BROWARD OFFICE oFTl-m INSPECTOR GENERAL MEMORANDUM To: Robert Payton, City Manager, City o./Jamar From: John W. Scott, Inspector General {_ Date: February 5, 2013 Subject: OIG Closing Memorandum Re: Allegations of Favoritism in the City of Miramar's Procurement Process, Request for Proposal No. 12-11-14 for Landscape Services, Ref. OJG No. 12-019 The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you that the Broward Office of the Inspector General (O IG) has completed its investigation and procurement review of the above-captioned landscape services solicitation. The OIG received allegations that a Public Works official with the City of Miramar engaged in mi sco nduct by manipulating the procurement process to favor a specific vendor. The OIG conducted a comprehensive review of the procurement process and an investigation of the specific a ll egations of misconduct. The OIG investigation of the city employee' s conduct did not substantiate the allegations of misconduct. However, the OIG procurement review identified a ntnnber ofconcerns with the so licitation, eva luation ami award processes. In addition, the city's internal investigation of the alleged procurement improprieties resulted in inaccurate inf ormation being provided to the city manager and commission. The OlG informed the Ch ief Procurement Officer (Purchasing Director) and other city officials of its concerns, and the city has proactively addressed some of those concerns pursuant to a new procurement so li citation. This memorandum documents the OIG 's investigation, procurement review obse rvations and contains additional recommendations to improve the internal processes to make the cit y's procurements less vulnerable to possible abuse. 0/G's Revi ew of the Procurement Process ldentijiell Multiple Concerns On April 2, 20 12, the city advertised RFP No. 12 -1 1-14 for landscape maintenance services for 59 parcels of city property, referred to as "locations" in the RFP, including roadways and rights- of -way among other municipal properties. The RFP indicated the term of the contract would be for a period of two ye ars with an option for three one-year renewa ls, for a total poss ible contract term of fi ve years. The annual estimated value of the contract was $540,000 with an approximate total value of $2.7 million, including the renewals. The contract wou ld be adm inistered by Public Works, specifically the Operations Superintendent for Public Works, who served on the se lection committee. On April II , 2012, a mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site visits to 40 of the locations li sted in the RFP were conducted. Thirteen vendors attended the pre-proposa l meeting, but only seven vendors submitted proposa ls. Selection committee meetings were held on May 3, 2012 and May Juhn \\" . "lcnll , Inspect or (!eneral One '·wnh l ni,·crsity DnYc , ...,uitc Ill • Plantat il)ll, l·luriJa • (95'1) · l·ax (Y54) "'ww.hn1wardig.org • 954 -
OIG 12-019 Closing MemorandumMEMORANDUM
To: Robert Payton, City Manager, City o./Jamar
From: John W. Scott, Inspector General {_ I~. Date: February 5,
2013
Subject: OIG Closing Memorandum Re: Allegations ofFavoritism in the
City ofMiramar's Procurement Process, Request for Proposal No.
12-11-14for Landscape Services, Ref. OJG No. 12-019
The purpose of this memorandum is to inform you that the Broward
Office of the Inspector General (OIG) has completed its
investigation and procurement review of the above-captioned
landscape services solicitation. The OIG received allegations that
a Public Works official with the City of Miramar engaged in
misconduct by manipulating the procurement process to favor a
specific vendor. The OIG conducted a comprehensive review of the
procurement process and an investigation of the specific
allegations of misconduct. The OIG investigation of the city
employee' s conduct did not substantiate the allegations of
misconduct.
However, the OIG procurement review identified a ntnnber ofconcerns
with the solicitation, evaluation ami award processes. In addition,
the city ' s internal investigation of the alleged procurement
improprieties resulted in inaccurate information being provided to
the city manager and commission. The OlG informed the Chief
Procurement Officer (Purchasing Director) and other city officials
of its concerns, and the city has proactively addressed some of
those concerns pursuant to a new procurement soli citation. This
memorandum documents the OIG's investigation , procurement review
observations and contains additional recommendations to improve the
internal processes to make the city's procurements less vulnerable
to possible abuse.
0/G's Review ofthe Procurement Process ldentijiell Multiple
Concerns
On April 2, 20 12, the city advertised RFP No. 12-1 1-14 for
landscape maintenance services for 59 parcels of city property,
referred to as " locations" in the RFP, including roadways and
rights of-way among other municipal properties. The RFP indicated
the term of the contract would be for a period of two years with an
option for three one-year renewals, for a total possible contract
term of fi ve years. The annual estimated value of the contract was
$540,000 with an approximate total value of $2.7 million, including
the renewals. The contract would be administered by Public Works,
specifically the Operations Superintendent for Public Works, who
served on the selection committee.
On April II , 2012, a mandatory pre-proposal meeting and site
visits to 40 of the locations listed in the RFP were conducted.
Thirteen vendors attended the pre-proposal meeting, but only seven
vendors submitted proposals. Se lection committee meetings were
held on May 3, 2012 and May
Juhn \\" . "lcnll, Inspector (!eneral
One '·wnh l ni,·crsity DnYc, ...,uitc Ill • Plantat il)ll, l·luriJa
11~24 • (95'1) ~57-7X71 · l·ax (Y54) ~57-7'657
"'ww.hn1wardig.org • 954 - ~5 ~- liP\
10, 2012, and the selection committee ranked six ofthe firms that
responded to the RFP. SFM Services (SFM) was ranked first and
Garden of Beauty, rnc., which bid the lowest overall price, was
ranked second. The rankings were then used by Public Works to
create multiple award recommendations. Ultimately, the Purchasing
Director and City Manager elected not to adopt either of the
recommendations from Public Works, but, instead, recommended award
of each location to the lowest bidder of the four top-ranked
vendors. On July 3, 2012, the City Manager placed an item on the
commission agenda recommending award to the four top-ranked
vendors. The item was pulled from the agenda when Mr. Henry
Perdomo, the owner of Florida Turf, ranked fifth in the evaluation
process, informed the city of his intent to protest the
award.
Mr. Perdomo did not file a protest, but did make serious
allegations of favoritism and other improprieties in the evaluation
process. Specifically, he alleged that the Operations
Superintendent had a connection to the firm ranked in first place,
SFM, and that the Operations Superintendent steered the evaluation
against Florida Turf and in favor of SFM. rn response to Mr.
Perdomo's allegations, the city initiated an internal investigation
wherein the Purchasing Department reviewed the procurement process.
On August 6, 2012, the Procurement Director issued a memo to the
City Manager indicating that his investigation found that there
were no improprieties in the process conducted by his staff.
rn August 2012, as part of its Contract and Procurement Oversight
Program (CPOP), the OrO initiated a review of the procurement
process, at which time the city elected to postpone award of the
contracts. The oro review noted multiple concerns, including
deficiencies in the solicitation document and the subsequent
evaluation process. As part of its review, the OrO analyzed all
documentation related to the procurement and interviewed vendors,
city officials, and others with knowledge of the events in
question. The OrO appreciates the cooperation of city officials
during the review process. City staff ensured that the oro was
provided with copies of all requested materials and city officials
were readily available to answer any questions.
1. The City Failed to Accountfor All oftlte Proposals it Received
am/ Did Not Follow Proper Procedure with Regards to Non-Responsive
Submissions.
The oro noted that, in several official communications, purchasing
officials referenced six proposals received in response to the RFP.
However, city records indicated seven proposals had been received.
rn fact, the Purchasing Agent overseeing the procurement only
provided six proposals to the evaluation committee. When the oro
Contract Oversight Specialist inquired about the seventh proposal,
the Purchasing Agent stated that the seventh proposal had been
incomplete, so she " threw it out." When asked to elaborate, she
clarified that it was filed away and not noted on the bid
tabulation, to the selection committee, nor included in the summary
provided to commissioners as part of the agenda item. She later
notified the oro that the vendor had not attended the mandatory
pre-bid conference, and was therefore ineligible to bid.
During his interview, the Purchasing Director seemed unaware that a
seventh proposal had been received. He stated that proper procedure
for an incomplete submission would have required providing all of
the proposals to the selection committee and having the committee
determine whether the proposal was responsive. Any finding of
non-
BnOWMW Of(; C LOS ING vi £,\ IORANOUi\1 R £ : () l(; 12-019 PAC£ 2
or Ill
responsiveness should have been in writing, although the O IG
determined that there was no written finding in the case of the
seventh proposal. A review of the seventh proposal revealed that it
was indeed incomplete. However, such a material deviation from the
proper process raises important questions about the agency' s
vulnerabi lity to abuse. The OIG is concerned that an employee with
improper motives may disregard a proper submission as easi ly as
the ineligible submission was disregarded in this instance. The
proper procedures, as recommended below, wi ll provide an element
of transparency that will protect the integrity of the procurement
process.
2. Tlte RFP Colltaille£1 Vague A ward Process Criteri£1
An open, fa ir and transparent procurement process requires that
vendors understand the services for which they are bidding and the
method by which their offer wi ll be evaluated. As stated in the
ABA' s Model Procurement Code, " [flair and open competition is a
basic tenet of public procurement. Such competition reduces the
opportunity for favoritism and inspires public confidence that
contracts are awarded equitably and economically." The CPOP review
first evaluated the solicitation in light of the allegations and
the issues that arose during the course of the evaluation process .
The review of the so licitation revealed that it was unnecessarily
vague and did not effectively communicate how the proposals would
be awarded. The OIG was particularly concerned about the city's use
of zones, which had no relation to the recommended award, as
confusing to the proposers. After interviewing several city
officials, the OIG concluded that the vagueness was a result of
improper planning. In order for a procurement to incorporate
transparency, significant planning is required in the design of the
award process as outlined in the solicitation. How the city would
award multiple contracts for services to over fifty locations did
not appear to be contemplated prior to the issuance of the sol
icitation. Although the rev iew revealed that there was no
deliberate attempt in the RFP to hamper competition, the vagueness
of the RFP left the award process vulnerable to abuse and possible
protest.
During the course of the review, OIG staff had multiple
conversations and a meeting with city officials to discuss the
concerns evolving from the procurement review. ln October 20 12,
the city elected to reject all proposals from the RFP process and
initiated a new Invitation to Bid (!TB) for the landscaping
proposal. By its very nature, an lTB- which requires award to the
lowest priced responsible and responsive bidder- removes any
subjectivity from the award process. Although the city could have
proceeded with a revised RFP, their use of the !TB constituted the
most effective way to ensure fairness and addressed any concerns
with ambiguity of the award process. The !TB also addressed the
concerns regarding how multiple contracts would be awarded by
incorporating the new mechanism of awarding by zone.
3. Tlte Behavior ofCity Officials at the Pre-Bid Meeti11g
Negatively Impacted Competition
Prior to receiving the proposals, the city required all prospective
vendors to atter1d a mandatory pre-bid meeting. The meeting
consisted of an initial overview and then site
BROWA ilO {)I(; (LOS ING \I F,\l ORA,'lO l ;,\1 R£: 01 (; 12-01 ~
PAGF J 0 1• 10
visits to various locations. The OIG determined that the Purchasing
Agent conducted a brief overview of the RFP in the pre-proposal
meeting, but did not address the award process. During the
pre-proposal meeting the matter was further confused by the
Purchasing Agent when she spoke about the zones and stated they
were only included for prox imity purposes, but then discussed how
a property could be added to a different zone or the zone could be
changed. If the contract was not going to be awarded by zone, then
there would be no need to add locations to zones or change zones,
as any vendor could be awarded locations in multiple, unrelated
zones.
The contradictions and ambiguities in the RFP and the pre-bid
meeting led multiple vendors to ask questions about how the city
planned to award the contracts. Two questions were posed in the
pre-proposal meeting regarding the award criteria for the RFP. The
Operations Superintendent told the vendors they should disregard
the zones and bid by area because o f the reality that they could
be awarded any combination of areas. How that would be decided was
not a matter that was di scussed. This led another vendor to point
out that the city might end up with ten different vendors, to which
the Operations Superintendent responded, "yes, but that is not the
goal, but we do have the freedom to do so." Clearly the city did
not prefer to end up with a large number of vendors, but the city
did not state in the RFP that it would shortlist any certain number
of vendors to limit the total number. Nonetheless, the comments by
the Operations Superintendent suggested that the city had goals not
conta ined within the RFP and the freedom to award the contracts in
any manne r. Predictabl y, the absence of a transparent process rai
sed questions about the propriety of the award .
Of greater concern to the 0 10 , Mr. Perdomo a lleged that he
witnessed the Operations Superintendent having a lengthy private
conversation with the representative of SFM immediately prior to
the pre-bid meeting, a lthough he could not ascertain the subject
of the conversation. The O IG contacted other vendors at attendance
during the meeting to determine if Mr. Perdomo 's account was
independently corroborated. A second vendor (Vendor A)
independently stated that he also witnessed city staff having a
length y private conversation with a vendor prior to the meeting.
It was Vendor A ' s impression that the conversation pertained to
the solicitation and he fe lt the impl ication was that the so lic
itation was merely a forma lity and that the contract would go to
the vendo r speaking to the staff person. Vendor A identified the
Operations Superintendent as the staff person he saw talking to a
vendor, but he could not identify the other party to the conversati
on. According to Vendor A, the entire episode caused him to decl
ine the opportunity to submit a proposal. Vendor A indicated that,
had the solicitation been an ITB, he would have bid, because, in
his opinion, there would be no subjectivity and the intentions of
the c ity personnel would not matter. However, because the
solicitation was an RFP and the time to put together a proposal is
a significant expense, he was unwilling to dedicate resources to
what he perceived as a "done-deal."
The O IG is aware that many of the vendors present at the pre-bid
meeting were already party to a variety of city contracts. It is
possible that the c ity o ffi cia l was merely taking the
opportunity to address some unrelated issue with an ex isting
vendor. Although the
BllOWA IU> 0 1(; CLOS ING \J£,\IO I~AND ll o\1 R t : 01(; 12-019
P M ":£ ' OF l fl
city did receive six responses to the RFP, there is evidence that
the unnecessary conduct of the city official negative ly affected
competition.
4. The Selection Committee was Given Inadequate Guidance
A review of the recorded selection committee meetings also raised
several concerns. First, the recordings revealed that there was
confusion as to the requirements and effect of the city' s
disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE) program. The committee
members were not certain what requirements existed to qualify a
vendor for the additional points. The OIG found that the form for
the program that was included in the RFP did not notify vendors of
the documentation which must be submitted to claim DBE status.
Although a separate " Definitions" section of the RFP was
referenced on the f01m and did contain the program criteria, a
reasonable vendor might not expect program criteria to be stated
only under definitions and not on the program form. The Purchasing
Agent also appeared confused and was not at all certain of what
documentation was required by the DBE program. Ultimately, none of
the vendors were granted DBE preference although more than one may
have been qualified to receive it.
It was also clear that the selection committee was not sure what
they were selecting. When they were di scuss ing the fitness of the
vendors to perform the necessary work, at least one member raised
concern about the lowest priced proposal, Garden of Beauty. The
member had previous knowledge o f the company and stated on the
record that he would be concerned about the company's ability to
perform on a large sca le, parti cularly if Garden of Beauty were
to be awarded the whole project. After filling in the numbers on
the score sheets, at least one evaluator asked how it was that the
contract would be awarded. The answer provided by the Operations
Superintendent was that the method of award was yet to be
determined. Clearly, well into the procurement process, even c ity
staff remained unsure how they were go ing to decide to award the
contracts and the decision was certainl y not to be made by the
evaluation committee.
A fi nal concern with the guidance provided by the Purchasing
Depat1ment was made evident by events a fter the evaluation process
had concluded. Weeks after the se lection committee had submitted
its rat1kings, and after multiple options for recommending award
were considered by city o fficials, the Public Works department
expressed a desire to disqualify one firm- which tied fo r third in
the rankings- because o f performance issues in ex isting ci ty
contracts. The request was denied by the Purchasing Department,
which raised the question of how a presently under-performing
vendor could attain a position on the shortlist. The OIG asked the
Purchasing Agent if there were any contro ls in place to notify
purchasing or the selection committee of vendors with performance
issues on ex isting city contracts. The response was that user
departments, such as Public Works, always have a representati ve on
the committee and Purchasing relies on those representatives to
bring any issues to the attention of the committee. However, the
Operations Superintendent, Public Works' representative, gave this
under-performing vendor the highest scores in every category. When
asked, he indicated that he was unde r the belief that he was not
supposed to bring past experience with the vendors to the evaluati
on committee ' s attention, but to confine his evaluation solely to
the submiss ion.
BROWAIW ()I(; CLO lNG \I Ei\IORANOtl,\ 1 R E: 0 1(; 12-01 9 I'ACE 5
OF' Ill
Whatever the proper role of the user depat1ment's representative
should be, it is clear that there was a distinct misunderstanding
between the Purchasing Agent and the committee members regarding
what information could properly be considered in their evaluation
of the proposers. The Superintendent stated that he had never
received any general guidance of that nature when serving on
selection committees. The lack of communication resulted in a
problematic vendor receiving continued recommendation for ci ty
business. In our recommendations, the OIG proposes a formal
mechanism for tracking vendor performance that will provide
selection committees with documentation of under-performance that
can be reviewed by all members.
5. The City Permitted One Vendor to Withdraw its Pricing Offer at
the City's Expense
On June II , 2012, after the selection committee had ranked the
proposers, the Purchasing Agent sent an email to a representative
of Garden of Beauty requesting confirmation that it could perform
the services listed in the RFP at the low prices quoted. Garden of
Beauty responded that it could not perform the services for one of
the locations, which resulted in the Purchasing Agent's decision to
award the item to the next lowest proposer. By reneging on its
price offer for that location, Garden of Beauty incurred a cost to
the city of an additional $29,7 14. This allowed Garden of Beauty
to change its pricing, li ke ly increasing the profitability of the
contract, after the ranking process had concluded without any
penalty to its prospective awards. The Director of Purchasing
indicated that he was never consulted about the change. He went on
to state that vendors are not normally permitted to withdraw
pricing without any adverse effect.
6. Tlte Public Works Department was Initially Permitted au
Extensive Amount of Latitude in Providing a Recommended Contract A
ward
When the OIG received allegations that an employee may have
attempted to steer a city contract to a specific vendor, OIG staff
reviewed the process to determine the level of control the specific
individual had over the contract award recommendation. In the
present case, the OIG found that the Public Works department was
asked to formulate initial recommendations for award, despite the
fact that the city has a centralized procurement system. The OIG
found that the Purchasing Director made all the final decisions
relating to the official recommendation for award as presented to
the city commission. However, emai ls confirmed that the Operations
Superintendent was involved in departmental di scussions about how
the contracts should be awarded and did have significant
opportunity to affect an award process that was already vulnerable
due to the lack of specificity in the RFP.
Even after the se lection committee concluded its work, the city
remained unsure how the contracts would be awarded. On May 16, 20
12 the Purchasing Agent sent an emai l with the attached list of
the ranked firms to the Director of Public Works stating that the
selection committee had evaluated all six proposals and Purchasing
needed to know how to move forward with the award. The Director
responded that the Assistant to the Public Works Director would
assist in this.
BROWARI) 0 1(; CLOSING \IEt\IORANOLI"I I{E; : OIC 12 -{11 9 PAGE60F
( ()
The OIG established that the Public Works Department prepared the
initial recommendations for award. The Department recommended
multiple possible approaches, each of which awarded a significant
portion o f the contract to SFM, the highest ranked bidder. One o f
the approaches awarded to two vendors, the other to three. The emai
ls also indicated that the Operations Superintendent was involved
in the process of creating the recommendations. The onl y party
notably missing from any discussion of how to award the contracts
was the selection committee.
The primary concern with determining- after the fact- how the
contracts will be di stributed is that the distribution can, in the
wrong hands, be based on improper motivations. Including
individuals from the client agency is a common practice and
acceptable; however, the lack of transparency in thi s flawed
procurement process left it ripe for abuse.
The O IG notes that none of the recommendations from the Public
Works, nor the methodologies used to deve lop those
recommendations, were accepted by the Purchasing Director and city
administration. After receiving multiple recommendations from
Public Works, the Purchasing Di rector recommended a significantly
more transparent methodology which recommended award to the lowest
bidder, of the four highest ranked bidders, by location.
Ultimately, despite multiple flaws in the so licitation and
evaluation process, the C ity's admini stration demonstrated every
intention o f achieving the fairest result possible under the
circumstances.
The City's lntemallnvestigation ofthe Allegations fmtccumte/y
Assessed the Public Official's Scoring Variation
After the city had completed its internal investigation o f the
procurement process, the Purchasing Director issued a memo to the C
ity Manager recommending dissemination of the memo to the city
commissioners. The memo outlined the department 's investigati ve
process and found that statistical tests validated the results of
the selection committee's rankings as fa ir. Specifica lly, the
Director stated that when the scores of the staff member in
question we re removed, there was no change in the overall rankings
of the firms. Thi s finding was important because, if the
Director's fi ndings were accurate, there would be no need to
fwther investigate the possibility of a biased rati ng.
However, an O IG analysis of the ran kings reveals that the
Director' s contention is not accurate . In fact, when the scores o
f the Operations Superintendent were re moved from the ca
lculations, Mr. Perdomo ' s firm rose from fift h place to third
place. Aside from just mere ly demonstrating the effect of the
Operations Superintendent 's rankings, the change is significant
because the recommendation for award ultimately recommended award
to the lowest bid per location of the top four ranked firms. The
Purchasing Director stated that the ci ty's standard was to award
to the top three firms, but in the instant case, two firms tied for
third place, thus the recommendation was an award to four firms.
Applying thi s same methodology, if the rankings were revised to
exclude the Operations Superintendent ' s rankings, the city would
have potentially saved $45,623.78 a year in a revised recommended
award to the top three firms, including the complainant, a savings
of $ 228, 11 8.90 over the life of the contract. While the C
ity
BHOWARD O J(; f'L OS JNG " l F:o\I ORANDll•\1 RE: OTG 12 -019 PAGE
7 OF l tl
Allegations oftile Public Official's Misconduct Were Not
Substantiated
The OIG also investigated allegations that the Operations
Superintendent had a previous professional relationship with the
representati ve of SFM. Mr. Perdomo alleged that at one po int in
time, the Operations Superintendent had been employed by a company
belonging to the family of SFM 's representative. He further
alleged that the two were close friends and that the Operations
Superintendent had acted to steer the contract to SFM and away from
Florida Turf. In fact, the Operations Superintendent did score
Florida Turf considerably lower than all other members of the
selection committee and scored SFM higher than all o ther members
of the selection committee. During his interview with the OIG, the
Operations Superintendent could not explain the discrepancy between
the evaluation scores he gave to SFM and to Florida Turf. The only
specific criteria he cited as something he highly valued in a
proposal was the availability of horticulturalist and other
specialized landscaping certifications. But a comparison o f the
two companies revealed they had the same certifications in these fi
elds.
The OIG was concerned about a Jack of clarity with regards to the
Operati ons Superintendent ' s role in the fo rmulation of Public
Works' recommendations for award. The Operations Superintendent ma
intai ned that he played no ro le beyond his position on the
selection committee, but the emails from the department indicated
that he was involved in discussions about the award
recommendations. Also of signi ficant concern were the corroborated
allegations of private conversations with vendors prior to the
pre-bid meeting, discussed above.
Nonetheless, the O IG could not substantiate the prev ious profess
ional relationship with the vendor. The Operations Superintendent
had indeed worked for a company that was purchased by the family
ofSFM' s representative. However, the fo rmer owner ofthe company
confirmed that the Operations Superintendent had left the company
years be fore it was sold. A review o f phone records fai led to
revea l any personal or improper communications between the
Operations Superintendent and the representative. In fact, the
Operations Superintendent maintained that he did not know the
representati ve prior to SFM's first engagement with the city and
did not know him in any personal capacity. In the absence of any
persona l connection between the two, and in light of the fact that
the other members of the selection committee a lso scored SFM very
highl y, the a llegations specifically pertaining to the Operations
Superintendent were deemed unsubstanti ated.
OIG Conclusions am/ Recommendations
The O IG notes that an improved process, including correction of
the concerns identi fied throughout this memorandum, would not only
prevent the type of abuse all eged in thi s matter, but a lso faci
litate the investi gations of these matters so that proper
procurements are not dera iled
BROWMW 0 1(; (LOS ING i\ I E.\I ORANDlll\1 RE: O J(; 12-01 9 PAr.E
X OF 10
by unsubstantiated allegations. ln trying to create a process that
is too flexible, a local government can undermine the principles of
public procurement by unduly diminishing transparency. The result
is often a process where discretion need not be justified,
rendering the selection vulnerable to favoritism and other forms of
abuse. When a process lacks transparency it is also more likely to
draw suspicion and protest, as was the case in the instant process.
This RFP contained vague award criteria which required the city to
determine a method of award after the prices and proposers had been
revealed. The city ' s preference to shortlist the top four firms
and then award by line items to the lowest responsive, responsible
vendor were not included in the advertised bid. Even the selection
committee members expressed confusion about how their rankings
would be used.
The OlO stresses that it does not take issue with the criteria
ultimately applied by the city. However, while there is no evidence
that the city engaged in favoritism in this procurement, a faulty
evaluation process, such as the one exhibited in this case, is ripe
for abuse. ln light of those flaws, the city's failure to contact
our office when it was alerted to possible significant procurement
improprieties did little to instill confidence. The flaws in the
Purchasing Department' s investigative findings only raised
additional red flags. The OlO makes the following recommendations
to strengthen the city 's procurement practices and improve
confidence in the city' s integrity:
• RFPs should set forth the relative importance of all factors , in
addition to price, that will be considered in awarding criteria for
the contract. To achieve full transparency, significant planning
must go into the design of each award process. Many are typical
award processes to the single best proposer. However, often, as in
this case, a unique process must be designed at the time of
solicitation to meet the city ' s needs and prevent the perception
of favoritism. For example, in this case the RFP should have
indicated that the city would be short-listing the top tlu·ee
ranked firms and then awarding each location to the lowest priced
firm.
• The OIO recommends that Purchasing Agents undergo specific
training of any DBE processes or local preferences. It is the duty
of these agents to guide the selection committee members through
the appropriate scoring procedures, so they should be well versed
on the requirements of these programs. The 010 is aware that the
DBE program has undergone recent changes. Nonetheless, our
recommendation applies even to a simplified DBE process.
• The OrO recommends adoption of a written procedure which requires
written documentation supporting any finding that a response to a
solicitation is ineligible or incomplete. The procedures should
explicitly indicate which parties are authorized to make such a
finding.
• The oro also recommends additional training of purchasing staff
with regards to proper documentation of all responses to
solicitations. The 0£0 agrees with the stated policy of the city
that all responses be turned over to the selection committee for a
formal determination of completeness, but the policy should also
require documentation of any finding of ineligibility. Staff should
undergo training on the proper procedure for addressing incomplete
or ineligible solicitations.
BROWA I~O 01(; C LOSING M Et\ IORANDLJ.\1 R E: O IC 12-019 PAGE 9 0
F 10
• The city should implement a vendor performance evaluation process
which documents a vendor's performance on city contracts. Any such
evaluations could be provided to the selection committee along with
the requested references. This would provide a formal method for
consideration of a vendor's past performance with the city in
determining their fitness for future contract and help the city
avoid ineffective vendors.
The OIO has provided the city with a preliminary draft of this
memorandum and discussed these findings and recommendations with
city officials. As mentioned above, the city has already commenced
proactively addressing many of these concerns. The city has also
provided a response further explaining its position and generally
accepting the recommendations of the oro.
We will continue to make available our Contract and Procurement
Oversight services to the city as it addresses the issues raised in
this review, and will continue to work with the city to reduce
potential vulnerabilities in the procurement process.
cc: Honorable Lori Cohen Moseley, Mayor, and Members, City
Commission of the City of Miramar
BHOWAHD OIC C LOSING \IE;,\ IOHANOU,\1 RE: : 01(; 12-019 PAGE: I 0
OF 10
OIG 12-019
APPENDIX A
Mayor
2300 Civic Center Place Miramar, Florida 33025
Phone (954) 602-3115 Fax (954) 602-3547
January 31 , 2013
John W. Scott, Inspector General Broward Office of the Inspector
General One North University Drive, Suite 111 Plantation, FL
33324
RE: OIG Closing Memorandum of RFP No. 12-11-14
Dear Mr. Scott:
The City of Miramar has reviewed the Office of Inspector General
("OIG") Closing Memorandum of Request for Proposal ("RFP") No.
12-11-14 and is satisfied that the investigation conducted has
revealed that the allegations of misconduct were not substantiated.
Additionally, the City has assessed the recommendations made by the
OIG staff designed to improve the procurement process used by the
City to ensure that all vendors are given a fair and equal
opportunity when competing for business. While the City
understands, accepts and will seek to implement such
recommendations, it respectfully requests that the following
clarification points be included as part of the final
document.
• As it relates to the OIG's findings of accounting for proposals
received: it is important to clarify for the record that the City
Clerk received seven proposals, as documented on the handwritten
RFP "Opening Sheet". The seventh proposal was not presented to the
evaluation committee because the vendor did not attend the
mandatory pre-proposal conference. This caused the vendor to
immediately be deemed non-responsive and ineligible for further
consideration for award.
Considering the OIG's recommendations on this matter, in the
future, all responses, even those that are deemed ineligible on
their face or are a 'no bid', will be provided to the evaluation
committee. Staff will provide information regarding the
responsiveness of all proposers and the action of the committee
pertaining to responsiveness will be recorded in writing.
• With reference to the OIG's commentary regarding the pre
proposal meeting: the City does not believe that the conversation
between its staff and one of the potential proposers, who is also a
current City vendor, dissuaded competition. In fact, the vendor who
commented on the
CITY OF MIRAMAR An Equal Opportunity Employer conversation
indicated that it still would have submitted a bid if
the process had been an Invitation for Bid ("IFB") rather than an
RFP, but that vendor did not submit a response to the subsequent
IFB. Thus, the vendor cho_se, for unknown reasons, not to
participate in the IFB process. It is thus speculative to assume
that there was any effect on the solicitation process by virtue of
the conversation at the pre-bid meeting.
In accordance with the OIG's recommendations, the Procurement
Department will continue to train and advise City staff not to
converse with vendors on any matter before and after any public
meetings in the evaluation process to allay the appearance of
favoritism.
• In reference to the OIG's discussion on allowing vendor to
withdraw its pricing: the City desires to only enter into contracts
with vendors that can successfully perform. Garden of Beauty
submitted a price for one of the locations in the RFP scope of work
that was significantly lower than that of the other proposers. In
this case, the City has the obligation to determine if the proposer
is able to accomplish the proposed service with the proposed
methodology, resources and price in a manner satisfactory to the
City. City Procurement Policy 12.3.1 Section 2.803 authorizes the
Chief Procurement Officer to request from the proposer a
substantiation of offered prices based on adequate price
competition. Garden of Beauty was unable to do so. If the City had
not rejected the proposals and canceled the RFP, this would have
increased the total price to the City for these services. However,
it would have helped to ensure that the services would be performed
as required under the contract, as opposed to awarding the lot to a
vendor that could not perform at that location.
The OIG's observation is. relevant and when issuing RFPs the City
will describe in detail how these situations will be handled.
The City makes every effort to ensure that the procurement process
is handled with the highest level of integrity for any person,
group, or business intere~ted in conducting business with the City.
The City will strive to ensure that all specifications and scopes
of work will be as detailed and descriptive as possible on future
solicitations, with a clear delineation of the award process. As
the OIG has recognized, the City has already commenced proactively
addressing many ·of the concerns by rejecting the original RFP,
issuing a new IFB, and awarding contracts as a result.
CITY OF MIRAMAR An Equal Opportunity Employer
The City appreciates the OIG's recommendations to improve its
processes and implement additional best practice measures. Should
you have any questions, please feel free to contact Procurement
Director Randy Cross at (954) 602-3054.
c. The Honorable Mayor and City Commission Wazir A. Ishmael, Ph.D.,
Deputy City Manager Donald J. Waldron, AICP, Assistant City Manager
Vernon E. Hargray, Assistant City Manager Tom Good, Public Works
Director Randy Cross, Procurement Director Jaime A. Cole, City
Attorney
OIG CPOP Miramar Memorandum
OIG 12-019 Appendix Sheet