Melbourne Beach commission tables decision on RFQ for building-official backup services

Melbourne Beach commissioners on June 2 reviewed four responses to a request for qualifications (RFQ) for firms to provide building-official, inspection and plan-review services on an "as-needed" or backup basis and voted to table the matter while staff follows up with bidders on missing fees and clarifies the intended scope.

The decision came at a special meeting called to rank four companies that responded to the RFQ. Commissioners and staff spent most of the session discussing whether the RFQ should be handled under Florida Statute 287.055 (the Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act, CCNA) so the town could hold multiple consultant contracts, or remain a price-considered RFQ that could yield a single year-long agreement.

The issue mattered in part because an addendum issued May 6 removed references to the CCNA and made price part of the evaluation, a change commissioners said affects whether the town can enter multiple on-call consultant contracts. Town Attorney Ryan Knight warned the commission that "under CCNA, you cannot consider price," and said shifting procurement rules would require redoing the process.

Public comment included a resident who said flooding is affecting homes in a low-lying neighborhood and urged attention to infrastructure and equipment such as rental pumps; the resident said, "We are flooded in our homes." Mark Flower, another member of the public, urged a clearer, weighted evaluation framework for comparing firms: "You guys should be setting a common set of criteria of must haves and then nice to haves," he said.

Commission discussion focused on implementation and oversight: commissioners asked whether the town's newly hired building official had been told the contracts would be used only as temporary backup when the town employee is absent, and whether the building official should participate in evaluating the four firms. Town Manager Elizabeth Mascaro said the RFQ was issued in parallel with recruitment for a full-time building official and that the intent was for the contracted firms to serve intermittently (for inspections, plan review or short-term coverage) rather than replace a town employee.

Staff reported two procedural points that shaped the debate: two of the four respondents did not include fee schedules in their submittals (the names of those firms were not specified at the meeting), and some proposals described capabilities for online permitting and multidisciplinary services. Commissioners discussed prior experience contracting for inspection services and the trade-offs of a full-time town employee versus on-call consultants: cost variability, continuity of service, and local familiarity were raised as factors.

After discussion Commissioner motioned to table the item and direct staff to notify the four respondents that the town intends to use selected firms on an "as-needed" backup basis, to ask the two firms that did not submit fees to provide them, and to request any fee changes given the clarified scope. The commission approved the motion by voice, recorded as 4-1 in favor of tabling the matter.

No formal decision was made at the meeting to reissue the RFQ under CCNA. Commissioners discussed options including reissuing the solicitation on a CCNA basis so the town could enter multiple consultant contracts, or extending the current RFQ and collecting the missing fee information. Staff said it would follow up with bidders by email and prepare any addendum or next steps for a future meeting.

The item will return to a future commission meeting after staff reports back with the bidders' fee information and any recommended procurement path.