|
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
|
RSS
