Title: WCRWSA Agenda and Minutes of Meeting
CITATION PAGE IMAGE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UF00051859/00001
 Material Information
Title: WCRWSA Agenda and Minutes of Meeting
Alternate Title: WCRWSA Agenda and Minutes of Meeting Jan. 21, 1976
Physical Description: 22p.
Language: English
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
General Note: Box 3, Folder 6C ( WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AREA B3F6 ), Item 195
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: UF00051859
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text




Law Curry Rainey Twachtmann

Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder,
Inc. 1. 1 1 1

J. B. Converse & Company,Inc. 3 2 2 3

Briley, Wild & Associates, Inc. 2 3 3 2

He noted that there was a tie vote for the second priority firm,

whereupon Chairman Rainey volunteered to reverse his votes on

the second and third choices.

Following discussion, Commissioner Curry moved, seconded

by Mr. Twachtmann and carried, that the General Manager be

authorized to enter into contract negotiations for an engineering/

hydrologic consultant to undertake a study on the Regional Water

Supply Sources and Post 1980 needs with the following firms,

ranked in order of priority: Ross, Saarinen, Bolton & Wilder, Inc.;

Briley, Wild & Associates, Inc.; and J. B. Converse & Company, Inc.


DISCUSSION RE REPORT ON DRI PROCESS, CYPRESS CREEK WELLFIELD

Mr. Hesse outlined the following activities regarding

the DRI process, Cypress Creek Wellfield:

1. In June of 1974 a ruling was requested by
Pinellas County from the Director of the
Division of State Planning on whether a DRI
was necessary.

2. A letter was received from Mr. Stearns advising
that a DRI was unnecessary.

3. Subsequent to that, Lake Padgett Pines submitted
a complaint against Pinellas County, Pasco County,
City of St. Petersburg, Tampa Bay Regional Planning
Council, Florida Division of State Planning,
SWFWMD and the Authority.

4. In October, 1975, Circuit Court Judge Williams
ruled by summary judgement, the DRI is necessary
within the meaning and definitions of Chapter 380.

5. Subsequent to that ruling, the attorneys have
requested a clarification of same. Such clarification
is expected very soon.

217








Mr. de la Parte reported that this matter went

before the Authority prior to it being advertised; that the

document is an adaptation of the state law on procedures

for contracting with professional service agencies; and that

he has received no comments regarding same.

No one appeared in response to the Chairman's call

for statements in opposition.

Mr. de la Parte interjected that upon the Authority's

approval of said document, the remaining action to be completed

is to file same with the Secretary of State and the Commission

on Administrative Procedures.

Commissioner Law moved, seconded by Mr. Twachtmann

and carried, that the proposed Procedures for Contracting for

Professional Services, be approved and submitted to the

Secretary of State and the Commission on Administrative Procedures.



AGREEMENT WITH WILLIAM R. HOUGH & COMPANY, NOT INC. AND THE
PIERCE, WULBERN, MURPHY CORPORATION FOR INVESTMENT BANKER
SERVICES- APPROVED AS AMENDED IN THE FORMAT SUGGESTED BY THE
AUTHORITY ATTORNEY

Mr. de la Parte refreshed the Board's memory on the

sequence of events that have preceded today requested action

regarding investment banker services, as enumerated below:

i. At a previous meeting, the Authority determined
a requirement to retain services for advice to
Authority on the matter of financing of present
and future projects.

2. Ultimately, the Authority selected the firm of
Pierce, Wulbern, Murphey Corp. working in
conjunction with William R. Hough & Co. to perform
these services.








207








6. In the meantime, Mr. Gus Krayer of the Authority
staff has been directed to study the various
aspects of the DRI process.

7. Upon advice of Counsel several weeks ago, Mr.
Krayer has been directed by the General Manager
to begin preparation of a DRI.

He added that the City of St. Petersburg has agreed to make

their hydrologic consultant available to the Authority in

connection with the DRI; that the project, at one point in

time, was estimated to require $90,000 and a year to complete,

however, he doesn't envision this kind of effort at this time.

Upon question by the Chairman, Mr. Talley and Attorney

Varn indicated that 90 days is a reasonable estimated time in

which to complete a DRI. Attorney Varn added that "I think the

great deal of the information is available, it's just putting it

into the particular format they have". Mr. Hesse indicated

that two man months have already been expended on the DRI and

that a firm estimate for completion of the DRI is not now

available.

Mr. Twachtmann stated that it is commendable that

a DRI can be performed in-house.

Upon questions by the Chairman, Mr. Hesse reported

that he and his staff have examined SWFWMD's environmental

impact assessment very thoroughly; that he has been in

conversation with SWFWMD and they have indicated that their

biologist could perhaps be of some help to the Authority; that

a U. S. Army Corps of Engineer draft Environmental Impact

statement in compliance with NEPA is due in March, 1976 and

advised that he is seeking input from the staffs of each member

jurisdiction in compiling the DRI in-house.





218









3. Mr. de la Parte was directed to enter into a
contract with said parties on behalf of the
Authority and to obtain these services as soon
as possible to aid in the preparation of the
transfer, water consumption and 84" pipeline
documents and to later place same documents
in the proper posture for subsequent public
financing by way of a bond issue.

4. Negotiations commenced with said firms during
which the firms have actively participated in
the deliberations involving the transfer of
Cypress Creek.

5. In the process of consummating an agreement
with said firms, he has discovered some legal
impediments to entering into a contract in the
manner in which the Authority directed.

6. These conflicts have been discussed with both
Pinellas County Attorney W. Gray Dunlap and
Mr. John Kelly.

7. He has researched the law on this matter and has
reached the conclusion that a contract which has
.the effect of retaining financial consultants in the
capacity of fiscal advisers and, at the same time,
emloys them as investment bankers, would be illegal.

Mr. de la Parte summarized the following alternative

actions to the Authority:

1. Hire said firms, solely and exclusively, for the
purpose of serving as the Authority's financial
advisers.

2. Enter into an agreement with said firms where
they serve as the Authority's financial advisers
and commit the Authority to a public sale.

3. Enter into an agreement with said firms where
they ar:e investment banker-financial consultants.

He presented a possible contractual agreement and suggested that

the representatives of each firm be permitted to make a

presentation to the Authority at today's meeting.

Mr. Bruce Sampson of Pierce, Wulbern, & Murphey Corp.

advised that it is accepted practice in his industry, and advised

that the




208








NEXT MEETING

The Chairman directed, there being no objection,

that the next meeting be scheduled for 1:30 P.M. February 25,

1976 at the Arbor Office Center, Suite 404, 1321 U.S. 19 South,

in Clearwater, Florida.


ADJOURNMENT

The Chairman directed, there being no objection,

that the meeting be adjourned at 3:25 P.M..













































219








requested type of agreement be entered in-. Hle explained

that if there is going to be bond financing, this is going to

be the first financing of its type in the State. He stated

that his firm envisions their role of not only providing

expertise to the Authority, but also of being involved with

on-going discussions with potential buyers for the bonds. He

emphasized the fact that there is no binding obligations

incorporated into the agreement, but that his firm will assume

that it is dealing in good faith with the Authority. In

conclusion, Mr. Sampson cited two examples in which his firm

acts as investment banker, i.e. Hillsborough County Aviation

Authority and Tampa Port Authority; and requested the Authority

to act favorably on the subject request.

Upon questions by Mr. Twachtmann, Mr. Sampson supplied

the following data:

1. In the event the sale of the Authority's bonds
goes to the open market, his firm will just be
another bidder on the bonds.

2. There is nothing in the contract from preventing
the Authority from selling the bonds on the open
market.

3. Mr. de la Parte will undoubtedly have some input
in the selection of a bond council for the Authority.

He added that this type of contract affords the Authority

maximum flexibility without any binding commitment.

In response to questions by Mr. Talley, Mr. Sampson

replied that the prospectus is the document of the issuer,

into which his firm will provide input; and that his firm will

be a party to the presentations to the rating agencies.



At this time, 2:20 P.M., Commissioner Curry entered

the meeting.


209









Attorney Dunlap pointed out that there is impending

legislation to amend the legal requirements that the federal

government imposes upon bond dealers.

Mr. Jim Hawkins of William R. Hough & Company

suggested that "due diligence" will be effected by the amendments

to the bond dealer's requirements but added that his firm has

already contracted the services of a firm to perform these

functions.

Upon further question by Mr. Twachtman, Mr. Sampson

replied that in the event the bonds are sold on the open market

and his firm is not a successful bidder, his firm will

-subsequiently submit a proposal for services rendered, to which

the Authority has the option of either accepting or rejecting.

Upon questions by Mr. de la Parte, Mr. Sampson stated

that Paragraph 3 of the proposed document is not required; and

that Paragraph 5 can be interpreted that either party can

terminate the agreement within 90 days written notice without

any economic liability to either party.

Thereupon, Mr. de la Parte suggested that "if the

Board is of a mind, to accept this agreement, that it be done

without Paragraph 3".

Mr. Twachtmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Curry

and carried, that the agreement with William R. Hough & Company,

not Inc. and the Pierce, Wulbern, Murphey Corporation for

investment banker services be approved as amended in the format

suggested by the Authority Attorney.








210








A C H E EB M n NI


THIIS AG.EEMENTr, made and entered into this __ day

of ,___ 1976, by and between West toast

Regional Water Supply Authority, hereinafter referred tqC as "Authority"

and William R. Hough & Co., Not Inc., and The' Pierce, Wulbe-n,

Murphy Corporation, hereinafter referred to as "the Investment. '"

B %-'.I -! .-0r S
Bankers. -- "

"- WIItREAS, the Investment Bankers are familiar with tho

interrelationships between the West Coast Regional Water Supply

Authority, the Counties of Eillsborough, Pinellas and Pasco and

the Cities of St. Petersburg and Tampa, and are active in the

municipal bond business and

WE6REAS, West Coast Regional Water Supply Authority

is in need of the expertise providable by said "Investment BanherS'"

to review various contract .-and documents pertinent to Cypress Creek

and contemplated future business of the Authority and to assist

the.Authority in understanding the variety of methods which are .

available for financing water supply projects and

*. WIEREAS, the Investment Bankers are experienced in water

financing problems and projects on the west coast of Florida and

rae well qualified to provide the services need by the Authority

' W I T N E S SET H I:

S, ZThat for and in consideration of the mutual covenants

"and promises to b- kept and performed by and between the parties

*hereto, it is agreed as follows: .

1. The Investment Bankers agree to review proposed contract

documents pertinent to Cypress Creek and to provide comment to the

Authority with respect thereto. The Investment Bankers will provide

211








-co.ument as to the feasibility of financing the pufoses of t.ea

Authority by means of leases, water purchase and sale agreements,

operating agreements, and through bonds.

2. If the decision of the Authority is to proceed to

finance projects through the issuance of municipal bonds, if requested

by the Authority, the Investment Jankers shall promptly undertake .

to make a purchase proposal at the appropriate time for such

bonds as the Authority may wish to issue. The Authority shall ..,:

be under no obligation to sell the bonds to the Inyestmrent Bankero

unless such proposal is satisfactory to the Authority.

3. The qualified representatives of the Investment Bankers, ::

in particular, Williwaa R. Hough and James PR. awkins of William .

R. Hough & Co. and Bruce A. Samson and H. Gilmer Nix of the

Pierce, Wulbern, Murphey Corp., will be available to the Authority

to such extent and at such times as may be reasonably required.

4. / 4 This agreement may be terminated by either. party upon

ninety days written notice. .



SILLI AM R. HOUGH & CO



S" BY' ____-__
*. *, .

..- '" ..-,


TiHE PIERCE, WOUDBERI PMOiPiEY CORP .







WEAS COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY


212.
"- BY- _____ __ ", .' -. -* *-'.
I : t" -... -)i









AUTHORITY TO PROCEED WITH THE HIRING OF A CONSULTANT TO UNDERTAKE
ENGINEERING/HYDROLOGIC STUDY OF WATER RESOURCES WITH THE UNDER-
STANDING THAT THE THREE CANDIDATES FOR THIS POSITION WILL UTILIZE
THE HYDROLOGIC SERVICES OF GERAGHTY AND MILLER, INC. AND PROVIDING
THAT THAT FIRM SUBMITS A DOCUMENT CERTIFYING NO CONFLICT OF
INTEREST AND THAT NO FUTURE CONTRACTS OF GERAGHTY AND MILLER WILL
COMMENCE WITHOUT THE EXPLICIT APPROVAL OF TIE AUTHORITY

Referring to Agenda Item, "Consideration of 'best

qualified' firms to undertake engineering/hydrologic study,

(placement in order of merit for negotiation of contract with

consultant)," Mr. de la Parte reviewed his activities concerning

this matter, as follows:

1. He was requested by the Authority to review the
situation involving Geraghty and Miller, in that
firm's relationship with Lake Padgett Pines Estates,
a plaintiff in a lawsuit involving the City of
St. Petersburg, Pasco County, Pinellas County,
Hillsborough County, as well as the Authority, as
defendants.

2. He has read the testimony, by way of affidavit,
given by the Geraghty and Miller firm as part
of the record of the lawsuit.

3. He has conferred with both Mr. Pick Talley and
Mr. Doc Hesse to seek advice as to the significance
of the language of the testimony and that both
have expressed the opinion that they do not view
the language of the affidavit nor any of the
other materials, including portions of their work
product, to be such as to create a technical
professional problem.

4. Conclusively, it is his judgment that the evidence
made available to him is not sufficient to create
a conflict of interest.

Mr. Hesse stated that he considers the decision on the

matter to be of some urgency to get the study underway so that

the next increment of water supply will be available as soon as

possible.

Attorney Dunlap expressed the view that he is under

the assumption that Geraghty and Miller, Inc. no longer has any

kind of client relationship with Lake Padgett Pines Estates, to

which Mr. Geraghty expounded upon that fact. Attorney Dunlap

urged the Authority to have a clear understanding in this regard.

-------------------.____^ 31 _____~









Upon question by the Chirman, Mr. Geraghty revealed

that the following projects are outstanding with his firm:

1. Project with SWFWMD on the environmental impact
of the Starkey wellfield for controlling the
water levels at the Starkey wellfield.

2. Project for the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
for regional water supply in the Four Rivers
Basin.

3. Project with Phillips Petroleum Company in DeSoto
County on the phosphate mining application.

4. Project with the federal EPA that broadly covers
six southeastern states.

Upon question by the Chairman regarding a possible

conflict between SWFWMD and Pinellas County regarding the

Starkey wellfield, both Mr. Talley and Mr. John R. Wehle (SWFWMD)

expressed the opinions that they do not foresee any potential

conflict with this project.

Mr. Hesse remarked that, in his judgment,- the work

of Geraghty and Miller for SWFWMD and the Corps of Engineers is

an advantage, rather than a disadvantage to the Authority.

Upon question by Mr. Twachtmann, Mr. Hesse reported

that the proposal before the Board is to contract with an

engineering firm with hydrologic support capability.

Commissioner Curry expressed the view that he is in

favor of contracting for a hydrologist, Geraghty and Miller,

at this time and then contract for an engineer at a later date,

suggesting that by doing it in reverse order would be "putting

the cart before the horse". Mr. Talley concurred with this idea.

During further discussion, Attorney Dunlap suggested

that Geraghty and Miller enter into an agreement with the

Authority documenting that Geraghty and Miller have no contractual

obligations to Covington properties. Mr. Twachtmann suggested


214









that this idea be expanded to include the provision that

Geraghty and Miller will not renegotiate a new agreement with

Covington properties during the course of that firms employment

with the Authority.

Mr. de la Parte requested the privilege of participating

in any new contractual arrangements between Geraghty and Miller

and a prospective client, noting that a prospective client may

have a pointed issue with the Authority.

Mr. Geraghty recalled that with the contract with

SWFWMD, there was a stipulation that his firm was not to enter

into work for anybody without explicit approval of SWFWMD.

During further discussion, Mr. Hesse indicated that

there would be a cost savings by integrating the consulting

services of an engineer and hydrologist; and that financing

the project will be facilitated; and that the course pursued

by the General Manager with the approval and cognizance of the

Board has been to undertake a single study entailing engineering

and hydrologic services; that hiring a hydrologist only would be

a "change of direction" and may conflict with our own procedures.

Mr. Hesse went on to say that the arguments relative to doing

one study or two had been presented before and that the selection

process to this point had proceeded along specified lines.

Chairman Rainey expressed the opinion that, "if these

three firms think enough of this firm to associate themselves

with them, then I think it is to our advantage to hire that

firm to work with this Board exclusively, no matter what engineer

we hire".







215









Mr. de la Parte explained that the Authority has

attempted to follow the provisions of the competitive negotiations

act, and that a "change of. direction" would be in conflict with

that act.

Expressing the desire to stay with the instructions

previously given the General Manager by the Board, in this matter,

Mr. Twachtmann moved, seconded by Commissioner Curry and carried,

that the Authority proceed with the hiring of a consultant to

undertake an engineering/hydrologic study of water resources

with the understanding that all three candidates for this position

will utilize the hydrologic services of Geraghty and Miller and

providing that Mr. Geraghty submits a document certifying no

conflict of interest and that no future contracts of Geraghty and

Miller within the Regional Authority area of responsibility will

commence without explicit approval of the Authority.



GENERAL MANAGER AUTHORIZED TO ENTER INTO CONTRACT NEGOTIATIONS
FOR AN ENGINEERING/HYDROLOGIC CONSULTANT TO UNDERTAKE A STUDY
OF REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY SOURCES AND POST 1980 NEEDS WITH THE
FOLLOWING FIRMS, RANKED IN ORDER OF PRIORITY: ROSS, SAARINEN,
BOLTON & WILDER, INC.: BRILEY, WILD & ASSOCIATES, INC. AND
J. B. CONVERSE & COMPANY, INC. GERAGHTY & MILLER, INC. WILL
PROVIDE HYDROLOGIC SERVICES TO ALL THREE FIRMS.-

Noting that the Authority desired to rank the candidates

for engineering/hydrologic consultant services to undertake a

study on the Regional Water Supply Sources and post 1980 needs

in order of priority, Mr. Twachtmann suggested that this action.

be accomplished through a ballot poll to enable each member to

rank each firm on his own personal preferences.

Mr. de la Parte read the following results of the

ballot poll:




216








est Coast R( ional Water Si)ply Authority
S ARBOR OFFICE CENTER, SUITE 404 1321 U.S. 19 SOUTH, CLEARWATER, FLORIDA 33516 813-531-5885

SRICHARD J. HESSE
GENERAL MANAGER


BOARD OF DIRECTORS WEST COAST REGIONAL WATER SUPPLY AUTHORITY
CHARLES E. RAINEY, CHAIRMAN
ROBERT CURRY, VICE-CHAIRMAN MEETING
CURTIS L. LAW, TREASURER -'--- .- i
DALE TWACHTMANN, MEMBER
C. RANDOLPH WEDDING, MEMBER Assembly Room
Pinellas County Court House JAN 19 l7.
January 21, 1975
1:30 P.M.

AGENDA

Call to Order

1. Approval of Minutes, Special Meeting of December 8, 1975.

2. Approval of Minutes, Meeting of December 17, 1975.

3. Financial Report.

4. Public discussion relating to procedures for contracting
for professional services.

5. Consideration of contract for Authority financial advisory
services.

6. Consideration of "best qualified" firms to undertake
engineering/hydrologic study. (Placement in order of
merit for negotiation of contract with consultant.)

7. Presentation of report on DRI process, Cypress Creek Wellfield.

8. Other Administrative matters.

Adjournment.

The next meeting is scheduled for February 18, 1976 at 1:30 P.M.
at the Tampa City Hall, Council Chambers. (This date should he
re-considered in light of SWFWMD having scheduled their February
meeting at 9:30 a.m. on the same date)









Clearwater, Florida, January 21, 1976



"Th.WeVlcb' Coast Reg iona l Wat Sithoi ithtyy (as

authorized by Chapt7197Tr .ws of Florida) met in the

Board Assembly Room of the Pinellas County Court"house,

Clearwater, Florida, at 1:50 P.M. on this date with the

following members present: Charles E. Rainey, Chairman

(Pinellas County Commissioner); Robert Curry, Vice-Chairman

(Hillsborough County Commissioner); Curtis L. Law, Treasurer

(Pasco County Commissioner); and Dale Twachtmann (Water Resources

Director, City of Tampa).

Absent: C. Randolph Wedding (Representa-
tive -City of St. Petersburg)

Present:

WCRWSA: Louis de la Parte, Attorney
"Richard J. Hesse, General
IManager
Walter D. Walker, Assistant
"General Manager for
SEngineering and Planning
D.onald E. Dye, Assistant
General Manager for Operations
Gus Krayer
Nancy Reichardt
Adele Clifford, Executive
Secretary

SWFWMD : John R. Wehle

Pasco County: Jake Varn, Special Consultant
to the County Attorney.
Cliff Burgess

Pinellas County: W. Gray Dunlap, County Attorney
Pickens C. Talley II, Director
of the Water System
Shirley Colvin, Deputy Clerk

Hillsborough County: Clint Brown, Attorney





____________________________ .---1 (









Also present: Tom Eppes, Clearwater Sun

Lloyd Griffith, Ross, Saarinen,
Bolton and Wilder

Tom Furman, Ross, Saarinen,
Bolton and Wilder

A. J. Birchall, Briley, Wild

and Associates

Gil Mauriello, J. B. Converse Co.

Jim Dawkins, Tampa Tribune

Pat McMahan, St. Petersburg Times

H. Gilmer Nix, Pierce, Wulbern
and Murphey Corp.

Bruce Sampson, Pierce, Wulber
and Murphey Corp.

Jim Hawkins, William R. Hough & Co.

James Geraghty, Geraghty & Miller,
Inc.



MINUTES APPROVED

Or motion of Mr. Twachtmann, seconded by Chairman

Rainey (upon relinquishing the chair to Commissioner Law) and

carried, the minutes of the special meeting of December 8, 1975

were approved.

On motion of Mr. Twachtmann, seconded by Commissioner

Law and carried, the minutes of the meeting of December 17, 1975

were approved.



FINANCIAL POSITION STATEMENT RECEIVED

On motion of Commissioner Law, seconded by Mr. Twachtmann

and carried, the following financial Position Statement was

received:



200











December 31, 1975



Petty Cashl $ 100.00
Cash in Hink (Checkinl & Savings) 56,696.68
U.S. T'rea;sury i ll 281,316.69
Prepaid Office icnt 640.42
Prepaid Auito-,ob! ]c rent I 85.00
Office Rental Deposit 640.42
Office Funiiiiture r& 'cEuipment 8,778.88
Leascl.lod Im;prov:c;icnts 402.50
Depre.cia tion E:xpcnsc 155.36
Accrued Accounts )Payable 372.15
Federal ithhlodiing Taxes Payable 1,175.90
"PICA Taxes Payable 343.15
Contributjions li.ll.sborough County 144,947.33
ContributLions Pasco County -31,774.16
Contributions Pinellas County 238,640.51
Retained Earnings as of 10/1/75 36,108.23
Operating Results thru December 31, 1975 32,539.74 __
$417,408.56 $417,408.56

Statement of Cash Receipts and Disbursements

"December .31, 1975


Executive Salaries $ 9,280.00
Program C: Cypress Creek 5,046.94
programsms A,B & D: Engineering/Hydrologic 5,333.07
"Studies
Fringe Benefits 689.12
Legal expensee 4,922.60
.Accounting and Auditing 337.98
SPayroll Taxes 1,389.99
Registration Fees 75.00
Office Supplies 1,186.94
Postage 500.52
Reference Material 477.28
*Advertising 408.92
Office Equipment Rental 604.79
Automobile Rental 740.00
Gas & Oil 114.78
Travel Expense 409.25
Insurance 605.89
Parking 5.75
Telephone -884.74
Office Rental -1,280.84
M Nscc 3lan ous 91.28
Interest Income on Investments 1,734.44
Miscellaneous Non-Operating Income __ __ 111.50
$ 34,385.68 $ 1,845.94




/ Dur.ing discussion, Chairman Rainey advised that he

does not approve of paying bills in the manner presented, but

that bills should be paid monthly upon the submission of an

itemized list as is done in Pinellas County.




201









PROCEDUIlES VOI{ CoT,,lRACTING FOR PROFESS IOriAL SERVICES APPRlOVED
FOR SUBMISSION TO THE SECETiA Y OF STATE A D TiHE COMMISSION OC
ADI I I S T I {A"' P. P0C ;fDUIR{ES

Mr. de la Parte presented the following Procedures

for Contracting for Professional Services, indicating that same

have been advertised for public discussion:


16M-1.0G Procedures for Contracting :"or Professional

Services.

(1) In order to provide a procedure :.or the selection of

the most qualified professional service firmsf, the following pro-

cedures shall be followed in selecting qualified firms to pro-

vide professional services and in negotiating contract for

professional services.

(2) The terms set forth herein shall have the meanings

ascribed to them unless the context clearly indicates otherwise,

and such meaning shall apply throughout the rule:

(a) "Compensation" means the amount paid for professional

services under a specific contract.

(b) "Firm" means any individual, firm, partnership,

corporation, association or other legal entity permitted by law

to practice architecture, professional engineering, landscape

architecture, registered land surveying or other related disci-

plines.

(c) "Professional Services" means services for projects

which arc required to be purchased by the Authority and which

are offered and provided only by firms of practicing Architects,

Professional Engineers, Landscape Architects, Registered Land

Surveyors or other related disciplines.

(d) "Project" means any investigative study, aerial

mapping project, design, construction, projected building or

other works; including land acquisition or purchase, or acqui-

sition of easements or other land title of lesser scope than

fee title for which contracted professional services are pur-

chased by the Authority.

(3) Qualifying Procedures.

(a) Qualifications of each firm desiring to provide





202











professional services shall be reviewed by the Authority. The

quali iicationws may be submitted in the form of a letter, brochure,

sample work or any other material deemed appropriate by the firm.

In addition to or in lieu of uch data, a U. S. Government Form

251 is acceptable and is designed to indicate in summary form the

firm's; qualifications.

(b) All interested firms shall be encouraged to submit a

document to the Authority setting forth and including, but not

limited to, capabilities, adequacy of personnel, past record and

experience and such other factors as may be determined by the

Authority to be applicable in order to evaluate such firms for

the purpose of determining professional qualifications and suit-

ability for possible inclusion on the Authority's list of qualified

"firms.

(c) All such interested firms shall be encouraged to

submit to the Authority annually an updated statement of quali-

fication and performance data.

(4) Public Announcement.

(a) The Authority shall publicly announce in a uniform

and consistent manner on each occasion when professional services

with a total fee in excess of $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars)

or where the basic construction cost is estimated by the Authority

to be more than $100,000.00 (One hundred thousand dollars) are

required to be purchased, except in cases of valid emergencies so

certified by the General Manager under direction of the Board.

The public announcement shall include a general description of

the project,'indicate how interested consultants can apply for

consideration and the need for responders to submit qualification

data. Each public announcement shall be once published as a

legal advertisement in a newspaper of genera] circulation.

(b) At the time of the public announcement, copies of

the same notice shall be mailed to firms which have previously

indicated interest in providing services to the Authority.

(5) Competitive Selection.

(a) For each project for which professional services are

required, designated staff representatives of the General Manager

shall evaluate current statements of qualification and performance



2* '0 3 .. . _
-***** ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ..--- -*-^ -~ *'~ ___ ;'.^- t












data for each firm requesting to be considered for the project.

A "short 3li;st" of best qualified[ firms who have definite proba-

bility of being selected for this particular project will be

prepared.

(b) All firms on the "short list" will be furnished a

project dossier for study and consideration.

(c) The Authority staff sha)l allow each of the firms to

submit its proposed approach to the project and documentation of

its ability to furnish the required service.

(d) Designated staff representatives through the General

Manager shell submit to the Board a list of no less than three (3)

"most qualified firms" deemed to be most highly qualified to per-

form the required services, after considering:

1. Ability of the professional personnel, including

diversification.

2. Past performance.

"3. Willingness and ability to meet time and budget

requi.remen ts.

4. Location.

5. Current projected work loads of firms.

6. Services previously and currently being performed for

all jurisdictions of the Authority, with the object of defining

local experience performance, identifying possible conflict of

interest and effecting an equitable distribution of contracts

among qualified firms provided such distribution does not

violate the principle of selection of the most highly qualified

firms.

(e) ThI Board shall, at the next scheduled meeting of

the Authority, afford an opportunity for each of the firms

selected by the designated staff representatives to make a pub-

lic presentation regarding their qualifications to provide pro-

fessional services for tlhe specific project cnder consideration

and capability of meeting the terms and conditions of the pro-

ject. Thereafter, those Board shall prepare a list of best quali-

fied firms for the specific project, in order of priority, and





201













negotiations shall be instituted in accordance with procedures

set forth hereinafter.

(f) This subsection shall not apply to professional

service contracts of $5,000.00 (five thousand dollars) or less.

(6) Competitive Negotiations.

(a) Followilng authorization by the Board, the General

Manager or his designated representative shall commence nego-

tiations with the firm determined by the Board to be the most

qualified to perform professional services for the project

involved, in order to attempt to arrive at a contract agreement

and compensation which the Authority representative, determines

is fair, competitive and reasonable. A detailed analysis of the

cost of the professional services required, considering the scope

and complexity. thereof shall'be used in making such determination.

(b) For lump sum or cost-plus-a-fixed-fee professional

service contracts over $50,000.00, the Authority shall require

the finn receiving the contract award to execute a truth-in-

negotiation certificate stating that wage rates and other factual

unit costs supporting the compensation are accurate, complete and
current at the time of contracting. Any professional service

contract requiring such a certificate shall contain a provision

that the original contract price and any additions thereto shall

be adjusted to exclude any significant sums where the Authority

determines the contract price was increased due to inaccurate,

incomplete or noncurrent wage rates and other factual unit costs.

All such contract adjustments shall be made within one year

following the termination of the contract.

(c) Should the Authority representative fail to

negotiate satisfactorily with the firm determined to be most

qualified, at a price which the Authority considers to be fair,

competitive and reasonable, negotiations with that firm shall be

terminated. The Authority representative shall then begin

negotiations with the second most qualified firm.

(d) Failing to reach an agreement with the second most

qualified firm the Authority representative shall terminate





205













negotiations and shall then undertakCe negotiations wi th the

thirdd most quali ffied firm.

(e) Sh:ou)d the Authority representative and the General

lManager be unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with any

of the firms determined by the Board to be most qualified for

the project under consideration, the Authority may select additional

firms in order of competerncee and qualifications according to

Subsection (5) of these rules and continue negotiations until an

agreen;..-t is reached, or the Authority may rea.dvertise, modify

or cancel the request for services in the best interest of the

Authority.

(7) Public Shall Not Be Excluded. The public shall not

be excluded from proceedings under these rules.

(8) Prohibition Against Contingent Fees. Each contract

entered into by the Authority for professional services shall

contain a prohibition against contingent fees as follows: "The

architect (or registered land surveyor, landscape architect or

professional engineer, as applicable) warrants that he has not

employed or retained any company or persons, other than a bona

fide employee working solely for the architect (or registered

land surveyor, landscape architect or professional engineer, as

applicable) to solicit or secure this agreement and that he has

not paid or agreed to pay any person, company, corporation,

individual, or firm, other than a bona fide employee working

solely for the architect (or registered land surveyor, landscape

architect or professional engineer, as applicable) any fee,

commission., percentage, gift or any other consideration contin-

gent upon or resulting from the award or making of this agreement."

For the breach or violation of this provision, the Authority

shall have the right to terminate the agreement without liability

and, at its discretion, to deduct from the contract price, or

otherwise recover, the full amount of such fee, commission, per-

centage, gift, or consideration.

General Authority 120.53(1)(b) FS. Law Implemented 373.1962,
120.53(1) (b) FS. History-New





206





University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs