First, thank you very much for moving this item from the Consent Calendar in a previous meeting and your discussion related to a bid award to "other than the low bidder" for Landscape Services, Item 15.b.
Please consider the information in the attached document while addressing the aforementioned matter. Also, please contact me today or this evening if you have any questions.
Regards
Rande Downer
--
Rande Downer
LANDSCAPE CONTRACT AWARD (RP-2025-01)
[Agenda Item 15b/1 July 25]
COMPLAINTS: Adherence to contract
Weekly debris collection, reporting of work schedules, informing of dead/dying plants, adherence to safety standards for access and visibility.
Complaint-Based system/Reactive
First Regular Debris Removal, Deep pruning since 2022 occurred in January 2025.
Reference: Unsafe Conditions Report
BIDDING PROCESS (City)
Intent of city purchasing process generally conforms the state law (PCC) and the City Purchasing Process: Ref: Finance/Ch 3-4.10/.15)
Fair,
Transparent,
Create Competition,
Obtain services at the “Lowest possible cost”…commensurate w/quality.
Failed to Follow RFP: Reference: PCC 10304, and RFP Calendar of Events 2025/1 No Public Opening and reading of the bids. (Reference: PCC 10304) No “Interview” – Clarification of reason(s) to award to “other than the low bidder.” Not clear as of this date.
QUESTIONS:
• Has to City conformed to the intent and standards for bidding? No A “Recurring Anomaly” that is historically present in the bidding for Landscape services (Reference: 2011, 2016, 2020, and 2025.
• Has the Contractor conformed to the Agreement’s Scope of Work? No, poor oversight by city, city fails to maintain an “arms-length” relationship with contractor. Evidence of complacency and bias.
• Why did the 2025 Evaluation team include Department Administration only when all previous evaluation teams consisted of technician--level Public Works staff and representatives from R&P Commission? Evidence of Bias (stacking the deck).
CONCLUSION & A THIRD OPTION:
As stated in the agenda:
1) Award the bid to other than the low bidder as recommended by staff. 2) Reject ALL bids and re-bid.
3) An option not mentioned in the agenda:
Award the contract to the Low Bidder, thereby avoiding at least $1.5M premium to rate payers, and ending the procurement process.