Legislative Matter

Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 180320

Printable PDF Format

File Number: 180320

File Type: Report

Status: Before the Board

Version: 0

Reference:

Control: Board of County Commissioners

File Name: EW CIVIL AND PROBATE COURTHOUSE

Introduced: 2/13/2018

Requester: Mayor

Cost:

Final Action:

Agenda Date: 2/21/2018

Agenda Item Number: 2B3

Notes:

SEE LEG. NO. 180399

Title:

RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THE UNSOLICITED PROPOSAL RECEIVED FOR THE DESIGN, BUILD, FINANCE, OPERATION, AND MAINTENANCE OF A NEW CIVIL AND PROBATE COURTHOUSE

Indexes:

Sponsors:

NONE

Sunset Provision: No

Effective Date:

Expiration Date:

Registered Lobbyist:

None Listed

Legislative History
Acting Body	Date	Agenda Item	Action	Sent To	Due Date	Returned	Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners	2/21/2018	2B3	Not Accepted
REPORT:	Commissioner Heyman noted her intent to present a motion to reject this report and the Mayor’s recommendation to reject the proposals and maintain a dual track process. She noted, for the record, the Downtown Development Authority passed a resolution asking the County to consider redevelopment and relocation of the county’s civil courthouse, future plans for reuse/renovation of the historic 73 West Flagler Courthouse, and prioritize that area as a future location for any new courthouse. Chief Judge Bertila Soto, Eleventh Judicial Circuit, thanked Mayor Gimenez, the County Commission, and county staff for acknowledging the need for a new courthouse. She pointed out the need for a courthouse that met critical justice needs; the need for a fiscally responsible, practical, and creative solution for a new courthouse; and a swift, transparent, open, and competitive process to award the procurement of the project. Chief Judge Soto urged Mayor Gimenez to reconsider his recommendation to reject the unsolicited proposal. Chief Judge Soto spoke about the efforts made over the past four years, meeting with groups and developers interested in constructing a new courthouse; noted multiple sites were considered by two tasks forces created specifically for this purpose; and opined county taxpayers deserved a competitive procurement process, including an unsolicited proposal, as well as a request for qualifications for construction of the courthouse. She reiterated her request for the Mayor to reconsider his recommendation and process the unsolicited proposal and opined all interested groups should be also encouraged to compete for the critical need openly and transparently through the county’s RFQ and USP dual track process. Commissioner Heyman expressed concern with the Mayor’s reasoning his recommendation; stressed the need to maintain a dual track process; and noted the RFQ had already been advertised. She supported allowing the process to continue. In response to Commissioner Heyman, Chief Judge Soto explained the new courthouse would be limited to civil cases and, if located next to the Children’s Courthouse, additional services/space could be provided to support juvenile court. Mayor Gimenez explained some of the reasons for his recommendation to reject included the location and the possibility of obtaining a better price through an RFQ process as opposed to an unsolicited proposal. In response to Commissioner Sosa’s question regarding the process and meetings held, Assistant County Attorney Oren Rosenthal explained two processes were involved; one started with an expression of interest issued last year at the direction of the Board which included locations, in addition to other factors and, as a result of the expressions of interest, County Administration issued an RFQ identifying a site in the Children’s Courthouse parking lot for construction of the new civil courthouse. Assistant County Rosenthal pointed out the unsolicited proposal was submitted by one group shortly before the issuance of the RFQ and their proposal was for the Flagler Street site. He further explained the dual track process consisted of County Administration’s RFQ and RFP being one track and the second track consisted of unsolicited proposals that would be specific to the site proposed in that manner. In response to Commissioner Levine Cava, Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal explained a solicitation issued for the project purpose could be for a Master Plan size courthouse of 600,000 square feet and, with regards to any site specific remediation, it was an administration issue, not a legal issue. Ms. Tara Smith, Director, Internal Services Department, explained extensive remediation was required during construction of the Children’s Courthouse, which was not uncommon in the downtown area; therefore, the time and money associated with that remediation would not be necessary at the site next to the Children’s Courthouse. She further explained the need for remediation at any other proposed site in Downtown would not be known until excavation and foundation building took place. Commissioner Levine Cava questioned whether or not the old courthouse was going to be retained as part of the court system to which Mayor Gimenez responded the possibility of selling that site and some of its development rights were being considered to offset the construction costs of a new courthouse. Ms. Smith further noted, county administration was advised to not couple the old courthouse with the new courthouse in one solicitation; however, there was a plan related to selling the old courthouse that would be presented to the Board separately. Mayor Gimenez pointed out the County had additional properties and buildings that could be sold to offset the construction costs of the new courthouse. He also noted the Cultural Center was being looked at as a possible future higher use redevelopment, which included the museum and library. A discussion ensued regarding unsolicited proposals and the process for those types of submissions; the dual track process; and the time and costs involved. Ms. Smith pointed out over 57 teams expressed interest in the P3 process for the courthouse; however, concerns were expressed over having two processes in a situation where the County had not committed to a specific size and/or location. Chief Judge Soto noted the unsolicited proposal is to build a new courthouse at the Flagler Street location and they would purchase the Dade County Courthouse (73 West Flagler). She opined there was interest in coupling the two and urged both processes, the RFQ and the unsolicited proposals, be pursued by the county. Mayor Gimenez expressed concern with the debate at this time, pointing out the voters of Miami-Dade County had previously rejected, by 65%, a ballot proposal for a 600,000 square foot courthouse. In response to Commissioner Levine Cava's request for clarification on KPMG's concerns, Ms. Smith explained KPMG, in addition to the County Attorney's office, advised County Administration to not couple the new courthouse with the old courthouse and to not couple the two locations in the same solicitation. She also reviewed the schedule of the unsolicited proposal and opined it was unrealistic based on the magnitude of the RFP for this proposed P3 project. Commissioner Diaz thanked Commissioner Heyman for her efforts on this issue. He noted his understanding of the Mayor’s concerns; however, expressed concern with changing the process at this point and argued for continuation of a P3 process. He also commented on the need to protect the proposal process and opined the County could find a way to construct a new courthouse. Mr. Jose Gonzalez, Senior Vice President, Florida East Coast Industries, 2855 LeJeune Road, noted he was the unsolicited proposer and spoke in support constructing a new courthouse on Flagler Street. He opined unsolicited proposals invited competition; that the RFQ could be married to the unsolicited proposal process; and the P3 process promoted creativity in financing and other aspects. He argued against constructing a new civil courthouse on the site next to the Children’s Courthouse because it would overshadow the Children’s Courthouse and pointed out his proposal also included the purchase of the old Dade County Courthouse. Mr. Gene Sterns, 150 W. Flagler Street, commented on the dismal condition of the courthouses in Miami-Dade County and pointed out voters opposed building the Stephen P. Clark Government Center and the Family Courthouse; however both were built. He opined the public was concerned with construction funding; spoke in support of the new Flagler Courthouse Group, and commented on the benefits of the P3 process. He also pointed out two courthouse designs, one for 450,000 square feet and one for 600,000 square feet, had been completed; and suggested a collaborative meeting between county staff, the Mayor’s office, and the judges be held to determine which size building would be the most cost effective, should the unsolicited proposal be reaffirmed by the Board. Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal clarified, should the Board retain the unsolicited proposal, the P3 ordinance provided for a competitive process to be issued as a result of the project purpose in the unsolicited proposal. Mr. Eric Zuccela, P3 Management, 2100 Coral Way, noted he was intimately involved in the drafting of the P3 ordinance and expressed concern with unsolicited and solicited proposals being conducted at the same time. He pointed out the value of the existing courthouse should not be tied to the development of a new courthouse; supported having additional competition and the Mayor’s recommendation to reject the unsolicited proposal; and opined new bidders would not come forward to compete for the project with an unsolicited proposal involved. Commissioner Diaz thanked Mr. Zuccela for his input; however, pointed out the Board voted for an open process and proffered an amendment to Commissioner Heyman’s motion to accept all proposed sites. Responding to Commissioner Monestime’s request for clarification of a dual track process, Ms. Smith explained having two dual versions of the project, both unsolicited and solicited proposals, gave the industry the opinion that the County was unsure of what they wanted. Therefore, accepting the Mayor’s report/recommendation allowed staff to dispose of the unsolicited proposal; allowed that company to bid on the RFQ currently out; and provided clarity to the market. She noted, based on recommendations from the county advisor’s, staff supported the Mayor’s recommendation to eliminate the unsolicited proposal. Mayor Gimenez further explained unsolicited proposals could be submitted at any time; however, the RFQ advertised on this project was for a P3 and concurred that KPMG, the county advisor’s, recommended this project not be conducted under a dual track process. He also pointed out this situtation was different from other projects where unsolicited proposals were submitted; noted the need to have comparisons and/or competition; and expressed concern that maintaining the unsolicited proposal could have a detrimental effect on industry participation in the RFQ process. Discussion ensued regarding the P3 project process, the RFQ process, and the possibility that other unsolicited proposals being submitted for this project. It was also noted that the Mayor still had the ability to veto whatever motion made by the Board today. Following additional discussion on the bid process, Ms. Smith clarified the new courthouse size had been determined at 600,000 square feet; however, the location had not. She noted staff preferred the site next to the Children's Courthouse and pointed out the Board had not been involved in that portion. She also stated a short list recommendation should be presented to the Board by September, 2018. Chairman Bovo expressed concern with the Board not being involved in the site selection and opined the dual bidding process could be beneficial to the county. Mayor Gimenez opined the Board should decide what site they preferred the new courthouse to be built on and expressed his preference for the site next to the Children's Courthouse. Mr. Sterns opined, during the RFQ process, both sites should be kept as options; that the dual process should be allowed to continue; and the Board would decide on the site when it was time to put the RFP out. Commissioner Jordan concurred with comments made on both sides of the dual track argument; opined the unsolicited proposal should be kept for consideration; and stressed the need for the Board to maintain decision power on the location/site. Commissioner Sosa expressed concern with the Board being excluded from decisions made by County Administration on this process and stressed the need to have more competition on this project. Commissioner Heyman stressed the need to move forward and asked the County Attorney to clarify her motion to reject the Mayor’s recommendation, including the amendment proffered by Commissioner Diaz and site selection to be determined by the Board of County Commissioners. Assistant County Attorney Rosenthal advised Commissioner Heyman’s motion, including amendments proffered, would be as follows: that the process continue on parallel tracks; that the RFQ be opened to both site locations, identifying to the proposer’s of the RFQ that their proposals would be for either of the two site locations; instructing the Mayor to evaluate the unsolicited proposal and present a recommendation on that evaluation no later than March 22, 2018; and that the Board would make a decision on April 10, 2018, on how to solicit the project and what location the solicitation would be for. The foregoing motion was seconded by Commissioner Suarez, and upon being put to a vote, passed by a vote of 11-0, (Commissioners Barreiro and Martinez were absent). NOTE: See Agenda Item 15F2, Legislative File No. 180399 on today's agenda, which is related to this item.

Ed Marquez	2/13/2018		Assigned	Office of Agenda Coordination

Legislative Text

TITLE
Recommendation Related to the Unsolicited Proposal Received for the Design, Build, Finance, Operation, and Maintenance of a New Civil and Probate Courthouse

HEADER
Date:

To: Honorable Chairman Esteban L. Bovo, Jr.
and Members, Board of County Commissioners

From: Carlos A. Gimenez
Mayor

Subject: Recommendation Related to the Unsolicited Proposal Received for the Design, Build, Finance, Operation, and Maintenance of a New Civil and Probate Courthouse

STAFF RECOMMENDATION
As reported to the Chairman�s Policy Council on January 18, 2018, the County received an unsolicited proposal from New Flagler Courthouse Development Partners, LLC (NFCDP) on January 11, 2018 for the delivery of a new civil and probate courthouse through a public-private partnership. At the conclusion of the Council�s discussion, the Administration was directed to utilize a dual-track process to review the unsolicited proposal while simultaneously issuing a competitive Request for Qualifications (RFQ) for prospective developers to design, build, finance, operate, and maintain a new civil and probate courthouse (Courthouse Project). This report summarizes the actions taken with respect to the unsolicited proposal and describes the next steps in the procurement process that is currently underway for the Courthouse Project.

On December 5, 2017, the Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance No. 17-94, which established the policies and procedures for the County�s evaluation of unsolicited proposals. Upon receipt of an unsolicited proposal, the County Mayor is required to review the proposal within 30 days to determine whether formal evaluation of the proposed project or a rejection is recommended.

Under the direction of Deputy Mayor Edward Marquez, the County held a number of meetings to review the unsolicited proposal while simultaneously finalizing the RFQ for advertisement, as directed by the Council to proceed on a dual track. County staff met with representatives from NFCDP to discuss the contents of its proposal and to request clarification on certain project terms. NFCDP proposed to build a new courthouse on a County-owned parcel located adjacent to the historic Miami-Dade County Courthouse (Alternative Site). NFCDP proposed to deliver the new courthouse and maintain the facility in exchange for an estimated annual availability payment of $26 million for a 35-year term.

While the County completed its review of the unsolicited proposal, the Internal Services Department issued a draft solicitation for the Courthouse Project for industry comment on January 26, 2018. The solicitation identified the County�s selected site as the surface parking lot adjacent to the existing Children�s Courthouse (Selected Site). The formal RFQ was issued on January 31, 2018 and the solicitation is currently under the Cone of Silence. Responses from prospective developers are due by April 2, 2018.

Based on the County�s preliminary evaluation, the unsolicited proposal will be rejected while the County continues to pursue the selection of a prospective developer through the competitive process that is already underway. The Internal Services Department has continued to move the Courthouse Project forward. The current competitive process represents the most cost-effective and expeditious course of action, as described below:

* The Selected Site is the most build-ready site among the County�s downtown holdings, as the County has already completed environmental remediation on the site prior to the construction of the Children�s Courthouse. Acceptance of the unsolicited proposal may require the environmental remediation of the Alternative Site, which would create a significant fiscal impact to the County and would further delay the project completion.
* The Selected Site is currently underutilized as a surface parking lot and the County does not foresee any other suitable uses for the site (e.g., commercial, residential, or retail development) other than the development of an appropriate judicial facility due to its immediate proximity to the existing Children�s Courthouse.
* The Alternative Site has other potential land uses that may be monetized by the County to mitigate the costs associated with the Courthouse Project. Acceptance of the unsolicited proposal would prevent the County from selling or leasing the Alternative Site and from collecting any revenue that the site may generate.
* Distributing a Request for Proposals through the unsolicited proposal process will significantly inhibit market competition for this project in comparison to the procurement process that is currently underway as an RFQ. As you know, members of the County�s P3 Task Force last year, who are experts in these types of projects, have recommended a two-step process that first shortlists respondents before proceeding to a Request for Proposals. Skipping the RFQ step will benefit only NFCDP, not the County.

In consideration of the above, a rejection of the unsolicited proposal is in the County�s best interest. Should you require additional information, please contact Tara C. Smith, Director of the Internal Services Department, at 305-375-5893, or me directly.

c: Honorable Harvey Ruvin, Clerk of the Courts
Honorable Bertila Soto, Chief Judge, Eleventh Judicial Circuit
Abigail Price-Williams, County Attorney
Geri Bonzon-Keenan, First Assistant County Attorney
Office of the Mayor Senior Staff
Tara C. Smith, Director, Internal Services Department
Cathy Jackson, Interim Commission Auditor