Competition to Build Miami-Dade's Civil Courthouse Heats Up With Ranking Dispute
Runner-up development group M-S-E Judicial says top-ranked Plenary lowballed its bid and plans an inferior building, a notion Plenary denies.
The battle among big-name developers to build a new Miami-Dade civil courthouse turned contentious when the runner-up raised issues with the rankings.
M-S-E Judicial Partners LLC said top-ranked Plenary Justice Miami LLC lowballed its bid and proposed an inferior building that will cost more in improvements down the line, a notion Plenary disputes.
Miami-Dade wants a new civil courthouse on a half-acre it owns on Flagler Street between the existing courthouse and the Metromover tracks. The county issued a request for proposals for a development team to work on the project in a public-private partnership. Construction is to start in July 2020.
The existing 1928 courthouse at 73 W. Flagler St. has problems including mold, leaks and termites.
The Miami-Dade County Commission has the final say on the builder and is tentatively scheduled to consider the item Nov. 19. The decision is to be based on a selection committee’s ranking of the development teams issued Aug. 14.
[falcon-embed src="embed_1"]
M-S-E Judicial, which includes Paris-based asset manager Meridiam as well as DLR Group and Suffolk Construction, said the committee’s scoring was heavily based on price. Plenary’s low-cost bid is “unusually” low and “technically and structurally inferior,” which would produce a nonfunctional and noncompliant building.
“They are telling you that they can build the building for 20% cheaper. That’s crazy,” said Brian May, who runs government relations firm Floridian Partners LLC representing M-S-E Judicial.
Floridian Partners, which a consulting and public affairs firm with offices in Coral Gables and Tallahassee, wrote the county Internal Services Department on Aug. 20 asking the committee to take a closer look at the proposals with the development teams present.
Plenary vehemently denied M-S-E Judicial’s claims, saying its courthouse would meet the county’s requirements, would be “innovative, modern and highly functional” and would serve the judicial system long term.
“We are confident that our proposal comprehensively achieves the county’s criteria and objectives and provides long term certainty of quality, all included in the guaranteed fixed price submitted as part of our proposal,” Plenary CEO and president Brian Budden said in an email. “Any mischaracterization of our design or suggestion that our significantly more efficient solution would somehow cost more is simply not grounded in reality nor how the process and contracts work.”
The county stood by its ranking and said it thoroughly reviewed M-S-E Judicial’s letter.
“Miami-Dade County followed the process as established in the request for proposals, including the ranking process to determine the highest-ranked proposer, and will continue to do so,” Rita Silva, chief of policy, legislation and procurement at the Internal Service Department.
Process
Miami-Dade issued a call to developers a year ago, and the selection committee held two rounds of evaluations.
The five-member selection committee comprises retired Miami-Dade Chief Circuit Judge Joseph Farina and a staff member from aviation, internal services, finance and seaport departments.
Five groups vied for the project, including an unsolicited proposal from a partnership of Florida East Coast Industries LLC, the parent company of Virgin Trains USA, and El Paso, Texas-based Hunt Cos. Inc.
Two groups were eliminated in the first round based solely on qualifications and experience.
Fourth-ranked FECI-Hunt team was kept as an alternate in case one of the three finalists opted out of the second round, but then was dismissed after the finalists turned in qualifying proposals.
In the first round, M-S-E Judicial scored the highest, followed by Plenary and Miami-Dade Courthouse Partnership LLC.
The second round was based on building design and cost without oral presentations. M-S-E Judicial was bumped down a spot and Plenary up a spot.
M-S-E took issue with the selection committee opting out of presentations on the advice of a county financial adviser.
“Outside of the obvious abnormality of why the county’s financial adviser would respond to a process question about whether oral presentations should be conducted, it is extraordinary in Miami-Dade County to make a selection on a project of this magnitude without holding oral presentations,” May said in his letter to the county.
In the second round, each team was scored based on three criteria: designs and drawings, financing feasibility and prices.
Plenary was below M-S-E Judicial on the first two criteria but scored a full 5,000 points on the price criterion. M-S-E Judicial and Miami-Dade Courthouse Partnership each scored zero on price.
In his letter to the county, May noted Farina pointed out deficiencies with the three proposals but especially with Plenary’s at a committee meeting.
If issues aren’t addressed now, he warned the county might end up with a deficient building down the line. He also asked about getting presentations.
“Judge Farina made those inquiries because he understood very well at the time, well before the price submissions were provided to the selection committee, that there were many aspects of buildings being proposed that merited further review and inquiry,” May wrote.
This isn’t the only issue that’s arisen with finding a developer.
The county inspector general’s office in August investigated a potential attorney conflict of interest at the request of the county clerk’s office.
M-S-E Judicial hired Bilzin Sumberg associate Andrej Micovic to represent the group in its bid. This was investigated because the clerk’s office employed another Bilzin attorney, partner Eileen Mehta, as outside counsel.
In another controversy, Plenary’s construction partner, Los Angeles-based Tutor Perini Corp., is embroiled in a controversy with Broward County over its courthouse construction.
Broward contends Tutor Perini still has work to finish. Tutor Perini sued the county in July to get out of its contract, saying the county didn’t correctly request follow-up work and submit necessary designs and drawings.
Tutor Perini declined comment.
As for Plenary, CEO Budden said its selection as the top-ranked bidder was based on the “county’s extensive and detailed design and submission criteria.”
The committee “ranked our proposal extremely well across all facets and ultimately made unanimous determination that the Plenary Justice Miami proposal provides the best value to the county in accordance with those request for proposals requirements,” Budden said. “We obviously strongly agree.”
Related stories:
List of Possible Miami-Dade Civil Courthouse Builders Narrows to 3
Arsenic, Lead, Other Pollutants Found at New Miami Civil Courthouse Site
New Miami Civil Courthouse Site Selected With Construction Set for 2020