At its September 25, 2017 meeting, pursuant to Agenda Item R9R, the City Commission held a discussion on whether to proceed with the evaluation and award of proposals received in response to Request for Proposals (RFP) 2017-074-WG (the “RFP”). At that time, the City Manager had expressed some concerns with the proposals received in response to the RFP, including the size and scale of the units and the relative newness of the technology that operates the kiosks. After discussion, the Mayor and City Commission gave the Administration direction to continue the evaluation of the proposals received.
At its February 14, 2018 meeting, the Mayor and City Commission adopted Resolution 2018-30196 approving the City Manager’s recommendation to short-list Orange Barrel Media LLC (“Orange Barrel “) and Smart City Media LLC (“Smart City”) for further consideration pursuant to the RFP. The Resolution required that Smart City and Orange Barrel shall install sample kiosk units for a demonstration period of approximately 30 days to provide the Mayor and City Commissioners and the general public the opportunity to interact with and understand the functionality and size of the kiosks. The City Commission selected Lincoln Road as the site for the installation of the demonstration units.
After coordinating an acceptable date with both firms for the installation of the demonstration units on Lincoln Road, the Administration issued LTC 193-2018, advising the City Commission that both firms had been authorized to install the units on or after April 15, 2018. The LTC also advised the Mayor and City Commissioners that originally the Administration had intended for each firm to place a survey on the demonstration units to collect information that could be provided to the City Commission from those that interacted with the units. However, both firms expressed concerns about the validity of the survey as there is no way to control who can interact with the units. As such, the demonstration period proceeded without the survey requirement. Instead, the LTC encouraged the Mayor and City Commissioners to visit and interact with the units to be installed, as well as encourage constituents to do the same and provide feedback.
On April 16, Orange Barrel Media installed its demonstration unit. On April 3, Smart City informed the City that it would not be able to comply with the April 15 installation date due to a death in its corporate family. On May 1, Smart City installed its demonstration unit. However, on May 5, the City’s Building Official ordered that the unit installed by Smart City be shut down for its failure to comply with electrical code requirements regarding the safety labeling of the unit. In an abundance of caution, the Administration shut down both units until the required safety documentation was provided. On May 7, Orange Barrel provided documentation that it had obtained the necessary safety inspections and labeling and its power was turned back on. On May 29, Smart City Media provided documentation regarding its compliance with the labeling requirements, and its power was also turned back on. Staff conducted daily inspections and found no issues with either unit.
CITY MANAGER’S DUE DILIGENCE
As previously stated, I originally had concerns regarding several factors surrounding the installation of the kiosks. For instance, the size and scale of the units being contemplated appeared to be out of place and inappropriate for installations throughout the City. I was also concerned with the technology and whether it had been time tested and was user friendly. Notwithstanding my original concerns, both short-listed firms have been determined to be responsive to the requirements of the RFP, as both of the proposers (1) addressed each of the City’s required specifications in their respective proposals, and (2) provided sample demonstration units that comply with the requirement that the technological portions of the units be similar in function to the kiosks sought by the City, i.e., that they be interactive and digital. The RFP clearly stipulated that the design of the sample demonstration units need not be consistent with the specific design proposed for the City of Miami Beach. For example, the RFP’s specifications required that the City’s graphical palette and content be integrated into the software. Clearly, this is a requirement that would only apply to the proposal developed specifically for the City, as it would be unreasonable (if not absurd) to require proposers to have previously deployed, in another jurisdiction, a sample kiosk that used City’s graphical palette.
Moreover, although I previously expressed some skepticism about whether the kiosks, and the technology that operates the units, were a “good fit” for our City, my prior concerns were made before I had the opportunity to more meaningfully interact with both units after they were installed on Lincoln Road. Now that I have had the opportunity to interface with, and use, the kiosks in their intended environment, I conclude that many of my original concerns have been addressed.
First, the demonstration units are much more size appropriate than originally anticipated. They certainly appear to be less imposing than the current static directories installed on Lincoln Road. Either of the units are significantly smaller in size and scale than the current static directories. I also acknowledge that the demonstrations units are not final designs (which will require approval of the City, and regulatory review by either the Design Review Board or Historic Preservation Board, depending on location), I am also encouraged that, in either case, the final kiosk will be designed in a way that is appropriate for the City, as both entities have indicated that they will utilize local architects that are very familiar with Miami Beach and its unique aesthetic and iconic architecture. Additionally, the final kiosk design and location must be in compliance with the Miami-Dade County Sign Ordinance, and the City’s contract with the proposer shall stipulate that the vendor shall be solely responsible for such compliance.
Regarding the actual technology that operates each unit, I had been concerned that by being one of the first jurisdictions to implement these kiosks, we might risk technology obsolescence in short time as newer and better models were developed. Both vendors, however, have indicated that future software and hardware improvements will be installed/substituted into the kiosks as they come on-line at no additional cost to the City. In that fashion, the kiosks could remain cutting edge from a technological perspective. The requirement to provide such updates free of charge must be part of the contract with the vendor.
As a result, I would now recommend that the City implement interactive digital media kiosks in appropriate locations. They are certainly less intrusive than our current static kiosks, and provide a much better customer service experience for our customers and far more extensive and real-time accurate information as well. I will note that the Lincoln Road District Master Plan prepared by James Corner Field Operations calls for such digital kiosks as part of the streetscape.
CITY MANAGER’S RECOMMENDATION
Let me begin by noting that the City is fortunate to have two finalists of the caliber of Orange Barrel and Smart City. Both firms have deployed their kiosks in a major city (Orange Barrel in Denver and Smart City in Kansas City). Both also have pending contracts/awards to deploy kiosks in various other major markets (e.g. Smart City in Louisville, Little Rock and Jersey City, and Orange Barrel in Coral Gables, Baltimore, Tampa and San Antonio). We are obviously dealing with entities that appear to be leaders in this field. Obviously, while reassuring, this fact also makes choosing one over the other more difficult.
My recommendation is to award to Orange Barrel. In reaching that conclusion, I relied on the following factors:
- In the quality and capability phase of the evaluation process, 5 of the evaluators ranked Orange Barrel in first place, and 6 of the 7 evaluators ranked Orange Barrel over Smart City. Quality and capability should be significant factors since this is a new technology that will be part of the impression that the City will be having on its residents and visitors. Furthermore, although the issue was ultimately resolved, it did concern me that Smart City took three weeks to address the safety labeling issue required by the electrical code. Safety is always paramount.
- With regard to the financial aspects that certainly are an important consideration, I understand that Smart City has offered the City 45% of the gross revenues generated by the kiosk. Orange Barrel has offered the City 31% of the gross revenues. However, translating the percentage of gross revenue to be retained by the City to actual dollars is challenging, as the final amount that the City could yield is completely dependent on the firm’s ability to generate revenue. In this regard, I find that Orange Barrel is a significantly larger organization that is well diversified into many areas of advertising and is operating in many markets across the country with a strong presence and network in the industry. Smart City, while well qualified in the field of digital kiosks, appears to be a smaller, less diversified player in the advertising industry. Orange Barrel would appear to have a better capacity to maximize revenues. Furthermore, since this is an RFP and not an ITB, the City can negotiate with the selected firm to improve what was offered financially. I believe we will be able to obtain a comparable percentage share from Orange Barrel to be applied to their gross revenues.
- I found that the technology of the Orange Barrel is more user-friendly and intuitive than the Smart City unit. When interacting with the units, I found it very easy to navigate the Orange Barrel unit. In contrast, I found the Smart City unit less intuitive and, therefore, not as user-friendly. I confess that I am not technologically savvy, but neither are many of our visitors and even some residents, and I think we want to make sure that the technology is accessible.
- With respect to content and programming issues, I think either vendor can deliver those aspects that we want. For example, Smart City’s unit did have more foreign language capability, but it is my understanding that the Orange Barrel unit can also offer additional languages. At the end of the day, the City will need to provide to the Vendor the specific content and programming we want, and the vendor will need to make it available in the unit to be deployed. Both vendors claim the ability to deliver any desired content and programming. We will only find out for sure once we start negotiations with the first.
Therefore, for the reasons noted herein, I recommend that the Mayor and the City Commission authorize the Administration to negotiate a contract with Orange Barrel. Further, should the Administration be unable to successfully negotiate a contract with Orange Barre, I recommend that the Administration be authorized to negotiate a contract with Smart City. The final contract would be submitted to the Mayor and City Commission for final approval before execution.
Notwithstanding my recommendation, at the February 14, 2018 meeting, the City Commission approved a Resolution authorizing that, following the demonstration period, each short-listed vendor shall make a presentation to the Mayor and City Commission that addresses, at a minimum, the following:
a. Proposed functionality, size, scale and final design.
b. Compliance with the Miami-Dade County Sign Ordinance.
c. How maintenance and performance issues will be addressed.
Both firms have been notified of the requirement to make a presentation to the Mayor and City Commission addressing the aforementioned. Each firm has been allotted a period of 10 minutes for the presentation.