Miami-Dade Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee Meeting – June 10, 2026

The Intergovernmental and Economic Impact Committee convened on June 10, 2026, at 10:30 AM under Chairwoman Natalie Milian Orbis. The committee addressed several resolutions, with the most contentious being Item 3B regarding the fare collection application RFP, which was withdrawn after extensive public testimony and commissioner discussion. Other items included a resolution directing the county to eliminate obsolete telephone lines, a resolution to amend the Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) regarding text amendments outside the Urban Development Boundary (UDB), and approvals of community redevelopment agency budgets. The meeting adjourned after setting the agenda and handling routine matters.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Diana Mendez (Masabi) : Represented Masabi, the top-ranked proposer before and after oral presentations. Argued that the RFP process should be followed, urging the committee to negotiate with Masabi as the highest-ranked proposer. Noted that FTA funding is contingent on following RFP criteria.
• Juan Carbonell (Masabi) : Supported Masabi’s ranking, stating the selection committee made the right choice twice. Emphasized Masabi’s track record and ability to deliver a fare collection system within 12 months. Warned that delaying or canceling the RFP would push rollout to 2029 and risk losing FTA funding.
• Saj Popat (Cubic Transportation Systems) : Represented the incumbent vendor, offering assistance and noting Cubic’s long-standing partnership with the county.
• Danielle Sanabria (Cubic) : Argued that the RFP did not limit oral presentations to three firms, citing the procurement officer’s own statements. Stated that the evaluation committee, facing a 0.3% spread among top firms, decided to hear from all five. Claimed Cubic was ranked first after oral presentations and reaffirmed first after a reconvened meeting. Described the administration’s request to reject all bids as disregarding the committee’s work.
• Alex Heckler (Cubic) : Noted that a previous resolution set a minimum of three firms for oral presentations, not a maximum. Asserted that Cubic finished first after oral presentations and again after a reconvened meeting. Suggested working with Cubic to fix current system issues rather than a new $50 million software contract.
• Hugo Benitez (Movel) : Represented Movel, arguing that Movel offered the best value—$17 million cheaper than Masabi with only a 1.4% qualitative difference. Criticized the selection committee’s pricing evaluation as irrational and urged the committee to stick to RFP criteria and select Movel.
• Miguel Diaz de la Portilla (Movel) : Stated that Masabi’s $43 million price was conditioned on ridership not increasing by more than 5%, while Movel’s price was $17 million lower. Called the pricing score allocation irrational and asked the committee to support Movel.
• Alice Bravo (Movel) : Former transit director, spoke in favor of Movel, emphasizing need for a reliable, user-friendly fare system. Noted that the committee has purview to question how price points were allocated.
• Ryan Maccom (Init Group) : Thanked the mayor and committee for attention to the procurement, stating that riders deserve a quality system.
• Brad Price (Indra) : Claimed Indra’s pricing was $20-21 million cheaper than others, noting that other vendors omitted baseline capabilities. Asserted Indra’s capability to implement complex projects.

Discussion Items

• Item 3B – Fare Collection Application RFP : The administration requested withdrawal of its recommendation to reject all bids. Discussion centered on procedural errors: the RFP stated that only the three highest-ranked proposers would advance to oral presentations, but five were invited. Commissioner Gonzalez questioned the process, noting that vendor Cubic jumped from fourth to first after oral presentations. The county attorney confirmed the RFP language meant three, not five. Commissioner Cohen Higgins questioned what would change in a future recommendation and expressed concern over the lack of a clear plan. The administration committed to providing a report explaining pricing point allocation and returning with a recommended vendor at the next committee meeting in July.
• Item 2C – CDMP Text Amendment : Presented by Commissioner Lopez. The resolution directs the county to file an application to amend the CDMP to address the use of text amendments that facilitate urban uses outside the UDB. County attorney Eddie noted that the amendment would likely be more restrictive and thus subject to Senate Bill 180, delaying implementation until at least October 2027. The committee passed the resolution with a favorable recommendation (4-0).
• Item 2E – Fee Modifications : Resolution to modify certain fees in response to state law changes; forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation (4-0).
• Item 2B – Obsolete Telephone Lines : Resolution directing the county to eliminate obsolete phone lines and sell unused equipment; forwarded favorably (4-0).

Key Outcomes

• Item 3B Withdrawn: The administration’s request to reject all bids for the fare collection RFP was withdrawn. The committee directed the administration to return at the next committee meeting (July 15, 2026) with a recommendation for a vendor and a report explaining the pricing point allocation formula.
• Item 2C Approved: Resolution directing CDMP amendment to address text amendments outside the UDB passed with a 4-0 vote and will be waived to the June 16 BCC meeting.
• Item 2B, 2E, 3A, 3C, 3D Approved: All forwarded to the BCC with favorable recommendations (4-0 each).
• Item 3E: Administration requested waiver to June 16 board meeting.
• Committee Meeting Adjourned: After setting the agenda and approving the minutes from previous meetings.