Okay, thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Welcome, everybody. Please rise for the invocation. Commissioner Gonzalez, can you lead us in the invocation? And Commissioner Lopez, can you lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance, please? Thank you, Chairwoman. Please bow your heads. Dear Lord, thank you for this wonderful day. Thank you for blessing each and every person in Miami-Dade County. Thank you for guiding us. Lord, we ask that your will be done, that every decision that we make, that everything that we say be for your will and your glory, now and always. In your holy name we pray. Amen. Okay, good morning, everybody, and welcome to another beautiful day in Miami-Dade County. This is the Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee. Today is June 10th. And I am Commissioner Natalie Milian-Orbis, happy to welcome you to our committee. I will ask at this time, I will ask at this time if the attorneys have any updates to provide before we get into the reasonable opportunity. Madam Chair, good morning. Per your official changes memorandum, 2C and 2E have been added to today's agenda. And a change that is not on your changes memorandum is that the administration, as the prime sponsor, has requested withdrawal of item 3C. Excuse me, 3B. Okay. So this is what I'm going to do. We have several speaker cards, but they are all related to item 3B. So that is the item that is being requested to be withdrawn. So if it's okay, and county attorneys let me know if this is okay, can we take the reasonable opportunity, can I open the reasonable opportunity, but call these speakers up at the time that item. I know we have a withdrawal, but we want to speak on the withdrawal. The commission wants to speak on it. Madam Chair, is... Or do we go into the reasonable opportunity now and let everybody speak, including the cards? Okay, we'll do that. All right, perfect. Okay, so I'm going to go ahead and open up reasonable opportunity at this time, and I will call you up. We have a few speakers. We have Juan Carbonell. Please come up. Diana Mendez. Is it okay if Diana goes first? Madam Chair, is it okay if I go first? Yes. I represent the side. Are you Diana Mendez? Yes, I'm Diana Mendez. Okay. Are you Juan? Are you giving up your two minutes? Can I go after, if that's okay? Okay, that's fine. Sure. Okay, Diana, go ahead, please. Name and address for the record. Everybody will have two minutes. Thank you. Diana Mendez with Bill Sinssonberg, 1450 Brick 11. So, good morning, Madam Chair, Committee Members. I represent Masabi, and Masabi was the top-ranked proposer prior to oral presentations and post-oral presentations during this RFP process. With me today is Juan Carbonell. Juan is Masabi's Senior Vice President of Sales. During the past month, we have heard a strong preference from some members of this committee for completing this process now rather than starting an annual. Therefore, today, we respectfully submit that the fair and legally compliant way to do so is by negotiating with Masabi. This approach is consistent with the scoring criteria and evaluations process contemplated with the RFP. And importantly, this is very important because FDA funding for this project is contingent on the county following the RFP criteria. In March, the county had determined that Masabi was the top-ranked proposer and selected them for negotiations. The process, however, was derailed by objection letters from the unsuccessful proposers raising meritless allegations. The objections are unsupported by the RFP and ignore clear facts, including the fact that Masabi was ranked top proposer after correcting, after correcting the deviation from the RFP specifications of the short listing of the fourth-ranked proposers that shouldn't have been allowed to present during orals. And it also corrects for the impermissible claims that the county's incumbent vendor, Cubic, and the county's hardware vendor made during their oral presentations of an exclusive partnership. Thank you, thank you, Ms. Men. Thank you. Mr. Carbonell? Thank you. Madam Chairwoman, commissioners, my name is Juan Carbonell. I'm at 14640 Southwest 82nd Court in Palmetto Bay. I am a Miami resident, born and raised here, went to University of Miami, go Canes. I wrote in today, taking the Metro Express and the Tri-Rail into our committee meeting today. As Senior Vice President of Sales for Masabi, I'm here to say that a selection committee rightfully made the right choice not once but twice, first in the first round out of nine proponents, allowing us to come in first, and then first in the second round as per the rules that were laid out in the RFP. Masabi is a 350-person organization that has been around for over 20 years. We have a long track record of innovation and success in this business. Most recently with ARTM Montreal, which is an agency about six times the size of Miami, we were there able to deliver open payments or credit card payments within 12 months. So your selection committee actually did make the right choice. They evaluated price, they evaluated technical items, and they chose Masabi not once but twice under the fair rules of the RFP. Our request today, as Diana quickly mentioned, is that we follow the existing RFP process as it was laid out. The faux pas that occurred in the procurement process did not change the outcomes that the selection committee was putting forward. So we ask that you enter into negotiations with Masabi. You'll be very happy with what you see on the other side of those negotiations. Fair value will be provided through that negotiation. We will deliver quickly. We can have this live by next year. Should this RFP be delayed or canceled or move back, you see yourself basically in a 20-29 potentially rollout position. You lose access to the FTA funding that's currently on the table. And obviously that's something that I don't want from my city that I don't want from Miami. So respectfully, we ask that the commission consider moving forward with the RFP that was laid out to enter negotiation with the top-ranked party not once but twice to allow us to deliver this project as per what we originally laid out in the RFP in 12 months. And we can have this thing live by next year and make all this pain go away. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Now we have Saj Popat. I hope I said your name correctly. Followed by Danielle Sanabria and Alex Heckler. Go ahead, sir. Good morning. Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, Committee, for having me. I'm Saj Popat, located at 44645 Guilford Drive, Ashburn, Virginia. I'm the Assistant General Manager for the Southeast Region Cubic Transportation Systems that currently provides your fare collection system. I'm here today to say that we're here as longstanding partners to help both the community and the committee. If there are any questions that you have about our current or future services, please feel free to ask. And I'll pass it over to Danielle. I yield the remainder of my time. Thank you again and have a wonderful day. Thank you. Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Danielle Sanabria, LSM Partners. My office is at 3800 Northeast First Avenue, and I represent Cubic. This procurement has been marked by a serious lack of transparency. So I want to give you the only question that actually matters today. Was the committee allowed to expand oral presentations beyond three firms? Yes. The RFP had no ceiling and no limiting language. The procurement officer who wrote that provision said so twice, on the record and again in writing. That is the entire issue. Everything else is noise. Your evaluation committee, facing five firms separated by 0.3%, decided it needed more information before final scoring. It heard from all five. It ranked Cubic first. The committee was then reconvened, given every opportunity to reconsider, and reaffirmed Cubic's first place ranking. The administration is now asking you to throw out that result, not because Cubic's proposal was deficient, not because the committee made an error, but because the committee sought clarification before making a decision on a mission-critical, multimillion-dollar county procurement. And the firms that lost objected to too much competition. That is the entire basis for rejection. When competitors challenged the process in writing, the official who wrote the provision answered them directly. He said, There was no statement in the RFP that only the top three firms would present. As the writer of the RFP provision, this was intentional. You cannot have a provision with discretion to waive presentations entirely, but no discretion to expand them. That is not a legal or logical position. It is a restriction inserted into the RFP after the fact, one that was never written, never intended, and never existed until now. The chief procurement officer, the county attorney's office, and the administering procurement officer all sat in a room on February 9th, convened specifically to address competitor objections. Not one of them identified the five firm structure as a fatal defect. Not one of them recommended discarding the rankings. And not one of them suggested that the committee's work should be set aside. The public record does not say who changed those scores, when, or under what authority. That should be a concern of every member of this committee. There is a legal standard for voiding a completed procurement, and it's called materiality. Did hearing from five firms change the price? No. The scope? No. Did it prevent any firm from competing? No. Under any materiality standard, what happened here was not a defect. Thank you. Danielle, I'll give you ten seconds to wrap it up. The administration is asking you to throw out a completed procurement, not because the committee relied on the wrong information, but because the committee wanted the right information before making a decision. Commissioners, that is not a defect. That is diligence. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Heckler? Hi, commissioners. Alex Heckler, LSN, same address as Ms. Sanabria. You speak to five lobbyists, you get 27 different opinions. I just want to give you the facts today. I'm here on behalf of Cubic, and they've been your partner for 20 years. Commissioner Cohen Higgins and former commissioner, now Mayor Higgins, had an item to try to fix a problem in the procurement process. That problem is the selection committee sometimes would shortlist two or waive shortlisting and just pick somebody based on their proposal. So that fix allowed a minimum of three. So we thought a minimum of three is good because you get competition. So if there's nine bidders here, they shortlisted five and two of them were tied. So, right, two, fourth place. So what happened here was Cubic tied and was not in the first three, but once they ask questions in an oral presentation, then we finish first. Then Named and her team reconvene the committee with some questions about exclusivity, and then we finish first again. And then let her campaign happen, and that's what people, you know, in our job do. But you just want the facts to come out. Cubic's been your partner, and we are your partner. We are here in a time now when governments are not spending $50 million on software. The game has changed with OpenAI, with Anthropik, and others. Obviously, this is specific software, but Cubic has been speaking with Miami-Dade Transit and Public Works, as well as procurement, in good faith, to say, what can we do to fix the system now? We see, on a Doug Hanks tweet this morning, that $36.6 million of public transportation, PTP money, is going to be spent on a new fare collection system, right? That's money that could be spent for other things. You know that you need certain fixes today, like your credit card system, getting it back in compliance and other fixes. Let's work with the administration. We have a meeting. Cubic does it at the end of the month. Let's fix what we fix now. And if you need other services two or three years down the road, great. But the bottom line is 20-year good partner, biggest company in the country, in the world, actually, that does this. You know, it's not broke. Don't fix it. Please. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you so much. Next, we have Hugo Benitez. We have Miguel Diaz de la Portilla and Alice Bravo. Good morning, Commissioner. Hugo Benitez with business address at 600 Brickle. We're here on behalf of Movell. Movell, we suggest to you, is the highest-ranked proposer who offers the best value to Miami-Dade County. We are here because we have a selection committee who gave us a price that, quite frankly, is irrational. We are $17 million cheaper than the one that they ranked highest. We're only 1.4% qualitatively different. So the qualitative difference between these two firms in any rational process should be offset by the $17 million differential, which is 60% of the proposal. And yet, because of the manner in which it was done, right, the RFP did not contain any approved formulas for pricing. There was no guidance given as to how that was being done. The selection committee ended up compressing everything and providing such a minuscule price differential that it eats up your ability to save the county $17 million. We have provided you with a mechanism to correct that problem. You are the decision makers on contracting matters for the county. You are the ultimate authority. And while the mayor may have an advisory recommendation, and while the selection committee may be an advisor to the mayor, it is ultimately your decision that matters. And, frankly, you are free to make this contracting decision only subject to sticking by the criteria and the RFP. That is your constraint. So long as you stick to that criteria, which is I'm going to evaluate price, you are going to be making the right decision. I'm going to be sitting next to Mr. Libhaber and defending this decision that ultimately saved you a lot of money. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Menino. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I'm Miguel Diaz-Alaporte. I'm an attorney at Gunster, 600 Brickle Avenue. And I want to start off by, you know, there are three proposers here. Just the first thing, the first fact that I want to give you is you have Masabi in their proposal offering to do this work for you for $43 million. But put a footnote in that because they conditioned their price. They said it's $43 million as long as ridership doesn't increase by more than 5%. They were the only proposers out of nine to qualify their price when the RFP called for a fixed price. Cubic, your incumbent for the last 18 years, hasn't done a very good job. Moreover, in their proposal, they said that they would do this for $40 million. Now you have Movil. We represent Movil. Movil is in a virtual tie in terms of technical score with Masabi. But Movil's price is at least $17 million cheaper than Masabi's. So you have Masabi come up here and tell you, well, we're the top rank. You should negotiate with us. They basically are asking you to ignore the fact that the selection committee, when they were allocating price points to the price actually submitted, came up with an irrational process and rational result that there is no logical way to explain by any methodology that is routinely accepted. So, for example, and I'll illustrate this, one selection committee member, whose score you take out, ranked Masabi higher on price than Movil, even though they were $17 million more expensive. So what do you have here? You have Movil as the highest-ranked, responsive, responsible proposer with the best value to the county. And you have an incumbent that has done a lousy job and is now looking to backdoor its way. I ask you to support Movil. We sent a number of letters. They spell out step-by-step how, quite frankly, this is a simple procurement process. Virtual tie between two companies, Masabi and Movil, on technical score, $17 million benefit to the taxpayer. Movil is $17 million, at least $17 million cheaper than Masabi. And $14 million cheaper than Cubic. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. Alice Bravo, 1026 Coal Way. This is the first time I stand here since I was transit director many years ago. And I'll tell you that talk of this procurement began back then, and we were frustrated. We were frustrated with a proprietary system where we couldn't make changes, where things were outdated. And basically, it was impacting riders. At the end of the day, when you get to a metro station and none of the vending machines can transact with a credit card, that hurts your ridership. When someone gets to a bus and the equipment's not working and the bus driver just kindly lets them on the bus, that's another issue. So you're foregoing revenue, you're foregoing ridership, it's time for a new system. I'm on the Movil team, and we present a quality product that has been successfully implemented in other locations, similar size systems. And it's quality, it's reliable, and it's lower cost, and the cost can be verified with other agencies where we've implemented. So at the end of the day, this also comes with an application that's very highly rated by users in various cities. And that, again, is a benefit to the county and the users. The easier it is to buy your fare card through an app and do that transaction, now revenues increase, and actually ridership increases as a result, because it's a friendly system to use. So I think it's important that the criteria be followed, but the purview of this committee and the commission to see how those points were allocated and was price fairly scored, that's an important factor as well. And that's your purview, and again, the dollars do matter. That is an important part of the component, and the points should not just be assigned without any rational basis. Thank you very much. I support the removal team that I'm on. Thanks. Thank you. I don't have any more speaker cards, but I did want to ask if there's anybody else who would like to speak before we close the reasonable opportunity. If anyone else would like to speak, please, this is your time, please come up. I see one person. Hello, everybody. My name is Ryan Mackam. I'm a business development manager with the INIT Group. Our organization just recently completed deploying similar projects as a fare collection application in Houston and Atlanta, and, you know, I'm not going to go into as much detail as the other vendors that are here today, but as you all can tell, there's been some drama in this procurement, but I'm not going to talk about all the irregularities that took place or all the outrageous claims that took place. I am here on the behalf of the fare collection industry to thank the mayor and you all for not only your attention but your potential intervention on this matter in order to guarantee that the riders of Miami truly get the system that they deserve. Thank you all very, very much. Before you go, can you please state your address for the record? Yes, ma'am. 243 Pennsylvania Avenue, Louisville, Kentucky. Thank you. Anybody else? Reasonable opportunity? Yes. If anyone else wants to speak, just come up at this point and line up so that we can continue the speakers. Go ahead, sir. Thank you, commissioners. My name is Brad Price. I'm representing Indra. Address is 4530 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C. I wanted to make a couple of points. The pricing information that was submitted by the other vendors did not include the baseline capabilities and the options, so we submitted pricing for both, so that skewed the pricing information. We are $21 million cheaper than anyone else. We have also beat the incumbent on much larger projects than this in London and in Ireland. We believe that the county deserves a large firm that's capable of implementing complex projects like this, and we appreciate your consideration. Thank you. Thank you. Any other speakers? Okay. Seeing none at this time, we'll close the reasonable opportunity to be heard. And, Mr. Attorney, I understand we have to discuss the withdrawal before we set the agenda. Yes, Madam Chair, as the sponsor of Item 3B, the administration is requesting a withdrawal of the item, so this item will be withdrawn unless the commissioner or the committee assumes sponsorship of the item. We do want to discuss on the withdrawal. I know that I have questions, and I know my colleagues have some questions on this, so I would like to open the floor for discussion on the withdrawal. And I know that the administration also has some comments they would like to put on the record regarding the withdrawal. That's the prerogative of the chair. That's fine. Okay. Carla Denise, go ahead, please. Thank you, Madam Chair. The administration requested a withdrawal as a result of listening to the conversation from the last meeting. We actually agree that it is in our better interest as a community to try to ensure we move forward with this procurement. A lot of time and effort went into it. Deputy Mayor Coley and I have met, we would like to direct the staff to figure out how to ensure the appropriate bidder based on the work that was done is considered. And so, as opposed to, I think our first ask was to reject all bids, we would like to withdraw the recommendation to reject all bids and come back with a recommended vendor. Okay. So, I have, okay, I have a cue. Commissioner Lopez, go ahead, and then Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, to the administration, I've read the RFP, have listened to all of the comments. I guess my only question to the administration would be, had the RFP that was issued been followed during the process to the letter of the RFP, who would have been the recommended vendor? I guess I'm confused, because I've heard so much testimony regarding somehow, certainly the three versus five and anything else. I'm trying to build confidence in the business community doing business with the government, right? And sometimes when we don't do things right from the beginning, people say, look, we've invested all this time and money in responding to an RFP, and yet it gets screwed up. And here we find ourselves, and I guess that's a follow-up question. I think Commissioner Gonzalez had even requested formally a report from the administration as to how did we get here. And I haven't seen that, obviously, but I would like to, I still would like, regardless of the action we take today, I still would like a report as to how we got here. Because I've heard testimony that is troubling, to be very honest with you, about how the process was conducted. So that would be what I would like to know. If the RFP was, in fact, followed to the letter of the RFP, without any deviations, without any manipulations, who would have been your recommendation for us to consider? Through the chair? Yes, please go ahead. Oh, chairs, I'm not prepared to answer that question, which is why we ask for the withdrawal, but it is a fair question. It's actually the exact question that Deputy Mayor Coley and I are asking, and we would like to come back to you with the answer to that question in a recommendation coming from the administration. So that's point number one. Point number two, I do believe that our director of strategic procurement is here if there are specific questions related to the process for this. But in order to respect the integrity of this, I would prefer that we meet with the county attorney, we ensure that we look at the process, and to your point, based on the process that was in place, come back with a recommendation that this board could either accept or reject. But that's our ask today. And again, I'm happy for Director Upal to answer any other questions about the process so that we can clear up for the record anything that did or did not happen to hopefully ease some of the anxiety that this board rightfully feels, given where we are. I know that my colleagues have some follow-up questions, but I'm very disappointed to hear that. I know there's a lot going on in the county right now, but I'm very disappointed to hear that because a month has elapsed since the last committee meeting, and I know that each of us here asked for the complete packet for all the background information, and nothing was provided. In fact, the item got thinner than last time. So it's very disappointing. To me, it feels like we're not taken seriously. The request of this committee was not taken seriously, and that's not acceptable. We asked for the background information, and an entire month has gone by, and nothing was provided to us. And I think, you know, I was not briefed on this item until you walked up to me today, this morning. So I think that's a problem. That's a big problem. I know the commissioner specifically asked on the record for the administration and for Namida to brief all of us on this since the last committee, and it hasn't been done. So, quite frankly, I mean, this is offensive to the residents of Miami-Dade County. Through the chair, you know, I will accept that. A month has gone by, and we do owe you a briefing and responses to perfectly legitimate questions. The most I can do at this juncture is commit to providing you with the background information and a supplement. But our preference was to withdraw our original request, which was to reject all bids, and then to provide you with the information that would enable you to make an informed decision. And so, based on the direction and advice I've gotten, I'm trying to do this procedurally, and so I will absolutely consult with our county attorney to make sure that we don't misstep and get you all the information that's needed for the board to make an informed decision on the vendor that the organization or the administration would like to move forward. And so, all I can do at this juncture is apologize for that. Commissioner Gonzalez. Thank you, Madam Chair. And, you know, I certainly echo a lot of the sentiments from both the chair, the co-chairs, Chair Lopez and Chair Meliana Orbis. But I want to start on a high note, and I do want to say that I commend the administration, and I commend Chief Carla Denise and Chief Coley for taking the approach that you're taking, which is to go back to this procurement process. I think that the bigger conversation here is really what happened. And I know that you're working on the report, and I'm looking forward to see the report. I do have a line of questions that I'd like to get answered just so that we can be clear as to, on the surface, how we even got here. So, let's talk about the oral presentations, because I did hear a lot of folks make statements regarding what those oral presentations should have, could have, or would have been. The RFP clearly states, and I'm quoting from the RFP, after evaluation of the proposal on the criteria indicated above technical and price, rating and ranking, the Competitive Selection Committee will conduct oral presentations with the three highest ranked proposers. Now, maybe if I can get Namada to come up. Through the Chair, if it's to your pleasure, I'd like the Director to come. Yes, go ahead and feel free to have a conversation. Director, how many proposers advanced to oral presentations, the total? Five. Namada Upal, Director for Procurement. Commissioner, five proposers were advanced to oral presentations. Right, so five proposals, five proposers advanced. So, I'd like for you to just clarify, because I'm hearing one thing from one side, I'm hearing things from other sides. So, I'd like for you to just clarify, if the RFP states, the Competitive Selection Committee, will conduct oral presentations with the three highest ranked proposers, why were five invited to the oral presentation? Does this happen often? No. So, this was probably the first RFP where we stated that kind of language based on a new resolution that got adopted that the three companies would be advanced in certain RFPs. And what happened was the scoring between four and five were tied, and the scoring differential between three and four was very minuscule. And one of the selection committee members asked, can we include the number four and number five, which are tied? And my staff member in that meeting looked at the language in the RFP that you just read and interpreted that, yes, because it doesn't say only three. That was the rationale. So, we proceeded to encourage more competition for three versus five, more competition for us. However, when we proceeded on this path, later on, when we received the complaint, I consulted the county attorney's office, and the county attorney's office has guided us that you cannot, if the RFP said three, three is three, you cannot do five. So, my question is, and there's no right or wrong answer, right? Just be honest. Did anybody within the department think to consult with the county attorney's office as to the interpretation before we move forward with the five presentations? No, not at that moment, no, sir. And that was an oversight, I agree. And so, to the county attorney's office, and I think the director has already stated that she had a conversation with you folks afterwards. But my question to you, just to put it on the record, is what is your interpretation of the language within the RFP that states that the highest-ranked proposers will advance to orals? Do you interpret that as at least three, or do you interpret that as three are the ones that are going to advance? We interpret it as three. It did not use at least three or no fewer than three, which that language appears in other state statutes where it says no fewer than or at least, and that would have given the flexibility to go more than three. The RFP indicated we'll conduct oral presentations with the three highest-ranked. When that issue was presented to us, that was our response. And you see, this is where I commend the administration and the director and the chiefs for wanting to go back to this RFP process. Because, you know, let me ask this, because I think this is the elephant in the room. Where did vendors four and five end up in the rankings after the oral presentation? So they were, oh, oh, I see your question. So we had three, and then those three, according to the county attorney's office, had to move forward to the oral presentations. Four and five would not have moved forward. But once the oral presentations were had, where in the ranking did four and five, who were not supposed to be presenting orally, where did they move to in the ranking? So number four was Cubic Transportation Systems. They jumped to number one after oral presentations. And tied with Cubic was INIT Innovations. And they were number four. And you see, so this is the big issue here, right? Because someone or a company who, according to the language of the RFP and the opinion of the county attorney's office, should not have been invited to the oral presentations, jumped to first place, right? And so this makes me feel like, and I'm going to date myself here, but there used to be reruns of a cartoon in the 90s called Peanuts, right? And they had a character called Charlie Brown. And there's another character called Lucy. And so Charlie Brown's mission in life is to be able to kick a football according to the rules of the game. But the problem is that every time Charlie Brown goes to kick the football, he has Lucy hold the football. But then Lucy always takes the football away, making it impossible for Charlie Brown to ever kick the football. That's where this kind of makes, I think, everyone in the room a little uncomfortable. I'm not saying that this was done on purpose, but I'm saying that the oversight makes it feel very uncomfortable. And so let's now go to the pricing, because a lot of things have been said about the pricing. And the RFP included ambiguous language regarding evaluation of optional components. And some have stated that this may or may not explain the difference in where the pricing was. But this is why I asked for the report, because now, as we sit here today, we can't really be sure of that. I was under the impression that at our last meeting, and certainly Commissioner Lopez, Chair Lopez alluded to it, we did ask for that report. I do appreciate the fact that the chief has said that she's going to get us the report. I think once we get the report, we really need to see how this pricing pointage was evaluated, because it just seems odd, very Lucy with the football, that such a price differential would count at the same point value during this process. It's just, I'm not saying it was done on purpose, but it leaves a bad taste in everyone's mouth. Now, the memorandum from the administration states that a revised RFP with modifications to address ambiguities will be advertised expeditiously to allow for fair competition. But let me just be clear, we're not going down that route. I don't know if you answer that or if the administration answers that, we're not going to go down that route. Is that correct, Chief? I'm so sorry. I was, can you please repeat your question? Of course, Chief. So I was alluding to the fact that in the memorandum, the original memorandum, it stated that the RFP with the modifications of the address ambiguities would be advertised expeditiously. But just to be clear, so we don't have to go through this line of questioning, we're not going down that route anymore. Is that correct? Through the chair, correct. We would like to withdraw the recommendation to reject all bids. If you all approve that, then what we will do is come back with a recommended vendor that then you will determine if you agree with the recommended vendor. I think I'm saying that right. Of course. Please. You're the chair. Thank you. You can always. Can the county attorneys please explain procedurally what is going on? Because they're saying the withdrawal is of the rejection of the bids, but that's not something that we can do here procedurally, right? We have to withdraw the item altogether. Right. So we have to withdraw the item. Can you help me, please? I didn't go to law school. At this time, presumably the item would be withdrawn. The chief is indicating that a new written recommendation, which would rescind the prior recommendation to recommend rejection of all bids, will be submitted with presumably an award recommendation to one of the vendors. That item would be then presented to the committee for your review and consideration. If what you're indicating is you want it specifically for next month's meeting, that you could make a motion to direct the administration to have that recommendation submitted by no later than in time for the next meeting. Commissioner Gonzalez, are you finished? So, yeah, I mean, I think I understand. I understand where you guys are coming from, so we don't have to go through the expedited scenario because we're going to get a recommendation. Correct? Through the chair, that is correct. We will come back with an actual recommendation. The second commitment I'm making is to provide a report that answers the questions that were raised that you all were anticipating getting today. So we'll also make sure you have the information that you've requested. So when you evaluate the recommendation we put forth, you have as much information as possible to determine if you agree or you disagree with the mayor's recommendation. Okay. Thank you, Chief. And so I still have just a few more questions very, very quickly, but this is specifically towards the company that went to first place. When was the solicitation initially put out, Director? May 16, 2025. May of 2025. So this procurement took a year. Is that correct? Yes. And we received proposal on August 29, 2025, and there were five evaluation meetings. So a lot has been said about the incumbent company. So why was the possibility of working with the current vendor not explored prior to issuing the solicitation? Is there a reason for fixing the issues? I'm going to need Director Miller. Of course. Through the chair? So, Director, why, or did we, why was the possibility of working with the current vendor to fix the issues that we had? Why weren't they approached, or were they approached? Stacey Miller, Director of Department of Transportation and Public Works. Thank you for the question. We currently have an additional two years under contract with the current vendor to do maintenance on the existing system. Our goal was to replace our system and not just maintain the existing system, but to wholesale go out and find best-in-class for a new system that would allow us to provide a better user experience, customer experience, provide additional analytics, provide additional analytics, and data analysis, and that wasn't part of the current contract. We wanted to go out for best-in-class and determine best value and best opportunity for all potential vendors. Right, but prior to the withdrawal, we were potentially going to work with the current company to fix certain issues, specifically when we talk about PCI compliances. So, my question is really geared towards that, and let me be a little bit more clear, specifically towards the PCI compliance, which is the biggest issue I think we have right now, because of being able to accept the credit card payments. So, with the PCI compliance, why was the current vendor not approached in order to fix this issue, or were they approached? I believe the goal, again, when we went out to procurement last year, was that we are under a waiver for PCI compliance, and that we believed our process would conclude, allow us to use that best-in-class software, and institute new software, upgraded software, before our waiver expired. We have been in discussion with our current vendor regarding an interim solution, and we continue to have those discussions. Got it, because, okay, so, just to reiterate, you put out a solicitation because something was needed in addition to what we currently had, but also, specifically, there was a PCI compliance that was necessary, right, because without that PCI compliance, certain credit card companies would not accept payments from us. In the future, they may stop accepting payments from us, that is correct. But if we had been working with these folks for X amount of years, did they not have the capability to fix that? That was not part of their current contract to fix that solution. Okay, so it wasn't part of their contract. When did we know that these upgrades that you're referring to were needed? I believe that occurred before I began. Well, we were developing the RFP package to go out for a new software. So that would be before I started with the county. Well, I mean, we would have known, at the very minimum, when the hardware contract was awarded, right, that we needed upgrades? We had always intended, when we went out for hardware, that we would go out for software as well. That is correct. So at the very minimum, November of 2024? I was not here at the time. Commissioner, she might have not been here, but Chief Edwards was here, and so was Namida. So maybe somebody else can answer your question, because I don't think it's fair to say I wasn't here. There is a track record of everything we do here, right? So somebody can answer it, certainly, right? I wasn't here in 2024, but I know what was happening in District 6. I'm more than happy to bring my Deputy Director of Transit Operations down. If they can answer the question, yes, please do. But I think, with all due respect, Director, I think that what the Chair is alluding to is it's your job to know. I understand that. I know that when we were making the decision to purchase new hardware and new software, the goal was our existing hardware is failing. It is end of life, and we can no longer obtain equipment. We are actually working with other properties around the country who are removing that hardware in order to try to obtain pieces to keep our hardware functioning. So we knew at the time that we were going out for new hardware that we needed new software. It wasn't just PCI compliance. It was the customer experience and moving from a fair card-based system to an account-based system. So there's complete change in our back office and our software and how we interface with our hardware. So we knew that before we went out for the hardware contract. The hardware contract and the software contract were split. We wanted the hardware contract so that we could be assured that we were putting new hardware in, in association with Metro Express as we were doing that project. So those have new hardware now. They are using old software currently. So theoretically, if we got the new hardware in 2024, at the very minimum, by 2024, we knew that we needed an upgrade. We were working on the RFP for the software. Because we're working with old software. Correct. And so let's get back to the vendor, right? So how long has Cubic, the current vendor, been under contract with the county? Because you said that we didn't include the PCI in the contract. But how long have they been working with the county? Perhaps that's a better question for the director. Upad. Going by my memory, I think the fair collection contract was awarded sometime, I know it's 2010 or 11. Eight? 2008. And when was the latest PCI data security standard released? I'm sorry, I don't have that information. The correct answer is June of 2024. So it's my understanding that the current vendor is not PCI compliant. And this is one of the issues that we had, right, meaning that they have not made the necessary upgrades to meet the latest standard. Is that correct? Our current software does not afford us the ability to be PCI compliant. So it's also my understanding that PCI stands for Payment Card Industry Data Security Standard. And that compliance, that it's literally what regulates the standard of how we take these credit cards. In fact, listen to this language taken directly from the PCI data security standard. PCI DSS provides a baseline of technical and operational requirements designed to protect account data or be enhanced by additional controls and practices to further mitigate risks and to incorporate local, regional, and sector laws and regulations. Is PCI compliance an industry standard? I think it is very clear from the language that it is. And since it is, why did you, as the current vendor, I guess this question is for Cubic, why did you, as the current vendor, not choose to be PCI compliant? Because this is what you guys do. Like, this is your whole function. Your whole function is to make sure that we're able to take these payments. So is there a specific reason? You know, it was previously stated that it wasn't in the contract. Is that your position that, hey, this is our job? Speaking of jobs today, this is our job. Our job is to make sure that you're able to take these credit card payments in a lawful and correct way. But because it's not in the contract, we just didn't do it. Thank you again for the opportunity. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I didn't recognize you. I will allow the answer to your question. I just don't want to turn it into a Q&A where everybody starts standing up. So go ahead, sir. You have a minute to respond. Thank you, Chairperson. Thank you, Commissioner. First and foremost, yes, PCI compliance is required. However, it takes a particular set of hardware and software. We're currently, I'd say 90% of all World Cup events use our system for fare collection. So PCI is our standard, minimum standard. However, to achieve that, the county would need to put forth the necessary engagement with Cubic for both the hardware upgrade and a software upgrade. And so we've been working with the county to talk through this, as well as with the payment brands to help avoid any fees or penalties, working with them to note what we're offering the county so that they can defer those penalties until such time as the county has achieved their status. So, yes, we understand the standard. Yes, we've offered to help the county. But they have not engaged us for the hardware and software upgrade to date. And how long have you been having that conversation with the county as to the PCI compliance? Well, I can talk to the brands. We've been talking with the brands now since May before the RFP came out. In terms of before then, I would not be aware. And so my last question for Cubic is what happens if we're not PCI compliant? If you don't achieve the standard in the time that deferral has been permitted, there will be assessed fees, both from the card brands and potentially from PCI compliance. You will lose your access to those open payment brands and your current fare system. So it would be a bad patron experience and a bad penalty to the county. We'd recommend that you work with us to achieve that faster. And to the administration, to the county attorney's office, is there a reason why we didn't include being PCI compliant in the original contract with the original company? That's one. And then two, are we considering putting that language in the new contract? Through the chair, it is... Sir, you can take a seat. Oh, thank you. I'm sorry. Through the chair, I'd like to answer the commissioner's question, if that's permissible. We are, throughout all of our county applications, striving and achieving PCI compliance. It is necessary and required. It is in the best interest of the community and the patron that we ensure that their information is protected. As you know, and you used a very good example in another meeting about the speed of technological change in cell phones, the speed of change is very rapid, and so every day we are assuring ourselves that we're meeting the newest standards that come out. So any contract that we execute will have a requirement for PCI compliance. And our vendors that are currently in place, we are seeking PCI compliance with those. I am not aware of when the current vendor informed us of their capacity to come into compliance, but it wasn't at the time that this went out. Got it. But you're saying that for the future, we will include PCI compliance in our contracts. Correct. We are doing that now. Yes. But we weren't doing that before, even though technology is ever so rapidly changing. From the point that it is required, for it to be required, we are incorporating it. No further questions. Thank you, Commissioner. Commissioner Cohen-Higgins. Thank you, Madam Chair. To the county attorneys, the way that Commissioner Gonzalez asked his excellent line of questions and the way that he received responses made it seem like this is pretty much an open and shut case. Only three should have advanced to orals, more than three did not. And so we're going to go back and we're going to renegotiate. But I'm not sure that I'm convinced that it's that simple because, and I'm going to ask a few questions in that regard, because what I don't understand right now is what are you all going to do different than what you have done previously and how are the facts going to change? Because I understand the facts as they are laid out here very, very clearly. And I do not know what is going to change. You are going to have all of these companies, no matter who you recommend, continue to bombard you with objections. And whatever recommendation you bring to us is still going to be riddled with objections. And so I don't know that the position that we are going to be in with a recommendation of one is going to be particularly different unless you go back and do something differently. And so before I get to the county attorneys, to the administration, are you going to reconvene to rescore? Are you going to reengage the selection committee to reengage under a different set of facts and circumstances? What is going to be different? Because if you indicate that you're just going to negotiate with the five firms, I'm not confident that we are going to be in any different position than where we are today. So I need guidance before I take a vote on specifically what the intention of the administration is moving forward and how you plan to pick one awardee here. Through the chair, I think you guys have gotten to know that I'm very candid and transparent. I need time to consult with the county attorneys and strategic procurement to ensure that we follow the rules that we laid out, that we come up with a process that is consistent with what we said we were going to do and what is legally viable and ethically responsible. My commitment to you is that we do that, Madam Commissioner, and that we use the process that was laid out to make a recommendation of a vendor that legitimately should be awarded the contract based on that criteria. It will take, I can't even give you how much time our commitment is try to do that before the next convening so that we can continue to move this project down the path. We ascertained after the last meeting, and I really appreciated the feedback and the fact that it was my turn to sit in this chair last time, that it is not viable for us to reject all bids and start over. That would waste time, that would waste money, and that would put the project at risk of being completed in a timely fashion. And so we are asking to withdraw that recommendation, because we heard each of you loud and clear, we respect your opinion and appreciate the pressure that you put on us to come up with a better solution. And so, as I said earlier, my commitment for today is for us to come back with a recommendation that may involve us reconvening the committee. I don't know. I need to consult and make sure we do it correctly. And I also commit to you getting the report with information that you requested so that you have all the information that's going to be required to make an informed decision. Okay. And thank you for that. I think it was an authentic response, but I'm not sure that it necessarily gave me the guidance on what specifically you're going to do different. And that's fair, because I think the answer authentically is I'm not sure yet. I think the answer is I need to speak with the attorneys, which I think is fair. Before I go to the attorneys, I'm looking through a lot of paperwork that I have here on this and not included in the very slim six-page item. What is the term of this contract? I don't see it written anywhere here. What is the term of the contract that these five companies bid on? Commissioner, the anticipated term is six years with one four-year option to renew. So a total of 10 years. And the numbers that they bid when they submitted, the numbers represented what? The number for the life of the contract? So there were five numbers submitted. There were nine numbers submitted. But the numbers as submitted were for the six-year aggregate? Commissioner, can you just give me one? For a six-year period. Okay. So I want to be clear. I need you to say that again. The numbers that were submitted from all of these proposers were aggregate numbers for the life of the contract, which was a six-year term, correct? That is correct. Okay. So the numbers that were submitted, Masabi, number one, $43 million in change. Moval, number two, $26 million in change. Three, Indra, USA, $30 million in change. Cubic, $46 million in change. I-N-I-T, $38 million in change. Cuba, $35 million in change. Flowbird, $11 million in change. Token, $14 million in change. Do those numbers sound accurate as far as the initial numbers that these proposers submitted? Yes. Okay. And so here's what is particularly curious to me. And now I'm going to go to the attorneys. So Bruce, at the beginning of our conversation, we spoke about new language. And Namada, you said this. There was new language in this RFP regarding the advancement of proposers and three, advancing. And that that was new language included in procurement as a result of a resolution that was passed by this board. And it's somewhat of a new situation for you all because you included it to be consistent with that resolution. And I know what resolution you're referring to because I was very much in support of that resolution. And it passed on February of 2025. And that resolution said that the top three ranked proposers are to advance to oral presentations for contracts in excess of $25 million. Correct? Correct, Commissioner. But it's $25 million annually. That is correct. But none of these proposers are proposing contracts of $25 million annually. Correct, Commissioner. Okay. But that's important, right? Because it's an aggregate. None of these proposers are proposing $25 million contracts annually. Correct? Correct, Commissioner. Correct, Commissioner. That resolution is not mandated to be applied to this solicitation. But the RFP solicitation itself included the express language that three would be invited. Okay. So whether or not the resolution governed the language that went out to the bidders had that language saying three would be invited. Okay, so what you're saying is that policy is not what governs, it's the language in the actual RFP that governs. And you were tracking that language even though that resolution doesn't necessarily govern or apply because it's not $25 million annually. Correct. Correct. Okay. And I bring that up because the spirit of that resolution was to allow, because there was an issue and there was a time where our selection committees were not reviewing proposals, particularly lengthy ones that were dense and that had high contract values, and we wanted to mandate oral presentation so that additional information can be gathered, so that better decisions can be made. And that was the spirit of that item, and then to the attorneys, I am trying to understand the determination that was made that seems to be kind of carrying the day that only the top three ranked bidders should have advanced to oral presentations based on the plain reading of the RFP. My question is, if that's such a firm decision that you all have made, why wasn't that decision advised when you all reconvened back in February? Because you all were at that reconvening meeting. In the memorandum released by the administration on March 2nd, 2026, at the bottom of the page, it says, The chief procurement officer and an assistant county attorney attended the meeting and both clarified the nature of the relationship between cubic and Genfair as delineated in cubic transportation systems proposal and asked each committee member to confirm their understanding. And it's referring to the reconvene on December of 2025. So there was a, I'm sorry, I think the reconvene was on February of 20. When was the reconvene? What was the reconvene? I don't know the precise date, but it might've been that February date. I think it's February 9th, 2026. Okay. So the attorneys are there. All of the proposers reconvene and a county attorney's there. They see that five proposers are there. Why wasn't there an opinion stated then? Whoa, wait a minute. We can't move forward. There's only supposed to be three of you. Commissioner, um, yes, I was an attorney there. The attorney was me. Um, that the reconvening, of that committee at that time, the question that was posed was the issue of whether one of the vendors had an exclusive arrangement with Genfair. With Genfair. Right. So are you saying that you weren't aware of the issue on February 9th, 2026 regarding the RFP being written such that it's your opinion today? It's, I'm not suggesting that I agree with that opinion, but are you saying that you weren't aware at the February 9th, 2026 meeting that only three should have advanced or that you were not aware of the language in the RFP? Subsequent, subsequent, in retracing, there was correspondence, which I believe I was CC'd on, which raised this issue of the five to the three. I was not aware at that moment, nor was, nor was I asked that question by the administration. Subsequent to this meeting, there was correspondence directed to me by one or more of the representatives from one of the firms, and I was directly asked that question. In reviewing both the correspondence I received and looking at the RFP and consulting other attorneys in the office, we concluded that the clear language said three, and at that point, and by the time, even with the correspondence, the first correspondence I referred to, that all occurred after the oral presentations had taken place. At that time, we reconvened, we spoke with, not when I say reconvened, the attorneys in our office spoke with the director of procurement and advised that our reading of the RFP and the plain language of the RFP required that it only be three instead of five. That's the genesis of the subsequent correspondence in which a subsequent recommendation was made. Okay, and the officer, I don't know the individual's names, but the officer that was part of the procurement that opined differently, that was aware of the language within the RFP, that knew that it said three will advance to orals, but specifically said, because of this situation of the points being so close and two proposers scoring tied, it's my professional opinion that five should advance. What is his title? What is his title? What is his title? What is his title? So, Commissioner, this is what happened. During the selection committee meeting, after the scoring was done and the ranking was done, one of the selection committee members asked my procurement officer in charge of this RFP, that can we, are we limited to three or can we advance five since four and five are tied and 0.3% closer to the, with number three. At that time, my staff member did pull out the RFP and read and right or wrong, it appears it's wrong, the interpretation was since the language does not say it's limited to only three, it says three, so we could invite five. That was, we understand, we understand that was an incorrect interpretation, but this is what happened. Okay. And what was the title of that staff member that you just mentioned? He is one of the negotiators in my department. Okay. I'm asking for the title because it was my understanding that he is some sort of chief procurement officer. I could be wrong. Maybe that's not his title. No. But I ask for his title because it's my understanding that he asked for additional companies to move to orals because that's common practice. Is that not common practice within your procurement department when two scores are very, very close to each other that they advance in order to allow the selection committee greater information and access to greater information via the oral presentations? The procurement professional cannot make that decision unilaterally. The decision comes from the committee as a whole, the selection committee. So one of the, since one of the selection committee's members asked can four and five be included and the interpretation that he laid out was yes. So the committee said, okay, let's move all five. Yeah. So I, and what I'm trying to, I think what I'm trying to lay out here is the, the language of the three top ranked moving on to orals is not pursuant to this board's policy because it's not applicable to contracts in excess of $25 million annually. You all just threw it in there for good of the order. Um, and then we have a procurement officer that has been doing this for years that made a judgment call is what it sounds like. And in the right spirit, in all defense of him to say, listen, these are really close. This is a very important contract. Let's hear from as many as we possibly can to get the best outcome that we can for the residents of Miami Dade County. And then after the fact, I mean, and attorneys were present at the reconvene meeting after the fact, the attorneys come in and say, hold your horses. It is our interpretation of the contract or the RFP that goes out that only three should have advanced. And so now here we sit, right? Right. But again, I don't know what changes from today until tomorrow with that set of facts, unless you all advise me that you all are going to either reconvene and rescore or do something of that sort. Um, because I, I just believe that we are going to be sitting here in exactly the same situation when you all do your recommendation. Um, a few followups. It's my understanding that FTA funding is tied almost, I don't want to overuse or overemphasize the word, but almost inextricably within this RFP FTA funding is tied in. Are there any timing considerations that we need to factor in when considering whatever we're going to do here today regarding the FTA funding? Because I cannot and we cannot afford to lose that element of this RFP. I'm happy to answer that question. Sorry, through the chair. Um, the funding that we have available is denoted for this particular contract moving forward. There is not a specific timeline associated with its expenditure in that we can, we have time to either use it associated with this or move it to another contract type in the future. Thank you. Again, it all has to be competitively procured in order to use federal resources. And part of the federal process, and of course we don't want to lose federal resources or the amount of money that we've associated with this project. But as part of the Federal Transit Administration's process, we have to follow the criteria that were established in the RFP for consistency sake. But the funds themselves do not have a specific sunset date that we can't continue to address as we move forward. So there's not a deadline on the FTA funding. It's built in and we're safe when it comes to that. We don't risk. We are not at risk. We are not at risk at losing. Okay. So what I'm hearing, and again, I appreciate the chief saying that we're not entirely sure of where it is that we are going, but it is very clear to me that you all intend to negotiate only with the top three original ranked bidders on this RFP. And you may not be ready to commit to that or not, but that is what I am gathering because I've heard it now from the director of the department. I've heard it from the attorney, and that's clearly the direction that you all plan to be taking. Is that a safe assumption, or are we still not prepared to make that commitment at this juncture? Go ahead. As far as I understand, we need to follow the criteria that was laid out in the RFP. It has been repeated here several times that that is having oral presentations only from the top three. And so we will circle back, double click on what is permissible and required and follow that process to come up with the recommendation that we would like to put before you. Okay. And thank you for that. And, you know, to our business community that is paying close attention to these committee hearings and every vote that we take and every decision. That we make, you know, what, what do we need to do as a board? What do we need to do as the, we're not the administrators. We are the legislators. Um, I can only, um, assume the frustration from our business community. Let me just say that safely. I can only assume the frustration. Um, what can we do as a board to allow for this sort of fact pattern to not play out? And that's an, that's a conversation for another date and another time. Um, but we, we have to, as a government, as a body do better regarding these procurements so that our business community partners are not discouraged from doing business with our great Miami Dade County. Um, and I look forward to working with you to do that. Have we received a commitment on timing on when this will come back to this committee with the recommendation, understanding that it is a recommendation. And I hope my line of questioning is leading you to the direction that I'm taking on this, not necessarily leaning towards one bidder or another, but questioning the decisions that have been made and whether or not those interpretive decisions necessarily are as guiding light as, as they're being given weight. Currently, I'm not sure that I'm entirely convinced on that understanding that a recommendation is what, what is coming back when is a reasonable expectation of when this will come back in the form of a formal recommendation. Um, through the chair, if it's the desire of the committee that it comes back to this body, we will have it for the next meeting, which I understand is July 15. Oh, okay. Okay. Um, he's correct. If it's play. Oh, I'm sorry. The chair has to decide. I'm Matt, the chair of the BCC. We know that. Yeah. But if it's the pleasure of the chair of the BCC, we would like it placed here for consistency for the next meeting of this committee, which I think I heard was July 15. Okay. So we will have a recommendation from the administration, obviously assuming the, the, the, the discretion of our chair on the July, the next committee cycle for this committee hearing. We, the administration would like that, um, assuming that you accept our withdrawal of the previous item, right? You reject the. Just to clear, to clarify, uh, the administration has, uh, withdrawn the item. There's, there's no vote required in accordance with rule 5.05 E of the board's rules of procedure. So. Okay. So understanding. So it's, then your response shouldn't be conditional. It's not, we would like that if it's withdrawn, it will be on our next agenda, assuming the, the, the prerogative of our, of our chair. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner. I would also like the inclusion of the explanation of the rationale for the application of the points that were given to pricing. The formula that was used for the RFP needs to be included. So I, I, I think we have, we've all spoken about that, but I, I would like to see the, the, the rationale for the application of price. The weights given to price. And then I would also, I know you're bringing it back at the next commission meeting, but I, I would like to make it an official directive. So I, I would, I'll motion a directive that this item comes back at the next committee meeting. And I understand the chair needs to place it back, but that is, uh, I want to give an official directive because we, it's our intent to have this back at the next meeting. So I'll make the motion. I second the motion of Madam chair. If I maybe recognize point of order on our rules, right? As a committee, we cannot issue directives to the administration. Is that correct? We can, um, as a body vote on items that would then have to advance to the board for final hearing in order for them to be directives. And this is what I've learned recently, Madam chair. Otherwise it is a request for information, but the message is the same, right? We don't convene in August. So if we don't get it in July, we're talking about September. Um, and I think that that would just be, uh, you know, a situation that nobody wants to, to deal with on this committee. I think if anybody's paying attention. So thank you. Thank you. I was following the instruction of the county attorneys on that. So I would like for them to clarify. Yeah. You could require a report to the next, to the committee itself. The committee can require a report to come to the committee itself. So you are correct that you couldn't necessarily direct the item, but you could direct the report that you're contemplating as to the explanation of price and that calculation. You mean what we did at the last committee hearing? Right. Right. And, Madam Chair, I just have to piggyback because I think what you said. Yes, go ahead. I think what you instructed is probably the most important factor, especially after Commissioner Cohen Higgins line of questioning. Right. Um, I think we need to be transparent, not only with the business community, but with everybody who applied for the RFP as to what that point system criteria is and how we get to those points. I think that is something that we need and that needs to be made public so that, you know, nobody gets the wrong idea. Yes, I agree. As part of that request, we want to make it clear that we want the explanation of the rationale for the application of points on pricing and the formula for the RFP. Okay. So with that, uh, I, we haven't even set the agenda. So I, at this time, do we need to take an official? We don't need to take a vote on the withdrawal. Okay. So with that, I will request any pools or bifurcations from my colleagues. Commissioner Lopez. Yes, Madam Chair. I'd like to pull 2C. 2C. Anybody else? Okay. Can I get a motion to set the agenda? So moved. All in favor? Aye. Okay. So we will go into 2C. Commissioner Lopez. Thank you, Madam Chair. So, um, this is a question to the county attorneys. Um, I just want to make sure that we all understand what we're doing here, because I think it could be a little confusing. So I want to set the record straight, um, as to exactly what this item does and then what the future steps will be, um, in the, in sort of the context of, um, and as I understand it to my colleagues, I understand that, um, we had a lot of discussion, uh, in our zoning and CDMP, and CDMP meetings regarding, and even in our board meetings regarding text amendments versus CDMP applications. Um, and clearly, um, this takes us to some examples where, um, text amendments have been used in particular to, to move into either an urban growth, uh, area or into the UDB. And so I know that this is supposedly what we discussed as a board to try to narrow, you know, uh, the loophole, if you will, uh, that existed and that we all identified existed. So, um, Eddie, if you could, as the county attorney working on this particular, uh, uh, proposal, if you could just walk us through, I think it would be helpful to put it on the record. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Um, that is correct, uh, Commissioner Lopez. Um, this item speaks to the use of text amendments to facilitate urban uses outside the UDB rather than the UDB line moving process that is specified in the CDMP itself. This calls for the administration, our professional planning staff to prepare an application to amend the CDMP. That would then come back to this board through the CDMP process, uh, presumably as a text amendment itself. So it would go to this board for consideration for transmission to the state for comments by the state, and then back to this board for full consideration. So the actual substance and specifics of that application would be presented at a later time. Um, this is the directive for the administration to, um, seek to find a solution to what you described as the loophole. Meaning that, um, if a text amendment is used in lieu of the processes specifically outlined for moving the line to facilitate urban uses in those areas. That this, um, that this amendment would address those concerns, um, and provide a more orderly process related to that. Um, it does call for there to be some flexibility if, um, you're using a text amendment in what is known as the urban expansion areas. Given that those are areas where once the need is demonstrated, the CDMP calls for expansion to be prioritized. Yes, go ahead. Thank you. Go ahead. Thank you. So, um, how does this intersect with, uh, Senate bill 180? Um, I think that's an important thing to put on the record as well. Uh, yeah. Yes, commissioner. So Senate bill, um, 180, um, prohibits among other things, more restrictive or burdensome comprehensive plan amendments. And to the extent that as I see it, this would be calling for a strictening of the, the CDMP process. Um, um, the actual application that this directs, um, would likely be subject to SB 180. And therefore the administration would only be able to present that once the SB 80, um, SB 180 period, um, ends in October, 2027. As may be extended by additional declarations of, of emergency her relating to hurricanes. So we're asking, we're directing with this item. We're directing the administration to do a text amendment application. Would they be, would they have to, because of Senate bill 180, would they have to wait, uh, until October of 2027 to submit that to the state? Depending upon actually what is in that. I do believe the answer is yes. Um, because again, this, the idea here is to, um, as you said, it close a loophole, um, which would be something, uh, most likely to be more burdensome or more restrictive. Um, the exception to that, by the way, is for private filed applications. And of course this would be filed by the county itself and therefore subject to the SB 180 restrictions. Um, I, you know, I don't know if it would be helpful to hear from the director as well, but this is my, you know, my response to your questions. And I guess my last question is, um, this wouldn't go into effect then until we, we get the state's comments back in 2027. So applications that are in the process now, uh, would not be, um, subject to this, to this change. Correct. This is not retroactive. Thank you, commissioner. Any further questions on that? Okay. Do I, can I have a motion on Tuesday item? Okay. Oh, go ahead, commissioner. Thank you, madam chair. Have we done an analysis? I understand that it won't be applied retroactively. It certainly would apply to pending applications that are before the board that we're all very familiar with. Uh, not, not that it would apply. It would have applied if it were in effect at that time. But have we done an analysis on should this pass? Um, how many applications it may affect, or would it affect no applications that have already been submitted prior to the passage of this? Assuming it passes. Through the chair, if, if I may, I would defer to, to the director on, on what would be pending or what this might relate to. Yeah, because if I'm planning on doing something like this and I see this on an agenda, like you may get 15 text amendments, right? Just to sideswipe this being enacted. So I'm trying to understand the universe of text amendment applications that are either sitting in your office or that you anticipate coming in your office, because I think the timing of this becomes important. Or, or if you say it's not an issue, then, then it's not an issue. Go ahead, director. I just want to, uh, everyone's gone over our time for the committee and the next one is waiting. So go ahead, director. Yeah, um, right now it would not have any status as has been described in the sense of affecting any pending applications. I can, I don't have the number of active applications that we have in process. I can certainly get you that if you're, if you're just interested. But I think the attorney explained it would not have an effect, you know, right now. Yes, it would not have an effect on those, um, already filed in. And I'll learn from you directly on what those numbers and what that universe may be between now and final hearing. Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, thank you, Commissioner. So we had a motion on this item. Do we have a second? Second. Anyone in favor? Aye. Okay, should this item pass? Um, no, no further business? Madam Chair, uh, just as a, uh, point of clarification. The administration is requesting that, uh, item 3E be waived to the June 16th board meeting. Yes. And I also received a request for 2C to be waived to the next commission meeting as well. Yes. Um, do we need a motion on that? No. Okay. Okay. Uh, do I have a motion to adjourn? Yes, so moved.