CCMtg05-04-98SMMinMayAa, isse
Leputy Mayor R argent
mmiaeioner P ana
nine=
~i~~ionen A
icnamcizy a iatratot
raldine n ity Cletk
Taylot 1J ity A ney
RhonaaaLedf otd, Purchasing Hanager
John V sel, W e Management
orgeaGeletko, w nagement
Florida Recyclinq/Illinois Recycling
sva Vvlhen, Iii, Floriaa Recycling/Illinois Recycling
Mayor Miles cai iea a special meeting to
~., order at 6.oep.mA
z. ata of eiaFr izFSaLnfer the collecxionwof reaiaeetiai aoiia
Mayor Miles a cea the format of the procedure would be to
allow each partyut ime to present their case.
Miller asked the city a ney's opinion as to what
themeffectsrwoula be 1f the city now reversed its decision.
Taylor explained the implications, based o Floriaa c e law,
due to the a ara of bid having b the Apeil 6, m ing.
He explainedwt a passage of ethemorainance, a is
eal ly a ial a o put the c act i teffecttito
accept theicontract, and Co make amendments tonthe code.
John V sell, representing Waste M nagement, addressed
the c ing M
asprotest they have filedoinnhi er collectaonthi r van
selliaddressea the t appeal; w
siderea w mmissicesyinherent power t Sider, his
rationale andscase Iaw that he believed supported his comments.
Mr. Taylor rebutted some of Mr. van cessei s cit g with respect
r
Cc 5-a-98\12'!
oeaanes n t ins c e law makes i ,~
clearothisrr ing t City commrs ron rs subject to.
Mr. Van Gesselnagreedeth
alternate recycling option and i erpretation of having the
option t offer a alternate w s discussed. Taylor said his
understanding w snthat a alternate method c o play
dawn tM~e road, a changelduring the
act term thatcwoultlsmakeea walternate method of recycling
dry. ether, e if the alternate recycling method w
takensi nagement would still not have beenathe
Sowest responsible bidderMa
Ms. Ledford read e erpts from the bid document with respect t
ity o request a change t the t oof
[he c o provides talte~nate m of recycling. eShe
aid duringithe pre-bid m i.ng, questionow
ecycling, and all the contractors w advis edathat theucityewas
requiring the bed to be based on curb-side sorting.
esponded to questions about o idder's o
holdLt eod isposal fee and subsequent letters s by thefcity t
and Florida Recycling asking if they, toon<would hold the
f eeta sell noted theough w addendum this option
s given tosthers; n ing their recycling option w
eiaerea, and e it ~ siaerea, woma not name maee cnem the
lowest but wou ldvhave made them much clos r, oting 1
t length and i Taylor's opinion t
ecycling/IllinoisaReciycling m ail t requirementsaunder the
city and state's requirements far filing as a joint venture.
briefly r capped the b d process, aid they
taken the position t nagement has n ing to
challenge the c ard.WThe contract has been a arded to
Florida Recycling/Illinois Recycling, joint venture. wThis has
passed t e point where waste m nagement h the right t
challenge the a ard. refuted t following: e law c <ed
by W nagement n ing i specifically dealt with a pre-award
of thetbida a referred t ing t melines s, saying
notspplicabl e; W nageme nt's appeal with
espectttosack o sideratioh ofttheir recycling alternative,
ing the l.anguageci the addendum referred to the s
bidder b ing abie < offer a alternative o ecycli ngcoc tell
F'l oritla Supreme C urt rulingnon joint v and pointed t the
i[y's Code 16.5 which includes a definitionsf a business a a
~olnt ~ vilnen f
that. toeprotest a bid, o thhaveaa substantial i estri
the outcome, third low brader has no siting to proteste the award
cC s-a-98\128
esponsive, responsible b Vi1Ren also
ted i orderrto protest, the protestordm t beMable t
Chat their bid package had n def iciencies.us n this c
Management's package w s tlef ici ent a C letterswas
their bitl package. referretltt 1the cityma ney's
opinion t theie b responsible, was untimely, has no
standi ng,Rand was def rc ient.
V ilhen c ued when a public body a the
low, responsiveLnresponsible bidder, the agreement f tupon
sasea o Floriaaiaw, nis
clientsta tednc ctlythaboughtet d personnel,
ned performance b client i erpreted
pursuant t Florida lawnandar ing ly. ontinued
to say there w absolutely noaquest ion~rs e law says a ing
agreement a - - only a thetcontract w arded
but what o red after---pre vorktm ings w he ldasbonds,
cetc. w acquired, fliersepreparedLe The city did n
sayustope they c o proceed Like would Rave been expected
and that is in accoedanaetwith Florida law.
only do they n t have s ing, b hey Rave not carried
heavy burden in order to overturn theupublic body.
Mayor Miles asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak.
1411 Parrot Way, r silent for 25 years, c ended
nagement Eor t e lastef ive years of s aid there
haveebeen questions o hth is bid, a the p ception issthe bid
has been compromised.n nedda that w
distributed last w d questioned therdiameter of yard t ash
being limited to four (4) ruches; h mething fixed
t hoped the city wou ldeexpect and demand
cnetsame quzl icvkoe~ser~rca.
Commissioner Lovestrand questioned the need to have public
Mayor Miles n an A<torney General s p >on on allowing the
public to specked
o nines and ersaanieT a the
~ contract witR respectdto problemskwith tR er ha 1 d he
r
CC 5-9-98\329
ity's i bility t enforce ana inaicatea ner c
noci~q sne jnst waneea ,t to be tn~ eestwaeoisio
forrthercity.
aig V Tyler's C discussed being very s isfied
ith thenc ent s andvthat ne, and believed o
have paid a premium va marginal amount of money, to retain the
that bidder did n t have s antling. Believed their appeal w
mely{ a esponsiveness, said in their bid b hey
addressed both tneobid guarantee and peeforma nce guarantee and
n has acknowledged the bid specs control and only if i
compliance. Waste submits Florida Recycling/Illinois Recyclingn
uea with respect to being required to go wiU
Dheclowest bidder. Mr. Taylor responded witty respect t e law
and when t e the responsible
bidders. sedi scussed previously,tyouhcould take into
sideratAOnwabout s the c ssion nas a ardea
the bid. It i a littlellate towbe rehashingmthe bids. You have
commrtted yourselves legally. '~
and suggested the motion say to reject the
appealsas insufficient.
Miller a ended his m say t t
themappeal be denied.m Seconded bytCOmmrssroner
Lovestrand.
r Lo~estrana a ssion nas ~ tea for this
ontract.ne the lowest bid butms Bally appreciates
and would likewto continue with w nagement a hey h
done a good job. Although he thought there w e
regularities, the city attorney nas a redethata theymw
Therefoee, did n t have sufficient r n to changeeand
believed the city would be in a precarious position i£ it were to
change.
Commissioner Mi.11er concurred.
Bepu[ ad a lot of questions and did
not feelasecure tonleaveait as rs.
cc s-a-ae \13o
rly the night o£ the bid a and
andmditlrn trhavecansopportunitytto vote and sa ra she still was
not in fa~oz.
Mayor Miles b d process woeked. a.i.a he has
1lstened and donevr rch1
met theecriteria;ostandi ng w scquestionable~ttl rd not
omp Syww ith all bid specs; o of t meliness, Waste
ned they f.i rst had a gr i.eva nce o February 4 e
believed they n o file w n days of tnat trme.
eelie~ea the eicyasno~la nonoriits bra awara.
d to c that he would have
sedrR andrallowat endorsmtotu e their ingenuity for
ings s sPholding disposal price, e if had done a
erytninghcould h nsidered. Unfortunately, t
passed. the futurebehe will advise the city Commission toago
with Request far Peoposals.
Motion c ied by a three-to-two v Mayor
Miles, c r zD~estrana ana c
Miller v mngsayeeand Deputy Mayor Sargentrand
Commissioner Vacca voting nay.
3. aDaoURN. Miller m adjourn and t take a
tenmminuteer ing the regular
ing. ondedbby DeputyvMayor Sargent and
carried bysvorce vote.
Meeting adjourned at B.00 p. m.
~~/
~ Charles C. Miles, III, Mayor
ixm EST: "'
GeT~: ~p ~ ~'1~'ZC'-t S'1
ldzne. mbrr, r y Clerk
cc s-4-98\131