8D
Date: December 16, 2025
To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
From: Robert Dunn, Police Chief
By: Jacob Gallacher, Police Commander | [email protected] Subject: Police – Award Consulting Services Agreement for the Implementation of a Policing Reform Agreement Between The California Department of Justice, The City of Torrance, and The Torrance Police Department. Expenditure: Not-to-Exceed $1,250,000 (General Fund: Approximately $250,000 Annually).
RECOMMENDATION
Recommendation of the Chief of Police that City Council award a consulting services agreement to Teri Black & Company, LLC, dba Joseph Brann & Associates of Torrance, CA (RFP B2025-25), for the implementation of a policing reform agreement between the California Department of Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department, for an amount not-to-exceed $1,250,000 (Approximately $250,000 Annually) for a five-year (5) period beginning January 5, 2026 and ending January 4, 2031.
FUNDING
Funding is available in the CA DOJ Monitor Project (OP70-OP0005) – Capital Improvement Fund and is anticipated to be available in subsequent fiscal years.
DISCUSSION
On August 28, 2025, the City of Torrance and the Torrance Police Department entered into an agreement with the California Department of Justice (CAL DOJ) related to the implementation of police reforms. The agreement requires the Torrance Police Department (TPD) to contract with an expert consultant and/or consultant team to support CAL DOJ in its evaluation of TPD’s implementation of the reforms, consistent with the terms of the agreement.
To fulfill this requirement, TPD issued a Request for Proposals (RFPs) for consultants and consultant teams to provide monitoring and evaluation services. The City received four (4) responses, each of which was reviewed and evaluated by representatives from both TPD and CAL DOJ. Three (3) consultant firms were invited to participate in a joint interview process. From there, two (2) consultant groups emerged, and reference checks were completed.
Following this vetting process, the Torrance Police Department and the California Department of Justice mutually agreed to select Teri Black & Company, LLC, dba Joseph Brann & Associates, as the consultant team to support CAL DOJ in its evaluation of TPD’s implementation of the reforms.
1 City Council
December 16, 2025
8 1
7 Accordingly, TPD is recommending that the City Council award a consulting services agreement with Teri Black & Company, LLC, dba Joseph Brann & Associates, for implementation of the DOJ reform agreement.
ATTACHMENT
1. Consulting Services Agreement - Teri Black & Company, LLC, dba Joseph Brann & Associates
2 1
CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT
This CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of January 5, 2026 (the “Effective Date”), by and between the CITY OF TORRANCE, a municipal corporation (“CITY”), and Teri Black & Company, LLC, DBA, Joseph Brann & Associates (“CONSULTANT”).
RECITALS:
A. CITY wishes to retain the services of an experienced and qualified CONSULTANT to support the implementation and the evaluation of CITY’s substantial compliance with the agreed upon reforms in the Agreement Between the California Department of Justice, The City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department.
B. In order to obtain the desired services, CITY has circulated its Request for Proposal for the Implementation of Policing Reform Agreement between the City of Torrance and the California Department of Justice, RFP No. B2025-25 (the “RFP”).
C. CONSULTANT has submitted a Proposal (the “Proposal”) in response to the RFP. In its Proposal CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified to perform those services requested in the RFP. Based upon its review of all proposals submitted in response to the RFP, CITY is willing to award this Agreement to CONSULTANT.
AGREEMENT:
1. SERVICES TO BE PERFORMED BY CONSULTANT
CONSULTANT will provide work and services described in the Agreement Between the California Department of Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department, the RFP, and the CONSULTANT’s Proposal submitted in response to the RFP. CONSULTANT warrants that all work and services set forth in the Agreement Between California Department of Justice, the City of Torance, and the Torrance Police Department, the RFP, and the CONSULTANT’s Proposal submitted in response to the RFP will be performed in a competent, professional and satisfactory manner. A copy of the Agreement Between the California Department of Justice, The City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department in attached as Exhibit A. A copy of the RFP is attached as Exhibit B. A copy of the Proposal is attached as Exhibit C.
2. TERM
Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Paragraph 4 below, this Agreement will continue in full force and effect from the Effective Date through January 4, 2031.
3. COMPENSATION
A. CONSULTANT’s Fee.
ATTACHMENT 1
3 2
For services rendered pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT will be paid in accordance with the Cost to Provide Services set forth in the Proposal; provided, however, that in no event will the total amount of money paid CONSULTANT, for services initially contemplated by this Agreement, exceed the sum of $1,250,000 (“Agreement Sum”), unless otherwise first approved in writing by CITY.
B. Schedule of Payment.
Provided that CONSULTANT is not in default under the terms of this Agreement, upon approval of a monthly presented invoice, CONSULTANT will be paid the fees described in Paragraph 3.A. above, according to the Cost to Provide Services.
CONSULTANT acknowledges and agrees that payment of fees for the services rendered in relation to this Agreement will be made by the California Department of Justice, as detailed in Section 4 entitled “Budget and Payment” of the Agreement Between the California Department of Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department
4. TERMINATION OF AGREEMENT
A. Termination by CITY for Convenience.
1. CITY may, after complying with the meet and confer requirements of Section 2(a)(viii) of the Agreement Between the California Department of Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department, terminate the Agreement for CITY’s
convenience, at any time, and without cause.
2. Upon receipt of written notice from CITY of such termination for CITY’s convenience, CONSULTANT will:
a. cease operations as directed by CITY in the notice;
b. take actions necessary, or that CITY may direct, for the protection and preservation of the work; and
c. except for work directed to be performed prior to the effective date of termination stated in the notice, terminate all existing subcontracts and purchase orders and enter into no further subcontracts and purchase orders.
3. In case of termination for CITY’s convenience, CONSULTANT will be entitled to receive payment for work executed, together with costs incurred by reason of the termination, along with reasonable overhead and profit on work not executed.
B. Termination for Cause.
1. If either party fails to perform any term, covenant or condition in this Agreement, the Agreement Between the California Department of 4 3
Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department, the RFP, and the CONSULTANT’s Proposal and that failure continues for 15 calendar days after the nondefaulting party gives the defaulting party written notice of the failure to perform, this Agreement may be terminated for cause; provided, however, that if during the notice period the defaulting party has promptly commenced and continues diligent efforts to remedy the default, the defaulting party will have such additional time as is reasonably necessary to remedy the default. In the event CONSULTANT is the defaulting party, the CITY must comply with the meet and confer requirements of Section 2(a)(vii) of the Agreement Between the California Department of Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department before this agreement may be terminated for cause.
2. In the event this Agreement is terminated for cause by the default of CONSULTANT, CITY may, at the expense of CONSULTANT
and its surety, complete this Agreement or cause it to be completed. Any check or bond delivered to the CITY in connection with this Agreement, and the money payable thereon, will be forfeited to and remain the property of the CITY. All moneys due CONSULTANT under the terms of this Agreement will be retained by CITY, but the retention will not release CONSULTANT and its surety from liability for the default. Under these circumstances, however, CONSULTANT and its surety will be credited with the amount of money retained, toward any amount by which the cost of completion exceeds the Agreement Sum and any amount
authorized for extra services.
3. Termination for cause will not affect or terminate any of the rights of CITY as against CONSULTANT or its surety then existing, or that may thereafter accrue because of the default; this provision is in addition to all other rights and remedies available to the CITY under law.
C. Termination for Breach of Law.
In the event CONSULTANT or any of its officers, directors, shareholders, employees, agents, subsidiaries or affiliates is convicted (i) of a criminal offense as an incident to obtaining or attempting to obtain a public or private contract or subcontract, or in the performance of a contract or subcontract; (ii) under state or federal statutes of embezzlement, theft, forgery, bribery, falsification or destruction of records, receiving stolen property, or any other offense indicating a lack of business integrity or business honesty that currently, seriously, and directly affects responsibility as a public consultant or CONSULTANT; (iii) under state or federal antitrust statutes arising out of the submission of bids or proposals; or (iv) of violation of Paragraph 19 of this Agreement; or for any other cause CITY determines to be so serious and compelling as to affect 5 4
CONSULTANT’s responsibility as a public consultant or CONSULTANT, including but not limited to, debarment by another governmental agency, then CITY reserves the unilateral right to terminate this Agreement or to impose such other sanctions (which may include financial sanctions, temporary suspensions or any other condition deemed appropriate short of termination) as it deems proper. CITY will not take action until CONSULTANT has been given notice and an opportunity to present evidence in mitigation.
5. FORCE MAJEURE
If any party fails to perform its obligations because of strikes, lockouts, labor disputes, embargoes, acts of God, inability to obtain labor or materials or reasonable substitutes for labor or materials, governmental restrictions, governmental regulations, governmental control, judicial orders, enemy or hostile governmental action, civil commotion, fire or other casualty, or other causes beyond the reasonable control of the party obligated to perform, then that party’s performance will be excused for a period equal to the period of that cause for failure to perform.
6. CITY REPRESENTATIVE
The Chief of Police is designated as the “City Representative,” authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work and services specified in this Agreement and to make all decisions in connection with this Agreement. Whenever approval, directions, or other actions are required by CITY under this Agreement, those actions will be taken by the City Representative, unless otherwise stated. The City Manager has the right to designate another City Representative at any time, by providing notice to CONSULTANT.
7. CONSULTANT REPRESENTATIVE(S)
The following principal(s) of CONSULTANT are designated as being the principal(s) and representative(s) of CONSULTANT authorized to act in its behalf with respect to the work specified in this Agreement and make all decisions in connection with this Agreement:
Joseph Brann, Principal
Chris Hartney, Project Manager
8. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR
CONSULTANT is, and at all times will remain as to CITY, a wholly independent contractor. Neither CITY nor any of its agents will have control over the conduct of CONSULTANT or any of CONSULTANT’s employees, except as otherwise set forth in this Agreement. CONSULTANT’s agents and employees are not and shall not be considered employees of CITY for any purpose. CONSULTANT may not, at any time or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of CITY. CITY has no duty, obligation, or responsibility to CONSULTANT’s agents or employees under the Affordable Care Act. CONSULTANT is solely responsible for any tax penalties associated with the failure to offer affordable coverage to its agents and employees under the Affordable Care Act and any other liabilities, claims and 6 5
obligations regarding compliance with the Affordable Care Act with respect to CONSULTANT’s agents and employees. CITY is not responsible and shall not be held liable for CONSULTANT’s failure to comply with CONSULTANT’s duties, obligations, and responsibilities under the Affordable Care Act. CONSULTANT agrees to defend, indemnify and hold CITY harmless for any and all taxes and penalties that may be assessed against CITY as a result of CONSULTANT’s obligations under the Affordable Care Act relating to CONSULTANT’s agents and employees.
9. BUSINESS LICENSE
CONSULTANT must obtain a City business license prior to the start of work under this Agreement, unless CONSULTANT is qualified for an exemption.
10. OTHER LICENSES AND PERMITS
CONSULTANT warrants that it has all professional, contracting and other permits and licenses required to undertake the work contemplated by this Agreement.
11. FAMILIARITY WITH WORK
By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT warrants that CONSULTANT (a) has thoroughly investigated and considered the scope of services to be performed, (b) has carefully considered how the services should be performed, and (c) fully understands the facilities, difficulties and restrictions attending performance of the services required under this Agreement. If the services involve work upon any site, CONSULTANT warrants that CONSULTANT has or will investigate the site and is or will be fully acquainted with the conditions there existing, prior to commencement of the services set forth in this Agreement.
Should CONSULTANT discover any latent or unknown conditions that will materially affect the performance of the services set forth in this Agreement, CONSULTANT must immediately inform CITY of that fact and may not proceed except at CONSULTANT’s risk until written instructions are received from CITY.
12. CARE OF WORK
CONSULTANT must adopt reasonable methods during the term of the Agreement to furnish continuous protection to the work, and the equipment, materials, papers, documents, plans, studies and other components to prevent losses or damages, and will be responsible for all damages to persons or property, until acceptance of the work by CITY, except those losses or damages as may be caused by CITY’s own negligence.
13. CONSULTANT’S ACCOUNTING RECORDS; OTHER PROJECT RECORDS Records of CONSULTANT’s time pertaining to the project, and records of accounts between CITY and CONSULTANT, will be kept on a generally recognized accounting basis. CONSULTANT will also maintain all other records, including without limitation, specifications, drawings, progress reports and the like, relating to the work and services identified in Exhibit A. All records will be available to CITY during normal working hours. CONSULTANT will maintain these records for three years after final payment.
//
//
7 6
14. INDEMNIFICATION
CONSULTANT will indemnify, defend, and hold harmless CITY, the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Torrance, the City Council, each member thereof, present and future, members of boards and commissions, their officers, agents, employees and volunteers (collectively “City Affiliates”) from and against any and all liability, expenses, including defense costs and legal fees, and claims for damages whatsoever, including, but not limited to, those arising from breach of contract, bodily injury, death, personal injury, property damage, loss of use, or property loss however the same may be caused and regardless of the responsibility for negligence. The obligation to indemnify, defend and hold harmless includes, but is not limited to, any liability or expense, including defense costs and legal fees, arising from the negligent acts or omissions, or willful misconduct of CONSULTANT, its officers, employees, agents, subCONSULTANTs or vendors. CONSULTANT’s obligations to indemnify, defend and hold harmless will apply even in the event of concurrent negligence on the part of City Affiliates, except for liability resulting solely from the negligence or willful misconduct of City Affiliates. Payment by CITY is not a condition precedent to enforcement of this indemnity. In the event of any dispute between CONSULTANT and CITY, as to whether liability arises from the sole negligence of City Affiliates, CONSULTANT will be obligated to pay for the defense of City Affiliates until such time as a final judgment has been entered adjudicating City Affiliates as solely negligent. CONSULTANT will not be entitled in the event of such a determination to any reimbursement of defense costs including but not limited to attorney’s fees, expert fees and costs of litigation.
15. NON-LIABILITY OF CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES
No officer or employee of CITY will be personally liable to CONSULTANT, in the event of any default or breach by the CITY or for any amount that may become due to CONSULTANT.
16. INSURANCE
A. CONSULTANT and its subCONSULTANTs must maintain for the duration of the Agreement at their sole expense the following insurance, which will be full coverage not subject to self-insurance provisions:
1. Automobile Liability, including owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, with at least the following limits of liability:
a. Primary Bodily Injury with limits of at least $500,000 per person, $1,000,000 per occurrence; and
b. Primary Property Damage of at least $250,000 per
occurrence; or
c. Combined single limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence.
2. Commercial General Liability including coverage for premises, products and completed operations, independent
CONSULTANTs/vendors, personal injury and contractual
8 7
obligations with combined single limits of coverage of at least $2,000,000 per occurrence, $4,000,000 aggregate.
3. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Labor Code of the State of California and, if workers' compensation is required, employer's liability insurance with minimum limits of ($1,000,000) per occurrence or occupational illness. The Workers' Compensation policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the CITY for all work performed by the CONSULTANT, its employees, agents and subconsultants.
4. Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions): Insurance appropriate to the CONSULTANT’S profession, with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence or claim, $4,000,000 aggregate.
B. The insurance provided by CONSULTANT will be primary and non- contributory.
C. CITY, the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of Torrance, the City Council and each member thereof, members of boards and commissions, every officer, agent, official, employee and volunteer must be named as additional insureds under the automobile and general liability policies.
D. CONSULTANT must provide certificates of insurance including all required amendatory endorsements (or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause) indicating appropriate coverage, to the City Clerk of the City of Torrance before the commencement of work.
E. Each insurance policy required by this Paragraph must contain a provision that no termination, cancellation or change of coverage can be made without notice to the CITY.
F. If the CONSULTANT maintains broader coverage and/or higher limits than the minimums shown above, the CITY requires and shall be entitled to the broader coverage and/or the higher limits maintained by the CONSULTANT. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to the CITY.
G. The procuring of insurance shall not be construed as a limitation on liability nor as full performance of the indemnification provisions of the CONSULTANT.
H. Claims Made Policies
If any of the required policies provide coverage on a claims-made basis:
9 8
a. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.
b. Insurance must be maintained and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of the contract of work. c. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made poli cy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Vendor must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of contract work.
I. CONSULTANT hereby grants to CITY a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said CONSULTANT may acquire against the CITY by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. CONSULTANT agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the CITY has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
J. Self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the CITY.
The CITY may require the CONSULTANT to provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. The policy language shall provide, or be endorsed to provide, that the self-insured retention may be satisfied by either the named insured or CITY.
17. SUFFICIENCY OF INSURERS
Insurance required by this Agreement will be satisfactory only if issued by companies admitted to do business in California, rated “A” or better in the most recent edition of Best’s Key Rating Guide, and only if they are of a financial category Class VII or better, unless these requirements are waived by the Risk Manager of CITY (“Risk Manager”) due to unique circumstances. In the event the Risk Manager determines that the work or services to be performed under this Agreement creates an increased or decreased risk of loss to CITY, the CONSULTANT agrees that the minimum limits of any insurance policies or performance bonds required by this Agreement may be changed accordingly upon receipt of written notice from the Risk Manager; provided that CONSULTANT will have the right to appeal a determination of increased coverage by the Risk Manager to the City Council of CITY within 10 days of receipt of notice from the Risk Manager.
18. CONFLICT OF INTEREST
A. No officer or employee of the CITY may have any financial interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement, nor may any officer or employee participate in any decision relating to the Agreement that affects the officer or employee’s financial interest or the financial interest of any corporation, partnership or association in which the officer or employee is, directly or indirectly interested, in violation of any law, rule or regulation.
B. No person may offer, give, or agree to give any officer or employee or former officer or employee, nor may any officer or employee solicit, 10 9
demand, accept, or agree to accept from another person, a gratuity or an offer of employment in connection with any decision, approval, disapproval, recommendation, preparation or any part of a program requirement or a purchase request, influencing the content of any specification or procurement standard, rendering of advice, investigation, auditing, or in any other advisory capacity in any way pertaining to any program requirement, contract or subcontract, or to any solicitation or proposal.
19. NOTICE
A. All notices, requests, demands, or other communications under this Agreement will be in writing. Notice will be sufficiently given for all purposes as follows:
1. Personal delivery. When personally delivered to the recipient, notice is effective on delivery.
2. First Class mail. When mailed first class to the last address of the recipient known to the party giving notice, notice is effective three mail delivery days after deposit in a United States Postal Service office or mailbox.
3. Certified mail. When mailed certified mail, return receipt requested, notice is effective on receipt, if delivery is confirmed by a return receipt.
4. Overnight delivery. When delivered by an overnight delivery service, charges prepaid or charged to the sender’s account, notice is effective on delivery, if delivery is confirmed by the delivery service.
5. Facsimile transmission. When sent by fax to the last fax number of the recipient known to the party giving notice, notice is effective on receipt. Any notice given by fax will be deemed received on the next business day if it is received after 5:00 p.m. (recipient’s time) or on a non-business day.
6. Addresses for purpose of giving notice are as follows:
CONSULTANT: Joseph Brann & Associates
25500 Hawthorne Blvd., Ste 1158
Torrance, California, 90505
CITY: City Clerk
City of Torrance
3031 Torrance Boulevard
Torrance, CA 90503
11 10
Fax: (310) 618-2931
B. Any correctly addressed notice that is refused, unclaimed, or undeliverable because of an act or omission of the party to be notified, will be deemed effective as of the first date the notice was refused, unclaimed or deemed undeliverable by the postal authorities, messenger or overnight delivery service.
C. Either party may change its address or fax number by giving the other party notice of the change in any manner permitted by this Agreement.
20. PROHIBITION AGAINST ASSIGNMENT AND SUBCONTRACTING
This Agreement and all exhibits are binding on the heirs, successors, and assigns of the parties. The Agreement may not be assigned or subcontracted by either CITY or CONSULTANT without the prior written consent of the other.
21. INTEGRATION; AMENDMENT
This Agreement represents the entire understanding of CITY and CONSULTANT as to those matters contained in it. No prior oral or written understanding will be of any force or effect with respect to the terms of this Agreement. The Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both parties.
22. INTERPRETATION
The terms of this Agreement should be construed in accordance with the meaning of the language used and should not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship of this Agreement or by any other rule of construction that might otherwise apply. To the extent that the terms of the RFP or Proposal are inconsistent with the terms of this Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall control.
23. SEVERABILITY
If any part of this Agreement is found to be in conflict with applicable laws, that part will be inoperative, null and void insofar as it is in conflict with any applicable laws, but the remainder of the Agreement will remain in full force and effect.
24. TIME OF ESSENCE
Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.
25. GOVERNING LAW; JURISDICTION
This Agreement will be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of any litigation arising from the Agreement will be in Los Angeles County, California.
26. COMPLIANCE WITH STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
CONSULTANT will be knowledgeable of and will comply with all applicable federal, state, county and city statutes, rules, regulations, ordinances and orders. //
12 11
27. WAIVER OF BREACH
No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy by a nondefaulting party on any default will impair the right or remedy or be construed as a waiver.
A party’s consent or approval of any act by the other party requiring the first party’s consent or approval will not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary the other party’s consent to or approval of any subsequent act. Any waiver by either party of any default must be in writing and will not be a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.
28. ATTORNEY’S FEES
Except as provided for in Paragraph 15, in any dispute, litigation, arbitration, or other proceeding by which one party either seeks to enforce its rights under this Agreement (whether in contract, tort or both) or seeks a declaration of any rights or obligations under this Agreement, the prevailing party will be awarded reasonable attorney’s fees, together with any costs and expenses, to resolve the dispute and to enforce any judgment.
29. EXHIBITS
All exhibits identified in this Agreement are incorporated into the Agreement by this reference.
30. CONSULTANT’S AUTHORITY TO EXECUTE
The persons executing this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT warrant that (i) CONSULTANT is duly organized and existing; (ii) they are duly authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of CONSULTANT; (iii) by so executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement; and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which CONSULTANT is bound.
31. PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
Any documents submitted by the CONSULTANT; all information obtained in connection with the CITY’s right to audit and inspect the CONSULTANT’s documents, books, and accounting records pursuant to paragraph 14 CONSULTANT’s Accounting Records; Other Project Records; as well as those documents which were required to be submitted in response to the Request for Proposals (RFP) used in the solicitation process for this Contract become the exclusive property of the City. All such documents become a matter of public record and shall be regarded as public records. Exceptions will be those elements in the California Government Code Section 7920.000 et seq. (Public Records Act) and which are marked “trade secret”, “confidential”, or “proprietary”.
The CITY shall not in any way be liable or responsible for the disclosure of any such records including, without limitation, those so marked, if disclosure is required by law, or by an order issued by a court of competent jurisdiction.
In the event the CITY is required to defend an action on a Public Records Act request for any of the aforementioned documents, information, books, records, and/or contents of a proposal marked “trade secret”, “confidential”, or “proprietary”, the CONSULTANT agrees to defend and indemnify the CITY from 13 12
all costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, in action or liability arising under the Public Records Act.
Nothing in this section alters any obligations of the California Department of Justice pursuant to the California Public Records Act.
CITY OF TORRANCE,
a municipal corporation
_______________________________
George K. Chen, Mayor
Teri Black and Company, LLC, DBA
Joseph Brann & Associates
By:________________________________
Joseph Brann
Principal
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Rebecca Poirier, MMC
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
PATRICK Q. SULLIVAN
City Attorney
By: ____________________________
Jeanne-Marie K. Litvin
Deputy City Attorney III
Attachments: Exhibit A Agreement Betwee n the California Department of Justice, the City of Torrance, and the Torrance Police Department Exhibit B Request for Proposal
Exhibit C Proposal
Rev. 0424
14 EXHIBIT A
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THE CITY
OF TORRANCE, AND THE TORRANCE POLICE DEPARTMENT
[To be attached]
15 EXHIBIT B
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
[To be attached]
16 15
EXHIBIT C
PROPOSAL
[To be attached]
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
27 28
29 30
respect thereto. This Agreement may only be amended in a written document executed by the Parties.
13. Signing Authority
By signing this Agreement, the persons executing this Agreement represent that they have the capacity and authority to execute this Agreement as the representatives of their respective agency, and to bind their respective agency to the terms of this Agreement.
14. Counterparts and Facsimile Signatures
Dated:
a. This Agreement and any and all other documents or instruments referred to herein may be executed with counterpart signatures, all of which taken together shall constitute an original without the necessity of all Parties signing each documents. b. This Agreement may also be executed by signatures to facsimile or electronic transmittal documents in lieu of an original or machine generated or copied document.
By:
Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the
State of California
Vilma Palma-Solana
Supervising Deputy Attorney General
City of Torrance
Dated: lS 1 ').,,i I.is
Geo�eChen
Mayor
Aram Chaparyan
City Manager
Robert Dunn
Interim Chief of Police
...
8/28/2025
31 32
Appendix A – Reforms1
Professional Standards
1. Reform: TPD will expand and improve its data collection and analysis protocols and adopt a practice of regularly and consistently engaging in data analysis for the purpose of recognizing, understanding, and responding to positive and negative trends, racial and identity group disparities, and areas for improvement in its policing practices, equipment, and operations.
2. Reform:
TPD
will
on a regular and consistent basis engage in regular review of:
Its policies;
A specified percentage or number of incidents and encounters with the public, preferably involving random sampling;
A random sampling of Department -issued personal communication devices (i.e., mobile telephones, personal digital assistants (PDA) and similar wireless two-way communications, and/or portable Internet access devices) on some regular basis for policy violations, including biased conduct; and Training needs, informed by the Professional Standards unit’s sampled review of incidents, TPD leadership, supervisors, trainers, and best practices.
For each of the above review processes, TPD
will
have clear standards and protocols in place,
which
will
include processes by which any deficiencies or concerns are timely addressed.
TPD will also evaluate and ensure the appropriate staffing to carry out the above reviews, and assess whether external support, such as an auditor, is needed to perform some portion of these reviews.
3. Reform: TPD will develop and implement an IT governance structure and engage in strategic planning and cross -Department coordination to identify and address technology and technology infrastructure needs.
4. Reform: TPD will revise its body
-
worn camera (BWC) policy in the following manner
and in accordance with best practices:
Broaden and clarify the scenarios requiring activation, without use of legal terms such as “detention” or “
Terry
stop” that are subject to interpretation;
Require officers to notify persons being recorded;
Specify the narrow circumstances under which muting or deactivation is required or permitted, including instances in which one or the other should be employed; Require officers to state the reasons for deactivation or muting prior to doing so; Require officers to document and explain the existence or absence of footage in their reports and other relevant paperwork;
1 For further guidance and context regarding any particular reform, the parties should refer to the DOJ report.
33 Require supervisors to engage in a regular, consistent review of sampled BWC recordings of their direct reports for policy violations, including any evidence of biased conduct, and commendable conduct, and provide guidelines to employ for these reviews; and
Ensure that any policy violations identified during BWC recordings review are addressed in a timely manner, regardless of the initial reason for the review.
5. Reform: TPD will
, on a more regular and consistent basis, convene its Emergency Vehicle Operations Committee to review pursuits and collisions.
Supervision
6. Reform: TPD will set and communicate clearer and stronger standards and expectations for its supervisors, for both sworn and professional staff. TPD
will
also assess what additional
training is needed to support supervisors in meeting those standards and expectations and ensure supervisors receive that training on a timely and regular basis, along with ongoing mentoring and coaching. Evaluations of supervis ors will correlate directly with the established standards and expectations to ensure both growth and accountability.
Early Intervention System
7. Reform: TPD will redesign its Early Intervention System, with input from internal and community2 stakeholders, to align with best and emerging practices and the agency’s stated mission and values. These
will
include:
Transferring Early Intervention System implementation responsibilities to the Professional Standards unit;
2 The Torrance community comprises the diverse population of residents, workers, business owners, students, and visitors who live in or are present in the City. Where a Reform requires community input, the City will seek input from:
Torrance residents;
Torrance business owners;
Torrance business patrons;
Individuals who work in Torrance;
Individuals who attend school in Torrance;
Pedestrians and drivers who are in and go through Torrance; Individuals who access or engage with the City of Torrance services and programming; and Advocacy and community-based organizations that provide services to, or advocate on behalf of the Torrance community, including but not limited to such entities as, service clubs, support groups, issue groups, community development organizations, business development organization, and the faith community.
The process the City and TPD will use to seek and incorporate community members’ input may vary depending on the specific policy or practice at hand.
34 Employing data to ensure the number and type of indicators tracked and attendant thresholds are set to achieve clearly defined System purposes; Involving and training first -line supervisors in analyzing alerts, identifying and implementing appropriate interventions, monitoring compliance, and gauging the efficacy of the interventions;
Updating and maintaining written policy, with greater emphasis on wellness and appropriate interventions and more clearly delineated roles and responsibilities; and Developing training and communication strategies to improve the Department’s understanding of TPD’s System for early intervention.
Internal Affairs
8. Reform: TPD will amend its complaint form and submission process to make it more accessible to the public, including by offering a means to submit a complaint online. The complaint form will align with best practices for complaint forms, as identified by the Racial and Identity Profiling Advisory Board and described in its 2020 Annual Report.
9. Reform: TPD will more thoroughly set forth the Internal Affairs policies and procedures in writing. Internal Affairs’ written policies and procedures will include the following:
The roles and responsibilities of Internal Affairs investigators and supervisors; Standards and expectations for supervisory and chain of command review of investigations, to ensure that (a) respective roles and responsibilities are clearly established and (b) investigations are consistently of a high quality, and the thoroughness, accuracy, and objectivity in the documentation and complaint dispositions are consistent with the evidence in each case; Guidance for the intake and processing of complaints made in person; Criteria (such as to avoid a conflict of interest) and process for assigning cases to investigators and ensuring that all investigations are carried out in a thorough and timely manner, reflective of their complexity and the range of discipline that may potentially be imposed in the event the complaint is sustained; Criteria for outsourcing complaints to third-party investigators; Protocol for tracking progress of investigations;
A requirement, and direction regarding procedural steps, to investigate potential misconduct or deficient job performance that was not specifically alleged, detailed, or classified in the originating complaint but was nonetheless revealed in the investigation of the originating complaint;
Guidelines for how interviews are to be conducted, including any advisories to be provided, such as to inform when interviews are being recorded; and Criteria for when an interview of a subject employee is required prior to closing the case and a requirement that the investigator explain in their summary which criteria were met if the investigator closed the investigation without an interview of the subject employee.
35 Additionally, TPD will discontinue its policy of registering whether a complainant appears to be intoxicated at the time of filing the complaint. TPD will
also assess its policy regarding in
-person
versus telephonic complainant interviews, investigate the feasibility of video
-
conferencing for
interviews, establish criteria to guide procedure and ensure practice follows policy, and provide an appropriate interview space where the complainant opts for an in-person interview.
10. Reform: TPD will evaluate and identify the appropriate staffing to carry out the Internal Affairs unit’s functions, and
will
ensure there is timely, thorough, in
-
depth Internal Affairs training,
specifically for administrative
investigations.
11. Reform:
TPD
will
transition to a case management system that affords Internal Affairs improved capacity to ensure that investigations, dispositions, and final discipline determinations are completed in a timely manner, consistent with California Government Code section 3304 and all applicable deadlines, and that investigators maintain appropriate regular communication with the involved parties. The case management system
will
include electronic tracking of case assignments
and progress, including assigning case numbers to complaints investigated by third parties; a tracking form or activity log for investigators to memorialize their progress; interim deadlines and corresponding alerts; and demarcation of privileged information. The case management system will also allow for data tracking and analyses that will aid Internal Affairs in its operations.
12. Reform: TPD will publish an annual report and/or establish a public -facing dashboard setting forth complaint data and non
-
confidential data pertinent to investigations, dispositions, and corrective action.
13. Reform: TPD will develop a protocol for (i) regular auditing of Internal Affairs case files, including through sampling, to identify behavioral or performance patterns and trends, as well as deficiencies in the investigative process, and (ii) correcting areas in need of im provement. TPD should involve an independent auditor in the auditing process.
Discipline and Other Corrective Action
14. Reform: TPD will create and implement a matrix or other form of criteria to guide the administration of discipline and other corrective action. Through the matrix or other written policy, TPD will provide clearer direction to supervisors for determining when conduct or performance deficiencies can be handled informally through the regular supervision process, with corrective action, or initiation of an Internal Affairs investigation, and what the documentation requirements are for each.
Independent External Oversight
15. Reform: Informed by input from community stakeholders, the City and TPD will implement independent external oversight with sufficient authority and resources to carry out identified functions and ensure there is transparency, accountability, and engagement with the community.
Disparities and Bias in Policing
16. Reform: TPD will address the need for fair and impartial policing with a multipronged, strategic approach. This approach
will
incorporate approaches that can reduce reliance on bias and stereotypes in decision-making, including the following:
36 Regular, data-driven assessment to ensure that specific enforcement approaches and initiatives do not target or have a disparate impact;
A delineation of the factors and circumstances an officer should consider when initiating stops for low -level offenses or conducting high
-
discretion searches, which
would include whether the offense significantly interferes with public safety and whether e
nforcement of those offenses disproportionately impacts specific racial or identity groups;3
Training in how to evaluate whether a stop is intelligence -led, counter-stereotyping exercises, and counter-bias simulation exercises;
Periodic evaluation of its Principled Policing training and incorporation of measures to demonstrate its importance to the Department and enhance its impact;
An assessment and expansion of its employee wellness resources, as described in the Organizational Health section;
and
Regular engagement and partnership with other governmental entities, non-governmental organizations, and community stakeholders to identify alternative, comparably effective practices to avoid enforcement disparities, in the event an existing practice has been shown to have a disparate impact, and bring about more holistic solutions.
17. Reform: TPD will revise its Bias -Based Policing Policy (Policy 401) in the following manner:
Change the title of the policy to Bias-Free Policing Policy; Continue to include “economic status” in its definition of “Bias -based policing or improper policing
”;4
Require not only that officers “perform [their] duties in a fair and objective manner,” but also that they will not make decisions or take actions based on bias, prejudice, discriminatory intent, or an individual’s personal characteristics (unless those characteristics are part of a specific suspect description); Provide specific guidance for when an individual’s personal characteristics can be considered and how this consideration is documented by an officer; Explicitly prohibit retaliation against a person for reporting allegedly biased conduct, intervening in such conduct, or cooperating in an investigation of such conduct; Revise
the requirement that “members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene to prevent any biased-based actions by another member”
in the following manner:
3 TPD’s policy will be in line with other agencies’ strategies to reduce unnecessary stops for such code violations and offenses. TPD
will
conduct the same analysis and make similar policy changes related to consent and supervision (parole/probation/post-release community supervision) status searches. 4 Pursuant to Reform 1, TPD will regularly and consistently engage in data analyses of Racial and Identity Profiling Act data involving the category “Person Stopped Perceived to be Unhoused” (11 Cal.
Code. Regs. § 999.226, subd. (a)(11).) for purposes of
recognizing, understanding, and responding to
positive and negative trends, any disparities, and areas of improvement in its policing practices, equipment, and operations.
37 • Replacing “should” with “shall” in the sentence “members should, when reasonable to do so, intervene . . . .”;
•
Adding language that m embers will be subject to corrective action if they ignore biased-based actions when it was reasonable to intervene; and •
Adding language that supervisors will be subject to corrective action if they do not respond to, document, and/or pursue appropriate next steps when TPD members are alleged to engage in biased conduct; and
Define bias by proxy and provide guidance for officers on scenarios when and how to respond to a call for service that appears to be motivated by bias.
Use of Force
18. Reform: TPD will revise use of force policies — and develop additional policies, as needed—
to align with best practices, to include, at a minimum, the following:
A definition of use of force that clarifies that the pointing of a firearm must be reported; A categorization of force into different levels of force, with appropriate levels of review;
Definitions of levels of resistance and examples of appropriate use of force or other tactics to overcome each level of resistance;
A revision to an existing provision that the Department recognizes and respects the value of all human life and dignity without prejudice to anyone to make clear that TPD personnel must use force in a way that safeguards the sanctity of human life and dign
ity;
A revision to Policy 300.3 to clarify that permissible use of “any improvised device or method” does not include any device or method prohibited by state law or TPD policies;
A provision that requires a warning for the use of force, where feasible, and, if a warning is not provided, a requirement that officers document the reason a warning was not feasible;
A revised
prohibition against shooting at a moving vehicle
under only the following
circumstances: when the officer reasonably believes that someone in the vehicle is using or threatening deadly force by means other than the vehicle itself or when the vehicle is operated in a manner deliberately intended to strike an officer or another person, and all other reasonable means of defense have been exhausted (or are not present or practical), which includes moving out of the path of the vehicle. In policies on shooting at a moving vehicle and vehicle pursuits, clarifying that officers should not shoot at any part of a vehicle “solely” in an attempt to disable the vehicle and that shooting at a moving vehicle must fall within the limited circumstances described above;
Clarifying in the policy on vehicle pursuits that , while nothing in that policy
shall
be
construed to prohibit any officer from using a firearm to stop a suspect from using a vehicle as a deadly weapon, the officer may do so only
under
the limited circumstances
described in the policy on shooting at a moving vehicle described above. 38 A provision within the Deadly Force Applications section of the Use of Force Policy (300.4) that specifically addresses firearms discharge and when it is appropriate to deploy a firearm;
A requirement that the timing of voluntary interviews of involved officers in shootings is aligned with best practices and industry standards; and Specific requirements for the content of community briefing videos on shootings by officers, including a prohibition of any reference to or display of: (a) the subject’s criminal history and booking photos unless known to the shooting officers prior to the shooting; (b)
characterizations of disputed, unsettled, or ambiguous facts; and (c)
facts
and events uncovered after the shooting, or any other information that is immaterial to the legality of the shooting.
19. Reform: TPD will change its use of force and field tactic trainings in, at a minimum, the following ways:
Partner with the City Attorney to facilitate the module of its use of force training concerning legal standards for use of force;
Ensure that officers have clarity as to what types of force are reportable, including the pointing of a firearm;
Emphasize that use of combative strikes must be proportional to the threat faced, legally justified, and consistent with department policy and training standards;
Incorporate and ensure adequate focus on de -escalation, duty to intercede, strategic communication, crisis management, and mental health responses; and Ensure the word choice and overall framing of training appropriately reflects goals of force and harm reduction.
20. Reform: With respect to the acquisition of new technology or equipment, TPD
will
develop:
Guidance to ensure that it evaluates whether the technology or equipment under consideration is tied to a larger mission of using force in a constitutional, unbiased manner and promotes officer and public safety;
A process where, at regular intervals, it evaluates technology and equipment using the guidance described above; and
A provision requiring revision to policies and training to reflect any newly
-
approved
technologies, equipment, and related techniques.
TPD will also identify a suitable alternative to the Total Appendage Restraint Position (TARP) and conduct a comprehensive assessment of use of a “double hobble” to ensure it does not pose undue risk of harm.
21. Reform: Related to the review of shootings, TPD
will
:
Ensure that there is a clear, consistent protocol identifying the types of files and records that are to be compiled after each shooting and ensuring all relevant files for each shooting are consistently compiled, reviewed, and stored; and 39 Ensure that all officers responsible for conducting interviews, whether criminal or administrative, of officers involved in or witnesses of a shooting receive specialized training and assessment in interview techniques and other relevant skills.
22. Reform: TPD will develop policies, procedures, and trainings to improve the supervisory review of use of force incidents pursuant to Policy No. 300.7, to include:
A checklist to ensure each incident is comprehensively reviewed for purposes of (a)
administrative violations, (b) tactical, training, and equipment deficiencies, and (c) review for all potential policy violations, not just those that pertain to the use of force; A requirement that supervisors document any observed policy violations and pursue appropriate next steps; and
For incidents involving multiple deployments of a firearm or other control weapons, a separate assessment of each deployment of the weapon.
23. Reform:
TPD
will
evaluate the Use of Force Committee to ensure efficient use of its staff and resources. TPD
will
also ensure that any training, tactical, policy, and equipment deficiencies identified during a Use of Force Review Committee meeting are appropriately and timely addressed and any commendable conduct is highlighted and used for training purposes.
24. Reform: TPD will evaluate data pertinent to the Torrance Mental Health Evaluation Team (TMET) and the Department’s interactions with people with mental health conditions more broadly to identify, at a minimum, patterns, trends, and the need for resources for this
population
of people. To account for TMET’s current limited availability and the need for resources for this population, TPD will expand the availability of appropriate resources and training, which will include, at a minimum, (1) employing a behavioral health clinician in its dispatch center to handle mental health and behavioral-health-related calls that do not require an immediate law enforcement response and (2) ensuring that all personnel who interact with members of the public are trained in crisis intervention within two years of the Effective Date of this Settlement Agreement.
On an ongoing and regular basis, the City and TPD will work with the County and available service providers to ensure TPD’s services are aligned with contemporary best practices. The City and TPD will also work with the County to assess, at least on an annual basis, the feasibility of a specialized nonsworn response in the City, including a potential pilot program to identify the limitations and effectiveness of, and resources needed for, such a response. To the extent feasible, the City and TPD will work towards developing a specialized nonsworn response.
Community Policing
25. Reform: TPD will ensure that its community policing strategy is:
Informed by community input, including harder-to-reach voices; Consistent with the central tenets of community policing, including collaborative problem-solving, and aligned with community needs and goals and TPD’s mission, values, operations, and administration;
Clearly and consistently communicated, internally and externally, and integrated in policy, procedure, training, supervision, performance evaluations, and Afforded resources commensurate with its importance.
40 26. Reform: TPD will periodically assess its utilization of, and engagement with, the Chief’s Advisory Board and address any identified areas for improvement.
Employment
27. Reform: With respect to recruitment and hiring, TPD will:
Ensure that the skills, traits, and characteristics that it wishes its officers and thus applicants to have are consistent with TPD’s values and vision, clearly articulated, and consistently communicated and operationalized in a regularly reviewed written strategic recruitment plan, and in job postings, position descriptions, job applications, interview questions, and other relevant material;
Track and, on a periodic basis, analyze where applicants “drop out” in its screening and hiring processes, whether because they are disqualified, passed over, or withdraw their applications, and examine whether any discretionary aspects of TPD’s screening and hiring processes may be unnecessarily eliminating otherwise qualified applicants.
Additionally, if the recently implemented strategy of employing bonuses to improve recruitment and retention outcomes does not achieve its goals or does not do so quickly enough to measurably alleviate the adverse impacts of understaffing, TPD
will
consider undertaking a staffing assessment
and determine whether some degree of restructuring can assist the Department in meeting operational needs with fewer personnel and less adverse impact on existing personnel.
28. Reform: TPD will strive for validity in all its hiring and promotion practices. The roundtable
will
be eliminated, and for both promotions and reassignment and collateral assignment opportunities, the skills, attributes, experience, and strengths TPD seeks
will
be clearly determined and
communicated at the outset of each process, and the candidate evaluation and selection process will then adhere to the stated criteria. TPD
will
increase its support to employees interested in
reassignments, collateral dutie
s, and promotions, such as through coaching or a rotational assignment process, to afford more even and equitable opportunity and give officers exposure to more specialized work.
29. Reform: TPD will revamp its evaluation process and improve supervisor and manager accountability in the evaluation process. Formal evaluations
will
be undertaken and completed on
a regular and timely basis, and
will
measure progress in meeting clearly enunciated and
consistently applied standards and expectations that are aligned with all aspects of TPD’s mission and values.
30. Reform: TPD will
: (1)
develop a strategy to ensure that employees feel they can safely bring forward complaints of discrimination or harassment they experience or witness, which can include reminders during trainings, briefings, and through direct supervisors; (2) provid
e a mechanism for
discrimination and harassment complaints to be raised anonymously; and (3)
periodically review
and analyze the personnel complaints it receives to identify where improvements can be made.
Organization Health
31. Reform: TPD will assess its systems and processes for alignment with the four pillars of procedural justice —
voice, neutrality, respect, and trustworthiness
—
internally and in its
interactions with the public. Agency decision
-
making will adhere as closely as possible to these
principles. This includes creating more opportunities for input and engaging staff across the agency, at all levels and in all position types, as well as members of the public, in creating new 41 systems and structures and strengthening existing systems, and clearly and consistently communicating the “why” behind policy and practice decisions.
A shared understanding of, and commitment to, mission and values are critical to procedural justice and overall organizational health. TPD
will
ensure that its guiding philosophy and values
are clearly communicated across the Department and applied at an appropriate level of consistency in the operation of the Department and its decision
-
making, internally and in interactions with the
public. TPD
will
take all necessary steps to align conduct on the part of the agency and individual personnel with its stated philosophy and values and work toward building a culture of learning, inclusion, and mutual accountability.
In support of these
measures
, TPD’s leadership
will
develop and adhere to an internal
communications plan that ensures frequent, proactive, clear, and consistent communication across the Department, particularly as changes are made, but also for day
-
to-day matters and to celebrate
the smaller successes.
32. Reform: TPD will assess and expand its employee wellness resources, identify and address barriers to access, and work to improve the Department’s “culture” around mental health and wellness more generally.
42 Request for Proposals (RFP)
City of Torrance | 3031 Torrance Blvd, Torrance CA 90503 | www.TorranceCA.Gov
RFP No. B2025-25
Implementation of Policing Reform Agreement between the City of Torrance and the California Department of Justice
RFP Submittal Information
No mail or hand delivered Proposals. No faxed proposals.
No Late proposals.
Location: City of Torrance
Purchasing Division
3031 Torrance Blvd.
Torrance, CA 90503
Date: October 21, 2025
Time Deadline: 12:00 p.m. Local (Pacific) Time
Submittal Requirements
Your submittal must include the following:
• Vendor’s Response (Section III of this document) on the forms provided. If additional space is required, please attach additional pages.
• Bidders Affidavit (Attachment 1)
Proposers will be disqualified if their proposal does not include the above items.
Prior to the award of a Contract
The successful vendor must submit the following to the City of Torrance • Proof of insurance as indicated in the attached agreement template. • Proof of a City of Torrance Business License, please contact the City of Torrance Business License Office at (310) 618-5923.
Notice of Pre-Proposal Conference
An optional virtual pre-proposal meeting will be conducted to review project details, clarify proposal requirements, and answer questions. Attendance at this meeting is not required. All questions and answers raised during this conference will be posted on PlanetBids for all prospective proposers to review.
Date: Wednesday, October 8, 2025
Time: 09:00
AM – 10:00
AM PST
Meeting Link:
https://teams.microsoft.com/l/meetup
-
join/19%3ameeting_M2VkYzNjZDEtMWJhYS00ZThiLWE2ZTMtNmU0MTJhYjRmNjYw%40thread. v2/0?context=%7b%22Tid%22%3a%22e7eb3e35-bde5 - 4eeb-a8ed - 70d9a2d8c319%22%2c%22Oid%22%3a%22d62fb8d0 - 1d36-488a - 829f-fc2f68e8b0c4%22%7d
Questions Regarding this RFP Must be Submitted on PlanetBids • The deadline to submit questions is 12:00 Noon Pacific Time on Friday, October 10, 2025. • All questions regarding this RFP must be submitted online.
43 RFP No. B202 5- 25 Implementation of Policing Reform Agreement between the City of Torrance and the California Department of Justice
SECTION I RFP INSTRUCTIONS AND INFORMATION
Notice is hereby given that sealed proposals will be received
online
until 12:00 p.m. Tuesday, October
21, 2025.
The City of Torrance:
The City of Torrance is on the western side of Los Angeles County. It is boarded by the Palos Verdes Peninsula on the south, the City of Gardena on the north, the City of Redondo Beach on the north and west boundaries, the City of Lomita on the east and the Pacific Ocean on the west. The City encompasses an area of approximately 21 square miles, 329 miles of Streets, 1870 intersections, 550 miles of sidewalks, 47,000 Street Trees, 6 Public Libraries, a Municipal Airport, Transit System, 46 Parks & Recreation Amenities, 6 Fire Stations, 1 Police Station and 1 Police Community Center, and has an estimated population of approximately 146
,
115, which makes Torrance one of the top 10 cities
in Los Angeles County in regards to population.
Background:
The City of Torrance (“City”) seeks an experienced consultant to assist in the implementation of reforms described in the Agreement between the California Department of Justice ("CADOJ") and the City of Torrance Police Department (“TPD”). The CADOJ’s Report of its Findings and Recommendations can be reviewed in
Attachment 2
, and the executed agreement with the agreed upon reforms to be implemented can be reviewed in
Attachment 3
.
TPD is the principal law enforcement agency in Torrance, CA, a city of approximately 147,000 residents within Los Angeles County, part of the South Bay. TPD is authorized to employ 220 sworn officers and 145 nonsworn staff. TPD is currently led by a Chief who was appointed by the City Manager. The Department is divided into four bureaus: Operations, Special Operations, Support Services, and Administration.
In August 2025, TPD and the City entered into an Agreement with the CADOJ to work collaboratively to improve policies, practices, and data collection abilities while building community trust. Prior to executing the Agreement, the City requested the CADOJ conduct an assessment of the department and make reform recommendations.
The consultant may encounter a variety of perspectives related to police services in the City, including from individual City Council members, community groups, individual community members, and members of TPD.
Definitions:
Word Definition as applied to this RFP
City The City of Torrance, California
Vendor, Contractor,
Proposer, Firm or
Consultant
The person, firm, company or corporation providing services to the City, or submitting a proposal in response to this RFP
Contract, Purchase
Order, Agreement,
Purchasing Agreement
The agreement between the awarded Vendor and the City as a result of this Request for Proposals
Scope of Work The responsibilities outlined in Section 2(a)(iii)-(iv); (b)-(f); (h); (k)-(m); (o) and Section 4(a); (c); (e)-(g) of the Agreement.
44 Proposal Submittal Form:
Prospective proposers must submit bids in
electronic only format
at
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/47426/portal-home
;
The proposal must be made on the form
provided and uploaded on PlanetBids.
Scan and attach the following required documents to your eBid
.
This list may not be all -inclusive;
additional items may be required elsewhere in bid specifications.
Failure to provide required documents
with bid may cause the bid to be deemed non-responsive.)
If an individual makes the proposal, it must be signed by that individual, with an address and
telephone
number. If made by a business entity, it must be signed by an authorized person that execute
s
binding
agreements and contracts. A full business address and
telephone
are required.
Blank spaces in the proposal form must be completed
using ink, indelible pencil, typewriter or digitally.
The
text of the proposal form must no t be changed and no a
dditions
. Any unauthorized conditions,
limitations, or provisos attached to a
proposal
will render it informal and may cause its rejection.
Alterations by erasure or interlineations must be explained or noted in the proposal form over the signature of the Proposer.
Questions:
All questions regarding this RFP must be submitted online no later than 12:00 PM Friday, October 10, 2025
.
Answers to questions will be posted online for all interested bidders to review. Bidders who have downloaded bid documents by the time that the questions are responded to will receive an automated email notifying them of additional information and/or addendums that have been posted to the website.
No questions via telephone. No questions submitted after deadline. Written answers
and any other
changes to the RFP
will be sent
via PlanetBids to all known p
ros
pective proposers as an addendum to
the RFP.
Errors and Omissions:
The proposer may not take advantage of any errors and/or omissions in these specifications or in the proposer’s specifications submitted with its p roposal. If there are errors or omissions, you will be notified.
Proposers Examination of Requirements:
The Proposer is required to examine carefully the site, the instructions, information and specifications of this document, investigate the condition
s
, the character, quality and quantity of work to be performed as required by this document. Submission of a proposal will be considered prima facie evidence that the Proposer has made such examination.
Reservation:
The City reserves the right to revise or amend these specifications prior to the date set for opening proposals. Revisions and amendments will be identified
by an addendum to this RFP. If the revisions
require
additional time to enable vendo rs to respond, the City may postpone the opening date accordingly. In such case, the addendum will include an announcement of the new proposal submittal due date.
Attach all addenda
to the proposal. Failure to attach any addendum may render the proposal non- responsive and ca
use for rejection
.
The City reserves the right to award a contract to a company solely based on the initial proposal submitted. The City reserves the right to require more information and clarification on information submitted in the proposal to complete the evaluation.
45 The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all proposal s received, to take all proposals under advisement for a period not to exceed ninety (90) days after the date of the opening, to
waive any
informality on any proposal, and to be the sole judge of the relative merits of the material and or service mentioned in the respective proposals received. The City rese
rves the right to reject any proposal
not
accompanied with all data or information required.
This Request for Proposals does not commit the City to award a contract or to pay any cost incurred in the preparation of a proposal. All responses to this RFP document become the property of the City of Torrance.
The City reserves the right to examine all factors bearing on a Proposer’s ability to perform the services under the contract. The City reserves the right to reject any proposal not accompanied with all data or information required. The City reserves the
right to cancel this solicitation, without penalty, at its sole discretion.
Affidavit:
An affidavit form is enclosed. It must be c ompleted signifying that the proposal is genuine and not collusive or made in the interest or on behalf of any person not named in the proposal, that the proposer has not directly or indirectly induced or solicited any other proposer to put in a sham proposal or any other person, firm, or corporation to refrain from proposing, and that the proposer has not in any manner sought by collusion to secure for itself an advantage over any other proposer. Any proposal submitted without an affidavit or in violation of this requirement will be rejected. (Attachment 1)
Evaluation of Proposals
:
The City and the CADOJ will be the sole determiner of suitab
ility to
the City’s needs. Proposals are
rated according to their completeness and understanding of the City’s needs, conformance to the requirements of the technical specifications, compatibility with the City’s current technology and operations, prior experience with similar scope of work , financial capabilities, delivery, and cost . Cost including
any ongoin
g m
aintenance and support cost are reviewed to determine which proposal best meets the needs of the City.
The City will take into consideration a local Torrance vendor sales tax rebate of 1
.5
% for proposals
submitted by a Torrance vendor that include a material component.
The City’s project evaluation team
and members of the CADOJ
will evaluate proposals based on the
evaluation criteria listed below. Points will be assigned to each criterion up to a maximum of 100 points.
Subsequently, the City may interview a qualified
Proposer
, prior to deciding
whether
to recommend the
award of an Agreement.
46 Description of Evaluation Criteria Possible Points
Organizational Capacity
This criterion measures the ability of the Proposer to fulfill the services in the scope of work . Proposer’s approach should present a general plan of program goals and procedures for implementing the reforms listed in Appendix A of the Agreement, which should include a list of team members, if any, and their roles, who would work on fulfilling the services in the scope of work. Proposer must demonstrate an understanding of the work and ability to meet all the requirements in the scope of work and in their interview responses.
30 Experience
Points will be assigned for “Experience with Projects of this Size and Scope in an Agency of Similar Size” based on a vendor’s previous experience with law enforcement agencies, as delineated in the scope of work, and client references and in their interview responses. 40 Cost Proposal 20
References 10
Maximum Total Points = 100
PART I – EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS: After receipt of proposals for this project, the City’s project evaluation committee will evaluate proposals based on the criteria listed below (with exception of cost), and develop a short list of qualified
Proposers
. The
Proposers
on this short list
will be invited to interview with the City.
PART II – INTERVIEW: An interview will be held for qualified
proposers
at the discretion of the
City.
The Contract:
The awarded vendor will be required to enter into a written contract with the City of Torrance. Attached is a copy of the
standardized contract (Attachment 4), which will be modified to reflect the awarded RFP.
A copy of this RFP and the accepted proposal will be attached to and become a part of the contract.
Contract Term:
The initial contract will be for a period of five years, starting tentatively in November 2025.
Independent Contractor:
The successful proposer will at all times remain
to the City, a wholly independent contractor.
Neither
the City
nor any of its agents will have control over the conduct of the Contractor or any of the
Contractor’s employees, except as otherwise set forth in the awarded Agreement. The Contractor’s agents and employees are not and will not be considered employees of the City for any purpose. The Contractor may not, at any time or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of the City. The City has no duty, obligation, or responsibility to the Contractor’s agents or employees under the Affordable Care Act. The Contractor is solely responsible for any tax penalties associated with the failure to offer affordable coverage to its agents and employees under the Affordable Care Act and any other liabilities, claims and obligations regarding compliance with the Affordable Care Act with respect to the Contractor’s agents and employees. The City is not responsible or liable for the Contractor ’s failu re to comply with the Contractor’s duties, obligations, and responsibilities under the Affordable
Care Act. The Contractor agrees to defend,
indemnify and hold the City
harmless for
all taxes and penalties that may be assessed against the City 47 because of the Contractor’s obligations under the Affordable Care Act relating to the Contractor’s agents and employees.
Payments:
The successful proposer will submit monthly invoices to the City and TPD for approval, detailing each expense
,
along with any documentation necessary to justify each expense. Within 21 days of receipt of the monthly invoice, the City will notify CADOJ in writing that the CADOJ is authorized to pay the invoice.
The CADOJ will remit payment to successful proposer.
Notice of Intent to Award:
Approximately two (2) weeks prior to the anticipated City Council meeting awarding a contract
because
of the RFP, the City will notify all proposer’s of its intent to award. Results will be posted on the City of Torrance Web site
https://pbsystem.planetbids.com/portal/47426/portal
-home
48 RFP No. B2025
-
25 Implementation of Policing Reform Agreement between the City of Torrance and the California Department of Justice
SECTION II TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS
Overview:
The City of Torrance is requesting proposals from qualified vendors for consultant(s)
to assist with the
implementation of
the
Agreement between the City and the
CADOJ
.
This RFP is intended to be as descriptive as possible. However, Proposers may not take advantage of omissions or oversights in this document. Proposers must supply products and services that meet or exceed the requirements of this RF
P
. In the event of a dispute over installation or performance, the needs of the City of Torrance will govern.
Scope of Work:
Successful proposer must be able to provide consultancy services to assist with the implementation of reforms listed in Appendix A of the
Agreement between the City and the
CADOJ
(Attachment 3).
General Requirements:
The proposer will agree to work with the City, TPD, and the CADOJ throughout the contracted process.
The Proposer will be required to perform responsibilities and duties described in the Agreement, including all items in Section
2(a)(iii)
-(iv); (b)
-
(f); (h); (k) -(m); (o) and Section 4(a); (c); (e) -(g) of the Agreement. Some of those responsibilities and duties include:
1. Responsible for hiring
,
training, and providing any necessary staff and be operational at the start of the contract term. None of the staff retained by the proposer will be considered employees of the City.
2. Coordinate with all involved stakeholders to develop and monitor a Work Plan described in
the
Agreement between the City and the CADOJ.
3. Participate in regular status updates and meetings with the City, TPD, and the CADOJ.
4. Periodically report to the public on TPD’s progress in implementing agreed
-
upon reforms.
The proposer must have experience providing consultancy services to law enforcement agencies, and in particular monitoring agencies’ implementation of reforms as part of a Collaborative Reform, Stipulated Judgement, or Consent Decree. The proposer also must provide at least three (3) but no more than five (5) references.
49 RFP No. B202
5-
25 Implementation of Policing Reform Agreement between the City of Torrance and the California Department of Justice
SECTION III PROPOSAL SUBMITTAL
FAILURE TO COMPLETE ALL ITEMS IN THIS SECTION MAY INVALIDATE PROPOSAL.
In accordance with your "Request for Proposals (RFP)", the following proposal is submitted to the City of Torrance.
RFP Submitted By:
________________________________________________________________________________
Name of Company
________________________________________________________________________________
Street Address City Zip Code
________________________________________
_____________________________________
Telephone Number Fax Number
________________________________________
_____________________________________
Printed Name/Title E- Mail Address
________________________________________
___________________________________
Signature Date
Form of Business Organization:
Please indicate the following (check one).
Corporation Partnership Sole Proprietorship Other: ___________________________
Do you have a Parent Company ? No Yes,
_______________________________________
(Name of Parent Company)
Do you have any Subsidiaries ? No Yes,
_______________________________________
(Name of Subsidiary Company)
Business History:
Years in business under your current name and form of business organization? ________ Years
If less than three (3) years and your company was in business under a different name, what was that name?
________________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________________
Contact for Additional Information:
Please provide the name of the individual at your company to contact for any additional information:
________________________________________
__________________________________
Printed Name Title
________________________________________
__________________________________
Telephone
E-
Mail Address
50 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
Project Start and Completion:
The City requires the project to start as soon as possible from the award of a
contract
and the project
completed as soon as possible. Specific periods that are mutually agreed upon will be established after award of a contract and pursuant to the Agreement.
Project Manager:
Please provide the name of the individual at your company who will serve as Project Manager for this contract.
_________________________________________ __________________________________
Name Title
_______________________ __________________ ____________________________________ Telephone Number Fax Number Email Address
Contract Representative:
Please provide the name of the individual at your company who will be responsible for administering this contract.
____________________________________________ _________________________________
Name Title
_______________________ __________________
_________________________________
Telephone Number Fax Number Email Address
51 Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
Sub Contractors:
If awarded, will you be using sub contractors to carry out the scope of work required in this RFP?
Yes, we will be using sub contractors and have listed their contact information below.
No, we will not be using any sub contractors for this project.
_______________________ __________________ ______________________________ Company Name Contact Name Title
_______________________
__________________ ________________________________ Telephone Number Fax Number Email Address
Please explain the working relationship between your company and the sub contractor.
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________________
52 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
Background and Recent Experience with Similar Projects:
In the space below, please provide a narrative explaining your background and recent experience with similar projects as the scope of work identified in this RFP.
(Please attach ad
ditional sheet if
needed.)
53 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
Organizational Capacity:
In the space below, please describe in detail the ability to fulfill the services in the scope of work, as described in Section 2(a)(iii)-(iv); (b)
-
(f); (h); (k)
-
(m); (o) and Section 4(a); (c); (e)-(g) of the Agreement. (Please attach additional sheets if needed)
54 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
References:
Please supply the names of companies/agencies for which you recently supplied comparable goods/services as requested in this RFP. A minimum of three (3) references is required; additional references are optional. References from public agencies are preferred. Do not include the City of Torrance as a reference for this RFP.
1 Name of Company/Agency:
Street Address:
City:
State, Zip Code:
What Product/Service did you
provide to this Company/Agency?
Name of Person to Contact:
Phone Number of Contact:
Email Address of Contact:
2 Name of Company/Agency:
Street Address:
City, State Zip Code:
What Product/Service did you
provide to this Company/Agency?
Name of Person to Contact:
Phone Number of Contact:
Email Address of Contact:
3 Name of Company/Agency:
Street Address:
City, State Zip Code:
What Product/Service did you
provide to this Company/Agency?
Name of Person to Contact:
Phone Number of Contact:
Email Address of Contact:
55 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
RFP Submittal Requirement and Acknowledgement
Vendors are required to answer each of the questions listed below. You must indicate below that you have provided this information in your proposal submittal. You must attach additional sheets to your RFP submittal describing in detail the service you are proposing.
RFP Scope of Work Question s
Indicate what page in your
proposal you have
answered this question.
Did you include a signed Affidavit Form with your RFP Submittal?
Yes No
Did you attach additional sheets to answer the Background and Recent Experience with Similar Projects information on page ____ of this RFP?
Yes No
Page ___ of our submittal.
Did you review all addenda , if any, issued by the City?
Yes No
Did you include References?
Yes No
Page ___ of our submittal
Are you r Wage Rates Included?
Yes No
Page ___ of our submittal.
Have you included Proposed Alternative Language to City’s Pro Forma Consulting Services Agreement (if applicable)
Yes No
Page ___ of our submittal
56 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
RFP Submittal Requirement and Acknowledgement Continued Vendors are required to answer each of the questions listed below. You must indicate below that you have provided this information in your proposal submittal. You must attach additional sheets to your RFP submittal describing in detail the service you are proposing.
RFP Scope of Work Questions
Indicate what page in your
proposal you have answered
this question.
Did you describe your experience with consulting law enforcement agencies on reform?
Yes No
Page ___ of our submittal.
Did you provide a least three (3) but no more than (5) years of references?
Yes No
Page ___ of our submittal.
57 Proposal Submittal (continued):
Vendor Name: ____________________________________________________________
Cost To Provide the Services Required in this RFP
Description/Position $ Rate per Hour $ Daily Rate for Site Visits
$
$
$
$
58 17
RFP Document Revised September, 2019
ATTACHMENT 1
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
PROPOS
ER’S AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
____________________
________ being first duly sworn
deposes and says:
1. That he/she is the ___________________________ of _____________________________
(Title of Office) (Name of Company)
Hereinafter called “proposer”, who has submitted to the City of Torrance a proposal for
__________________________________________________________________________
(Title of RFP)
2. That the proposal is genuine; that a
ll statements of fact in the proposal
are true;
3. That the proposal was not made in the interest or behalf of any person, partnership, company, association, organization or corporation not named or disclosed;
4. That the Proposer did not, directly or indirectly, induce solicit or agree with anyone else to submit a false or sham proposal, to refrain from proposing, or to withdraw his proposal, to raise or fix the proposal price of the Proposer or of anyone else, or to raise or fix any overhead, profit or cost element of the Proposer’s price or the price of anyone else; and did not attempt to induce action prejudicial to the interest of the City of Torrance, or of any other Proposer, or anyone else interested in the proposed contract;
5. That the Proposer has not in any other manner sought by collusion to secure for itself an advantage over the other Proposer or to induce action prejudicial to the interests of the City of Torrance, or of any other Proposer or of anyone else interested in the proposed contract;
6. That the Proposer has not accepted any proposal from any subcontracto
r or materialman through any
proposal depository, the bylaws, rules or regulations of which prohibit or prevent the Proposer from considering any proposal from any subcontractor or material man, which is not processed through that proposal depository, or which prevent any subcontractor or materialman from proposing to any contractor who does not use
the
facilities of or accept proposals from or through such proposal depository;
7. That the Proposer did not, directly or indirectly, submit the Proposer’s proposal price or any breakdown thereof, or the contents thereof, or divulge information or data relative thereto, to any corporation, partnership, company, association, organization,
proposal
depository, or to any member or agent thereof, or to any individual or group of individuals, except to the City of Torrance, or to any person or persons who have a partnership or other financial interest with said Proposer in its business.
8. That the Proposer has not been debarred from participation in any State or Federal works project.
Dated this ____ day of ________________, 20_____.
_____________________________________
(Proposer Signature)
_____________________________________
(Title)
59 City of Torrance
Implementation of Policing Reform Agreement between the City of Torrance and the California Department of Justice (B2025-25), bidding on 10/21/2025 12:00 PM (PDT)
Printed 10/21/2025
PlanetBids
60 JOSEPH BRANN
& ASSOCIATES
PROPOSAL
RFP NO. B2025-25
IMPLEMENTATION OF POLICING REFORM
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF TORRANCE AND
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
OCTOBER 2025
Improving Performance & Accountability
in Policing
TERI BLACK & COMPANY, LLC
dba JOSEPH BRANN & ASSOCIATES
25500 HAWTHORNE BLVD., STE. 1158
TORRANCE, CA 90505
61 TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
RECENT EXPERIENCE & ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
• THE TEAM
COST TO PROVIDE SERVICES
APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSHIP
REFERENCES
62 QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
Joseph Brann & Associates (JBA), a subsidiary of Teri Black & Company, LLC, is a Torrance- based firm that has been exclusively dedicated to improving accountability and performance in police departments across the United States since 2001. The firm is led by Joe Brann, one of the most experienced professionals in the areas of conducting organizational assessments and providing oversight and monitoring of police agencies undertaking reform measures. JBA has distinguished itself by providing these services and working with the agencies in a collaborative fashion
-
working in concert with agencies to evaluate, assess and address the issues of concern.
Mr. Brann has assembled a team of premier subject matter experts in the profession who are positioned to address the unique needs of each client. His firm has a 25-year history of working effectively with both the California and United States Departments of Justice.
The firm's oversight and monitoring experiences date back to 2001 when Mr. Brann was selected as the Special Consultant for the California Attorney General and to serve as the Monitor of the Riverside Police Department under the very first state Attorney General-driven consent decree in the United States. He later served as the Monitor of the Maywood, CA Police Department Stipulated Judgment and is now serving as a Monitor for both the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (under a Settlement Agreement with USDOJ) and for the Kern County Sheriff's Department (for a Stipulated Judgment with the California Attorney General's Office). Other monitoring and oversight engagements have included service on teams in Cincinnati, OH, Cleveland, OH and Seattle, WA. Additionally, he has worked with local public officials whose jurisdictions are either under or considering the possibility of seeking federal or state oversight of their law enforcement agency. JBA also assists various public sector entities across the country with organizational assessments of their police departments, providing technical assistance on matters involving implementation of contemporary policing strategies, improving organizational performance and management accountability, conducting police staffing analyses, etc.
As the owner of a Torrance-based business and a long-time South Bay resident, Mr. Brann will be readily available to the Police Department and City for any onsite meetings and technical assistance needs.
63 RECENT EXPERIENCE & ORGANIZATIONAL CAPACITY
While the firm has served numerous communities across the country, it has largely been invested in serving two Southern California agencies for the past 5 to 10 years -
serving as a Monitor for
both the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (under a Settlement Agreement with USDOJ) and for the Kern County Sheriff's Department (for a Stipulated Judgment with the California Attorney General's Office).
JBA assembles and customizes each team of experts in accordance with the needs and objectives of the engagement. As the partnership matures and when unique needs evolve, additional or different expertise and talents are sometimes required, so any needed adjustments will be made in consultation with the stakeholders as the work progresses. JBA's network includes additional experts in use of force, complaints, behavioral mental health, community policing, and auditing who can be engaged on short notice.
HE TEAM
The following foundational team has been assembled in response to the aspirations of the Agreement between the City of Torrance, Torrance Police Department, and the California Department of Justice and has sufficient capacity to position the parties for success.
Joseph Brann
— Principal
After rising through the ranks to the position of Captain in the Santa Ana Police Department, where he had established a strong foundation and reputation for his work in refining community policing and problem oriented policing practices, Mr. Brann was appointed Police Chief in Hayward, California to further advance these concepts and evolving practices in this diverse Bay Area community. His community policing knowledge and success there led President Clinton to appoint him as the founding Director of the US Department of Justice's COPS Office. The office was instrumental in not only placing tens of thousands of new community policing officers on America's streets, but, more importantly, achieving significant crime reductions across the country among those agencies that were utilizing the funding provided and embracing the training, technical assistance, and advancements in technologies and equipment made available to them under COPS grants. The primary objective throughout these endeavors was to improve police practices, strengthen relationships and engagement with the community, and ensure the community plays an active and ongoing role as a co-producer of public safety. 64 After concluding his federal service, Mr. Brann established a consulting practice that has continued to assist police agencies of all sizes and various complexities across the country, with the large majority of these being diverse urban communities, such as is the case with the City of Torrance.
Contact: [email protected] / tel 310.265.7479
SUBCONTRACTORS
Chris Hartney — Associate/Project Manager
Mr. Hartney brings 25 years of professional experience as a project manager and researcher to the JBA team. He has been a member of the US DOJ/Los Angeles County Settlement Agreement monitoring team since 2015 and the California DOJ/Kern County Stipulated Judgment monitoring team since 2021. With these projects, Mr. Hartney manages most of the day-to-day work of these teams including coordinating internal workflow, compliance assessment, communications between parties, and report writing. He also serves as a subject matter expert on data tools and analyses and provides expert assistance in the areas of stops, community policing, and behavioral health.
Previously, Mr. Hartney was a Senior Researcher with Evident Change (formerly known as the National Council on Crime and Delinquency) where his work included numerous projects in local, state, and national justice-related research and statistics. He has authored several Evident Change data-focused publications on topics in justice and corrections, and which have dealt with issues involving disproportionate representation of people of color in the justice system, women, Native American youth, youth in the adult corrections system, and international corrections. Mr.
Hartney earned his bachelor's degree from the University of California at Berkeley.
Contact: [email protected] / tel 510.541.5449
Paul Figueroa - Associate
Mr. Figueroa works as an independent police monitor with particular expertise in leadership, implicit bias, constitutional stops, crime reduction strategies, community relations, police training, and accountability. He is currently a member of the US DOJ/Los Angeles County Settlement Agreement and the California DOJ/Kern County Stipulated Judgment monitoring teams lending his expertise in a variety of areas.
65 Before becoming a compliance advisor, Mr. Figueroa enjoyed a 27-year career with the Oakland Police Department where he rose to the rank of Assistant Chief. His experience in a sworn capacity includes extensive experience in field command, procedural justice, criminal investigations, internal affairs investigations, accountability, auditing, leadership, and community policing. In addition, he has firsthand leadership experience implementing changes in response to a federal court order before retiring from his sworn capacity in 2022.
Mr. Figueroa holds a doctorate in organizational leadership from the University of La Verne, a master's degree in public administration from Golden Gate University and a bachelor's degree in political science from California State University, East Bay. He is an adjunct professor in Golden Gate University's graduate level public administration program.
Contact: [email protected] / tel 510.815.4087 George Ryan —
Associate
Mr. Ryan is an expert in police tactics, use of force, firearms, and a negotiations expert with 32 years of sworn service with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), where he rose to the rank of Sergeant. His extensive experience includes assignments in patrol, training, special problems (community-focused street crimes) and gang units. In addition, he served on the department's SWAT team for more than 17 years, where he gained invaluable experience in special tactics, crisis negotiations, and the de-escalation of conflict.
Mr. Ryan has a passion for training and teaching and is a respected expert in the areas of de- escalation, use of force, officer involved shooting response protocols, critical incident management and policy development related to such topics. During his time with LAPD, he served as the command staff's subject matter expert in the areas of tactics, firearms, and use of force for approximately 100 use of force review boards. An experienced trainer, Mr. Ryan is a seasoned instructor committed to enhancing job skills and recovery practices for line level personnel and supervisors.
Contact: [email protected] / tel 661.618.1173
66 COST TO PROVIDE SERVICES
Vendor Name: Teri Black & Co., LLC DBA Joseph Brann & Associates Cost To Provide the Services Required in this RFP
Description/Position
Joseph Brann, Principal
Chris Hartney, Project Manager
Paul Figueroa
George Ryan
$ Rate per Hour
$450
$350
$325
$250
67 APPROACH TO IMPLEMENTATION PARTNERSHIP
The Joseph Brann & Associates (JBA) team's primary role will be two-fold: to assess TPD's progress toward achieving the mandated reforms and to assist in the successful implementation of those reforms. These two roles go hand-in-hand, as compliance assessments identify gaps in compliance, concerning patterns, and procedural issues and provide practicable information and recommendations for overcoming those issues. JBA team foresees its role as serving as partners to TPD and the City as they fulfill their responsibility to achieve the reforms and improvements identified within the Agreement.
We recognize this Agreement is the result of several years of collaborative work between the TPD, the City, and DOJ. A priority for the JBA team will be to assist TPD in capitalizing on the important work already done and, as much as possible, to meld our work as consultants with this existing foundation and working relationships among the parties that will serve to carry the reform work forward. To that end, we will look forward to meeting early on with TPD managers, supervisors, and line staff, City leadership, DOJ, and community representatives to begin the work and to gain a sense of their perspectives on the reform efforts, their respective roles and expectations, and their work and communication processes. Members of the JBA team have worked with DOJ on similar reform projects and investigations.
The Agreement mandates change in a wide range of departmental practices, including some areas that are historically intractable for many law enforcement agencies. Utilizing a collaborative reform model with a focus on culture change, we will work with department executives to build the organizational capacity as well as the organization climate needed to implement and sustain the reforms and objectives the parties have agreed upon. Our goal will be to help T PD and the City establish that culture through refinements to organizational systems and practices, improved management performance, and a focus on accountability for results that is understood and embraced at all ranks.
We here discuss the qualifications and experience that will allow us to fulfill the services laid out in the scope of work in the RFP as well as the some of the approaches we have found effective as a means of demonstrating our general approach to law enforcement reform work. We note that these descriptions are often meant as examples AND remain open to any number of approaches to completing the work laid out in the Agreement and the RFP and we will develop modes of productivity in concert with the parties.
68 Work Plan and Compliance Measuresl
In the initial phases of the consulting period, we will work with the parties to establish a work plan laying out the steps needed for the department to achieve substantial compliance with the Agreement along with timelines for implementation. The plan will also establish a process and timelines for the JBA team's assessment of progress toward achieving the reforms, including compliance measures so the parties have clarity on how and by what criteria success and ultimate compliance will be tested.
It is our experience that certain elements of this type of reform process often take time to come to fruition and therefore should begin as soon as practicable. These include data system procurement/development and, subsequent to that, developing the analysis tools, protocols, expertise, and establishing the culture and clarity surrounding expectations needed to effectively use data to inform practice. In turn, this requires developing professional internal auditing skills as well as instituting effective recruitment, hiring, and promotional processes which positively impact the workforce, instituting effective supervisory and management oversight and accountability systems; and developing appropriate oversight mechanisms and practices.
This work will require regularly scheduled and ad hoc meetings with the parties to discuss compliance status, technical assistance, the results of audits and reviews, and planning. Two of the JBA team are based in Los Angeles and the other two in the San Francisco Bay Area. We can attend meetings virtually or in-person. We will also stay in regular contact with the parties via email and telephone. We are accustomed to exchanging document drafts and feedback (plans, policies, procedures, training curricula, etc.) via email and cloud-based document sharing services. Each member of the JBA team also has the capacity to remotely view documents and videos provided through departmental or City servers, if the need arises.
Following regular meetings, the JBA team will share written follow-ups memorializing information shared and decisions made and next steps.2 We recommend that we maintain an additional tracker, a "living document" containing more detail on compliance status, compliance assessment findings, the status of work recently completed and ongoing tasks, and next steps, to be discussed 1 Agreement Section 2(b)
2 Agreement Section 2(b)(v)
69 during regular meetings and shared for internal input from the parties. This can be a valuable tool for ensuring there is clarity regarding what work is needed to reach compliance among the parties.
Assessing TPD and City Progress Toward Reforms and Provision of Technical Assistance3 4 Determining compliance in most cases will not simply be a matter of confirming that certain tasks have been completed; in many cases it will require assessing whether the intended outcomes of the reform are occurring (e.g., Is a new policy consistently being followed in the field?). The JBA team will work with the parties to decide the most appropriate and economical method for reliably assessing compliance with each reform(s). In some cases this will likely require formal audits while, in others, less formal and less time-consuming reviews will suffice. The timing for reviews will also be agreed upon in advance. Audits and reviews will generally be initiated after any new or revised policies, training, procedures or practices have been implemented and sufficient time has passed for the changes to take root.
The JBA team includes professionally trained and experienced auditors. In their own practice and in consultation with law enforcement agencies, the team has used the results of audits to inform policy, training, supervisory and accountability processes, and crime strategies. All use of data, reports, and other information provided to the JBA team by the department will be governed by strict data security and confidentiality practices.
We have found the combination of operational audits and compliance audits to be most helpful in driving reform work as operational audits provide timely feedback on practices, gaps noted and obstacles encountered whereas compliance audits assess progress made relative to desired outcomes. Our findings reports will include written recommendations for immediate and longer- term steps needed to meet the Agreement mandates. We will work with TPD to develop action plans to address issues identified through audits or other assessments (whether conducted by JBA or TPD) and will provide any assistance needed to fulfill those plans.
A productive approach we have used in other jurisdictions is to first conduct informal reviews and "mini-audits" with small samples that can be targeted towards particular areas of interest or concern. These can be used to provide timely and immediately actionable feedback to TPD on 3 Agreement Section 2(a)(iii)(1)
4 Agreement Section 2(a)(iii)(3)
70 current performance and areas requiring attention. When these mini-audits show improved outcomes, audits with larger representative samples can then be conducted for formal compliance assessment.
Resolving Disagreements5
To ensure transparency and to reduce the likelihood of disagreements regarding interpretation of findings and compliance, all review and audit plans—whether conducted by the consultants, TPD, or third parties—should be agreed upon ahead of time and carefully followed, and once the reviews are conducted, reports should include detailed descriptions of methods used, findings, and rationales for all compliance decisions.
Nevertheless, of course, disagreements may arise in a number of areas including interpretation of the Agreement, policy language, "in policy" determinations (e.g., during audit case reviews, critical incident reviews, or complaint investigations), or in overall compliance assessments. With our experience in collaborative reform, the JBA team has worked to resolve these disagreements and impasses between law enforcement agencies and DOJ entities over multiple topics. Our role in these situations is typically to facilitate discussions and/or written exchange of positions and, if asked, to provide our expert opinion based on relevant information (such as results of our reviews, contextual examples from other jurisdictions, current law, the community's perspective, best practices, or current research) and to propose compromises when appropriate. We have found that, in some cases involving disagreement over a compliance determination, it is sometimes helpful to table the discussion until additional audits or reviews are conducted and then to reassess based on the additional information and any patterns that might be identified.
Consultant Reports and Compliance Tracking6
As part of our regular public-facing reports in other reform efforts, we have come to recognize the helpfulness of including concise Compliance Status Tables for each section of the Agreement which provide the status of each mandated reform (including which reforms have been achieved and, for instance, indications of partial compliance when progress has been made but full compliance has not been achieved), the rationale or basis for compliance decisions, key work 5 Agreement Section 2(a)(iii)(4)
6 Agreement Section 2(a)(iii)(2)
71 completed, and work left to do.7 The report text can then serve to provide more detail and context for the tables.
Holding public meetings to discuss the status reports is essential for maintaining buy-in among community members and hearing their input, concerns, and priorities regarding the reform process.8 We will be open to any meeting format agreed to by the parties. We have found these meetings to be most productive if the presentation of findings is focused on summaries of those findings of most interest to the public and that the bulk of the meeting be given to questions from the community members, with the consultants and representatives of TPD, the City, or DOJ available to respond and engage in discussion.
Our proposed team includes three members with a wealth of experience in serving at managerial and executive levels in law enforcement agencies, supporting the implementation of reform efforts, and evaluating successes. Two of our team members have served as chief or assistant chief of large agencies and understand the essential role strong supervisory and management oversight and accountability play in a healthy organization as well as the importance of buy-in from officers to support long-term culture shift. We have an expert in modern practices related to UOF as well as SMEs in search and seizure, bias-free policing, community policing and problem- solving, procedural justice, training including scenario-based and adult learning methods, data systems, auditing, data analysis, and using data to inform practices. Together, these team members are effectively positioned to both assess T PD's progress toward compliance and to provide technical assistance and expertise in all areas of the Agreement including assisting T PD to develop its internal capacity and skills to carry out self-assessment of success in meeting the Agreement's reforms.
For the remainder of this proposal section, we summarize our experience and general approach to the primary areas of work laid out in the Agreement. 7 Agreement Section 2(k)
8 Agreement Section 2(o)
72 Professional Standards and Early Intervention System The JBA team has recently assisted in providing law enforcement agencies with the development of policies covering complaints, UOF, search and seizure, bias-free policing, body worn cameras, and promotions. Similarly, we have assisted with refinements to agency training related to force, de-escalation, constitutional stops, bias-free policing, and community engagement. We will provide assistance in development of the policies and training mandated by the Agreement. If deemed necessary by the parties, once policies and trainings are approved and implemented, we will also verify that they have been provided to appropriate personnel.
Applying the auditing experience we described above as we have done with other jurisdictions, we will assist TPD in building out and establishing protocols for their Professional Standards unit, including among other factors considerations of sworn and professional staffing, internal and external training (e.g., auditing school), and effective use of resources. As an example to be considered, we have recently worked with an agency that effectively utilizes a large team of professional aides, under direct supervision of sworn supervisors and managers, to conduct random reviews of body worn camera video and passing their findings up the chain of command.
The "mini-audit" approach described above is recommended at the early stages, as it provides more timely information for immediate action and also allows the unit to develop and improve their auditing capacity.
The JBA team will support TPD in conducting a department-wide data system assessment, identifying gaps in their current systems, and then work with City and TPD on what IT upgrades might be needed. We can then provide TA on designing those systems so they provide capacity for fulfilling the reforms department-wide. If requested, we can assist TPD in developing dashboards and tools to enable regular and standardized data review by supervisors and managers as we recently did with LASD. Following implementation of new data systems and analysis tools, we can work with staff to develop and hone the skills and procedures needed to effectively use that data to inform practice. We will also do spot checks and reviews of the documentation of the data audits and reviews mandated by the Agreement.
In build-outs in other jurisdictions we have noted a tendency for external vendors and the system developers to often limit their focus to just the immediate needs of "first line" users of these systems and to focus too much on replicating or maintaining old processes but using new 73 technology. We encourage developers to think more broadly, gaining and applying an understanding of the Agreement and of the new culture of data-driven decision making that TPD is establishing, and should particularly focus on supervisory and management review and accountability functions. Further, the tools which personnel will use as they sit at their workstations or in the field should be semi-automated, intuitive, and modifiable. There are a variety of avenues to meet these needs—stand-alone data systems such as those offered by LEFTA may include this functionality or agency-developed tools can be created using such applications as the Microsoft suite.
A member of the JBA team recently managed his prior agency's development of entirely new case management and early intervention system and will apply his expertise in providing TA for TPD.
The JBA team will share its expertise in working with the implementation of these systems in a variety of circumstances factoring in the federal, state, and local level employment law, regulations, ordinances, and collective bargaining contracts. As departmental risk management tools, the early intervention system alerting managers to potential issues and patterns before they become problematic is a primary objective. A parallel function is to allow supervisors to identify issues in their direct report's conduct before they become problematic patterns and thus assist officers with their career development and ensure community members are experiencing fair and constitutionally valid policing. These systems are thus a critical component of the department's wellness programs.
An important development process in expanding an agency's auditing and data analysis capacity is independent assessment of the quality and thoroughness of those reviews. An approach we regularly use in other jurisdictions is to select a subset of the cases and data reviewed by the department and to conduct "verification" reviews by applying the same methodology and determining if our findings match those of the auditing unit. This can, again, help the unit hone their expertise and eventually enable their reviews to be used for formal compliance assessment.
Internal Affairs and Use of Force
The JBA team has extensive experience and knowledge of current best practices in all aspects of the use of force, including policy, law, training, tactics, equipment, and the investigation and adjudication of force and critical incidents. Similarly, the JBA team have applied their own 74 professional experience as well as their ongoing familiarity with current laws and practice to provide TA and auditing of every aspect of the complaints and IA reviews in several agencies.
In our experience, it is paramount that agency managers and executives lead the way in establishing a healthy culture and clear standards surrounding the investigation and adjudication of complaints and the use and review of force by actively promoting, demonstrating, and requiring thoroughness, objectivity, fairness, and transparency in these critical activities.
Further, since officers are challenged on a daily basis with interactions involving mental and behavioral health issues, it is crucial deputies receive specialized training in and routinely apply skills related to response to individuals in crisis and de-escalation as well as other considerations affecting the use of force. We have worked with agencies in implementing response models based on CIT training including MET, mental health professional-officer teams in patrol (Joint Evaluation Teams), and mental health triage in dispatch centers.
Supervision and Discipline
In both their leadership roles at agencies and more recently as consultants, the JBA team has a wealth of experience developing policies and protocols for effective supervisory oversight and accountability. The JBA team has helped develop and support discipline matrices in their professional experience. Once the criteria is established, it is crucial that there are accountability processes in place to ensure it is regularly and consistently applied and that results are occasionally audited to ensure the tool is meeting T PD intentions. While each incident or case presents a specific set of circumstances, the JBA team has the experience to help advise the department on the formulation of disciplinary guidelines that are based on progressive discipline when that is the appropriate response.
External Oversight
The JBA team has extensive experience with the development of as well as working with external civilian oversight boards and independent auditors (e.g., OIG). These entities can vary significantly in terms of their roles, range of responsibilities and function, and their legal authority.
We can provide our insights and guidance, gather internal and community input, and help the parties determine the appropriate mission and structure as well as assist with implementation, including membership and establishing internal protocols. After implementation and some time to 75 find its footing, the JBA team can help assess whether the oversight entity is fulfilling its expected role and how its processes and effectiveness can be improved.
Disparities and Bias in Policing
The JBA team holds expertise in data analysis, conducting managerial reviews, developing corrective action plans, providing problem-solving training, and addressing community perceptions related to perceived and actual disparities in policing. We also have worked with multiple agencies in the development of policy, training, and supervisorial reviews, protocols to ensure officers and dispatchers have clear guidance in the appropriate conduct of stops and calls for service, and ensuring superiors can appropriately identify and respond to either individual incidents or patterns of possible bias. This is another area of the Agreement that the JBA team can assist TPD in creating a culture of accountability, where topics like potential bias are routinely analyzed, discussed, and, when necessary, addressed transparently and without defensiveness.
Community Policing
Members of the JBA team are national experts in community policing, problem-oriented policing, and procedural justice. We also have extensive experience assisting agencies in developing, strengthening, and sustaining community partnerships, including outreach and engagement with diverse, hard-to-reach community members with historically difficult relationships with law enforcement. The JBA team philosophy is that the community should serve a meaningful role as a partner and co-producer of public safety. (See team bios.) Employment and Organization Health
As part of the employment-related reforms, the JBA team will work with the TPD and the City to clearly articulate the workforce characteristics they seek in what is sometimes called an Ideal Candidate Profile. The profile and related protocols can then be applied throughout the employment continuum from recruitment and applicant evaluations and, after hiring, in training, supervision and mentoring, performance evaluations, and promotions. Additionally, as we recently did in another jurisdiction, the team will assist in identifying and collecting the data and information needed to identify and respond to any choke points where qualified candidates may fall out of the hiring or promotional processes and to ensure officers receive effective and equitable guidance 76 throughout their career trajectories with regard to mental and physical health and advancement.
In addition to recruitment and retention bonuses, the JBA team has worked with other jurisdictions in pursuing other avenues to increase application rates and maximize the ratio of applicants to hires, such as speeding up the process to reduce the chance a qualified applicant accepts other offers of employment in the meantime, broader range and location of recruitment events, screening and testing held at recruitment events, improved communication and assistance with applicants as they step through the process, etc.
Closely related to the Employment section, the JBA team will assist in establishing a culture of internal procedural justice and to institute the processes and climate where TPD personnel can comfortably and without repercussions raise internal concerns and complaints. To assess current status for the purpose of informing TPD's work in this section and also to assess progress in meeting mandated reforms, the JBA team can help the department and City tap into employee attitudes towards these processes through observation, informal interviews, and, if the parties choose, organizational climate studies. A healthy police organization dedicates itself to instituting and maintaining personnel systems and processes that are responsive to helping employees deal with the challenges that stem from dealing with the myriad mental and emotional crises they must contend with in the course of their work. This can prove especially challenging for organizations with staff vacancy and morale issues. The JBA team is experienced in dealing with such challenges and can help T PD in their efforts to promote a healthier work environment, enhance employee satisfaction, productivity, and overall well-being, and lead to improved organizational performance.
77 REFERENCES
Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department
Office of Constitutional Policing
211 W. Temple St.
Los Angeles, CA 90012
Eileen Decker, Director
(213) 229-3096
[email protected]
Monitoring of Settlement Agreement between USDOJ and LA County, providing technical assistance
USDOJ, Civil Rights Division
601 D Steet, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004
Charles Hart, Civil Rights Attorney (former)
Cell: (917) 406-6740
[email protected]
Monitoring of Settlement Agreement between USDOJ and LA County involving implementation of reforms, providing technical assistance, and ongoing evaluations of progress Riverside Police Department
4102 Orange St.
Riverside, CA 92501
Larry Gonzalez, Chief of Police
(951) 826-5940
[email protected]
Served as Monitor of Riverside Police Department Stipulated Judgment between City and California DOJ; then as public safety consultant to City of Riverside for evaluation/ recommendations related to role of Riverside Community Police Review Commission 78 City of Cincinnati, Ohio
Miller Canfield
150 W. Jefferson, 25th Floor
Detroit, MI 48226
Saul Green, Of Counsel
Former U.S. Attorney, Easter District of Michigan
Former Deputy Mayor, City of Detroit
(313) 268-5381
[email protected]
Worked with Mr. Green on monitoring of federal consent decree involving Cincinnati Police Department and assisted with subsequent "refresh" and updated assessment of progress requested by the City
79