CEI SERVICES FOR THE DADELAND SOUTH INTERMODAL STATION

Board of County Commissioners · 2026-09-01 · resolution

The Miami-Dade County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution R-748-26 (File Number 261323) on September 1, 2026, authorizing Supplemental Agreement No. 1 with BCC Engineering, LLC for Construction, Engineering, and Inspection (CEI) services for the Dadeland South Intermodal Station project. The agreement increases the maximum compensation from $3,551,593.10 to $5,467,817.92, a fiscal impact of $1,916,224.82, funded by the People's Transportation Plan Bond Program. The project is located at the Dadeland South Metrorail Station, 9150 Dadeland Boulevard, Miami, Florida 33156, within Commission District 7. The design-build project is valued at approximately $77 million. The supplemental agreement supports a 264-day extension to the design-build contract (Contract No. CIP207-DTPW19-DB) approved by the Board on November 4, 2025 via Resolution No. R-1068-25. The expanded scope includes integration of bus charging infrastructure, reconfiguration of the BRT platform, escalator replacements, and modifications to station access and circulation elements. The Infrastructure, Innovation & Technology Committee forwarded the item to the BCC with a favorable recommendation on July 15, 2026. The original design-build contract was approved on July 18, 2023 with NV2A Group, LLC (Resolution No. R-698-23), and the original CEI PSA was awarded on May 16, 2023 to New Millennium Engineering, Inc. (Resolution No. R-462-23), which was subsequently acquired by BCC Engineering, LLC. The agreement term matches the construction contract, which was extended by 264 days beyond its initial term of approximately 300 days, for a total of nearly two years, with payments averaging approximately $200,000 per month. The CEI services are a time-and-materials contract with negotiated hours at contractually set rates, not a percentage-based agreement, although CEI services generally fall within a range of about five percent of project cost. The additional cost is attributed to the 264 days of work added to the construction project as a result of additional scope, including electric vehicle charging infrastructure, work in the kiss-and-ride area and bus station, reconfiguring the bus pickup alignment from parallel to a seesaw design, escalator and elevator modifications, and added infrastructure for evacuation purposes. The additional scope was based on operational needs related to bus rapid transit (BRT) service and new requirements from permitting agencies, including National Fire Protection Association codes that were still being written when the project was bid. The Board authorized the additional design scope through a supplemental agreement approved on November 2, 2025. The contingency allowance of $322,872.10 remains unchanged. The item was a late addition to the agenda and required CITT review. Public comment sentiment included Commissioner Cohen Higgins requesting clarification on whether the total covered professional services alone or included construction costs, the term of the agreement, the aggregate value of the project, and the justification for the additional expenditure; she acknowledged the need for outside engineering expertise but expressed concern about the expansion of scope at a time of transportation budget shortfalls, and stated she would support the item based on the department's representation that the funding was necessary. Chairwoman Steinberg noted she had intended to raise questions due to the late addition and lack of opportunity to be briefed. Commissioner Lopez expressed concern that the County frequently approved additional scopes of services without knowing the associated cost, questioned the fairness to the competitive bidding process, and stated she was not prepared to approve items that had not been carefully planned from the outset. Commissioner Gonzalez commended Mr. Ferrer-Diaz for his preparedness and inquired about the original bid and scope of work. Chairwoman Steinberg stated that scope changes and change orders warranted closer scrutiny, particularly where the changes originated with the County.