Miami-Dade panel rejects bids for Airport Operations Center, orders rebid after scoring ambiguity

A Miami‑Dade County committee voted to reject all bids for the Airport Operations Center procurement and directed staff to readvertise the solicitation, after county staff said addenda produced an ambiguity in how low bids were to be calculated.

Bidders and their representatives told the committee that the administration should instead award the contract to the low, responsive bidder. Brian May and Eric Singer, speaking for Lamar Tech, and Eric Sakela, speaking for Allied Contractors, each told commissioners the county should either honor the low bid or explain precisely how the solicitation calculates the low bid.

The administrationrepresented at the hearing by the department directorurged rejection. The director told commissioners the original invitation to bid specified that only line items 1 through 20 would be used to determine the low bidder; a later addendum added items (21—23) to the bid form without updating the solicitation language that specified the method of award. That discrepancy produced two different low‑bid calculations depending on whether evaluators summed items 1—20 or items 1—23.

The discrepancy produced a wide spread in totals reported at the hearing. Staff said that, counted only on items 1—20, Allied Contractorsthe bidder represented as a low bidder in public commentsubmitted a $17,300,000 price while a competing firm submitted about $20,700,000. When staff applied the full set of 23 line items, the same firmsas presented in committee materialsappeared with materially different totals (Lamar Tech and others reported different aggregate totals on spreadsheet extracts read into the record).

County procurement staff told the committee they consulted the county attorney and concluded that the solicitation is a price‑based construction invitation to bid and Florida statute 255.2 does not permit post‑opening negotiations in the circumstances at hand (exceptions include emergencies or no responses). Because of the ambiguity and staffoversight in not updating the method‑of‑award language after addendum 13, the administration recommended rejection and reissuance of the solicitation so all bidders can respond on a corrected, single set of terms.

Bidders warned commissioners that rejecting and rebidding could increase cost and delay the project. Attorneys for Lamar Tech said rejecting bids now would likely produce higher prices when the project is readvertised; Alliedwhich asserted it was the low bidder under the originally stated scoring methodsaid its price already included risk mitigation and that the disputed line items were for 29 computers whose cost could be procured separately.

Commissioners questioned whether the committee could simply apply the originally announced method (items 1—20) and proceed to award. Staff warned that doing so would leave unresolved how to obtain the goods or services listed in the later addendum (items 21—23) and could itself invite protest or change‑order risk. The county attorneyas summarized at the hearingsaid a rejection of all bids in these circumstances is not subject to a protest under the county code as recently amended, removing a protest pathway for bidders when the administration recommends rejection.

A motion to reject all bids and reissue the solicitation (agenda item 3D) carried on a 2—1 vote; Commissioner Gonzales recorded the no vote. Committee members instructed staff to incorporate the 486 RFIs and addenda into revised solicitation documents; staff said they could reissue the corrected solicitation in the coming weeks.

The committee also agreed earlier in the meeting to defer agenda item 3E to the November committee cycle, as noted in a supplemental memo from the mayor. The director said staff would return with a corrected solicitation and incorporation of clarifications produced during the extensive questions and addenda process.