..

Lessons Learned

Although the Victor Diaz complaint against REG Architects fell short and some critics may now argue is a waste of public money, Miami Beach’s Debarment Ordinance is a hammer worth saving.  

Victor Diaz

A.C. Weinstein
Columnist 

After a two-year process, Miami Beach’s Debarment Ordinance, legislation to protect the city from unsavory contractors, concluded its first test with mixed results. It all began on December 13, 2001 when Miami Beach resident and local attorney Victor Diaz filed a complaint with City Manager Jorge Gonzalez, alleging the overall deficient performance of REG Architects, Inc. relating to the South Shore Community Center (SSCC).

At the time of the filing of the complaint, Diaz was a member of the GO Bond Oversight Committee, Historic Preservation Board and president of the not-for-profit One Stop Career Center located at SSCC. Though still president of the career center, Diaz no longer sits on the oversight committee and has been term-limited off the preservation board. Diaz currently serves on the Miami Beach Planning Board.

Diaz’s citizen complaint against REG alleged careless, sloppy and untimely performance on their architect and engineering contract with the SSCC, which then initiated debarment proceedings to go forward.

Under the Miami Beach Debarment Ordinance, requests for the debarment of contractors may be initiated by a city department or by a citizen-at-large and shall be made in writing to the city manager. Upon receipt of a request for debarment, the manager brings the complaint to the commission at a regularly scheduled meeting. The commission will then pass it on to a person or persons, charged with the duty of investigating and preparing a written report concerning the cause and grounds for debarment.

Debarment is serious business. If REG is found to be guilty of intentional wrongdoing, the company could be barred from doing business with the city for up to five years. Based on Diaz’s complaint to the manager, the commission moved the process along and authorized the manager to allocate an amount not to exceed $20,000 to investigate the matter.

On February 20, 2002 the manager recommended that Dan Davis be hired to perform investigative services. Davis is a highly respected attorney and engineer with offices in Coral Gables. His 44-page report, completed on July 31, 2002, is detailed, thorough and professional.

On October 16, 2002 the city’s Debarment Committee conducted a hearing, reviewed the report and listened to a presentation from Davis. Also present at the hearing, Colin Price, vice-president of REG Architects. The committee deliberated and member Todd Tautfest made the following motion, which was seconded by committee member Natascia Ayers Deshayes and unanimously approved by the committee:

“Based on the investigator’s report, as written, there does not appear to be anything found to substantiate debarment against REG. Therefore, I move to dismiss the complaint filed against REG Architects.”

The January 13, 2003 GO Bond Oversight Committee agenda package included the full chronology of the REG debarment process, including the Diaz complaint, Davis report and committee action. In fairness to Diaz, his complaint to the manager, according to Davis’ report, did raise some concerns with REG.

But those concerns did not rise to the level of intentional wrongdoing, which would have brought the committee to a different finding. Still, the Diaz complaint resulted in what Gonzalez concluded as “lessons learned,” in a December 9, 2002 summary report to the commission.

The Diaz complaint against REG was the first time the city’s Debarment Ordinance had gone through its process. The ordinance in theory and intent is a good one because it does give the city a heavy hammer to hold over the head of any contractor who, as the Diaz complaint was predicated upon, performs in an overall deficient manner with findings substantive to prove intentional wrongdoing.

From lessons learned with this first debarment process, the city attorney’s office in coordination with the administration will be recommending to the commission certain amendments to the Debarment Ordinance. It appears the weakness within the ordinance is in its failure to have a preliminary screening procedure in place to review the validity of a citizen complaint prior to the debarment process kicking in. 

Although the Diaz complaint did fall short and some critics of the ordinance may now argue that dollars were wasted, the commission should use the lessons learned to strengthen and fine tune the debarment process, rather than discard the legislation. Proven to be a successful tool in other governmental jurisdictions, the Debarment Ordinance is a good hammer for Miami Beach.