MINUTES
OF MEETING
SUNSHINE
WATER CONTROL DISTRICT
The regular meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of the Sunshine Water Control District was held on
Present and constituting a quorum
were:
Russell Parks President
Mary Macomber Vice President
Phillip J. Sobers Secretary
Also present were:
Bob Nanni Manager -
Mona Slaughter
Cory Selchan
Bruce Cranmer Attorney
Cedo DaSilva CH2M-Hill
Peter Colussy CH2M-Hill
Daniel Bohorguez CH2M-Hill
John Petty
Several Residents
Mr.
Nanni called the meeting to order and called the roll.
Mr.
Nanni stated I work for Severn Trent Services as a District Manager in the
Celebration office.
SECOND ORDER OF BUSINESS Approval of the Minutes of
the February 14, 2007 Meeting
Mr. Nanni stated each Board member
received a copy of the minutes of the
There not being any,
On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr.
Sobers with all in favor the minutes of the
THIRD ORDER OF BUSINESS Award of Contract for the
Purchase of Light Trucks (Non-Fleet)
Mr. Nanni stated staff recommends
pulling this item from the agenda.
FOURTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Staff Reports
A. Attorney
There not being any, the next item
followed.
B. Engineer – Award of Bid for Tree Removal
Mr. Colussy stated I am with
CH2M-Hill and the Project Manager for the non-hurricane tree removal project,
Phase 2 for the Sunshine W.C.D. We
received five bids yesterday for removal of the non-nuisance trees. We reviewed these bids and based on the
contingencies in the letter I am providing to the Board, we recommend award to
the lowest bidder B.G. Katz Nurseries, LLC. from
Mr. Sobers asked do we have any
track record with B.G. Katz Nurseries?
Mr. Colussy responded I do not have
any track record with them nor does anyone in my office.
Mr. Sobers asked have they performed
work in the
Mr. Colussy responded they submitted
five references. I was able to reach two
of those five references; the City of
Ms. Macomber stated I am concerned
about the bid protest with regard to the complaint the requirement of the bid
is for the General Contractor’s license to be pulled. Apparently this company has their license in
the name of another individual. How does
this affect us and what about the bid award?
Mr. Cranmer responded under the
statute, the advertisement is placed in the newspaper and sealed bids are
submitted. There are certain
requirements for these bids including the sealed package. Article 1.8 of the Instructions to Bidders
states the bidder must submit a general contractor’s license in the name of the
company submitting the bid. You can have
a company not qualified under the statute have a Certificate of Authority in
their name. They can use someone else’s
license but they have to apply through the state to get a Certificate of
Authority from the Department of Business and Professional Regulation. The corporation seeking the contract must
have a licensed contractor who has been issued a Certificate of Authority for
this company.
Bidders can be rejected based on
lack of competency under Article 1.8 c2, which can be revealed by
“qualification statements, financial statements, experience records or other
questionnaires” through a variety of criteria.
One such criteria is for references within a closed time frame within a
similar dollar amount. This tells us whether
the bidder is financially capable to do the job. There is also the licensure issue. The application or bid submitted by the
lowest bidder shows the license of an individual who has a Certificate of
Authority for an unrelated company. This
allegation has been made under the protest.
Once our intentions are revealed as to which direction we are heading,
the other bidders can file a Bid Protest within 72 hours and a formal protest
within 10 days thereafter. This stops
the process. The exception is we can say
“Forget about the rules, we have an emergency and cannot worry about going
through a Chapter 120 Administrative Hearing in front of an administrative
judge.” We do not have an emergency,
although this is a factor for you to determine.
As far as I know, a Notice of
Protest was filed on March 14th but I do not know whether this was
within the 72 hour period. Those facts
are yet to be determined. The
correspondence sent to me may be considered a formal protest. I do not know whether it was the initial one
or formal one. In any case, a Notice of
Protest has been filed. The essence of
their argument is the lowest bidder does not have a qualifying licensed general
contractor who has been issued a Certificate of Authority binding him to this
company. The Department of Business and
Professional Regulation maintains these records. I researched all statutes but have not
checked with DBPR. The allegation is the
lowest bidder’s qualifying agent is listed with another company and does not
have the Certificate of Authority to act as the person of knowledge. This is one criteria for you to consider
along with their references, bonding ability, types of jobs performed,
etc.
However Article 1.8(a) does not say
“The bidder may”, it says “The bidder shall submit a State of
You are required to select the
lowest bidder filing a responsive bid. A
responsive bid is one where the application is complete and touches all the
bases in the criteria. The Board has to
determine whether or not this is a responsive bid.
Ms. Macomber stated thank you for
giving us a complete answer. I have
serious concern about this being a fatal flaw as well as the potential
liability. If we hire an individual and
the company does not have a Certificate of Authority, we have some liability.
Mr. Cranmer stated you can take this
into account. The statute seems to
suggest Chapter 489 and other statutes cited by the protester in their letter
require this licensure.
Ms. Macomber stated in this case, I
suggest we award the contract to the second lowest bidder, who is the most
responsive bidder.
Mr. Cranmer stated we do not know
for sure the lowest bidder is unqualified by not having a qualified agent with
a Certificate of Authority from DBPR.
Perhaps your motion should be to award the contract to the other bidder
subject to the lowest bidder providing the Certificate of Authority. The public record may be incorrect, obsolete
or the website may be missing a page or the certificate is posted incorrectly. We do not know. You may want to give them an opportunity to
prove they have a Certificate of Authority from a licensed general contractor
who is the qualifying agent of this company, which is required on our list of
criteria in the qualifications. Article
1.18 of your bid requirements states “You reserve the right to reject any and
all bids with or without cause or waive any informality or irregularity.” Statute 489 says when the ultimate body hires
a contractor, they need to have a qualifier who is a general contractor
attached to them with a Certificate of Authority. It should be posted in the DBPR public
records. You have the right to accept a
bid that is in the best interest of the District.
Ms. Macomber stated my concern is
the liability potential for doing so.
On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr.
Parks with all in favor the tree removal contract was awarded to B.G. Katz
Nurseries subject to providing documentation showing the general contractor has
a Certification of Authority for their company by
Ms. Macomber stated thank you, Mr. Cranmer. This was very helpful.
Mr. Nanni asked do we want to give
B.G. Katz direction on who to provide the information to?
Mr. Cranmer responded they should
fax the information to me and I will deliver it to you. There is a possibility the state records are
incomplete or not up to date. It does
happen. The second bidder met the
criteria.
Mr. Knight stated I am a
representative of Stiles Landscaping Company and one of the bidders. We were advised by CH2M-Hill we can come here
tonight to protest because of the short notice but your attorney said we have
72 hours to file the bid protest. If it
is not resolved today, do we have time to file if it is not awarded to the
second lowest bidder?
Mr. Cranmer asked when was the
official notification given?
Mr. Knight responded tonight. Does this mean we have 72 hours from tonight?
Mr. Cranmer responded yes.
Mr. Hankin stated I represent the
bid protestor, American Earth Movers. According
to the District Attorney, the company must hold a Certificate of Authority. I may have misunderstood but my understanding
is the company has to hold a Certificate of Authority showing Mr. Lang as the
qualified general contractor.
Mr. Cranmer stated correct.
Mr. DaSilva stated under the
Engineer’s Report, we have an update on the stormwater. Mr. Bohorguez is working on the
calculations. We have a small
presentation to give you an update on where we are going. We hope to have the final results in a month.
Mr. Bohorguez stated at this time, I
will give a presentation on what we completed in regards to the drainage system
in the District. The first slide shows
the original conditions in 1977. Some
preliminary studies were performed at the time.
Initially the District was divided into two different basins. Within each basin, there are two pump
stations, each with a capacity of 150,000 gallons per minute to pump south
through two miles of canals to the C-14 Canal.
Those considerations were made in 1977 when only half of the District
was developed. The preliminary studies
give us the results of some elevations with the constructed road elevation
being 11.1’ and the finished road elevation being no lower than 12.5’ for the
east basin and 11.0’ for the west basin.
Ms. Macomber asked is this the road
surface elevation?
Mr. Bohorguez responded yes. The finished floor is 11.5’. The conditions for the District changed in
regards to the main distribution of the water and how much is being
developed. We are taking the subdivision
as it looked in 1977 using the same two pump stations and subdividing each
basin into small sub-basins. My
co-workers are getting this information piece by piece for each individual
basin and looking at the new residential density, new facilities, parks, lakes
and canals. We are going to take the
pump stations and the condition of the culverts into account. We will contact the National Weather Service
and SFWMD to obtain historical data on what the canal levels have been at for
10 years.
Ms. Macomber asked how many
sub-basins are there?
Mr. Bohorguez responded
approximately 30.
Mr. DaSilva stated each sub-basin is
connected by a culvert. The culvert will
be analyzed under the system using ICPR.
Hopefully this will show how the pump under the 10 year or 100 year
event, will distribute water to culverts, canals and sub-basins. When we come before the Board next month we
should have several scenarios showing what the actual elevations are and if we
have any problem areas, we can give you some recommendations.
Ms. Macomber stated this will give
us better information than we currently have.
Mr. DaSilva stated at the next
meeting we will have this information and recommendations on what can be
improved.
Ms. Macomber asked do you think you
will have this completed by the next meeting?
Mr. DaSilva responded yes. We are 50% completed.
Ms. Macomber stated I am interested
in seeing this.
C. Superintendent
Mr. Nanni stated I provided my card
to each Board member. Please feel free
to contact me by cell phone, office phone or email with any questions or
concerns.
SEVENTH ORDER OF
BUSINESS Approval of
Financials and Warrants
Mr. Sobers stated these seem to be
straight forward.
On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr. Parks
with all in favor the financials and warrants 8959-8975 dated
SIXTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Supervisor Requests and
Audience Comments
Mr. Hewlett stated something has
changed. I assume Mr. Petty was
re-assigned by the company. Are you the
new District Manager?
Mr. Nanni responded I have been
re-assigned to this District. Mr.
Petty’s business with the corporation is between him and the corporation. I am not privy to it.
Mr. Hewlett stated I thought there
was going to be an election tonight.
Mr. Cranmer stated we were going to
have our annual election, however, the Fort Lauderdale News Sun Sentinel had a
malfunction during the time the advertisement was due to be published and it
did not appear in conformity with the statute.
To follow the rules, we had to advertise the landowners meeting for
April. It was not the District’s
fault. It was the Sun-Sentinel’s
fault.
Mr. Hewlett asked are you going to
wait until Monday to award the tree removal contract in order to re-evaluate
who you are going to pick?
Mr. Nanni responded we are not going
to re-evaluate.
Mr. Hewlett stated I mean until the
other company submits their qualifications.
Mr. Nanni stated correct.
Mr. Cranmer stated to see if the
state records are incorrect or not up to date.
The third bidder Stiles bid the same lump sum amount but they were $50
higher on the cost per tree for removal.
It was a close call in terms of the amounts.
Mr. Hewlett asked if this contract
is awarded, will work begin in the second week of April?
Mr. Selchan responded I imagine
within 30 days.
Mr. Colussy stated within 30 days or
sooner if possible.
Mr. Hewlett stated thank you.
Ms. Macomber stated it is nice to
see you, Mr. Hewlett.
Mr. Petty stated I apologize for coming to you in this
fashion. This is something I hoped to
avoid and something I have been working on for the last year and a half to
avoid. I was not able to accomplish this
task. My intent was to keep the
corporate business at the corporate entity and the District business as my
priority. I have not been able to do
so. I am no longer in the employ of Severn
Trent Services. I believe where we
started a year and a half ago and where we are now is significant in terms of progress. I looked at what we have done with Hurricane
Wilma in regards to the tree cleanup and public hearings. You became more independent with greater
powers and expanded resources to provide better response times. I have to tell you how difficult it is for me
to sit back here and not speak. I am
here tonight to talk to the Board about maintaining this momentum and offer my
services as an individual for the management contract for the District if the
Board sees the benefit of doing so in order to maintain our system.
Ms.
Macomber stated I have been concerned with the turnover at Severn Trent
Services during my tenure on this Board.
It seems like we get good people and have a good relationship and then they
are gone. Mr. Petty has been fantastic
over the past year and a half.
Mr.
Parks stated I agree.
Ms.
Macomber stated we respect you and more importantly our citizens of the
Sunshine WCD who we serve trust and respect you. In my opinion, this is a plus. I am not thrilled with Severn Trent Services. Is it possible for us to change our
management company? When are we due to
renew Severn Trent Services contract?
Mr. Cranmer responded I believe there is an annual
renewal with a 60 day termination provision.
Mr.
Petty stated as long as no one disputes, their contract continues.
Ms.
Macomber stated the concern I have about this is to have everything continue as
it has been at no increased cost. I
presume this is what Mr. Petty proposes.
Mr.
Petty stated over the last year and a half, we rebuilt the Sunshine WCD to make
you stronger. You have your field staff
comprising of Mr. Cory Selchan and his field crew. This stays no matter what. The accounting is done in-house and remains
in place. You have Ms. Larned as Treasurer
and I have complete faith in her ability to perform the functions of the
District while she remains with Severn Trent Services. Everything else is handled through my office with
the people I bring on board under this proposal. There is not much to bring forward other than
record keeping since the rest we rebuilt within the system and made Sunshine
stronger.
Ms.
Macomber asked what do we need to consider in terms of paperwork?
Mr.
Cranmer responded Mr. Petty needs to submit a business proposal for the Board
to vote on and then you give Severn Trent Services 60 days notice.
Ms.
Macomber stated I request Mr. Petty submit a proposal at his earliest
convenience.
Mr.
Petty stated I will have one ready for your next meeting.
Mr. Cranmer stated since the 72 hour
notice starts tonight and it appears the third bidder may file a protest,
perhaps the Board should amend the motion subject to completion of the 72 hour
notice.
Ms. Macomber asked will the award go
to the second lowest bidder?
Mr. Cranmer responded yes. However, if you select the second lowest
bidder, Stiles will file a protest within 72 hours. The Administrative Procedure Act says, “Upon
receipt of a notice of protest within the 72 hour period, all solicitation or
contract award processes has to be suspended pending resolution”.
Mr. Knight stated the only reason we
are going to file a protest against B.G. Katz is because they do not have a
license. We will not protest against the
second lowest bidder as they are a qualified company. If you resolve this matter tonight, we will
not protest. However, if you wait until
the end of the 72 hour period and select B.G. Katz, we will file a protest
through our law offices within 72 hours.
If you read your documentation, even though B.G. Katz has done jobs,
they have not done jobs of this type.
Therefore, we will be filing two protests.
Mr. Cranmer stated the Board is
saying, “We will award to B.G. Katz as the lowest bidder provided they meet the
criteria it appears they missed”. Unless
the public records are not updated or incorrect, the bid may likely go to the
second lowest bidder, which you do not have a problem with. I think we need to wait the entire 72 hours.
Mr. Knight stated because of
principle, I will not allow it to wait and will file the protest. I have this right, unless you want to amend
your motion to where if they do not follow the first motion, the award goes to
American Earth Movers.
Ms. Macomber stated this is what we
did. If we do not receive the
certification by close of business on Monday, the contract will be awarded to
American Earth Movers.
Mr. Knight stated I need to speak
with my attorney, who is not available tonight.
Mr. Petty stated one of the reasons
we asked for their license is in order to track it to make sure the contractor
does not have a revolving set of licenses.
What you did tonight in saying, “If we have the license, we can award
the contract”, does not give us the opportunity to do the tracking. You will not be giving staff enough time for
due diligence to see if the contractor is qualified underneath the license and
their history. The contract time period
is fairly short and as such, I recommend you consider rejecting all bids and
re-bidding the project. We can have this
done in 30 days and award it clean. This
puts us 30 days into the beginning of the rainy season and I suspect going
through the process is going to exhaust the 30 days anyway. Since we have two bidders threatening to file
bid protests, I recommend the Board consider re-bidding or awarding the
contract to American Earth Movers since B.G. Katz did not fill the requirements
of the bid.
Mr. Hankin stated Chapter 489 of the
Florida Statues sets forth a stringent procedure whereby the contracting entity
has to apply for a Certificate of Authority.
It is not as simple as someone placing a phone call and saying, “We want
you to provide us with a Certificate of Authority” and it magically
appears. If it not done yet, it is not
going to be done within the next day or two.
Mr. Knight stated correct.
Mr. Hankin stated Mr. Petty’s
concerns are valid by this fact. If Mr. Lange
is not qualified and he does not have a Certificate of Authority today, they
are not going to have one on Monday.
Therefore, I suggest we proceed with Mr. Petty’s suggestion to award the
contract tonight to the second lowest bidder.
Mr. Sobers stated this goes back to
my original concern over B.G. Katz having a track record for this type of work.
Mr. Hewlett asked if the Board is
going to consider a change in management companies, does it have to be bid?
Mr. Petty responded the management
position is not competitively bid. This
is similar to the appointment of Governor.
The manager is selected by this Board as the best representative to do
the job based on qualifications. The Board
can do anything they wish such as putting it out for competitive bids, although,
I recommend obtaining qualifications.
The bottom line is it is up to the Board to decide.
Mr. Hewlett asked will the Board
discuss this matter further at the next meeting?
Ms. Macomber responded we have to
rely on District Counsel to guide us.
Mr. Hewlett stated if the Board is
considering a change in management companies; let the citizens know so other
individuals or entities can bid.
Mr. Cranmer stated I have a copy of
the management contract with Severn Trent Services. However, I do not know if it is the most up
to date version.
Ms. Macomber stated we appreciate
Mr. Hewlett’s comments and will take them under advisement. We never had to address this issue before and
I believe the time has come to do so. Do
we want to reconsider awarding this contract tonight?
Mr. Sobers asked does it have to be
awarded to the lowest bidder?
Mr. Cranmer responded the lowest
responsive bidder. A responsive bid
means the Certificate of Authority ties the general contractor to this
company. They must meet this criteria
plus the financial criteria and performed similar jobs within a narrow time
period of three years. They also have to
meet the bond requirement.
Ms. Macomber stated I get the sense
you are uncomfortable.
Mr. Sobers stated I am uncomfortable
because everyone making this bid had the same criteria. Therefore, the parties approaching the table
should be seriously taken into account if they meet the criteria. Why should we reject the bids because someone
forgot to submit the required documents.
Mr. Cranmer stated we have the 72
hour period anyway.
Mr. Sobers stated it behooves them
to bring the required documents or say, “Our documents are not up to date with
the state, however, I have a certification saying the records are there”.
Mr. Cranmer stated they would have
addressed the Board if they had the required documentation. They are the lowest bidder by quite a few
dollars. If it turns out the state made
an error, we could be paying more.
Ms. Macomber stated we should give
them 72 hours to respond
Mr. Sobers stated I will yield until
Monday at 5 p.m.
SEVENTH ORDER OF BUSINESS Adjournment
There being no further business,
On MOTION by Ms. Macomber seconded by Mr.
Parks with all in favor the meeting was adjourned.
Philip Sobers Russell
Parks
Secretary President
Sunshine Notes for 2/14/07 Meeting
Agenda Items for Next Meeting
1. Consideration of Management Proposals