyist shall file a Notice of Lobbying (Form 4) detailing each instance of lobbying to the viation uthority within 7 calendar days of such lobbying. s of January 16, 2013, lobbyists will also provide a notice to the viation uthority when meeting with the Mayor of the City of Orlando or the Mayor of Orange County at their offices. The policy, forms, and instructions are available in the viation uthority s offices and the web site. Please contact the Director of Board Services with questions at (407) MINUTES 1. Upon motion by Mr. Friel, second by Mr. Engle, vote carried and motion passed to approve the minutes of October 22, 2018, as written. CONSENT ITEMS 2. Motion was made by Mr. Engle, second by Mr. Friel, to consider the following items: a. recommend to the Chief Executive Officer to: (1) deem the quotations submitted by Globe Electric and Cavotec non-responsive for the reasons stated on the memorandum; (2) award Purchasing Request for Written Quotations # to ITW GSE as the low, responsive and responsible Respondent in the not-to-exceed amount of $198,000; (3) authorize the funding from previously-approved Capital Expenditure Fund; and (4) authorize the Purchasing Office to issue the necessary Purchase Order; b. recommend to the viation uthority Board to: (1) rescind the award recommendation to Hi-Lite irfield Services, LLC and recommend the award for Purchasing Bid 04-19, Runway 1

2 Rubber Removal and Ramp Scrubbing Services, to Danton Hydroblasting, LLC, as the low responsive Bidder; (2) authorize funding from the Operation and Maintenance Fund in a not-to-exceed amount of $2,298,879; and (3) authorize an viation uthority Officer or the Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement following satisfactory review by legal counsel; and c. recommend to the viation uthority Board to: (1) deem the repair parts required from the suppliers listed (copy on file) to be Sole Source Procurements for the 12 month period beginning January 1, 2019 and ending December 31, 2019; (2) authorize funding from previouslyapproved and future Operation and Maintenance Fund in the aggregate not-to-exceed amount of $1,430,000; (3) authorize the Purchasing Department to award blanket purchase agreements and purchase orders with each manufacturer listed based on a Sole Source Justification in compliance with the viation uthority policy; and (4) authorize staff to allocate and re-allocate the aggregate not-to-exceed amount among the fifteen (15) manufacturers as needed. Chairman nderson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to any of these items. Mr. Steve Bivens, with Cavotec, spoke regarding Consent genda Item, as an opponent. Mr. Bivens stated that Cavotec was the low bidder for the Ground Power Units (GPUs) solicitation; however, the firm was deemed unresponsive, due to Cavotec s noted exceptions to some of the viation uthority s terms and conditions. He inquired what would be the correct procedure to present Cavotec s arguments. Chairman nderson informed Mr. Bevins that this is the time to present his case in front of the Committee. Chairman nderson asked staff about the urgency for the GPUs. Ms. Schneider indicated that the department has an immediate need for the units, because these are the replacements for down units. Ms. Thacker asked Mr. Bivens to list Cavotec s exceptions to the terms and conditions and the reason(s) for the exceptions. Mr. Bivens explained that the first term is the consequential damages that were required as part of the term of sale. Cavotec s position is that these damages are unlimited and undefined risks of any indirect consequence of a problem with its product. Mr. Biven s stated that Cavotec normally negotiates this term, because this can be detrimental for a small business like Cavotec. Mr. Bivens also indicated that Cavotec checked the 120 days box for the time length of the quote; however, they have no issue abiding to the 180 days stipulated. Ms. Thacker clarified that the term was 30 days and not 120 as stated by Mr. Bivens. Lastly, Mr. Bivens indicated that Cavotec was not in agreement with the cancellation clause and the viation uthority s ability to cancel a contract midstream, with zero liability from products that had not been delivered. Chairman nderson asked Ms. Schneider if these provisions were the same as in previous contracts. Ms. Schneider responded that these are the viation uthority s standard terms and conditions. Ms. Thacker confirmed this information. Chairman nderson then asked if any of the Committee members had questions. Mr. Friel asked if the Committee had previously found other bidders non-responsive for the same reasons or issues. Ms. Thacker responded that the viation uthority and the Committee typically enforce the terms and conditions, and usually do not negotiate the terms of Purchase Orders. Ms. Thacker also indicated that the viation uthority is very strict enforcing consequential damages, both on purchasing and construction contracts. Vice Chair Sharman clarified that the other responsive proposers agreed to all the terms and conditions. Chairman nderson concurred with Vice Chair Sharman s observation. He indicated that due to the immediate need for the units and the small gap in price between Cavotec and the lowest, responsive and responsible bidder, his suggestion is to accept the recommendation of staff to award the Purchasing Request for Written Quotation # to ITW GSE. Committee members agreed. Chairman nderson thanked Cavotec for their interest in providing services to the viation uthority. 2

3 Following discussion, motion passed to approve these items. There were no further questions or comments. REVIEW OF PROPOSL RECEIVED FOR THE GROUND TRNSPORTTION CONCESSION T THE ORLNDO INTERNTIONL IRPORT 3. Mr. El-Baroudi presented the item. Request for Proposals (RFP) was issued on ugust 27, 2018, for the operation of a Ground Transportation Concession for the provision of transportation services in limousines, sedans, vans and buses at Orlando International irport. The successful will be granted the non-exclusive right, privilege and obligation to provide Ground Transportation from Orlando International irport in strict accordance with the terms and provisions of the concession agreement and the Ground Transportation Rules & Regulations (GTR&R). Counter and office space rental will be governed by a separate Space/Use greement with the viation uthority. This Request for Proposal includes an irport Concessions Disadvantaged Business Enterprises (CDBE) participation goal of ten percent (10%). The term of the agreement is for thirty-six (36) months with the initial term to commence on or about February 1, 2019, and with the viation uthority having options to renew the agreement for two (2) additional periods of one (1) year each. On October 4, 2018, the viation uthority received the following proposal: Mears Destination Services, Inc. For each agreement period of the term, the successful will pay to the viation uthority an annual concession fee in an amount equal to the greater of (i) ten percent (10%) of the Concessionaire s Gross Receipts or (ii) the Minimum nnual Concession Fee (MCF) set forth in the proposal. The lowest acceptable initial (MCF) is $1,800,000. It is respectfully requested that the Concessions/Procurement Committee review the received proposal and recommend award of the Ground Transportation Concession to the viation uthority Board in accordance with the evaluation criteria established for the RFP. Chairman nderson noted that the financial, legal, and small business reviews were all satisfactory. Ms. van den Berg stated that there was only one irregularity with the date on the CBDE subcontract, but this has been corrected. She confirmed that all the material was reviewed and deemed satisfactory. Chairman nderson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this matter. Hearing none, he then asked if any Committee members had questions. Vice Chair Sharman asked if staff was comfortable with the incumbent s performance. Mr. El- Baroudi stated that the viation uthority is satisfied with the services Mears has provided for the past 4 years. Chairman nderson inquired about the current MCF. Mr. El-Baroudi indicated that the current MCF is approximately $4 million; however, the percentage of Gross Receipts was not reached. Mr. El-Baroudi further explained that the new MCF is lower, but they will be able to reach the Gross Receipt percentage. There were no further questions or comments. Upon motion by Vice Chair Sharman, second by Mr. Friel, vote carried and motion passed to approve staff s recommendation. 3

4 REVIEW OF PROPOSL RECEIVED FOR THE REQUEST FOR PROPOSLS #03-19 TRVEL SUPPORT ND EXPENSE REPORTING SERVICES 4. Ms. Schneider presented the item. The Contract period will be for thirty-six (36) months with the initial service to commence on or about January 1, 2019, and with the viation uthority having unlimited options to renew the contract for one (1) year each. This award will result in a contract for the Service Provider to provide all labor, supervision, equipment, supplies, and all other items necessary or proper for, or incidental to, providing support for the viation uthority s Travel Services to procure travel utilizing pre-approved expense report with on-line approval, provide travel assistance (including VIP travel assistance services), manage travel costs, provide policy compliance/monitoring, and travelers expense reporting with the ability to upload back-up documentations in accordance with the contract documents. On ugust 28, 2018, the following Proposals were received: Name of Respondent Staff reviewed the submittals and provided detailed information on both Proposals. The total amount awarded is to be funded from the Operations and Maintenance Other Contractual Services account code line Funds expected to be spent within the current fiscal year are within budget. It is respectfully requested that the Concessions/Procurement Committee: (1) evaluate and rank the s based on each of the Proposals; (2) authorize Staff to enter into negotiations with the first ranked, and if that negotiation is not successful, with the second ranked ; (3) authorize funding from the Operation and Maintenance Fund, and (4) authorize an viation uthority Officer or the Chief Executive Officer to execute an agreement following satisfactory review by legal counsel. Chairman nderson asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak to this matter. Hearing none, he then asked Ms. Schneider to review the evaluation criteria and staff s findings. Ms. Schneider indicated that the following are the evaluation criteria the viation uthority used in determining which Proposal is most advantageous to the viation uthority: 1. s qualifications and experience, including references, of providing Travel and Support Services. Prior experience including verified reference. 2. s personnel and ccount Manager Qualifications and Experience, including references, of providing Travel and Support Services. 3. s On-Line Reservation Booking System, including compliance to the viation uthority s travel policy. 4. s Travel ssistance Services, including a risk management program to provide alert services and VIP travel assistance services. 5. s reporting capability, including travelers expense reporting. 6. s Implementation Plan and Training Plan. 7. s responses to the Questionnaire. 8. s Prices. Ms. Schneider proceeded to provide staff s observations as follows: 4

5 References - Both s met the requirements for references and provided all required documentation, including staff and management resumes. Staff noticed that Corporate Travel is associated with various purchasing consortiums; however, is not associated with any. Training did not provide its training plan; type and number of hours of estimated training for each participant; list of training materials and manuals; approach to evaluating the training effectiveness; and/or new traveler refresher training information. failed to provide its list of training material and manuals, and its approach to evaluating the training effectiveness. Objections and dditions to Standard Contract Terms and Conditions did not provide the required statement indicating that it is willing to sign the contract, which includes the General Conditions and Specification set forth in the RFP. On-line Reservation Booking System - Both s use Concur for on-line reservations; however, noted that Concur Expense reporting tool requires a direct contract with Concur. Compliance with viation uthority s Travel Policy Both s stated that they will comply with the viation uthority s travel policy. Risk Management Program and VIP Travel ssistance Services Both s indicated that they will provide risk management and VIP travel assistance services. Reporting Capabilities Both companies can provide pre-travel reporting; however, Corporate Travel cannot provide post-travel expense reporting. Vice Chair Sharman asked if offered the post-travel expense reporting tool option through direct contract with Concur anywhere in its proposal. Ms. Schneider replied no. Chairman nderson asked Ms. Thacker to provide her observations of the submittals. Ms. Thacker indicated that both s met the minimum requirements and that the next step is for the Committee to evaluate and determine if a s failure to submit information impacts the ability of the to provide the services required. Ms. Thacker directed Committee members to utilize the evaluation sheet provided (copy on file) to evaluate s in each criteria. Chairman nderson explained to the Committee the scale for ranking to the Committee members, as follows: Outstanding (O), Very Good (), cceptable (), Less Than dequate (L) and Unacceptable (U). Committee members proceeded to evaluate and rank s submittals: 1. Qualifications and Experience of s Chairman nderson asked Ms. Schneider to provide her observations. Ms. Schneider indicated that both companies demonstrated ample experience and qualifications in the travel industry. Chairman nderson suggested an O or ranking for both firms. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: 2. Qualification and Experience of Personnel and ccount Manager - Chairman nderson reviewed s and s managers experience and suggested a ranking for both firms. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: 5

6 3. On-Line Reservation Booking System (including compliance to the viation uthority s Travel Policy) fter detailed discussion among the Committee and Ms. Schneider about s capabilities, Vice Chair Sharman suggested an ranking for both firms in this criterion. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: 4. Travel ssistance Services (including a risk management program to provide alert services and VIP travel assistance services) Vice Chair Sharman asked Ms. Schneider to speak to this criterion and provide her observations. Ms. Schneider reiterated that both s provided the required risk management program; however, it is at an additional cost to the viation uthority. dditionally, both s provided VIP travel assistance services that are fairly similar. Vice Chair Sharman suggested a ranking of for both s. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: 5. Reporting Capabilities (including travelers expense reporting) Ms. Schneider restated that cannot provide post-travel expense reporting and can provide these services by partnering with Concur. Furthermore, offers the ability to upload documents to the expense report and also offers an online phone application. Vice Chair Sharman explained how important it is for the Finance Department to have the ability to automate the expense report functions and make it a complete cycle, from the time of approval, to when the traveler makes the final expense report. Chairman nderson suggested a ranking of U for. Vice Chair Sharman suggested a ranking of for in this criterion. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: U 6. Implementation & Training Plan Ms. Schneider indicated that failed to provide a training plan. Under the implementation plan, provided the following statement: s an existing customer, the implementation plan will be customized to address program service updates. Mr. Friel asked if Corporate Travel has an existing training plan in file. Ms. Schneider replied, no. Mr. Friel expressed his concerns regarding future training for new and existing employees. Ms. Schneider then indicated that provided both a training and implementation plan. Vice Chair Sharman suggested a ranking of L for Corporate Travel and Mr. Friel suggested for. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: L 7. Responses to Questionnaire Ms. Schneider indicated that all questions were answered by both firms. Mr. Friel suggested an ranking for both s. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: 6

7 8. Prices Ms. Schneider observed that s price for Domestic ir and Domestic Hotel is lower than ; however, has some additional services at no charge. Ms. Schneider s opinion is that both s offered reasonable prices. Vice Chair Sharman suggested a ranking of for both s. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: Exceptions to greement or Scope Ms. Schneider explained that the s were asked to agree to the viation uthority s terms and conditions. She reiterated that Corporate Travel did not provide the required statement in which they agree to sign the contract, including the terms and conditions, if selected. Ms. Schneider reminded the Committee that Corporate Travel is the incumbent and this may be the reason it did not provide the statement. Vice Chair Sharman suggested to assign a Fail to and Pass to. fter further discussion, Vice Chair Sharman changed her recommendation and suggested to rank Corporate Travel U and. The Committee concurred ranking in this category as follows: U The Committee ratings were summarized, as follows: Outstanding Very Good dequate Less than dequate Unacceptable Corporate Travel Vice Chair Sharman asked Ms. Schneider if she agreed with the summarized ranking. Ms. Schneider replied yes, and requested that the motion include an option to negotiate with the second-ranked firm, if negotiations fail with the first-ranked firm. Upon motion by Vice Chair Sharman, second by Mr. Engle, vote carried and motion passed to (1) approve the ranking below for the Request for Proposals (RFP) #03-19, Travel Support and Expense Reporting Services; (2) authorize staff to enter into negotiations with the first-ranked, and if negotiations are not successful, negotiate with the second-ranked firm: First: Second: DJOURNMENT 5. Chairman nderson asked if there was further business to discuss before the Committee. Having no further business to discuss, Chairman nderson adjourned the meeting at 2:20 p.m. The next scheduled CPC meeting will be held on Monday, November 19, 2018 at 1:30 p.m. in the Carl T. Langford Board Room. (Digitally signed on 12/3/2018) Larissa Bou Recording Secretary Raymond nderson Chairman 7

FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA

FINANCE COMMITTEE AGENDA DATE: JUNE 20, 2018 DAY: WEDNESDAY TIME: 1:45 P.M. PLACE: CONFERENCE ROOM LINDBERGH, ORLANDO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, ONE JEFF FUQUA BOULEVARD For individuals who conduct lobbying