Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Bill 11.A 01/27/20031 L r' CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JAN 2 7 2003 11 AGENDA BILL Agenda Title Meeting 'Date: Review and Possible Direction and/or Action Regarding Amendment to Request for Proposals for Solid Waste, Recyclable January 27, 2003 Material, and Yard Trimming Services Department Director Contact Person Phone Number Public Facilities Rick Skladzien Richard Rudnansky (707) 778 -4362 City Attorney Richard Rudnansk Cost of Proposal Account Number $150,000 (Cost to reimbursed by successful vendor) 001- 300 -0000 -3231 Amount Budgeted Name of Fund: -0- General Fund Attachments to Agenda Packet Item 1. Santa Rosa Integrity Clause. Provision , Summary Statement 'The Council has previously approved a Request for Proposals (RFP) for solid waste, recyclable materials, ,and yard trimming services. The RFP included an "integrity" clause which provided that at no time during the proposal process are proposers to enter into discussions with the City Council, City staff, or other proposers concerning the RFP or distribute, information,concerning the procurement. After release of the RFP., the integrity clause has - been questioned "by the °,Santa Rosa Press Democrat on First Amendment grounds. The Council has requested that this issue be brought to ,it for further discussion and possible modification or amendment to the RFP. Council. Priority Not applicable. Recommended.CtV Council Action /Suggested Motion The Council to review the current integrity clause of the RFP and provide direction to staff as to any amendments, to .the RFP 'the Council feels appropriate. Any such recommended amendments would be brought to the Council for formal action. Reviewed by Finance'Director: Review .l ° Attorney:. t _ Approved by City Manager Date: Date: Today's Date Revision # and Date Revised: File Code: # January B, 2003 Agenda Bill (1 /15/03) (fork) #616779 CITY OF PETALUMA, CALIFORNIA JANUARY 27, 2003 • (Date of Meeting) AGENDA REPORT FOR REVIEW AND POSSIBLE DIRECTION AND /OR ACTION REGARDING AMENDMENT TO REQUEST °FOR PROPOSALS FOR SOLID WASTE, RECYCLABLE MATERIAL, AND YARD T R AMING SERVICES (Name of Project — Use Same Language as Found for the Agenda Title on the Agenda Bill) 1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY City's current Solid Naste Disposal Franchise expires in June of 2004. The Council decided that for the first time since 1938 that it would have a, ;comp:etitive bidding process to determine who would be the franchisee. As a result Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson were retained as consultants and worked with staff to prepare a Request for Proposal (RFP). The City's RFP for solid waste services was authorized to be released by the Council. The RFP contains a provision, which reads as follows: Pro oser Requirement: " p q nt: Please note that at no "time during the proposal p rocess :shall proposers, or their agents, enter 'into discussions with City • Council, City Staff, or other proposers concerning this RFP, or distribute, in any way, information (by newspaper,,. radio television advertisements or interviews or other methods) concerning this procurement to the residents or business in the City or the general public. All questions regarding the RFP should be directed to Tracy Swanborn by fax or , e- mail." .Subsequently, the City Attorney's office receiveda letter ,from John McCraw, an attorney representing the Santa Rosa Press Democrat and the New York Times Company. In that letter, Mr. McCraw ,challenges the integrity provision (or no contact clause), which he refers to as a "gag order. As a result - of Mr. McCraw's letter and various newspaper articles, the Council has requested that this issue be brought to it for further discussion and possible modification or amendment to the RFP. 2. " BACKGROUND : ty , In di scu. .9 this issue with the Cis consultant Robert Hilton, Mr. Hilton indicates that the intent of the City's selection process of a solid waste service provider was to ensure that (1) .each proposer has the same opportunity to present their proposals publicly . to the Council and respond to comments on their proposals in the same manner and in the same form that those comments are made; (2) each proposal be objectively evaluated on its merits and each proposer is given the same opportunity to respond to such evaluation; n and (3) the decision of the. Council and the basis for such decision be publicly communicated. The intent was to provide for an open discussion of these matters during City Council meetings so that all proposers; Council Members, and members of the public would receive' the same information regarding the procurement process, proposal evaluations, and contractor selection; and would have the same opportunity to correct descriptions of their proposals that were erroneous, to ask questions and to comment on the. other various proposals. The City. Council expressed its interest in this type of •restriction during the July 15, 2002 City Council.meeting and provided their reasoning for 'such provision. With. respect'to the integrity clause as it relates to contact with the media and the public, the objective of the provision was to eliminate the necessity for proposers to. expend substantial effort and funds responding to the possible dissemination of confusing, inaccurate or skewed information by competitors to residents, businesses and the. public, One need go no further than'the City of Santa Rosa% process to see that some proposers appeared to. spend substantial °resources on media campaigns, which some people; believe.;argu y. ably in mancases did not fairly or accurately represent or describe the various proposer's proposals, the evaluation process, recommendations and competitors' proposals. .However, despite the good intentions of the RFP,to provide a more even in field yet still `have • an open, .thorough and complete discussion of the proposals, the Press Democrat has challenged the current provision under First Amendment principles. . Without conceding the legal points raised, the following possible options (most °of which are provided by the City's consultant) are presented, in a spirit of cooperation and to assist the Council'in its discussions.' Option No. 1 : Elimination of the integrity clause in its entirety. This would obviously .allow for any lobbying efforts by the proposers as to individual Council Members' and could lead to `the type of media .campaign seen in the Santa Rosa. process; Should -the City Council wish to proceed in this manner, it may wish to consider.requiring that any contacts between individual Council Members and the proposers be disclosed publicly either by providing as part of the record any and all. written. communications (correspondence, e- mails, etc.) and in the case of verbal discussions, a statement on the record of the discussions including the participants, the contents of the discussion, the length of the discussion, and the time and location. Option.No. 2 : The Council may also wish:to consider the "Santa:Rosa,model "which was used in the recent Santa, Rosa. process. A copy, of Santa Rosa'.s provis'i`on is attached. You will note °that in this provision, information pertaining to the proposal and that the proposer ;desired to be brought to the attention of the City be presented to'7a designated individual. within the City. Option.No 3 : Another option for consideration is to prohibit any discussions with 'City Council, City staff,, or other, proposers during the RFP process and also to prohibit . direct distribution information in any way :(including mailings, flyers, advertisements) r` <a q . concerning this procurement to residents or businesses in the City or the general public provided, however, that the proposers'may discuss the process with members of the press. Option No. 4 : Revise the integrity clause to prohibit. certain, specific activities such as advertising in the media, and mailing information to residents or businesses in the City or the general public unless such proposer .provides, without charge, to the City and other proposers equal opportunity and space in the same advertisement. Option No. 5 : Revise the integrity clause to eliminate the provision of the distribution of information to residents, businesses or the general public and replace it with a statement of the City's preference regarding proposer's behavior: and potential to consider their behavior in making their,selection of a contractor. Option No. 6 : Leave integrity clause as is. Again, these are merely discussion points offered to assist the Council in its deliberation. 3. ALTERNATIVES The City Council not consider revision of the RFP and continue to use the current language of the RFP. 4. )FINANCIAL IMPACTS Unknown. 5. CONCLUSION Council to review the currentRFP and particularly the integrity clause. 6. OUTCOMES OR PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS THAT WILL IDENTIFY SUCCESS OR C OMPLETION: 7. RECOMMENDATION The �Council;review the, current integrity clause of the RFP' and provide direction to staff as to any amendments to the RFP the Council feels appropriate. Any such recommended amendments would be brought back to the Council for formal action. #616521 Agenda Report (I/15/03) (fmk) 3 Proposal Forms I+ PROCESS INTEGRITY RULES The .City pledge is for the procurement process :for'soljd' waste collection; disposal and recycling services to be open, objective, carefully .monitared, and undeWandable to ail. The following rules wilt be adhered to and enbrced. UNT THE CITY COUN CIL AWARDS, THE CO NTRACT, ALL CONTACT. BETWEEN PARTICiPAIVT$ AND THE CITY SHALL BE N MR:.10HN RIId LDO 'OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES. ALL INTERACTION SHALL:BE J WRMNC3 EffIj R BY MAIL OR �E=11 AL, THE ADDRESSES AND FAX Nd JMBERS ARE: CITY'OF'SANT_ ROSA A'ITENTIOW46A RIN ALDO PU' RCHASING'.aGENT DEPARTMENT QFAADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES S3 STONY'POINTA6AD SANTA rROSA, CALIFORNIA 95401 FACSIMILE NO. R Ii7154�Z23 .fRINAkLDO@C1.S ANTA-ROSA.C&US OF 'P AT ON O, AILS TO RECOGNIZE'OR UTII;IZE,THIS'PROCESS, L BE N AT101� !OF ITS VIOLATION AND MAY DE SUBj'(;T'TO b"QUAL1FICATION FROM THE SELECTIOR PkbCES *E B AT E SOLE'. DISC; RETION ^OF THE CftY All Participants must :acknowledge and sign this, statement as part ' of the `RF'P process. All Pa rVeipants must retum a "signed copy of this.staterrienL On of MY company, I understand and accept the rules established` in this statement Company Name: bale: Company Representative: True: • i s �� nL� 5ectlon 6 - 27 TOTAL P_02 ALA COMMUNICATIONS. BE, TWEEN'`THE CITY PURCHASING AC F.N'l AND A PARTICIPANT, ALONG WITH THE °RELATi!v RE.SPONS,65. YUILL BE TRANtMI[TTED "SIMULTANEOUSLY T01 ALL PARTICIPANTS.