Issued by the Chair Barreiro - As of Jan. 30, 2007
Airport and Tourism Committee
Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz Chair
Commissioner Sally A. Heyman Vice Chair
Commissioner Rebeca Sosa
Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez
Commissioner Joe A. Martinez
Commissioner Dorrin D. Rolle
Budget and Finance Committee (MARGINALLY SCARY)
Commissioner Joe A. Martinez Chair
Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez Vice Chair
Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz
Commissioner Katy Sorenson
Commissioner Rebeca Sosa
Commissioner Javier D. Souto
Economic Development and Human Services Committee
Commissioner Audrey M. Edmonson Chair
Commissioner Katy Sorenson Vice Chair
Vice Chairwoman Barbara J. Jordan
Commissioner Dennis C. Moss
Commissioner Natacha Seijas
Commissioner Javier D. Souto
Governmental Operations and Environment Committee THIS IS THE SCARY ONE:
Responsibilities:
The Governmental Operations and Environment Committee will oversee delivery of basic services to County residents, and provide guidance for smart growth policies and proper utilization of our natural resources.
Jurisdiction:
Building Department
Building Code Compliance Office
Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM)
Department of Planning and Zoning
Elections Department
Enterprise Technology Services
Government Information Center
Office of ADA Coordination
Office of Capital Improvements
Public Works Department (Non Surface Transportation Issues)
Solid Waste Management
Team Metro
Water and Sewer Department
MEMBERS of scary committee:
Commissioner Natacha Seijas Chair
Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz Vice Chair
Commissioner Audrey M. Edmonson
Commissioner Carlos Gimenez
Commissioner Joe A. Martinez
Commissioner Dorrin D. Rolle
Health and Public Safety Committee
Commissioner Dennis C. Moss Chair
Commissioner Rebeca Sosa Vice Chair
Commissioner Jose “Pepe” Diaz
Commissioner Carlos A. Gimenez
Commissioner Sally A. Heyman
Commissioner Javier D. Souto
Recreation and Cultural Affairs Committee
Commissioner Javier D. Souto Chair
Commissioner Dennis C. Moss Vice Chair
Commissioner Audrey Edmonson
Vice Chair Barbara J. Jordan
Commissioner Katy Sorenson
Commissioner Dorrin D. Rolle
Transit Committee
Commissioner Dorrin D. Rolle Chair
Vice Chairwoman Barbara J. Jordan Vice Chair
Commissioner Audrey Edmonson
Commissioner Sally Heyman
Commissioner Natacha Seijas
Commissioner Katy Sorenson
State Intergovernmental Affairs Subcommittee
Commissioner Rebeca Sosa Chair
Commissioner Katy Sorenson
Commissioner Javier D. Souto
6 comments:
If committees had a smell, this one mixing government operations, elections and the environment would smell like a dead rat.
how in the hell can anyone do anything about this!
And its not scarry that Cultural Affairs is chaired by anti-women, homophobic, narrow-minded, fundamentalist christians like ex-state senator from W.Miami Dade county Comm. J. Souto? Sure he cares about parks and playgrounds, but now we spent 500M on a performing arts center and put this man and his office in charge of arts funding!
Last anonymous: That is why we need comments so we can learn from you
Wow, that GOE Committee sure looks scary, with the absolute exception of Commissioner Gimenez. The defacto chair (Natasha), with the past chair (Martinez), add a bit of the Gov. aka Commissioner Rolle (incompetence and corruption), a touch of downright dumb (Edmonson), and the smart money's choice for next chair (if you only knew how baddy he has been kissing up to Natasha - It is seriously sick), Jose "I fish in Mexico on a developer's tab" Diaz.
Lets hope Commissioner Gimenez can out-manuver the chair on this one. I can see the potential for a real bad blow up between Natasha and Gimenez very soon!!!
Start on the bottom email and work your way up.
Maybe you should take a look at this. Looks like county government is cow-towing to companies that are unduly influencing decision makers in our government and screwing minority companies in the process. Ironically, on Tuesday, March 13th at 3:00 PM, the Budget and Finance Committee will be hearing recommendations for security guard contracts to various Small Business Enterprises. However, 50 State Security (mentioned below) has hired lobbyist Miguel de Grandy to influence the commissioners to throw out the RFP and eliminate the SBE program (established by DBD). If this matter is not covered by the media, 50 State Security may be able to unjustly eliminate a program that was meant to allow an even playing field for large companies and small. Please help and read this email.
This is a response to a letter sent from Mario Santana (of Department of Business Development) who is Marsha Jackman's (Director) assistant.
email starts below:
Mr. Santana
I appreciate your response to my inquiry, however, I don't know if you have all your facts in order. Per the date of the Burgess Memorandum, dated August 23, 2004, it stated that the County Manager "is directed, as a matter of law, to issue addenda deleting BBE, HBE and WBE measures from all county solicitations"
Contract No. 2051-3-/03 was awarded to 50 State Security on Jaunary 1, 1999 with 40% BBE participation goals applied. On April 17, 2000 security screening services at the airport were added to the contract via Addendum #2 (read Memorandum from Marsha Jackman dtd. March 8, 2005 in DBD files). How is the Burgess Memo have anything to do with the BBE goals that were applied in 1999-2004. This contract was already in full effect. To suggest otherwise would overlook that 50 State used the legal ruling in 2004 as an excuse for a contract that was already in effect from 2000-2004. You are not making any sense and I urge you to review the files in DBD.
50 State was awarded a court screening contract in 1999 and due to thefts ("ramp rats") at the airport another contract was added in 2000 with the same provisions. This new contract was piggy-backed to the 1999 contract and was under the same participation goals as the original. Maria Hevia who was the contract manager in Procurement understood that both contracts fell under the compliance measures of the original. However, DBD decided to ASK Carlos Bonzon, Interim Aviation Chief whether there was a "verbal permission" granted by the airport to 50 State Security. How is that possible!!!! Miami International Airport pays GSA to manage their security requirements and use existing contracts to solicit a vendor. They certainly don't make "verbal" exceptions to contracts. Only Procurement can legally change a contract and only DBD can change participation goals. WHy does the county need DBD if they can't govern participation goals and allow bully's to push them around until a favorable recommendation is made.
In a subsequent Memo from Carlos Bonzon to Marsha Jackman (dtd. April 15, 2005), there was no mention of who authorized an exception to participation goals except that they requred "certified screeners". 50 State was a "certified screener", but so was their BBE subcontractor, Milex Security. Nelson Oramas was important to this matter because he was claimed to be the person who "authorized" the exception to the participation goals because the airport needed "certified screeners". Later we find out that Nelson Oramas now works for 50 State Security. Don't you feel a little uncomforatable knowing that the one person who "authorized" an exception to participation goals now is employed by the vendor who received the "exception". You should question why DBD and Procurement have nothing to do with this. Why did Sheila Martinez not investigate this matter when the 50 State did not comply with the participation goals and measures. The monthly utilization reports should have been the catalyst for commencing the investigation back in 2000, but DBD did not respond until Milex complained in a letter to DBD.
I assure you that this matter is only going to escalate until you have remedied this situation with the BBE that DBD was supposed to protect. Why does Milex Security have to sue 50 State when all the evidence contrary to your findings are already in DBD files. If you allow 50 State to not be held responsible for screwing the BBE, you will set a new precedent that will eventually lead to the destruction of DBD and the programs that it supposedly "oversees".
50 State Security convinced DBD that it received verbal authorization from the Airport Administration to have an exception to their current contract for not having participation goals. DBD should have asked Maria Hevia whether there was an exception to the provisions and then requested the 50 State comply with the participation goals. Instead they wait for Milex to file a complaint and decide at the end that they would rather listen to the prime contractor and rule in their favor. I don't know why no one listened to Maria Hevia or Ian Robinson (Milex) for that matter.
Another problem DBD has is that per the Miami-Dade Contract with 50 State Security, on page 14, Item 3.3 Modifications In Service. I will read to you verabatum: "The County Administrator or his designated representative may at any time, by written instruction, or by verbal instruction followed with written confirmation, make changes to existing service, including but not limited to scheduling changes, and increases or decreases in the amount or type of service. Additionally, existing and new facilities or posts may be added or deleted from this Contract without restrictions as required by County. Such changes may, by necessity, require immediate implementation." Who authorized the exception to the particapation goals? Doesn't sound like the County Administrator or his designated representative knew anything about the "exception".
I urge you to reevaluate DBD's findings and you will see that this matter requires some attention. Debarment proceedings should be initiated against 50 State Security for failing to comply with participation goals that were established at the time of contracting.
Michelle S.
>From: "Santana, Mario (DBD)"
>To: Sandover, Michelle
>CC: "Jackman, Marsha (DBD)" ,"Clarke, Richard (DBD)" ,"Sori, Henry F. (CMO)" ,"Garcia-Navarro, Millie (Mayor's Office)"
>Subject: FW: Burgess Memo on Hershell Gill
>Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 08:56:21 -0500
>
>Ms. Sandover,
>
>
>
>Your recent inquiry concerning the subject contract was forwarded to the
>Department of Business Development (DBD) for review and subsequent
>response. DBD can offer the following:
>
>
>
>Attached you will find a memorandum from the County Attorney's Office to
>the Board of County Commissioners dated August 23, 2004 regarding the
>Hershell Gill Consulting Engineers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Dade County
>(Affirmative Action case - Architectural and Engineering services) which
>resulted in the abolishment of the entire Black (B)/Hispanic (H)/Women
>(W) Minority Programs. The memo also mentions another federal case (50
>State Security v. Miami-Dade County) where there was a challenge to the
>application of the previously mentioned B/H/W programs to the purchase
>of security guard services. The presiding judge stated that "should that
>case proceed to trial, and should the record be as constitutionally
>deficient as it was here, punitive damages will be a virtual certainty".
>
>
>
>DBD is the County department responsible for protecting small businesses
>and ensuring that measures placed on County contracts are met. In the
>case reference 50 State Security and Milex Security Services, our
>Contract Review and Compliance (CRC) Division, as part of our regular
>monitoring procedures, discovered this compliance matter. CRC thoroughly
>investigated and we feel strongly that its due diligence was performed.
>Meetings were held with representatives from General Services
>Administration (GSA) and 50 States Security reference this issue. The
>Miami-Dade Aviation Department was advised of the concerns to which they
>were notified this additional work to the contract had to be brought
>before the County's Review Committee. Please note that due to Hershell
>Gil case resulting in the abolishment of the B/H/W programs, the
>presiding judge's orders (specifically the 50 States Security case) no
>more action could be taken by DBD to hold any contractor to meeting
>goals reference B/H/W.
>
>
>
>In consultation with the County Attorney's Office and the referenced
>memo, the question was raised as to whether the additional work could be
>applied the existing 40% goal. The August 23, 2004 memorandum addresses
>this concern. The County Attorney's office considered this a new
>solicitation to an existing contract. The memorandum reads "for those
>solicitations containing BBE, HBE, or WBE measures for which bids have
>already been opened and no award has been made, the County Manager is
>directed to cancel those solicitations and re-bid them without
>measures". As such, a determination was made that 50 States Security
>could not be held responsible for the 40% goal on the added work.
>
>
>
>Please be advised as to the matter concerning Airport Security Director
>Nelson Aramas, Mr. Aramas had no input and/or influence in the decision
>making regarding 50 States Security/Milex Security. The facts stated
>above are the basis for our decisions and processes.
>
>
>
>Thank you and feel free to contact me if you have any
>questions/concerns.
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Gordon, Joan (DBD)
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 4:49 PM
>To: Santana, Mario (DBD)
>Subject: Burgess Memo on Hershell Gill
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Sandover, Michelle
>Sent: Monday, February 19, 2007 3:12 PM
>To: Santana, Mario
>Subject: INVESTIGATIVE PROBE INTO 50 STATE SECURITY
Details of 50 State Security failure to report airport services in the Monthly Utilization Report (M.U.R.)
In 1999, Miami-Dade county awarded court screening contract 2051-3/03 to 50 State Security with a 40% minority (BBE) participation goal. On March 14, 2001, Milex Security was added as the subcontractor
On 4/17/00, GSA added the airport employee screening services to the contract in Addendum #2 after the Fuel Farm is taken away from their private contractor. The Airport Security Director Nelson Oramas consults with GSA Security and piggy-backs onto 50 State Security’s GSA court screening contract (#2051-3/03) however, Milex (their BBE participation partner) is not given any additional hours (40% of the total contract) relating to the airport employee screening services.
On January 6, 2005 Ian Robinson, owner of Milex Security submits a request to Maria Hevia for information relating to an Award Sheet Addendum No. 3 dtd. 4/1/04. This award sheet apparently reflects 50 State Security contract covering Miami-Dade Courts, Government Center (Stephen P. Clark Center) and the Aviation Department. Milex Security asked whether they were entitled to 40% of the entire contract. It was subsequently forwarded to Sheila Martinez who asked “is this a new bid?”
On January 7, 2005, Yanira Soriano conducts an inquiry to Maria Hevia (DPM) asking her if this was a new agreement. Maria Hevia responded that it was only one contract and all BBE measures should have been applied to the original contract.
On January 21, 2005, Ms. Hevia responded to an email from Yanira Soriano with regards to any exceptions were made to allow 50 State Security to not include the airport as part of the 40% BBE measure. She declared that she was unaware of any exceptions made and if there were any, it would have be made be DBD.
A meeting was held on February 15, 2005 at DBD, between 50 State Security, GSA Security and DBD. Sheila Martinez declared that she had no information that the airport services were excluded from the original contract as 50 State purported. Ms. Martinez did contact Nelson Oramas who transferred to the Seaport who did not respond by the time of the meeting. Bennett (Skip) Shelfer of GSA Security stated the 50 State Security was brought into the airport after the “Ramp Rats” incident and remember that the airport services were added as a post location to the existing court screening contract. There was no discussion about why 50 State Security was “exempted” from BBE participation goals.
50 State Security never provided the hours worked at the airport in the Monthly Utilization Reports (MURs) and in addition stated that they did not provide the hours to Milex as they were unable to provide screening services (unqualified). Although Milex was qualified to provide screening services at the courthouses, 50 State Security claimed they were no BBE’s capable of conducting airport employee screenings.
Later in 2005, Nelson Oramas was again questioned by DBD as to whether 50 State Security was “exempted” and he responded that the contract with the airport was exempted because the contractor (50 State Security) could not find a qualified BBE that was capable of employee screening at the airport. At this time, Nelson Oramas was and continues to be an employee of 50 State Security.
On 3/31/05 contract 2051-3/03 ended.
QUESTIONS THAT SHOULD BE ANSWERED:
Under what authority did Nelson Oramas have to exempt 50 State Security from BBE participation goals?
If DBD is the sole authority to exempt companies, why did they concede power to make this decision to Nelson Aramas? Certainly DBD lacked leadership in protecting the interest of the minority contractors they were designed to protect.
Why didn’t DBD protect Milex’s interests after they questioned this issue?
Why didn’t the OIG take any action into this even after presented with the evidence that there was questionable activity between Nelson Aramas and his employment with 50 State Security?
50 State Security’s owner contributes to Katy Sorenson’s campaign and personally knows Commissioner Sally Heyman. His efforts to move attention away from this matter are already working.
Please protect the integrity and the survivability of the minority contractors that provide quality services to the county.
A civil action has already filed by Milex Security against 50 State Security because no one will remedy this situation.
Post a Comment