Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee - Regular Meeting

Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, everybody. Please rise for the invocation. Commissioner Gonzalez, can you lead us in the invocation? And Commissioner Lopez, can you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please?

Thank you, Chairwoman. Please bow your heads. Dear Lord, thank you for this wonderful day. Thank you for blessing each and every person in Miami-Dade County. Thank you for guiding us. Lord, we ask that your will be done, that every decision that we make, that everything that we say be for your will and your glory, now and always. In your holy name we pray. Amen.

Okay, good morning everybody and welcome to another beautiful day in Miami-Dade County. This is the Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee. Today is June 10th and I am Commissioner Natalie Milian-Orbis, happy to welcome you to our committee. I will ask at this time if the attorneys have any updates to provide before we get into the reasonable opportunity.

Okay. So this is what I'm going to do. We have... We have several speaker cards, but they are all related to item 3B. So that is the item that is being requested to be withdrawn. So if it's okay, and county attorneys let me know if this is okay, can we take the reasonable opportunity? Can I open the reasonable opportunity but call these speakers up at the time that item? I know we have a withdrawal, but we want to speak on the withdrawal. The commission wants to speak on it, so-

Or do we go into the reasonable opportunity now and let everybody speak, including the cards? Okay, we'll do that. All right, perfect. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and open up reasonable opportunity at this time. And I will call you up. We have a few speakers. We have Juan Carbonell. Please come up. Diana Mendez.

Madam Chair, is it okay if I go first? Yes. I represent Masada. Are you Diana Mendez? Yes, I'm Diana Mendez. Okay, are you Juan? Are you giving up your two minutes? Okay, that's fine, sure. Okay, Diana, go ahead, please. Name and address for the record. Everybody will have two minutes. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Now we have Saj Popat. I hope I said your name correctly. Followed by Danielle Sanabria and Alex Heckler. Go ahead, sir.

Thank you, Danielle. I'll give you ten seconds to wrap it up.

you know it's not broke don't fix it please thank you thank you thank you so much next we have hugo benitez we have miguel diaz de la portilla and alice bravo

Thank you. I don't have any more speaker cards, but I did want to ask if there's anybody else who would like to speak before we close the reasonable opportunity. If anyone else would like to speak, please, this is your time, please come up. I see one person.

Before you go, can you please state your address for the record?

Thank you. Anybody else? Reasonable opportunity? Yes. If anyone else wants to speak, just come up at this point and line up so that we can continue the speakers. Go ahead, sir.

At this time, we'll close the reasonable opportunity to be heard. And Mr. Attorney, I understand we have to discuss the withdrawal before we set the agenda.

We do want to discuss on the withdrawal. I know that I have questions and I know my colleagues have some questions on this. So I would like to open the floor for discussion on the withdrawal. And I know that the administration also has some comments they would like to put on the record regarding the withdrawal.

Okay, so I have, okay, I have a cue. Commissioner Lopez, go ahead, and then Commissioner Gonzalez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So to the administration, I've read the RFP, have listened to all of the comments. I guess my only question to the administration would be, had the RFP that was issued been followed during the process to the letter of the RFP, who would have been the recommended vendor? I guess I'm confused because I've heard so much testimony regarding somehow, certainly the three versus five and anything else, I'm trying to build confidence in the business community doing business with the government, right? And sometimes when we don't do things right from the beginning, people say, l

I know that my colleagues have some follow-up questions, but I'm very disappointed to hear that. I know there's a lot going on in the county right now, but I'm very disappointed to hear that because a month has elapsed since the last committee meeting. And I know that each of us here asked for the complete packet for all the background information, and nothing was provided. In fact, the item got thinner than last time. So it's very disappointing. To me, it's... It feels like we're not taken seriously. The request of this committee was not taken seriously, and that's not acceptable. I, we asked

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I certainly echo a lot of the sentiments from both the co-chairs, Chair Lopez and Chair Maliana-Orbis. But I want to start on a high note. I do want to say that I commend the administration and I commend Chief Carla Denise and Chief Coley for taking the approach that you're taking, which is to go back to this procurement process. I think that the bigger conversation here is really what happened. And I know that you're working on the report and I'm looking forward to see the report. I do have a line of questions that I'd like to get answered just so that we can be cl

Yes, go ahead and feel free to have a conversation.

Director, how many proposers advance to oral presentations, the total?

Right. So five proposals, five proposers advance. So I'd like for you to just clarify, because I'm hearing one thing from one side, I'm hearing things from other sides. So I'd like for you to just clarify, if the RFP states the competitive selection committee will conduct oral presentations with the three highest ranked proposers, why were five invited to the oral presentation? Does this happen often?

So my question is, and there's no right or wrong answer, right? Just be honest. Did anybody within the department think to consult with the county attorney's office as to the interpretation before we move forward with the five presentations?

And so to the county attorney's office, and I think the director has already stated that she had a conversation with you folks afterwards. But my question to you, just to put it on the record, is what is your interpretation of the language within the RFP that states that the highest ranked proposers will advance to orals? Do you interpret that as at least three, or do you interpret that at Do you interpret that as three are the ones that are going to advance?

And you see, this is where I commend the administration and the director and the chiefs for wanting to go back to this RFP process. Because let me ask this, because I think this is the elephant in the room. Where did vendors four and five end up in the rankings after the oral presentation?

So we had three, and then those three, according to the county attorney's office, had to move forward to the oral presentations. Four and five would not have moved forward. But once the oral presentations were had, where in the ranking did four and five, who were not supposed to be presenting orally, where did they move to in the ranking?

And you see, so this is the big issue here, right? Because someone or a company who, according to the language of the RFP and the opinion of the county attorney's office, should not have been invited to the oral presentations, jumped to first place, right? And so this makes me feel like And I'm going to date myself here, but there used to be reruns of a cartoon in the 90s called Peanuts, right? And they had a character called Charlie Brown. And there's another character called Lucy. And so Charlie Brown's mission in life is to be able to kick a football according to the rules of the game. But

Of course, Chief. So I was alluding to the fact that in the memorandum, the original memorandum, it stated that the RFP with the modifications of the address ambiguities would be advertised expeditiously. But just to be clear, so we don't have to go through this line of questioning, we're not going down that route anymore. Is that correct?

Of course, please, you're the chair. Thank you. You can always.

Can the county attorneys please explain procedurally what's going on? Because they're saying the withdrawal is of the rejection of the bids, but that's not something that we can do here procedurally, right? We have to withdraw the item altogether.

Commissioner Gonzalez, are you finished?

Yeah, I mean, I think I understand I understand where you guys are coming from so we don't have to go through the expedited scenario because we're going to get a recommendation correct through the chair that is correct.

Thank you, Chief. And so I still have just a few more questions, very, very quickly, but this is specifically towards the company that went to first place. When was the solicitation initially put out, Director?

May of 2025. So this procurement took a year. Is that correct?

So a lot has been said about the incumbent company. So Why was the possibility of working with the current vendor not explored prior to issuing the solicitation? Is there a reason for fixing the issues?

Of course, through the Chair? Yes. Right, so Director, why or Why was the possibility of working with the current vendor to fix the issues that we had, why weren't they approached or were they approached?

Right, but prior to the withdrawal, we were potentially going to work with the current company to fix certain issues, specifically when we talk about PCI compliances. So my question is really geared towards that and let me be a little bit more clear. specifically towards the PCI compliance, which is the biggest issue I think we have right now because of being able to accept the credit card payments. So with the PCI compliance, why was the current vendor not approached in order to fix this issue or were they approached?

Got it. Okay. So just to reiterate, you put out a solicitation because something was needed in addition to what we currently had. But also specifically, there was a PCI compliance that was necessary, right? Because without that PCI compliance, certain credit card companies would not accept payments from us.

But if we had been working with these folks for X amount of years, did they not have the capability to fix that?

Okay, so it wasn't part of their contract. When did we know that these upgrades that you're referring to were needed?

But I mean, we would have known at the very minimum when the hardware contract was awarded, right? That we needed upgrades?

So at the very minimum, November of 2024?

Commissioner, she might have not been here, but Chief Edwards was here, and so was Namira. So maybe somebody else can answer your question, because I don't think it's fair to say I wasn't here. There is a track record of everything we do here, right? So somebody can answer it, certainly, right? I wasn't here in 2024, but I know what was happening in District 6.

If they can answer the question, yes, please do.

But I think with all due respect, Director, I think that what the Chair is alluding to is it's your job to know.

so theoretically if we got the new hardware in 2024 at the very minimum by 2024 we knew that we needed an upgrade we were working on the rfp because we're working with old software correct and so so let's get back to the vendor right so how long has cubic the current vendor been under contract with the county because you said that we didn't include the pci in the contract but how long have they been working with the county perhaps that's a better question for the director Upad?

Okay. 2008. And when was the latest PCI data security standard released?

The correct answer is June of 2024. So it's my understanding that the current vendor is not PCI compliant. And this is one of the issues that we had, right? Meaning that they have not made the necessary upgrades to meet the latest standard. Is that correct?

So it's also my understanding that PCI starts stands for payment card industry data security standard and that compliance. That. It's literally what regulates the standard of how we take these credit cards. In fact, listen to this language taken directly from the PCI data security standard. PCI DSS provides a baseline of technical and operational requirements designed to protect account data or be enhanced by additional controls and practices to further mitigate risks and to incorporate local, regional, and sector laws and regulations. Is PCI compliance an industry standard? I think it is very

I'm sorry. I didn't recognize you. I will allow the answer to your question. I just don't want to turn it into a Q&A where everybody starts standing up. So go ahead, sir. You have a minute to respond.

And to the administration and to the county attorney's office, is there a reason why we didn't include being PCI compliant in the original contract with the original company? That's one. And then two, are we considering putting that language in the new contract?

Got it. But you're saying that for the future, we will include PCI compliance in our contracts.

But we weren't doing that before, even though technology is ever so rapidly changing.

Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair.

To the county attorneys, the way that Commissioner Gonzalez asked his excellent line of questions and the way that he received responses made it seem like this is pretty much an open and shut case. Only three should have advanced to orals, more than three did not, and so we're going to go back and we're going to renegotiate. But I'm not sure that I'm convinced that it's that simple. Because, and I'm going to ask a few questions in that regard, because. What I don't understand right now is what are you all going to do? Different than what you have done previously and how are the facts going to

I think it was an authentic response, but I'm not sure that it necessarily gave me the guidance on what specifically you're going to do different. And that's fair because I think the answer authentically is I'm not sure yet. I think the answer is I need to speak with the attorneys, which I think is fair. Before I go to the attorneys, I'm looking through a lot of paperwork that I have here on this and not included in the very slim six page item. What is the term of this contract? I don't see it written anywhere here. What is the term of the contract that these five companies bid on?

And the numbers that they bid when they submitted were, what were the numbers represented? What the number for the life of the contract? Um, give me, so there were five numbers submitted. There were nine numbers submitted. But the numbers as submitted were for the six year aggregate.

Okay, so I want to be clear. I need you to say that again, the numbers that were submitted from all of these proposers were aggregate numbers for the life of the contract, which was a 6 year term. Correct?

Okay. So. The numbers that were submitted. Number 1. 43 million in change. Movil, number two, 26 million in change. Three, Indra, USA, 30 million in change. Cubic, 46 million in change. INIT, 38 million in change. Cuba, 35 million in change. Flowbird, 11 million in change. Token, $14 million in change. Do those numbers sound accurate as far as the initial numbers that these proposers submitted?

Okay. And so here's what is particularly curious to me. And now I'm going to go to the attorney. So Bruce. At the beginning of our conversation, we spoke about new language and you said this, there was new language in this regarding the advancement of proposers and 3 advancing and that that was new language included in procurement as a result of a resolution that was passed by this board. And it's somewhat of a new situation for you all, because you included it to be consistent with that resolution. And I know what resolution you're referring to, because I was very much in support of that reso

But none of these proposers are proposing contracts of $25 million annually. Okay, but that's important, right? Because it's an aggregate. None of these proposers are proposing $25 million contracts annually.

Okay. So what you're saying is that policy is not what governs. It's the language in the actual RFP that governs. And you were tracking that language, even though that resolution doesn't necessarily govern or apply because it's not $25 million annually.

Correct. Okay. Um, And I bring that up because the spirit of that resolution was to allow, because there was an issue and there was a time where our selection committees were not reviewing proposals, particularly lengthy ones that were dense and that had high contract values. And we wanted to mandate oral presentation so that additional information can be gathered so that better decisions can be made. And that was the spirit of that item. And then to the attorneys, I am trying to understand the determination that was made that seems to be kind of carrying the day that only the top three ranked

I think it's February 9th, 2026. Okay. So the attorneys are there. All of the proposers reconvene and accounting attorneys there. They see that five proposers are there. Why wasn't there an opinion stated then? Whoa, wait a minute. We can't move forward. There's only supposed to be three of you.

Right. So are you saying that you weren't aware of the issue on February 9th, 2026 regarding the RFP being written such that it's your opinion today? I'm not suggesting that I agree with that opinion, but are you saying that you weren't aware at the February 9th, 2026 meeting that only three should have advanced or that you were not aware of the language in the RFP?

Okay. And the officer, I don't know the individual's names, but the officer that was part of the procurement that opined differently, that was aware of the language within the RFP, that knew that it said three will advance to orals, but specifically said, because of this situation of the points being so close and two proposers scoring tied, it's my professional opinion that five should advance to What is his title? I'm sorry, what is his title?

Okay. What was the title of that staff member that you just mentioned?

Okay, I'm asking for the title because it was my understanding that he was some sort of chief procurement officer. I could be wrong. Maybe that's not his title. But I ask for his title because it's my understanding that he asked for additional companies to move to Orals because that's common practice. Is that not common practice within your procurement department when two scores are very, very close to each other? that they advance in order to allow the selection committee greater information and access to greater information via the oral presentations.

Yeah, so I, and what I'm trying to, I think what I'm trying to lay out here is the. The language of the 3 topped ranked moving on to orals is not pursuant to this board's. Policy, because it's not applicable to contracts. In excess of 25M dollars annually, you all just threw it in there for good of the order. And then we have a. Procurement officer that has been doing this for years that made a judgment call is what it sounds like and in the right spirit in all defense of him to say, listen, these are really close. This is a very important contract. Let's hear from as many as we possibly can t

So there's not a deadline on the FDA funding. It's built in and we're safe when it comes to that. We don't risk. We are not at risk. We are not at risk at losing. Okay. So, so what I'm hearing and again, I appreciate the chief saying that we're not entirely sure of where it is that we are going, but. It is very clear to me that you all intend to negotiate only with the top three original ranked bidders on this RFP. And you may not be ready to commit to that or not. But that is what I am gathering because I've heard it now from the director of the department. I've heard it from the attorney. An

Okay, and thank you for that. And, you know, to our business community that is paying close attention to these committee hearings and every vote that we take and every decision that we make, you know, what do we need to do as a board? What do we need to do as the – we're not the administrators. We are the legislators. I can only – assume the frustration from our business community. Let me just say that safely. I can only assume the frustration. What can we do as a board to allow for this sort of fact pattern to not play out? And that's a conversation for another date and another time. But we h

Okay. So understanding, so it's the, then your response shouldn't be conditional. It's not, we would like that if it's withdrawn, it will be on our next agenda, assuming the PR the prerogative of our, of our chairman. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, madam chair.

Thank you. Thank you, commissioner in the recommendation. I would also like the inclusion of the explanation of the rationale for the application of the points that were given to pricing. The formula that was used for the RFP needs to be included. So I think we have all spoken about that, but I would like to see the rationale for the application of price, the weights given to price. And then I would also, I know you're bringing it back at the next commission meeting, but I would like to make it an official directive. So I'll motion a directive that this item comes back at the next committee me

So, I'll make the motion I 2nd, the motion of Madam chair, if I maybe recognize point of order on our rules, right as a committee. We cannot issue directives to the administration. Is that correct? We can as a body vote on items that would then have to advance to the board for final hearing in order for them to be. Directives and this is what I've learned recently, Madam chair. Otherwise it is a request for information, but the message is the same, right? We don't convene in August. So if we don't get it in July, we're talking about September. And I think that that would just be a situation th

I think if anybody's paying attention, so thank you. Thank you. I was following the instruction of the county attorneys on that. So I would like for them to clarify.

You mean what we did at the last committee hearing? Right. Right.

And Madam Chair, I just have to piggyback because I think what you said, I think what you instructed is probably the most important factor, especially after Commissioner Cohen-Higgins line of questioning, right? I think we need to be transparent, not only with the business community, but with everybody who applied for the RFP. as to what that point system criteria is and how we get to those points. I think that is something that we need and that needs to be made public so that nobody gets the wrong idea.

Yes, I agree. As part of that request, we want to make it clear that we want the explanation of the rationale for the application of points on pricing and the formula for the RFP. Okay, so with that, we haven't even set the agenda, so at this time, do we need to take an official, we don't need to take a vote on the withdrawal, okay. So with that, I will request any pulls or bifurcations from my colleagues. Commissioner Lopez?

2C, anybody else? Okay, can I get a motion to set the agenda? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay, so we will go into 2C, Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you, Madam Chair. So this is a question to the county attorneys. I just want to make sure that we all understand what we're doing here, because I think it could be a little confusing. So I want to set the record straight as to exactly what this item does and then what the future steps will be. In the in sort of the context of and as I understand it to my colleagues, I understand that. We had a lot of discussion in our zoning and CDMP meetings regarding and even in our board meetings regarding. Text amendments versus CDMP applications and clearly this takes us to some examples where text

Yes, go ahead. Thank you. So how does this intersect with Senate Bill 180? I think that's an important thing to put on the record as well.

So we're asking, we're directing with this item, we're directing the administration to do a text amendment application. Would they have to, because of Senate Bill 180, would they have to wait until October of 2027 to submit that to the state?

My response to your questions, and I guess my last question is. This wouldn't go into effect then until we get the state's comments back. In 2027, so applications that are in the process now would not be subject to this to this change.

Thank you commissioner. Any further questions on that? Okay. Do I, can I have a motion on Tuesday? Okay. Oh, go ahead. Commissioner.

Thank you. Madam chair. Have we done an analysis? I understand that it won't be applied retroactively. It certainly would apply to pending applications that are before the board that we're all very familiar with. Not, not that it would apply. It would have applied if it were in effect at that time, but have we done an analysis on, should this pass, um, How many applications it may affect or would it affect no applications that have already been submitted prior to the passage of this? Assuming it passes.

Yeah, because if I'm planning on doing something like this and I see this on an agenda, you may get 15 text amendments just to sideswipe this being enacted. So I'm trying to understand the universe of text amendment applications that are either sitting in your office or that you anticipate coming in your office, because I think the timing of this Or if you say it's not an issue, then it's not an issue.

Go ahead, Director. I just want to, everyone's gone over our time for the committee and the next one is waiting, so go ahead, Director.

Yes, it would not have effect on those already filed. And I'll learn from you directly on what those numbers and what that universe may be between now and final hearing. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. So we had a motion on this item. Do we have a second? Okay. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So this item passed. No further business.

Yes. And I also received a request for 2C to be waived to the next commission meeting as well. Yes. Do we need a motion on that? Okay. Okay. Do I have a motion to adjourn?