Welcome to this morning's Airport and Seaport Committee. We are going to start this morning with a check presentation from our airport director. Good morning, Commissioner. Regarding our contribution and our effort at Miami International Airport to raise funds and awareness for breast cancer. And so if everybody that's here for the check presentation can join us, I'd greatly appreciate it. Please join us. So I'll have the director explain, but we have three events annually that I believe are 5Ks that are run on our different airports throughout. And I know that the event has grown over the years. I've been to them. I know the district commissioner has been to them. And so we're very, very excited to have this check presentation take place. Director. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. So, yeah, we're really proud of this. We've been having these races for the last six, seven years. They're very successful, very well attended. And every year, like you said, they grow a little bit more. So, so far this year, the two races we've had so far, it's a three race series. One at Miami Executive in March. One at Opelaka Executive in April. And then typically we have the really large one in October at MIA, which is attended by almost 4,000 participants, which is amazing. So this past year, in 2025, we raised our highest amount ever total of funds raised for making strides against breast cancer. Over $43,000 total raised by our department for the MSABC campaign. I want to give a special shout out to Frank Ruiz and his team at Rewind Miami. And they put on great events. And we really, really enjoy these events. I know you both have been there. You know, I run it. And a lot of people on our team run it. It's a great event. So, so far this year, at Miami Executive in March and at Opelaka in April, we had our two biggest events at those two airports. So it keeps growing and growing. I think we had almost 1,500 people at Miami Executive, which is huge. And at Opelaka, we had about 1,800. So we're looking at probably close to 4,000 at MIA in October. I'm really excited about that. So it's a great program. We want to continue doing it and work together with Frank and his team to do it. So with that, I want to go ahead and have you make that presentation, both of you. This is the check for $43,076 to making strides against breast cancer on behalf of what's the date for the October event? October 17th. Yeah, so it'll be nice and cool for the run at MIA, hopefully. Yep, that's it. That's why we do the big one during that month. And that, like I said, we're anticipating, I think last year we had about 3,500 racers. So this year we're expected to have close to 4,000, if not more, and not counting other people that show up, like people that go to see people run, et cetera. So it's a really, really great event. Looking forward to it. Thank you. I think we should challenge the commissioners to run the 5K and to raise money. So we always support every year. We're so grateful and thankful that this much money has been raised, and hopefully this year we'll even outdo that number. Thank you all for the work that you do at the American Cancer Society, and, of course, on behalf of Breast Cancer Awareness. You want to speak? Of course. As you can see, it's obviously a team effort to do this. More than 2 million people will hear the words, you have cancer, in one year. So this really means the world to us and makes a huge difference. So we thank you for your partnership, for everything that you do, not only just in Miami-Dade County in general. I mean, you go to the airport during October, it's everywhere. It makes a difference. So thank you so much for this, and we feel honored to work as partners with you. Congratulations to the airport. This is a great initiative. I encourage our community to come out to this event. It is beyond it being for a good cause. It is so, so cool to run on a runway, on a live runway. So I want to thank you for everything you've done for our airport and everything that this group is doing for breast cancer. We all know somebody who's been impacted by it, and this is a little bit of what we can do to give back. So thank you. Congratulations. And we look forward to the next one in October. Thank you. Good morning. Will the clerk please call the roll? Good morning, Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Hargerman, Commissioner Milian Orbis, Vice Chairman Gonzalez, Chairwoman Cohen-Hinges. Good morning. I'm present. For members present, we have a quorum. Welcome again, everyone, to our Miami International and Seaport Committee. We are going to have prayer led by Commissioner Gilbert, followed by the Pledge of Allegiance led by Commissioner Milian Orbis. Please rise. At this time, we'll open the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. I have one speaker card. You'll have two minutes. Please give us your name and your address. Jorge Luis Lopez. And anyone else wishing to speak and address this body, now is your opportunity. Good morning, Madam Chair, honorable members of the commission and this committee. My name is Jorge Lopez, offices at 2665 South Bay Shore Drive, Miami, Florida. I represent Basketball Properties. We're here today on item 3G and supporting the staff recommendation for deferral. I'll be available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Any other speakers? Now is your opportunity. Seeing no other speakers, reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now closed. To the attorneys, are there any changes to this morning's agenda? Good morning, Madam Chair. A couple of preliminary matters to announce on item 3G. Madam Chair, you've been listed as the prime sponsor of this item. Also on item 3G, I've been informed that the administration is seeking deferral of this item to the next committee meeting. A motion to set your agenda is in order. I'll entertain a motion on the agenda. Second. It's been moved. It's been second. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no? Our agenda this morning has been set. And item 3G has been deferred. To my colleagues, are there any items that you would like to bifurcate or discuss? We do not have any public hearing items on this morning's agenda. Madam Chair, I just have a question on 3F. 3F? We will. Let's take up 3F now. You are recognized. Thank you. Yes, so to the director or your administration, so this is, you're redoing the roof, correct? Yes, ma'am. Are you considering solar panels as part of this renovation? That's correct, Commissioner. This project will replace approximately 410,000 square feet of roof. It will be done in four phases over a four-year period. And it will include additional solar panels in those areas that we look to expand to our parking garages as well to lower, I mean, not to save money, to be able to allow us to reduce our electric bill, et cetera, by doing that. Okay, so as you redo the roof, you will be installing the solar panels? Correct. The roof will be done in phases. I don't know exactly when the solar panels will be done, if they'll be done after all of it is done, or they'll be done in the individual phases. But, yeah, obviously the solar panels will be installed after the roofing work is completed on each individual phase. Okay. And as you go replacing the roof on other parts of the airport, is that the same plan? For now, these solar panels apply only to this project. We are looking to expand the solar panel program to also have solar panels on the roofs of our Dolphin, Flamingo, and our new Ibis garage as well. Ultimately, if we implement all those phases, we'll be generating close to seven kilowatts of power, which is a big number. I think if my numbers are correct, it will make us the airport with the highest power generation in the state, and obviously will serve to reduce our power consumption, which is a good thing. Okay. Thank you. I'll move the item with that. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Gilbert moved the agenda. I'll second. Second. I do want to have a quick discussion with our director, please, on 3i. I'm supportive of the item, but I mentioned the item during our previous BCC hearing regarding sole sourcing, efficiencies, and continuity of service. I would like for you, on the record, to give a brief description of 3i and the savings that you all anticipate yielding as a result of this item. Sure, Madam Chair. Thank you so much for allowing me to speak on this item. So what we did was, as part of our implementation of our now soon-to-be $14 billion capital program, we took a look at all of the projects in the program, which total more than 208 projects total, and we identified about 13 projects, five very significant ones, those being D60, both phases of central terminal, and two north terminal gate optimization and gate infrastructure projects, which have significant amounts of long-term sole source components within them. So knowing that that is in there, we had our consultant do a comprehensive analysis of all those projects and come up with, you know, number one, what the approximate cost savings would be, and I think it's a conservative estimate. It's probably more. And also, what impacts would there be both operationally and from a schedule standpoint, given the mandate that this board has given us to try to implement the capital program as quickly as possible and in a fiscally responsible way as possible. So what the study yielded was approximately more than $302 million of savings by going ahead and doing this, and also we would experience significant schedule, avoid schedule delays as far as having to tear out existing infrastructure to be able to accommodate new systems. So what's behind this is this allows the mayor to essentially be able to specify on the projects listed under the exhibit attached to the item, those 13 projects, the ability to sole source, to solicit for or specify sole source components or systems within those items, which would allow those systems to integrate with our existing systems. Again, it would reduce costs, have less of an operational impact, and allow us to complete the project sooner. So that was the mindset behind doing that. It makes fiscal sense, it makes schedule sense, and it makes sense as far as the implementation of our program, which is why we're requesting that. And it is limited to the projects listed in the exhibit. So we have many other projects that will be open for competition, et cetera. And thank you for that explanation. I could be wrong, but I believe that the item speaks to a dollar amount that you all anticipate saving as a result. What is that dollar amount? That is more than $302 million plus or minus that we anticipate. In my opinion, that's a conservative estimate. It's an order of magnitude estimate. I think it will be a lot more than that, considering some of the components that are some of the sole source components that are identified, such as building management systems, airfield lighting systems, access control, things that would require significant tear-out of existing infrastructure, and then have it replaced with whatever new infrastructure will be procured. So what this does is it allows us to specify that in the competitively procured advertisements that we're going to be putting out for the CIP. Okay, and so just to be clear, you said $300 million is a conservative estimate? Correct. Thank you for that. And really quickly, we are entering into FIFA season as soon as next month. Yes. Do you mind giving us a brief update on the improvements that our airport has done to prepare for FIFA? I think this might be the last committee hearing that we have as an airport committee prior to the deluge of visitors that we are anticipating as early as next month for the games that we are hosting. Sure, so it's earlier this year and around February, you know, our mayor established our Ford Flight Task Force, and under that task force, we have moved forward with a lot of beautification projects throughout all of our facilities, from pressure cleaning, painting, striping. We've done lighting improvements throughout the terminal, specifically to make sure that as much as we can, given the fact that we have a big capital improvement program coming down the road, that we have those areas as beautified as possible. We're working directly with the Greater Miami Convention and Visitors Bureau, as you know, Madam Chairwoman, to install murals at our North Terminal baggage claim and in other areas, LED digital signs at our information counters that have views of Miami. So anything we can do to beautify those areas where we're going to have that influx of about 1.2 million more passengers during the World Cup, we're working on that. We're also working typically before Formula One and other large events. We work very closely with the state attorney's office on their human trafficking program, and we install signage in all of our restrooms and throughout the terminals to make sure that people that are in the terminal are able to identify any, you know, potential human trafficking situations, et cetera. So we work very closely with them on that as well. So I'm glad that you bring that up because when I visited the state attorney last week, we had this discussion regarding signage. And when we hosted the Super Bowl a few years ago, I mean, our county was covered in human trafficking awareness signs, which I thought was amazing. Is our airport going to reflect a similar level of commitment to human trafficking and put up signs in the bathrooms and on panels, so on and so forth? Is that in the works? Yes, that's correct. And like I said, we do that every year. We've been working with the state attorney's office on that for the last three to four years. On specifically that, signage in our restrooms, which are one of the areas that are most trafficked, and other areas throughout the terminal, we also put up on our digital signs, we put up some of the human trafficking information that rotates on our digital signs as well. So, yeah, we're working on that. Perfect. Awesome. And one final update. I know there was an item on our agenda 3G that was related to concessions. It was probably about a year ago that I passed an item, and then a subsequent item creating a pool of potential businesses for our airport. Can you give us an update on that concessionaire program, how it's going along? I know there are a lot of timelines that were built into that original agreement, and whether or not those that were in the pool that was created have had an opportunity to bid on any new spaces at the airport. Sure. So, if you recall, April 1st of last year, our board approved what amounted to a 15-year extension to a lot of our concessionaires at MIA. That 15-year period includes a three-year implementation phase at the very beginning of the process. We are currently in that implementation phase now, which is design, construction, et cetera, of the refurbishment of those spaces. So, we're currently going to be entering into phase three implementation, now May 23rd. We are already fully engaged in phases one and two, where we have either concessions under design or being renovated under construction. We've already completed, I believe, one. We have one that's starting construction today. So, that is moving along nicely. There's a couple of areas that are slightly behind schedule, which we look to recover in phase three. So, that's moving along very well. So, and then we also have, we're in discussions with those in the market, some of the concessions in the marketplace area, as you know, which were not part of that concession agreement. So, we're finalizing discussions with them on that. And then I think we have two of our service contracts, one that we already finalized, and another two that we're close to finalizing negotiations on. So, we're making good progress on the concession program. The goal being that in the next three years, the implementation part of it will be done. The spaces will be renovated. Obviously, those will not be done in time for World Cup, because that's about a month and a half away. But our team is working very hard on getting that done, and we're making good progress here. And thank you for that update. And not in the next three years, because we passed it a year ago. It was a three-year timeline then, right? And everybody, as far as I know, is on track and meeting those deadlines. So, hopefully, as soon as two years, right, we will see. Oh, yes. Okay. You will see that. And we are also working, I forgot to mention, since you asked, we are also working on the pool of 45 firms that was created. There's a couple of spaces that hopefully will become available, and those will be working on the solicitations to get those bid out. So, we'll have an update for you on that in the next few weeks. Thank you. Thank you, Director. Any, Commissioner Gilbert, you're recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just, I know this is late, but I want to bifurcate out 3I. I'm not necessarily. So, you're not calling these legacy contracts? But, essentially, they're legacy. Well, the systems, the systems that are currently at MIA, Commissioner, they are legacy systems. What these are, they're sole source solicitations that will specify some of those systems in that. So, I mean, if you want to call it that, but. Yeah. So, what you're saying is, and I'm going to bring this up, because I saw a nominee here before, and I was just on a panel with the mayor in front of the Miami-Dade chamber. We were all there, and we talked about one of the ways that we could, you know, have inclusion in our economy of the things we do here. And one of the things I spoke out against is our rampant use of legacy awards. You're still. And not that I'm against the system. And I might eventually vote for this at commission, but I want to go through it with you all, because what you're essentially asking me to do is take your word. The mayor and administration, you're asking me to take your word, that it will save this amount of money, and to give her discretion to make the purchases, or to say, hey, whoever we're going with, you have to use this. And I've had, like, intermediate success with, like, you all are betting, like, betting 50-50 with me on when you say something's going to happen, it happens just like that. You might intend to happen like that, but most times it hasn't actually happened like that. So you want me to take your word on, what's this, like 50 different things that are legacies, which I am predisposed to be against, because what we're saying is who we were with will always be with them. And if we don't ever make the choice or at least have an evaluation on whether something can be in the short term more expensive to replace, but a better technology and save us money in the long term, we're not going to have that conversation on this board. We're going to delegate that authority to the mayor. And I'm not necessarily, I have to become more comfortable with this. So we could bifurcate that out, please. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. Anyone else? Commissioner Hardiman? Good morning, everyone. You know, I thought it was just a bit unusual when you use the term sole source and savings. I just haven't found sole sourcing to be a matter of savings because it's little to compare it to. So how do you say that you have a savings or you intend to have much savings if it is in fact a sole source? Because sole source typically is a service or a product that's being offered that's not offered or provided by anyone else. So therefore, there's no need to compete because that person is the one that has it. So I'm imagining it's what it just seems a little strange when you're talking about services that are already being provided or new services or products that you intend to provide so that, you know, I hear what you're saying. I want to believe you, but I'm just having some trouble in my experience with sole sourcing. So, if I may, Commissioner, the way you save money in these situations is some of these systems, which have been at the airport quite some time, we can use several examples. Let's say Honeywell, which has had building management systems at the airport for many years, or our airfield lighting systems. If you go with a new provider, typically all of these systems, and now Monica can bear me out on this, they're proprietary. So when you sign them up, you're with them for a long time. At the end of the day, if you have to tear out all the existing infrastructure so that it can be integrated or communicate or work with the new projects we're installing, that's where the savings come up because you don't have to do all that tear out and all that replacement of that infrastructure. You're bringing in the new project, and then whatever technology is in the new project that has that same sole sourced product can integrate with what's existing. That's where the savings come in. It's a matter of not having to tear out what's there, and then also the time savings that you get from there, which says time is money. You also save money when you have less delays in the schedule. That's where the savings come from. So just as a matter of reply, I'm not going to use a sole sourced item, but I'll use an item. Say, for instance, wiring, right? Say there's some new wiring that comes about 20 years ago, and we call it Cat 4, right? And then someone says, oh, if you thought Cat 4 is special, this new Cat 7 is really special. The Cat 4 is installed with the sole source contract. You have to take out the Cat 7. I mean, take out the Cat 4 to install the Cat 7. So I just haven't seen many products, and if you can, describe something that the old technology, like the Cat 4, you could just basically tap into it with the new technology. I mean, most companies want you to buy the service and the hardware. Right. So I'm trying to help me get over that. Sure. So I'll give you an example of how that particular concern is typically resolved. When you enter into a contract like this, I'll give you Honeywell as an example. Honeywell, under their contract, are required to keep us updated with the latest technology as part of their contract. So when we enter into these contracts, these sole source contracts, part of those contracts would include, as far as the maintenance of whatever systems are going to be installed, that have to keep us updated with the latest technology. We've done that on the Honeywell contract where that exists. So that is one way of addressing that concern that you mentioned. Anything further, Commissioner Hardiman? Commissioner Gonzalez, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, Director, I think my colleagues have brought up, you know, some issues that I'd like to understand the broader picture. So have we sent these out for RFP? No. No, that we're waiting for this to happen. So these have never been sent out for RFP? That's correct. We had two contracts that were advertised, and then those advertisements were put on hold until this was done. But the rest of them are listed in Exhibit A of this item, and we're waiting to issue those procurements until, I mean, some of them, the procurements come later, like D60. Obviously, we're going to be advertising in the next month or so. But some of the other ones, Central Terminal is in final design. So those construction contracts are not going to be advertised for, like, a year. But we're trying to stay ahead of it so we don't impact our schedule, and we can go ahead and address that now. I'm just trying to understand when exactly we came to the conclusion that these were sole source. Well, as I mentioned, we did a comprehensive analysis of all of our systems as the CIP was moving forward. We acknowledged that that situation existed, and then we had one of our consultants do a comprehensive analysis of the systems that would be impacted by potential new systems coming in and delaying projects and or resulting in higher costs. So then, as a result of that analysis, we came up with the projected estimated savings that I mentioned previously. And when exactly did we go through this analysis? I would say a couple of months ago. I can get you the exact date. I don't know that off the top of my head, but not very long ago, recently. Thank you. Anyone else? Commissioner Gilbert? Yeah. So before, I wasn't sure I didn't like it. Now, after you spoke for a while, I'm sure I don't. Yeah, I'm sure I don't. It's because every time you say the word sole source, it's like somebody taking their fingernails and just going down a chalkboard because you're saying sole source, but you are literally describing legacy projects. That's what you're, and I don't think, I think you didn't, you all didn't put that in the title of this because the visceral reaction you expected from this commission, if you actually labeled something a legacy project, since we've been talking about staying away from legacy projects. So you're saying, and Commissioner Harnham's question was really appropriate and kind of revealing, it's not a sole source. It's definitely not a sole source. There are options for all of these things. It's just cheaper to keep these things because we already have them. That is what you're saying. That's the definition of legacy. So now I have to actually engage in the self-imposed cognitive dissonance to understand that you, I have to trust you that you act, these are actually legacies that we need when I can't even trust you to get the title right. The title of the item is wrong. And maybe this isn't you, it's not you, Ralph. This is Jimmy, Chief. The title, he's literally describing a legacy project. It's literally. Describing a legacy project. He's literally saying this is not a sole source. It's just cheaper to stay with the people that we have. And that can be a valid argument. But then we have those conversations as policy conversations. And you're asking us to waive the authority to actually have the conversations as policy conversations. And whatever the mayor says is needed. So if it's going to be cheaper, it's going to be faster, without regard to whether it's better or forward-looking, that's what we're going to do based on what you said. And I could maybe trust that. Maybe I can get there to trust that. But right now, I can't even trust the title. Through the chair, Jimmy Morales, Chief Operating Officer, Commissioner, the term sole source is because that's how these contracts are described under Florida statute. You are only going to one source for this particular product. We're still putting out competitively the overall project, whether it's a D60, whether it's something else. But in the contracts, you're telling that whatever contractor in that competitive process, that when it comes to fixing, for example, the Honeywell, implementing Honeywell, you're going to have to use these parts because they're – and it's true. Honeywell is a legacy contract. The contract we're putting out is just telling them they have to buy their spare parts, I think. Would that be accurate? Their parts and whatever new systems they install will have to integrate with the existing systems. Can I just – I want to push back on that because I don't think the Florida statute – and maybe we can just pull it up and read it. I don't think it's because you're going to one source. I think sole source is because there is one source. Because going to one source would just be a directed purchase. Like, that's just a waving of solicitation. A sole source is when there is a sole source or something that is not reasonably attainable alternative. So, if you're saying that we've been – we're going to define sole source as anytime we just decide to go to one person and that's the actual waiver, because I'm pretty sure that the understanding that we've been laboring on on this commission is that this is the only people – and I'm pretty sure we've been laboring under that assumption because you all said it. So, if we would have a completely different problem with regard to trust, if the previous arguments – and we can go back and pull up tapes and we can make a catalog of them for you – when you describe sole source as this is the only place we can get it, if the actual law is this is the only place we're going to get it from. I would – that's so different that it would be astounding. Jimmy? Commissioner, I did not mean that it's only because we're going to one source. At some point, a decision was made years ago to buy a particular system, and we'll keep using Honeywell. When you committed to that system, the replacement parts and things like that were only available from Honeywell. You can't take the IBM or the something else and put it into their system. That's my understanding. So, it's a sole source in a sense that only Honeywell has the spare parts and the software upgrades and everything to their system. And so, yes, the legacy system is when we purchased Honeywell. Now, when we're hiring a contractor to upgrade an area at the airport, all we're saying to them is the only – with respect to these things, there are sole sources because anything that you're going to do to the Honeywell system needs to be purchased from Honeywell. Yes, exactly. What we're saying is – so, that's exactly what we're saying, and I appreciate it. That's candid. That is what we're saying. And so, we're going one step farther. What we're saying past that is, so, when you all bid, no matter the different companies that are bidding, you have to use this as the – Or those components. Or those components. You have to use that. Because all bid may be – I'm sorry, Commissioner, go ahead. So, yeah. No, but you're right, Ralph. I appreciate that. So, going back to Commissioner Hardiman's analogy, CAT 4 and CAT 7. So, we would never get – if everyone is CAT 4 there, we would never get any proposals with CAT 7. So, we would never be able to consider a solicitation with CAT 7. Even if CAT 7 costs more, it would rank differently. It would have a different ranking. But they get the chance to make the argument that this is more forward-looking. It's better for service. This will cost you less in the long run. They don't ever get to make that argument, because we locked them into the system, into an airport that this commission has said that they weren't happy about. So, you're locking what is into place, even though you said you weren't happy with it. And so, if we're comfortable with that, then do it. But let's be clear. When we're blaming the administration on this dais about what we perceive to be – and I have not been one of those commissioners – perceived to be the shortcomings of the airport, remember that with every decision you make that establishes legacy contracts, you reaffirm that what is will be, period. That is what you do. And so, let's not come blaming them later. It was our choice. It was our choice. And sometimes we neglect our responsibility in this process. This is a very big thing you're asking us to do. You're asking us to literally delegate our budgeting authority and our procurement authority is largely what this board was put here to do. You're saying delegate it on all these items to people, telling them, hey, you have to use these folks because this is what the other folks before you used. Without regard to how that affects the long-term outlook, and I don't know that that is a wise policy position. But I assume that this moves forward out of committee. I'm not going to vote for it, but I'll have conversations. You all can have your chance to convince me on each item, like on each item why this is important. Because the other thing is the sheer number of the items. Like you didn't – I guess, you know, that's that whole theory. If you're going to get punished by your parents for staying out late, don't come in at 1201. If your curfew is at 12 o'clock, come in at 5 o'clock in the morning, spend it, go, do your thing. You all are going to just do your thing with this one. You swung big. So, I mean, I get it. I get it. But I'm just interested in the individual, like how all of these have to be locked in. Yeah. Commissioner, we would be glad to sit with you and walk you through and brief you on that. I wanted to clarify two things that you and Commissioner Hartman brought up. So, the issue of the Category 4 wiring versus Category 7 wiring, all that will be addressed in the design that goes out. So, the design that gets issued as part of the solicitation or that the solicitation is based on will include information saying that we have to be provided with the very latest technology. So, that is covered in the design documents that go out, number one. Number two, as the chief mentioned, you know, this only applies to about 13 projects of the 208-plus projects in the CIP. That's the second thing. But thirdly, and the most important thing is when the projects are issued, say central terminal renovation or D60, et cetera, those projects include a slew of different components, concrete, steel, roofing, et cetera. So, the actual delegation of authority is for those limited systems that we currently have in place that would require a significant amount of tearout. So, there's a lot of opportunities within those contracts that are going to be issued for a lot of other businesses to be able to compete for. All we're asking for is authority for those limited systems, which are limited in the item, which have been around for a long time, and which require a significant amount of work and delays in construction to tear amounts. And that's really it. It's a limited authority. It's not that broad. Just to those projects and just to those systems within those larger projects. So, you can have, take these 60s, a $1.1 billion total project cost project. Whatever systems are in there that will be part of these legacy systems is a percentage of that, but it's not the overriding amount of that $1.1 billion is my point. So, we're asking for authority just because it's going to be better from a fiscal perspective, and you mentioned that as well, and also from a schedule perspective as far as getting the CIP done quicker. That's all. There's nothing nefarious behind this. We're just trying to make sure that we follow the board's mandate and get this done as quickly as possible. That's all. So, Madam Chair, that's an important component. And let me just suggest in the future, how about you just lead with that? Okay. Not the sole source. This is why we think we need to use these. It's going to be substantially cheaper and substantially faster. Yes. We tell everybody that when you bid, you have to use this because this will add this much time and this much money. So, if you just tell the unfiltered truth, like, don't make me ferret through. Don't make me, like, because clearly when I'm looking at this, I know why you avoided legacy. I wouldn't be surprised if I'm the reason you avoided the word legacy. It's in there. Yeah. So, why wouldn't we just tell the truth then? Just, hey, you know what? This is going to be so much cheaper and so much faster. That is the truth. We need to do it. That's the truth. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. I, the conversation is an important one because when I was presented with this item for sponsorship, my reaction was the same as yours, Commissioner Gilder. I was like, what do you mean, delegated authority on this, that, and the other? I literally had the conversation that you just had on the microphone with the airport. But when it was described to me and given specific examples, for example, your key cards is one of the examples, right? Access control. This is the first time in 20 years that Miami International Airport has had the opportunity to build an entire new terminal, Terminal K and D60. First time in 20 years. The idea here, and again, Commissioner Gilbert, I weighed exactly the concerns that you have raised, and that's why I brought it up at our last BCC hearing, because I said I want to look into this to make sure that we are very, very cautious on extending legacy contracts. And in fairness, the item does refer to legacy systems repeatedly. Under the Fiscal Impact Funding Source, it says time and time again, because legacy systems span multiple project boundaries, assigning a discrete cost to each individual capital project for integrating new terminal-wide system. A new terminal-wide system is not practical. Moreover, updating or replacing existing legacy systems to accommodate alternative manufacturers would be neither feasible nor economically justified. And there's more reference to legacy. And so I'll speak with the attorneys to understand the language decision between sole source and legacy, but the key card example made sense to me. When we're building an entirely new terminal for the very first time in 20 years, we don't want Terminal K to have key card system A installed, while the rest of Miami International Airport is already using successfully key card system B. And key card system B, under contract, is obligated to always give us updates to make sure that we're not using CAT 4 from 10 years ago, but these are software systems that update regularly, and it's within their contract, like the Honeywell contract, for example, that within that vendor, those pieces, those parts, the extension of those systems will always be updated, and we're not relying on data technology from 10 years ago. So when we have conversations on this dais about moving at the speed of business, we want our airport improved, and we want it improved yesterday. We want things done in the most cost-efficient manner that we can possibly accomplish, and we don't just budget in September. We budget with every single committee hearing and Board of County Commissioner hearing. I took all of that into consideration to say, okay, I get that this is a big, you know, swing for the administration, but you all had outside consultants come in and do this work. It wasn't done internally. You all had an analysis done that says this is where savings can be yielded and efficiencies can be created. And so for that reason, I am supporting this item because it is literally what we have been asking the administration to do time and time and time again, find efficiencies, find ways that we can save money, find ways that we can do projects at the speed of business and bring it online faster. So I think that a briefing with the commissioners on this, whether it's this committee hearing or at the final BCC, is really important because I think at first glance, the item has an impact that is like, whoa, I'm not delegating authority to anybody at this magnitude. Um, but to yield the outcome in this very kind of specific itemized way, I think overall is a good thing for Miami international airport, but I want my colleagues to feel comfortable with that. I understand that there may be some consternation, so I'm, I'm going to follow the will of the board, um, and continue listening to my colleagues. Commissioner Gonzalez, you were recognized. Thank you, Madam chair. And, uh, you know, I, I happen to agree with a lot of what the, uh, what the chair has, has stated because at first glance, um, it seems like we're kind of avoiding the bidding process. And that's why I asked you, but, but that, that, that, that's exactly why initially I asked you if anything had ever been RFP, um, because to commissioner, uh, Gilbert's point, um, if we, if we just lead with clarity, um, we can see evidently that the point here is, for efficiency, not only in time, but in cost, if we go back to the item and we look at, and we look at the third part in section two, um, it clearly says that there was a solicitation for two items, right? V-1-0-0-A and T-0-1-2-A. And that in these solicitations, both solicitations incorporated proprietary, proprietary components necessary to mainstay systems capabilities. But both of these did not have the system capabilities, um, to actually integrate with the airport. And so because of this, it became evident when bidders submitted inquiries challenging the mandate of specifications. And so that would have, you know, led us through this realm of waiting. And even if we waited through the entire process, they weren't going to be able to bid it in the first place. Is that correct? And by the way, those two solicitations, we actually placed them on hold until we get this worked out, obviously. So, you know, I'm thinking that you see these two solicitations, you see what happened there. And then I'm thinking, and correct me if I'm wrong, you guys go back. And once you go back, you say, Hey, here's a list of other places where this is going. But, you know, to Commissioner Gilbert's point, um, respectfully, if we would have led with that, um, it would have been, it would have been much easier to not go through, not go through the process. And I think that oftentimes, you know, you're, you're, you're very brilliant, sir. I've told you that publicly and in private. Um, and sometimes we get lost in legal jargon, right? Um, and, and because of that, we overcomplicate something that, that could be more simply, uh, uh, just explained. If we start with, Hey, here was the problem. Here's how we try to solve it. Does that make sense, sir? Yes, sir. That does. They just showed me the statute, chairman. Commissioner Gilbert, you recognize. They just showed me the statute. And the statute is an interesting statute, but it says that we can only make the determination of sole source after we weigh all the alternatives and materials after the governing body weighs all the alternatives and materials. And I'm not even sure. And it has to be recommended by an architect or an engineer. And so that, that, that's interesting because the weighing of all the alternatives and materials is the passing of this item. So that means this item, we're saying that we evaluated each of those things and found that with regard, regard to cost or convenience, I think it was that this was worth the savings. And we made that assertion. So generally speaking, this probably should come one at a time. It's just, we're doing like 50 of them or something. We're doing a bunch of them. So it's, but we're, we're making that determination factually now. So, yeah, let me, let me go ahead and move the item so I can vote now. Thank you, Commissioner Gilbert. Any further discussion to the attorneys? I think it's important to clarify, especially when a statute provision has been mentioned on the record. Can you, can, can, can the attorneys just provide clarity on this discussion between sole source and legacy and, and whatever the legal standard is and whether we're making a deliberation today that is something that we may not necessarily appreciate? Certainly, Madam Chair. The statute refers to sole source. That's the language that's used in the statute. And to the extent that what this item is doing is, is trying to ensure that these procurements are compliant with the statute. It tracks that language. Legacy contracts are a creation of this board that don't necessarily appear in state law. So that may explain the disconnect. We will consider legacy contracts to be a kind of sole source contract or a kind of non-competitive contract. But the statute facially calls them sole sources. And so that's how the resolution reads to track the statute. Understood. Okay. And to the attorneys, on page five of the item, it's exhibit A. And it says, it's titled exhibit A, sole sourced materials in system. And the far left column says legacy contract number. And then it lists the 15, and it's, you know, guidance, sign lighting, security systems, communication systems, Nokia's, network systems, airfield lighting systems. And there's a number next to each of the 15L-10488, so on and so forth. So these contracts that, I guess, were previously determined by this board to be legacy contracts, what are the numbers associated to each of those 15? Are those contract award numbers, Director? Those are contract numbers. Those are contract numbers. Contract numbers from a competitive procurement process? From a competitive procurement that were awarded from before or from a legacy procurement that was awarded years ago, either or. Okay, so this is taking already existing legacy contracts and essentially extending them for the development of Terminal K and D60. Well, technically, it's not extending those contracts. What it's doing is it is allowing us to advertise solicitations that will include legacy components related to those in our contracts. So if I am a contractor and I'm bidding for the work on D60 or Terminal K, I want to bid on concrete. I want to bid on lighting. I want to bid on paint. I want to bid on whatever. And my contract has the requirement to, you know, I may use A, but the airport is saying, in order to bid on this contract, we want you to use this system as part of your competitive procurement process. That's what this allows you to do? That's correct. That's correct. That's what it does. It does not extend, and I'm glad you asked. It does not extend any of those legacy contracts that are listed in the exhibit. It allows these contracts to be included in procurement. It could be specified in a competitive solicitation for those larger projects. Understood. Thank you. Any, Commissioner Gilbert, you recognize. She asked a question about the statute. Because it's not a big start. Read the statute. Read the statute to the committee. Let them know what we're actually doing right now. No Board of County Commissioners charged with the letting of contracts for purchase of materials for construction, modification, alteration, or repair of any publicly owned facility may specify the use of materials or systems by a sole source unless the governing body, after consideration of all available alternative materials and systems, determines that the specification of a sole source material or system is justifiable based upon cost and changeability. The sole source specification has been recommended by the architect or engineer record, and the consideration by and justifications of the governing body are documented in writing the project file. Thank you so much. So he read it. That was the fastest reading he's ever read. But I appreciate it. I want Jerry to read that fast when she's doing the agenda. Be mindful of what it says we're doing. And then just also when this attorney spoke, he said he used the words sole source and legacy, again, as like they were interchangeable. And I just want us to, they are not interchangeable. Legacy components have alternatives. Sole sources typically don't. They're not interchangeable. But we're getting into the argument that we're making them semantical because of what they want to do. That's fine. I'm sympathetic to the, it's going to be a lot cheaper and a lot faster argument. But how we got there, I am completely, like, incredulously, like, irritated by that. So, but I'm cool with it, you. Commissioner Hardiman, you recognize? Who drafted this item? The resolution is typically drafted by the county attorney's office. The memo is typically drafted by staff. So, the resolution that calls for us to vote on this was drafted by the county attorney's office on behalf of who? We would have had a request. There may have been draft of the resolution, but I don't remember in this case. And then we would have signed off on that. We would have made a variety. Do you know who this request was from? Not without reviewing my records, Commissioner Hardiman, I don't. You assume, though, it comes from the administration? My assumption, this was a staff item. This would have come through staff for RBI. And then today was just adopted by our chairwoman? Is this the one you're? No, it's not. It is a staff item. I was briefed on it, and I sponsored it during that briefing. But it's not as though I put in a legislative request in order to proceed in this manner. This is an administrative initiative that they requested sponsorship over. I hope that answers your question. This is item 3i. It's listed as sponsored by Commissioner Cohen-Higgins? Correct. I just explained the factual layout of how that took place. Do you want me to repeat it? No. I just want to be clear that you're sponsoring it. Absolutely. The reason I ask that question is because I've seen the different ways that we interpret the law. And sometimes it's befitting to administration. Sometimes it's befitting to the legislative body. But in fact, these are two different sort of clients that you have. Sometimes their interests are not necessarily aligned. And so I'm just trying to understand in this circumstance, because when I listen to what was read on the record, you read it rather quickly. I don't have it in front of me to read. But it sounds as if when the statute was read, it is you have to have A, B, and C. And so it leads me down this path where if I were to follow that law, I would ask you, okay, well, who from your team did the research and determine that A, B, and C were, in fact, satisfied? And if they were satisfied, can you show me so I can make the representation to be aligned with the law? Because if not, then to me it comes off as if we're being asked to sponsor and adopt a resolution where we haven't been sufficiently provided information that's satisfactory to show that we're, in fact, aligned with the law. What it sounds to me, just from this brief meeting, and it is a brief meeting, that you're telling us this. But who can you point to to say, Jane Smith did the research on all of these items and determined that from these items, these things were not practicable, these things determined that they need to be what they are in accordance with the statute that was read on the record? Okay, so our consultant did the comprehensive analysis of all of the projects in our CIP to determine which projects had these sort of legacy systems. Which consultant? I think it was U.S. Costs, but I'll confirm that for you exactly. So they did the actual order of magnitude cost estimate looking at that. We also had engineers of record whose letters are attached to the item as required by the statute also look at this and chime in as to why this type of delegated authority would be necessary, why it would save money, why it would save schedule impact, et cetera. And those letters were attached as required by the statute in the item. So we did do a pretty thorough due diligence, Commissioner, regarding the cost impacts, schedule impacts, and also just from the engineering perspective as far as integration and operational impact. So that was done. We can give you more detail on that if you would like. We can provide a report that would have more detail on that. But we did do our due diligence. We would not be bringing this before you without doing that kind of due diligence. And we understand it's a big ask. But at the end of the day, to the chairwoman's point, we're just trying to get the CIP done faster and cheaper. And that's really what's driving this. And it is a limited delegated authority that's limited just to those projects. But, yeah, we did have our consultant do a very thorough analysis, and we did also have several engineers of record whose letters are attached also look at it. So it was pretty thorough on our side. I hope that answers your question. Anything further, Commissioner Hardiman? You know, Director, I think, listen, I want my colleagues to be comfortable with it. Because like I said on the record already, I felt comfortable sponsoring it because I went through this conversation. I asked you a million questions. I remember. But I want them to have the same level of comfort. And I do think that when you have items like this being, and I don't know if you did this or not, but being very proactive, particularly with this committee, to have these conversations, especially on items like this, would go a very, very long way. So, you know, I appreciate the comments and the concerns from my colleagues on this. I'm not sure whether this comes out of committee or not. If it does or if it doesn't, I think that we individually need to have a very deep briefing on this to make sure that everyone on this committee and at the full board has a very, very good comfort level with this item and that all questions are answered. So I will make that ask that you be very proactive with all of the commissioners on this item to make sure that all questions are answered and all concerns are raised because, frankly, the points that were raised are not lost on me and are very similar to the conversation that we had in briefing. So I'm not sure what the. Yes. I had one more thing just real quick. You don't mind through the chair. Exhibit C to the item. Commissioner Gilbert, you were recognized for a point of information. The point of information, when they add one more thing, it has not helped in this committee. I promise you it will probably lead to more questions. But feel free to add one more thing. But if you add one more thing and I have a question about it, I'm going to raise my hand for another question. I just want to be clear about that. So if you have the votes now, if I were you, I'd take the win and then brief everybody like the chairwoman said. But if you add one more thing, then I might go into persuasion mode where I'm trying to persuade people not to vote for this thing. So I think you should probably just take the win and try to brief people later. That sound reasonable? Chief Morales, our esteemed colleague is issuing a warning. That's what that sounded like. Okay. And considering the conversation that we had, the entire agenda has been moved with the exception of 3i. It has been bifurcated. I believe it's been second by Commissioner Orbis. All those in favor of the entire agenda with the exception of 3i signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no on all items with the exception of 3i? The agenda carries. I will move 3i. It's been second by Commissioner Gilbert. All those in favor of 3i signify by saying aye. Aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no on 3i? Commissioner Gilbert is recorded as a no. Any further unreadiness or any additional business that needs to be taken up by this body? Commissioner Gilbert moves to adjourn. And again, Director, please speak with my colleagues, including and particularly Commissioner Gilbert. I really want him to have the comfort that he needs. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.