Chambers, do you mind please closing the door to the chambers? We are about to start this morning's Aviation and Seaport Committee. Madam Clerk or Mr. Clerk, please call the roll. Good morning. The clerk's office received notice that Commissioner Hardiman will be absent from today's meeting. Commissioner Gilbert, Commissioner Millian Orbis, Vice Chairman Gonzalez, Chairwoman Cohen Higgins. Good morning, President. Three members present. We have a quorum. Thank you. So please rise for invocation followed by the Pledge of Allegiance, invocation led by Commissioner Gonzalez, pledge led by Commissioner Millian Orbis. By your heads, dear Lord, thank you for this wonderful day that you've given us. Lord, thank you for allowing us to be here. Let your will be done in everything that we do. And let us make the best decisions according to your will, for your glory, for the good of the residents of Miami-Dade County. In your holy name we pray. Amen. At this time, we'll open the reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard. We have no public hearing items on this morning's agenda. Now is your opportunity to address this body. Please approach it. You'll have two minutes. I don't have any speaker cards. Going once, going twice, seeing no speakers approach. The reasonable opportunity for the public to be heard is now closed. To our attorneys, any changes or additions to this morning's agenda? Good morning, Madam Chair. Yes, you have three additions to the agenda this morning. Two of those were listed on your changes memo. Those are items 3A, Supplement, and 3E. The third one, item 3F, was not listed on your changes memo, so I'll go ahead and read the title for you. 3F, I'm not allowing to be listed on the agenda. 3F simply has not been given sufficient time for review by the committee. I understand that it was as a result of a Scrivener's error on a folio number, but it's a rather dense item that we have not had the opportunity to review. So walking on 3F this morning is not going to be permissible. Madam Chair, I also have an announcement from the administration. They're requesting the advancement of the following items to the November 17th BCC meeting, 3A, 3D, and 3E. To my colleagues, do you have any objection or comment on the request to walk on items 3A, 3D, or 3E to our November 17th hearing? Seeing none, I have no objection to that request. Any other changes or edits to this morning's agenda? None? I'll entertain a motion to set the agenda. It's been moved. It's been second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no? This morning's agenda is now set. Having no public hearing items before us, to my colleagues, are there any items that you would like to bifurcate or discuss? Madam Chair? Commissioner Gonzalez, you are recognized. 3A, 3B, and 3E, just quick clarification questions. Yeah, let's just take them up individually, so we will now discuss item 3A. Commissioner Gonzalez, you were recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And so if I can get somebody from the administration to come up, and good morning, Director. And I don't know if this is best suited for the Director or for Namida, but could somebody briefly just explain why this renewal is being presented as a non-competitive purchase? Just once more, just for clarification purposes. Sure, Commissioner. I'll be happy to. So this is a proper software is a software that is very much integrated with more than 20 of our financial systems and our revenue recording systems at MIA. So we did a very detailed due diligence analysis starting back in June of last year. We hired a consultant to go ahead and review the system and how it is integrated with all of our systems. And that recommendation came back that replacing the system would involve a much higher cost and without any added benefits. So basically, the system is working as intended. The actual vendor is, as part of their additional fee, can provide additional services that we request. So that market research was done. We also did market research for other airports going back two years. And as part of the market research, that yielded that about two-thirds of the 30 major airports in the country use the same software. And about 75% of the 10 busiest airports, of which we are one of them, we're number eight, also use this. As a matter of fact, Tampa International, who's one of our competitors, just recently issued an extension, which is very similar in cost to ours, about $402,000. Ours is $420,000. So we did the market research as well. LAX also did a similar extension to theirs as well. So we did a very thorough analysis of market research, and that is why it's a designated purchase, because it would cost – we save about $1.5 million versus the $420,000 that we're going to be spending on this, while maintaining the same functionality and the same uses that we use now. Thank you, Director. And I really appreciate that very thorough answer, because, I mean, look, I do understand from the inception that the software is deeply integrated into our airport, and maintaining the continuity is very important. But I think what I really wanted to clarify, and I think you hit it on the head when you explained the market research and the analysis from several different airports, is that our vendor community, they have to have confidence that county business remains open to competition wherever practicable, right? So what I really wanted, and I think that you've answered, unless you want to add something else, is I wanted an explanation of what alternatives were evaluated and how the department determined that this approach represents the best value for the county. So I think, you know, you explained the market research. If there's anything you'd like to add, you can, but I think it was a good explanation, but if there's anything that you want to add. I can just add one thing. So we looked at four different vendors that we brought in and received information from, and then we evaluated the information from those four vendors. And the one overriding factor that none of them can meet was the issue of aeronautical billing. As part of our airline use agreement, we're required to prepare our bills based on flights, on flights individually. And none of those, none of the four vendors could do that. Now, I will say this. Once this contract is approved, we are going to be working very diligently with Namada and her team to explore other potential softwares in the future, because one of the four firms who provided price information, they seem to say that in the future they could maybe meet our needs. So we will continue, as we do with all of our items, to work with Namada's team and identify potential competitive opportunities for these types of services. Okay, and let me ask you, as far as the replacement option that could have existed, I understand that the price point for the replacement would have been much higher. Now, the $3.2 million estimate for the replacement, it's useful, but we should understand whether it includes, does it include implementation, migration, and long-term maintenance? Yes, yes. Got it. Okay. All right. No further questions. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. On 3A, I appreciate the memo that was circulated. It was rather detailed. And if you'll recall at our last committee hearing, there was a pretty extensive discussion about the need to innovate, and the need to keep competitive, and the need to not just be very complacent on any of these contracts. And I had made the recommendation that on any non-competitive designated purchase, that we should likely include additional information on the front end so that we're avoiding these kinds of questions during the hearing. And so I appreciate the detailed explanation that was provided in item 3A, but in 3B, we have another designated non-competitive purchase, but the diligence that we just talked about at the previous hearing is not included in that item, right, at least not to the detail that the supplement has on 3A. And so I'm highlighting that as an example that, you know, when we make requests at the committee hearing, whether it's a directive or not, you know, whether it's, you know, codified into a formal legislative item, this would have been a perfect example and an opportunity to highlight that we are listening and we are going to include these detailed explanations, particularly on non-competitive direct purchases. And I didn't see it in 3B. I'm going to support the item, but I really would like for those to have this level of detail. And on 3A, I thought it was, again, very detailed, and I appreciate it. And you did highlight that you're going to put out this contract for competitive solicitation in January 2027. That's correct. Okay. Okay. Anything further on 3A? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion on 3A. So moved. It's been moved. It's been second. All those in favor of 3A and its supplement signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no? No, 3A advances. 3B, Commissioner Gonzalez, you are recognized. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, my line of questioning kind of goes into what you've already addressed and touched on. And so I wanted to give the director the opportunity. Could, if you could just answer, can you explain the sole source justification for this particular purchase? Sure, Commissioner. So we look very closely at this. This purchase is for our time track, time clocks that we use at the airport for hourly employees to go ahead and log in when they come to work. It'll be biometric now, I guess. Correct. Now what we're doing is we're upgrading the software and upgrading the equipment to include biometric and facial recognition capability in that, which makes the processing of employees and movement through the areas where they sign in or where they punch in much more efficient. In order to do this, and we looked at it very closely with other vendors, the replacement of this system, you'd have to replace all the software and all the clocks would be about $475,000. This is just, it's an additional expenditure authority on the current contract, which expires in late August of 2029. So we have another couple of years of change to be able to procure a replacement if we would choose to do so. But at this point in time, the $80,000 expense made sense because we are going to get the upgrades to the software. We are going to get the upgrades as far as facial recognition and biometric. And, again, we're going to save. I mean, it's not, doesn't, compared to other things we do, it's not a huge amount of money, but it is a savings. And we continue to maintain the same functionality, and we have not had any issues with the current vendor or their current equipment. So that's why the decision was made on that end. But to the chairwoman's point, we are going to be working with Nomada's team, chairwoman, on, since we have a couple of years to work with, on other alternatives for this and see if there's anything else out there that will be more efficient than this. But for now, I mean, this, it really works for us. We have not had an issue with it. And upgrading the software this time was considered the best way to go. And thank you for that explanation. And, you know, I do feel, from what you're saying, it's understandable. The only thing I would add is we should still periodically assess whether the interoperability could create future competitive opportunities, right? Because my next question is, was the department able to evaluate comparable technologies, right? And what that goes to is, last time that we were here, we were talking about innovation. So does this upgrade preserve opportunities for future competition? And to make sure that, you know, in the future, if necessary and if there's something better out there, we can integrate it? It absolutely does. So the fact that we enter into this additional expenditure authority, which is only $80,000, I mean, we will, and we are committed over the next couple of years to exploring specifically those other competitive opportunities with other potential vendors that can provide the same services or better services. So, yes, that commitment is there, and we will be doing that. Got it. Because this would expire in 2029, correct? Correct. August 31, 2029. So my, you know, small, very small concern, but I'm sure that we can tackle it in the future, is I understand that this timekeeping information doesn't, like, it doesn't automatically go into informs. Is that correct? That is correct. And so how are we going to process it? So right now, that process is done manually by our employees, so that the data that's generated by that is processed manually into our system. Now, in the future, what you mentioned before, over the next couple of years, that's one of the top items that we'll be looking at, is finding ways to integrate directly within forms so we can eliminate that manual process out of the entire, you know, out of the process. So, I mean, I'm certainly supportive right now. I would like to understand at some point the department's long-term plan for payroll automation. I can tell that you're already thinking about it because you mentioned it, but I'd like to understand what the long-term goal here is going to be. Absolutely. Happy to do that. No further questions, Madam Chair. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Commissioner Emiliano Orbis, you are recognized. Thank you. Director, so this applies not to all employees. It applies to only hourly employees? Hourly employees. Hourly employees that punch in. How many hourly employees do we have at MDOT? I'd have to get you that number. We have a total of 1,850 MDOT employees out of the 37,000 employees that work at MDOT every day. About 1,800 plus are under our purview as county employees. I won't get you that number. I don't know that number off the top of my head. I'm sorry, Commissioner. Okay. So when they're hourly, what are these employees doing? Are they janitorial? What are they doing? No, janitorial, we have separate private contractors that do janitorial. These are employees that work in our shops, for example, loading bridge shop employees, AC shop, electrical shop, mainly trades employees, and other employees that are on an hourly basis that are not job basis employees. So it will be, you know, not management, but some supervisory employees, but mainly hourly basis, like some of the examples I just gave you. Okay. And I read the memo, but what exactly led to the need for biometric scanning of these folks? Because it seems like what you're doing now works. Sure. To answer your question, it's very simple. We had a couple of incidents of fraud with employees where employees would come in and use somebody else's, you know, and clock in for somebody else. By having the biometric and facial recognition technology that eliminates that, and it also makes the processing of employees' time more efficient. So it's a combination of both things. So now they're going to scan their face? Facial recognition can scan the employee's face and make sure that it's them when they're clocking in. We've had a couple of incidences where employees have either been terminated or severely disciplined because they come in and they clock for somebody as if they were them. Now with the facial recognition and biometrics, that makes it much harder to do. Okay. And I know it says it doesn't, as the commissioner said, this doesn't connect with informs. Correct. So this biometric new technology will not connect to informs? The biometric and the new technology still will not connect with informs. It will still have to be manually processed. What we're committing to do is, over the next couple of years, exploring other systems that may be out there that would potentially be able to connect with informs. Right now, there's no module that exists with the time-track proprietary software that can integrate or connect with informs. My hesitation with looking for something that connects just to informs is that by the time you connect it to informs, informs is dead. Because, you know, other programs come along and replace software, right? And I think at the last committee, I said that we should stop looking at buying software that we get locked into for 20 years or more and start looking for other alternatives. You know, things are evolving quickly. AI is able to, you know, create different programs for us to use in a more practical way. So my suggestion to you would be not to look for something that only connects to informs, which the county is currently locked into. But since this expires down the road, right, 2029, now you're looking at something that you're going to do in a couple of years. So it should be something that can seamlessly connect to whatever payroll processing or system that we have. I think that's a very good idea, and we would be happy to do that. I know that what we're looking at now, or what we will be looking at now over the next two years, would not just be, and maybe I misspoke, would not be just limited to informs. We would want it to be, obviously, to be able to work with whatever system we have, which happens to currently be enforced. But that's a great idea, and we'll go ahead and make sure that it's more open source so it can be integrated with any, whatever payroll system the county has at the time. Okay. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with paper and pencil. Sure. Unfortunately, on our case, we've had a few incidences, like I mentioned, so we want to get away from that and make sure that we can verify. I understand, but the cloud can go down, but, you know, paper and pencil stays. 100%. All right. Thank you, Director. Thank you, Commissioner Emiliano Orbis. With no further comments, I'll entertain a motion on 3B. It's been moved. Second. It's been second. All those in favor of item 3B signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no on 3B. 3B carries. Commissioner Gonzalez, you will recognize on item 3E. Thank you, Madam Chair. And I wanted to thank the Chair because I appreciate you bringing this item forward and helping ensure that the Board has the opportunity to review these previously executed change orders. So, Director, the administration reports that the IBIS parking garage was completed ahead of schedule and under budget, which is great news, okay? I understand that the additional services were performed and the Department has acknowledged an administrative delay in bringing the change orders forward for ratification. Now, I don't, I'm not the biggest fan of change orders, to be honest with you. Could you briefly explain what caused the delay and what specific safeguards are going to be implemented to ensure that the future compliance with the county's reporting requirements? Sure. If I may, Madam Chair, I can just walk you through why the change orders were needed first, if that's okay. So, the design criteria professional that prepared the design criteria and took the design up to the 30% level, they were engaged for a certain scope. We added additional scope so they could continue to, you know, perform quality control activities, field inspection activities, things of that nature, once the design build contract was awarded. So, the design builder takes that design from the 30% level to the 100%, so they start construction on the things that have already been designed, and they continue to design the remaining 70% of the project. So, those additional scope and services, we wanted to make sure that a design criteria professional who came up with the schematic designs and some of the specifications would be on board to be able to keep the design builder honest, which they did. And, to your point, the job was finished six months ahead of schedule and under budget. What happened as far as this, this was a ratification change order, which was done under the mayor's delegated authority, under her authority, under our county code. Anything within a 10% threshold, it can be approved administratively, and then it has to be ratified by the board. That administrative oversight, it was something that fell through the cracks with one of the employees that was handling this. That employee has been made aware of this, and there's been retraining given to not just that person, but the rest of that group to make sure that this doesn't happen again. And I hope that answered your question. Yep. I don't have any further questions. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. Yeah, I sponsored the item because I understood the need to advance it, but my concerns and my questions are essentially the same. We have a 60-day ratification deadline. This is way, way later than 60 days. And it's unfortunate because it's on a project that was such a soaring and is a soaring success on all measures and metrics. So I appreciate the explanation. I'm not interested in belaboring the point, but to whoever that employee was that whatever happened here, we hopefully will not see it occur in the future. And again, particularly on a project that was such and continues to be such a success for Miami International Airport. Thank you. Anything further on item 3E? Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion. Move it, Madam Chair. It's been moved. It's been second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no on 3E. 3E carries. I don't have any other items being bifurcated. I'll entertain a motion on the balance of the agenda, which includes items 3C, 3D, 6A, 7A, and 7B. It's been moved. It's been second. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Anyone wish to be recorded no. The balance of the agenda carries. I believe this is our final Aviation and Seaport Committee as this current body exists. So thank you all so much. It's been an amazing two years working with you, and we look forward to the future. Thank you so much, everyone. I would like to acknowledge, if I could, Madam Chair, very appreciative of your leadership in this committee. I think that a lot of great things have been done on this committee. I really appreciate Commissioner Orbis' input along with our other colleagues who are not here today, but I feel like this committee has really driven forward not only this board's desire for innovation, but also a desire for making sure that there is fiscal responsibility brought to the county and that there's accountability for every single decision. So I want to thank you for your leadership, and I want to thank all my colleagues. Thank you, Commissioner Gonzalez. We are adjourned. Madam Chair, apologies. Before we adjourn, the administration had one additional request for advancement to the next BCC meeting. It's item 3C. Any objections from my colleagues on advancing 3C? Seeing none, I approve that request. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.