Broward County Commission Regular Meeting
Director's Name: Stephen Farmer (Acting Director)
Department: Finance and Administrative Services Division: Purchasing
Information
Requested Action
title
A. MOTION TO APPROVE final ranking of qualified firms for Group 1, Terminals 1 - 4 and Airport Operation Control Center (AOCC), Request for Proposals (RFP) No. BLD2128700P1, Janitorial Services for Terminals 1 - 4, AOCC, and RCC at FLL, for the Broward County Aviation Department. The ranked firms are: 1 - Sunshine Cleaning Systems, LLC DBA Pritchard Industries; 2 - Flagship Aviation Services LLC; 3 - Triangle Services, Inc.; 4 - GDI Services Inc.; 5 - United Maintenance Company, Inc.; 6 - LN Pro Services, LLC; and 7 - Diverse Facility Solutions.
B. MOTION TO AWARD Group 1, Terminals 1 - 4 and AOCC, RFP No. BLD2128700P1, Janitorial Services for Terminals 1 - 4, AOCC, and RCC at FLL, for the Broward County Aviation Department, to Sunshine Cleaning Systems, LLC DBA Pritchard Industries, the top-ranked proposer based on the Evaluation Committee's June 30, 2026, ranking.
C. MOTION TO AUTHORIZE County Administrator to execute the Agreement with Sunshine Cleaning Systems, LLC DBA Pritchard Industries, subject to review and approval for legal sufficiency by the County Attorney’s Office, following the final, nonappealable disposition of the circuit court action filed by Triangle Service, Inc. (Case No. CACE26014200), provided that execution of the Agreement is consistent with the final disposition of the circuit court action.
body
Why Action is Necessary
Motion A: In accordance with the Broward County Procurement Code, Section 21.42.(j), Procedures for RFPs, RLIs, and RFQs, if a protest has been filed with respect to an Evaluation Committee’s ranking, the ranking must be submitted to the Board for final approval. The Board, by majority vote, may (1) accept the ranking as final; (2) reject all responses to the solicitation; or (3) direct the Evaluation Committee to reconvene to consider any new or additional information the Board directs the Evaluation Committee to consider. In addition, the Board may request presentations by the ranked vendors and may, by supermajority vote, rerank those vendors in a final ranking.
Motions B-C: In accordance with Broward County Procurement Code, Section 21.47, Award and Execution Authority, the Board shall make all awards, and authorize the execution of the associated contracts, with a value of more than $500,000, inclusive of the value of any renewals or extensions provided for in the contract.
In accordance with Section 332.0075(3)(b), Florida Statutes, a governing body must approve, award, or ratify all contracts executed by or on behalf of a commercial service large hub airport in excess of $1,500,000 as a separate line item on the agenda and must provide a reasonable opportunity for public comment. Such contracts may not be approved, awarded, or ratified as part of a consent agenda.
What Action Accomplishes
Motion A: Approves the Evaluation Committee’s recommendation of the final ranking of qualified firms for Group 1 only.
Motions B-C: Provides comprehensive janitorial services for Terminals 1 - 4 and AOCC located at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.
Goal Related Icon(s)
☐County Commission
☐Go Green
☐MAP Broward
Previous Action Taken
None.
Summary Explanation/Background
THE PURCHASING DIVISION AND THE AVIATION DEPARTMENT RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE ABOVE MOTIONS.
The Office of Economic and Small Business Development (OESBD) established a County Business Enterprise (CBE) goal of 30% for this solicitation. Sunshine Cleaning Systems, LLC DBA Pritchard Industries (Sunshine) committed to 30% CBE participation, which has been reviewed and approved by OESBD (Exhibit 2).
This solicitation provides comprehensive janitorial services for the Broward County Aviation Department Terminals 1 - 4 and AOCC (Group 1) and at Rental Car Center (RCC) (Group 2). Group 1 and Group 2 were solicited concurrently but evaluated and ranked separately. Group 2 was awarded by the Board on March 26, 2026 (Item No. 45).
On March 18, 2025, Request for Proposals (RFP) No. BLD2128700P1, Janitorial Services for Terminals 1 - 4, AOCC, and RCC at FLL was advertised. At the time of the submittal deadline of May 16, 2025, 21 firms submitted proposals (11 for Group 1; 16 for Group 2).
On September 5, 2025, an Initial Evaluation Committee meeting was held. The Evaluation Committee determined seven firms for Group 1 were both responsive and responsible to the RFP requirements.
On September 26, 2025, a Final Evaluation Committee meeting was held. After presentations, evaluation, questions and answers, scoring, and ranking, the Evaluation Committee named Triangle Services, Inc. (Triangle) as the first-ranked firm for Group 1 (Exhibit 1).
On October 1, 2025, the Director of Purchasing received a preemptive objection letter for Group 1 on behalf of Sunshine. The objection letter asserted that Triangle, the top-ranked proposer, was improperly awarded points based on its Location Certification per the RFP and Section 1-74, of the Broward County Code of Ordinances (Code) (Exhibit 3).
On October 8, 2025, the Director of Purchasing received a preemptive objection letter for Group 1 on behalf of Triangle. The objection letter asserted that Flagship Aviation Services, LLC (Flagship) and Sunshine failed to meet the mandatory supervision and staffing requirements under the RFP. Triangle also asserted concerns regarding the direction, control, and coordination of the day-to-day activities of Sunshine per Section 1-74 of the Code (Exhibit 4).
The Evaluation Committee’s proposed recommendation of ranking was posted on the Purchasing Division website from October 9 - 13, 2025, which provided an opportunity for any proposer or interested party to present any new or additional information regarding the responsibility of the proposers.
On October 13, 2025, the Director of Purchasing received a timely filed objection letter for Group 1 on behalf of Flagship. The objection letter asserted that Triangle, the top-ranked proposer, was erroneously awarded points under the Location Certification criteria outlined in the RFP and Section 1-74 of the Code. In addition, the objection claimed Sunshine failed to disclose a material case per the Litigation History section. Furthermore, it alleged that Sunshine should not have been awarded 3 points per Evaluation Committee member as a “Locally Based Subsidiary” because Sunshine failed to provide the required complete and unambiguous location certifications (Exhibit 5).
On January 9, 2026, the Director of Purchasing issued a response to Sunshine’s objection, stating that Section 21.42(h)(1) and 21.42(h)(3) of the Broward County Procurement Code (Procurement Code) requires objections to present new information not provided to the Evaluation Committee, and that such information must be sufficient to change the Evaluation Committee’s ranking. Neither condition was met. Vendor location does not affect Evaluation Committee scoring because location points are assigned solely by Purchasing Division based on the Location Certification form and supporting documentation. The Purchasing Division conducted additional due diligence on Triangle’s “Local business” and “Locally based business” status by requesting a Location Business Questionnaire and supplemental documentation, including an updated Broward County local business tax receipt. The Director of Purchasing reviewed the materials and found Triangle compliant with all requirements (Exhibit 6). Therefore, the objection was denied.
On January 9, 2026, the Director of Purchasing issued a response to Triangle’s objection letter, stating that per Section 21.42(h)(1) of the Procurement Code, objections must be based on new information not previously presented to the Evaluation Committee, and under Section 21.42(h)(3) of the Procurement Code, that new information must be sufficient to change the Evaluation Committee’s final ranking. Both requirements are mandatory; failure to meet either results in denial. The information Triangle provided regarding Flagship’s and Sunshine’s proposals was not new. The Evaluation Committee reviewed and scored each vendor’s staffing plan, including supervisory roles. Therefore, the objection did not meet the criteria for consideration under Section 21.42(h) and was denied (Exhibit 7).
On January 9, 2026, the Director of Purchasing issued a response to Flagship’s objection letter, stating that Triangle’s location had no impact on the Evaluation Committee’s scoring. Location points are assigned administratively by Purchasing based on the vendor’s Location Certification form and any supporting documentation provided to the Director of Purchasing’s satisfaction. The Evaluation Committee does not determine or influence location points. Because this issue fell outside the scope of the Evaluation Committee’s evaluation, the objection did not meet the criteria for consideration under Section 21.42(h) of the Procurement Code. Furthermore, the Litigation History requirement only mandates disclosure of material cases within three years of the solicitation deadline of May 18, 2025. As the case in question fell outside that three-year timeframe and involved Triangle’s Florida employees (and not any principals), disclosure by Triangle was not required. Therefore, the objection was denied (Exhibit 8).
The Evaluation Committee’s final recommendation of ranking was posted on the Purchasing Division website from January 12 - 16, 2026, which provided an opportunity for any aggrieved proposer to file a formal protest.
On January 16, 2026, the Director of Purchasing received a timely filed protest letter for Group 1 on behalf of Sunshine. The protest letter asserted that Triangle did not qualify as a “Locally based business” under Section 1-74 of the Code. Sunshine alleged that Triangle did not meet the County’s nerve center requirements (Exhibit 9). Also, Sunshine alleged Triangle should have been found non-responsible because it did not identify any material cases in the Litigation History section.
On March 11, 2026, the Director of Purchasing issued a response to Sunshine’s protest. letter, denying the protest. The denial was based on Triangle’s attestations, the County’s due diligence through multiple inquiries and research, and a nerve center test performed in collaboration with the Office of the County Attorney. In totality, the results of these efforts provided the most reasonable basis to conclude that Triangle’s principal place of business was in the City of Fort Lauderdale (Exhibit 10; complete response, with all exhibits, can be provided on request), and to deny the protest by Sunshine.
On March 18, 2026, the Director of Purchasing received an appeal to the protest determination on behalf of Sunshine for Group 1 (Exhibit 11).
On April 21, 2026, an administrative hearing was held before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the State of Florida Division of Administrative Hearings (DOAH) regarding Sunshine’s appeal of the protest determination for Group 1.
On June 10, 2026, the ALJ entered a Recommended Order recommending that Sunshine’s appeal be upheld (Exhibit 12).
On June 30, 2026, the County Administrator issued the final written decision accepting the ALJ’s Recommended Order pursuant to Section 21.88(f) of the Procurement Code.
On June 30, 2026, a Reconvened Final Evaluation Committee meeting was held to remove points allocated to Triangle as a Locally based business under Section 1-74 of the Code for Group 1. After rescoring and reranking the Evaluation Committee named Sunshine as the first-ranked firm for Group 1 (Exhibit 13).
The revised proposed recommendation of ranking was posted on the Purchasing Division website from July 1 - 6, 2026, which provided an opportunity for any proposer or interested party to present any new or additional information regarding the responsibility of the proposers.
The revised final recommendation of ranking was posted on the Purchasing Division website from July 7 - 13, 2026, which provided an opportunity for any aggrieved proposer to file a formal protest.
On July 8, 2026, the Director of Purchasing received a protest letter for Group 1 on behalf of Triangle. The protest letter asserted that the County’s decision to accept the ALJ’s Recommended Order was arbitrary and capricious. Triangle also asserted that Sunshine had scoring deficiencies, lacked substantiated qualification as a Locally based subsidiary, and failed to meet the CBE goal requirements set forth in the RFP (Exhibit 14).
On July 17, 2026, the Director of Purchasing issued a response to Triangle’s protest letter stating that the County’s decision to accept the ALJ’s Final Order is not subject to protest. Additionally, Section 21.65 of the Procurement Code allows a protest only when a vendor has a substantial interest in and is aggrieved by the ranking. Triangle is third-ranked and did not meet this standing requirement. Triangle challenged Sunshine’s ranking but did not properly challenge the second-ranked vendor, Flagship’s June 30, 2026, ranking. Even if Sunshine was disqualified or rescored, Flagship, not Triangle, would become the highest-ranked vendor (Exhibit 15). Therefore, the protest was denied.
On July 27, 2026, the Director of Purchasing received an appeal to the protest determination on behalf of Triangle for Group 1 (Exhibit 16).
On August 20, 2026, Broward County submitted a motion to dismiss Triangle’s appeal for Group 1 with DOAH.
On September 3, 2026, Broward County received the filed, verified complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief from Triangle through the 17th Judicial Circuit of Broward County, Florida (Exhibit 17).
On September 8, 2026, the ALJ at DOAH dismissed Triangle’s appeal for Group 1 (Exhibit 18).
Additional supporting documentation provided to the Evaluation Committee for this procurement can be found on the Purchasing Division website at broward.org/purchasing/repository.
Source of Additional Information
Robert E. Gleason, Director, Purchasing Division, (954) 357-6070
Fiscal Impact
Fiscal Impact/Cost Summary
Each requirement processed against this open-end contract will be funded by the appropriate source at the time of release.