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.