Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Stormwater Projects topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board reviews unsolicited design‑build proposals for Riverland and Melrose Manners stormwater projects as city readies bond funding
Summary
Public works staff told the Infrastructure Advisory Board that unsolicited proposals for Riverland and Melrose Manners prompted a 21‑day competition window; staff described proposed guaranteed maximum prices and a two‑year design/permitting/construction promise, while board members pressed on scope, easements and potential bond impacts.
Fort Lauderdale public works staff updated the Infrastructure Advisory Board June 1 about unsolicited design‑build proposals received for stormwater improvements in the Riverland and Melrose Manners neighborhoods and a city response that opened a 21‑day competition period to invite other offers.
Staff said the unsolicited proposals were submitted in December and that the city commission authorized a 21‑day competition window (the period began May 14 and was set to close June 4) so other contractors could submit comparable offers. The proposals would convert previously planned design‑bid‑build work into design‑build contracts intended to accelerate delivery.
Public works staff told the board the two proposals together were in the ballpark of $171–$172 million for construction. Staff said proponents proposed to finalize design, obtain permits and complete construction within about two years from notice to proceed, with liquidated‑damage provisions in the contract to hold contractors to schedule. City staff also noted conflicts with recently installed private utilities (electric, telecom, gas) that require redesign in some alignments and could add cost.
Board members probed whether the city would sign off on final design and what protections would prevent cost overruns or change orders shifting costs to the city. Staff said the intent is a guaranteed maximum price; contractors would carry responsibility for redesigns stemming from field conflicts as negotiated in contract terms, and the city would retain review and approval authority over design submissions.
Members raised procurement fairness concerns because unsolicited proposals were the vehicle for advancing the projects. "I understand it's legal, but doesn't mean it's fair for other contractors," one member said, urging transparency during the 21‑day competition. Staff said the projects have been discussed publicly for years and that design materials and plans were available through public records and prior meetings.
Budget context: staff said the city proposes a $330 million bond program to fund remaining phase‑one construction and initiate phase‑two design; the unsolicited proposals for the two neighborhoods are a substantial portion of the project estimates and will be tracked alongside bond spending. Board members asked staff to provide periodic updates and to ensure property interests (easements and land needed for pump stations and outfalls) are resolved in parallel with design work.
Next steps: the city commission will consider how to receive the competition results (anticipated on the June 16 agenda) and staff agreed to provide updates to the board on easement negotiations, procurement steps and tracking milestones for design and construction.
