SR-CC/PA-2 (6)
~ .. - CC/PA-7....
PCD:SF:RKF:prkequi3iWINWORD Santa Monica, California
council Meeting: January 10, 1995 JAN , 0 1995
To: City Council and Parking Authority
From: city staff
Subject: Recommendation to Reject All Bids to Provide and
Install Revenue and Access Control Equipment in the six
Downtown Parking structures, and Authorize the City
Manager to Issue a Request for Proposals (RFP) for the
Procurement of Such Goods and Services
Introduction
This report recommends the City Council and Parking Authority
reject all bids to provide and install revenue and access control
equipment in the six downtown parking structures. This report
also requests the city council authorize the city Manager to
issue a request for proposals (RFP) for these goods and services.
Oiscussion
At its meeting on December 14, 1993, the city Council and Parking
Authority approved the conversion of the six downtown parking
structures from a parking meter operation to a cashier/pay-on-
exit operation. This conversion was requested by the Bayside
District Corporation (BDC) and the Restaurant and Merchants
Associations to improve customer relations, make the parking
structures more user friendly, and to enhance vehicle security
and personal safety. The bidding package for the revenue and
access control equipment was issued on September 17, 1994, and
requested by 14 parking equipment companies or distributors. On
JAN 1 0 1995
1 CC/PA.2-
~ -
October 4, 1994, seven (7 ) companies or distributors attended a
mandatory pre-bid meeting and structure walk-through. Two (2)
bids were received and read by the Deputy city Clerk on October
18, 1994. The bids received were as follows:
SOCAL Parking $594,681.00
SECOM $778,116.00
Staff evaluated both bids and both companies, including thorough
reference checks and site visits of each company's parking
equipment. As a result of that evaluation, staff initially
recommended SECOM as the best responsible bidder. However, the
proposed award of contract was challenged and staff withdrew the
recommendation to further evaluate the bid package and proposed
bids. This included retaining a parking consultant to assist
staff.
The subsequent analysis disclosed that the city's bid
specifications may have been unduly restrictive and, as a result,
may have unnecessarily limited the number of possible bidders.
considering this, staff has determined the best course of action
is to reject the existing bids and undertake a new procurement
process with revised specifications to encourage more bidders.
This new process will include the issuance of an RFP. Since
parking revenue and access control equipment and software is
technologically complex and each vendor of such equipment may
have different methods of accomplishing the same goals, staff
2
,,~ .
believes the RFP process will encourage more bidders and may be
more economical.
BUdaet/Financial Impact
There is no budget or financial impact resulting from the
recommendations in this report.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the city Council and Parking Authority:
1- Reject all bids to provide and install revenue and access
control equipment in the six downtown parking structures;
and,
2. Authorize the City Manager to proceed pursuant to Santa
Monica Municipal Code Section 2.24.071 to proceed with the
issuance of an RFP for the procurement of the above goods
and services.
Prepared by: Resource Management Department
Jeff Mathieu, Director
Judith Meister, Asset Manager
Planning and Community Development Department
Suzanne Frick, Director
Ron Fuchiwaki, City Parking and Traffic Engineer
Doug Biagi, Associate Traffic Engineer
(prkequi3)
3
C. H JL RiJS nJS TE I~J lil'31J-~.:19-44:8 JHAllD T614 ~Jc 001 P 02
,
SH~PPAR~, MUI..L.!N. RICf'fTE" &- HAM"'fON e"/~A.1.
.. '......r..lIIl.. '''01..,,).. ,................ ..,.............
....rrQRtlIEV. AT" Loll'"
o.......C eQ",..... C1'n(;~ ..g 1lI......~'O ....... &"1.00'- .... '....NC..e{l 0"'''11'';
.CIIIr"l'" .. .!:lC/Il -11.1 1oQ~"'" "=.1: ...",..CT 1.1oC..tauTN ......"
.... .......",.114,.... C!.DLI." .aU. 1"~I;IIlCl UNt.."
.,CW_OIltT _":... 1;4J.IF'OltHl... .'hD 'aiIJe ~e9 "'~(U:..lCl l;o"o"~FO"N"'" .OO71--'-:-:~ ...... '"'.....-.;I.CO ~I,....'III... 84111_'"
I~J'" 'w ..60 ....l ._0J40t:
.E..I:"..,O~,1t '.'31 6;!n-l'l'llIc
..... ...... Q-J'"trHi.
- OlIN."'....." ....00111
....JII:'Tl:fq'. ;:l'It1i:CT ~ AL. ",,.,101111._ ",...t;~ ".'\.E; r!'3: .ao- ;,.. "0' *If.... .-_y
CAelo' .,..C'"\......W 'I~ g~-.:OO OA.J,a__NI.-., ..~'4.."
"11:. n..,oo
(213) 617-4216 t'E~I:X f....Il..
-
January i ~ 1995 O\,llt .'1.& ""UN.",..
NIfB-5JJJ:J
II I!'I!UCOJiIIR. um nD~RAL IDUIS
Hono~abl. Mayor and
Meaber. of the City Council
City of Santa Monica
1685 Main str..t~ Roo. 200
Santa Monica, california 90401-J295c
h; Bid fo: parx1nq Revenue and Ave... Centrel
Sy.tam fer six parkin9 StruotU~.l
pro;act 1', 'j5-01
Honorable Kayar <<nd councl1~e~.r.;
This firm repr..er.te aOCAL perkin9 Equ!pG.n~ Company
P'SOCALII) in Clonn.ct1on with its bid. 'to provl,de .. parkin9
revenue and acc... control ay.~ vi~ a general databa..
computer .Y.UiIl (tb" "Pa~kin9 ay.t.OIllIl>> to~ aix ~owntown parking
It:ructure. located in the Ci~y of Bute Monica {the "City").
A. you ..y r.c:all, t.he City reaeiVM t.wc bit!. r on.
from SOCAt. .nd the other from s.(:o~ In:tBrnational. The amount.
ot soeAL's bid va. $59.,681. a.COIII. bid va. $778,118, which
v.. .183.43S .o~ thon (.n4 more tban 33' h1qhar ~.ft) SOCALI.
bi~~ o..plt. SOCAL.. 8ub8taneially lower bid and ita
Q.-cnatrated obility to oo.pl.~. tho projoct, City statt
ori9inal1y reo~eh4.4 1~ i~g Novemb.r 22, 19l& .taft report
~h.i: ~ C1ty Counet.l a".l"d 't:hAI C!on~ract: tor the parkinG' Sy.tslI
~o 1.0011 at: iot. Wov.1Ilhar 22 'IIl..~lnr.l.
In a l.~~.r datod Wov.bbar 22~ 1994 to the City
counoil, ,.,. ~U.cu..Cld at lon':ltb why seCAL crualltt.. .. the
-lov..t r..,onctbl. bi~~~ and ahould be awar4ed the contract.
8ub..~.ftt.ly, City lilt-aU' withdraw its reeomaendation anc! tbe
C1~y eet.\MIil eontinuM th. matt.er to ita OeceDer ...t1rsg.
At: t.h.a't time, Cit.y staff advised us that. they vouldli..t with
u. to diaeu.. th. m.~t.r in da~atl atter it had further
ADD TO
.
cc/PA-,
PR'_IL ~J3ENS7EI~-J :D:31C-Ll49-LiJ1S jRN 09'95 lO.15 No.GOl P 03
,
SHEP."AO. MU~~II't., A:ICMTtR & H~MPTON
Honorable Xayor an"
Meab.r. of tha C1t1 Council
January 9, lIt!
II.". 2
ravi.wed the i..u.. ra1..4 in our Hoveaber 22 J.~~.r. Jr.
subsequently .ch.~uled a me.tin;, but Cl~y Start eanc.ll.~ it
and advl..~ ua that thea required OdC1t1onal t1.. to ~vl.. ~.
aatter. W. were a110 a vised that tn. c1ty council heor1ng had
b..n continued again to January 10, 1995.
Clt{ .taft never did meet wltn u.. In.~..d, i~ 1-
ROV r.coaend ng in it. January 10 .tatt .r.port tne c11;y
council relect both of t~e b1~. on the qrounda th&~ tbe ci~yf8
bid .peclt cationl "mal :tBve Deen unduly r..'tt"ict.iv.a .nd n..y
have ~.ceasarl1y 11m tad the number ot poaaible bldder.."
Tn.. .taff report alao It.a.~e. that "there ie no bU.cl9" or
!1naDc1al impact r.,ultlnq !rga tn_ recomaendatlon. 1n this
report."
SQCAL strunqly 41.09r... vltb City ataff'.
reco...n4atlon, and oq4in reapecttully r.qu..~. ~ha~ the city
council ana parking Autbori~y find that 80~ qualit1.. .. th.
low..t r..ponaibl. b!ddor and aWGrd ~bo Qontr.~ fo~ the
,ark,1nq Iy.tu to SOCAL iD ~c;:corde.noe wit.b lOCAL'. bid
propeRl, for th8 reaeon. ..t tori.h in 0\11' Movecer 22 let.ter
ano cU..cu...d below.
1. Tbe Bid sD.cifia.~iDft. Were Rot UndulY
aea.trictive. In our H~em.ber 2~ l.t.t.r, -We pointed out that
the eitytB Did .peeitication. vculd ~nly be unduly r..trictiv.
it thu city liDi~ed the Di~inq .olely to parkin; equip..nt
manufacturers (i....L... S.ooa). In 9.1\.rlll, relatively r.v
gampanie. bid on parkinq .~ipme~~ oon~~ot. which ar.
competitivelY bi4 by p~liQ a~.nci.. beeau.. Ca) only a limited
n~~ of aompanle. man~taeeurA or distribute plrkinq equipment
and. (b) .0.. of to".,.. co.pani_ do not hold. .tat.
Qon~ra~rt. lia.n.. O~ have sufficient bondlnq capacity to
pedon 9ov.rnmental work~
A.& w.t UJ\d.l".t.a.nd i":., none ot the 14 ao:yanl.. that
rooeLv.d oop!.. of ~h. Ci~Y'8 b14 propoaal coapla ned that the
bid .~itica~ion. w.r. undul~ re.trictive. In addition,
~~ov9hout th. .ft~Jra bid process, C1ty .taft n~.r advl-.d
&OCAL tfta~ it va. ineli;ibla to bid on the contract becau.. 1t
w.. not . aanufacturar, pr.s~ably because SOCAL had a
ClOJmiea.nt. frem an .atablished unutactUntr (American pux1ng
2quir:::~' Xnc.) to provi~. the parking .qu1paen~ and ...1.~ in
i~. ftatallation.
I
-~ <-- --
?j:JL ~Q'3J>S"'E:t.~ ~I':3:C-J~9-"::;418 ].;~.J D3' 35 10:15 No.uOl P O~
.
SM.PPil',RC. MUL.~IN, RtCIolTE~ & !-1AM,.-rO N
HOnOrable ..yor an~
xe~r. of tb. City counoil
January t, 1"5
pave 3
w. .1.0 not. tha~ SOC~L submitted a very coapetitive
bid. Ita $5'4,'81 b1d wa. only $44.681 h1qher than the City'.
.a~ima~. for th. P.~kin9 System.
2. SOCAL'. Bid Was R..ponsibl. And R..poftsive.
Pursuant. 'to 'Ch. .Banta Monica Municipal Code and State laV, the
lo...t. lIOnetary bidd.er mu.t b. Mre,pon.1ble" ancs. re.pol\a1ve to
<L.a.., oeaply with) th. r~ir...nt. .et forth in the city'.
bid d.o"WI.n~_ S~L'. bid aM cur November 22 letter present
.xt~.iv. .vi6anca that SCCAL ia . r..pon.1ble c~ny which iB
laOI!'. t.han ~liti.d to install and .ervice the parkin; 5yst..,
8ft4 ebat SOeAL fully resnonded to all bid requir...nta.
r~ is not_worthY that the January 10 .~atr ~.pgrt
inc:lud.. no 8tat..ent or evidence that SOCAL do.. not quality
.. ~. lov..t r..ponsible bidder. It 18 also important to not-
tha~, it th. City Council balieves tha~ 80CAL 1. . r..pon.1bl.
and r..ponalve bidder. it haa full authority to 4vard ~.
contract to lOCAL.
3. Th. S~Aff Ranort aaeommsndation Will Have A
Spb.tint.i~ ftnll:qeial 11!\DOCt. - fr ad.opt" by tal. City CO~l"Ioil,
eity ,taftf, recomm.ndatloftl will ~.v. a number of f1nanoi.l
iJapact.. .First the City expanded substantial funde to
foraulat. it. bia propoAal and review th. two bids i~ ~.c.ive4.
A. w. under.tand itt city statt eommenc~ ~b18 p~o... in
o.c..o.r, 1'93 .n~ h.. r.~.ln.d at lea.t two dittar.nt
oonaul unt. . ,hat inv.stment will ~ lo.t if' tha C!i ty council
reject. 8QCAL'. bid.
SeCOnd, the city will incur additional .~.n.. if it
proc..cta tilth the i.luanea 0' an Rn for the. parkift9 Sy.t...
Tbird, cley atatt'. r.eommenda~1on will .uba~antially
delay the installation sad operation of the Pa~kih9 Sy.~amf
which w11l pr..umably r..~lt in a loa. of parkl~ ravenu.. to
the C1ty.
FOUrth, tne C~~y C~~nailt. r.~.c~ion of all bid. aay
have a ~ong-t.r.m t1n.nQ~.1 l~ace Oft ~he ~i~r by dl.oouraaiD;
quall~1.d compani.. from bi4d!n9 on tu~u~. e ey contr.ats.
C1'ty .taf! 1. Au1ft9 tAe city eoufteil 'to re1eet 'th. bid. on
vaqu. '1E'ou.nd.. whioh appear ~ lulVA nothinq to do with aOCAL's
qu.lif1QGtiona ~o p.~!ora ~h. eOft~raet. The City'. arbItrary
r_j.ctlOft of qualifi.. ~id. could result in tewer co.pani..
bi~41ft9 on .ub..~.nt Ci~y con~r.et.. Which would raduce
~Qape~itlon and r..ule in h10h~ bida. Ironically, thi. 1s
PAUL ROSEN';~E=N II' 310-L149-4418 JAN O~'95 10:16 No.OOl p ~5
<
. .
SHE:"f'AR~, MU~LIN, RICI-ITER & HAMPTON
Hono:rable Mayor and
Kember. ot the city C~~ncil
January I, 199!5
Palife .
apparently the very reason that City Itaff has r8co-..nd.~ that
th. city Council rejact the bi~s,
w. neta that this i. the second time in only el;ht
aonthl that City .taft ha. reccmm.nd.~ the rejection of all
bid. on a park1~ contract on ~on-substantiv. qrounda. En Kay,
1994, .. r.pr..entecl Ace Parkinq ManalJellltnt, Inc. With reBpect
to ita bid on city c~ntract to: parking .anB9...n~ .ervice. tar
15 beach parkin; lota. Ac. had IIUbm1tte4 the lov..t.
r..ponaible bid amon; the six ~14der.. In that ca.. city .tatt
raocaended the rejectlon of all 11x bidS on hi9hli technical
qr=unda which, at least in Aceta ca.., hed no bear D9 on it.
abi11ty to perform the contract. After the public hearlnt; and.
staff report,. leveral or the counc11m~rs exPE"...act c:anfuaion
over ataft'. raCCmJDend4t:lon and at lemllt two ab.~.ined. from. the
vote.
F1fth, the arbitrary rejection of SOCALt. bi4 will
cart.inly have an adv.rse tinancial impact Oft SCCAL. I~ he.
incurred subBtanti.l expense to p~.pare it. bi4 ond r8tain o~r
firm to protect it. l.qa1 ri9h~. ift tn_ bidding proc....
4. I!!IOCAL will. B@ At. It. eMlI!Se.t.it.iva Di..dvanotatr. rf
The l::qntract: III ..bl-d. SOCAL priced th. parkinq SY.us on a
anit ba.~., and ita bid i. available ~er public raviaw (in
t.~tf S"oat h.a. confirmed 1:hat. ie. ob~.ift.d a copy ~f SOCAL'.
bid imm.diately tOllowin9 the openinq ot ~. bid.). rr SOCAL
i. ro~4 to ~id, i~ will be ~~ a coftpetitiv. diaadvantaq.
beeau.. i~ will ftO~ know what: t.h. "th..r ceap.nt.. will bid. but
the ot:her co.panJ... will know what Soe.lL i. goinU to bid.
S.oem will not hay. ~hi. probl.. b.c.u..~ ift gO~~T.t. opinion.
S.com ~.e.n~1.11y overbid on th8 eontract ~or th. parkiftq
S~~_.
lOCAL ahculd net be p.nallz~ fer part1c1patinq in
t.h. bic!41nc; pl"Oca_ and auhmittinq a fair and very competitive
t;.:1d. on IMha1f of SOCAL. we r.8pect;tully r.qu..~ that th. Cit.y
Counoil and Pa~klftq Au~o~ity find tbat lOCAL qualif1.. .. the
lo~.c~ r..ponsibl. bidder and award the contract fc~ tbe
,
pou~ :?C3ENS -EI ~~ ID.310-t.l49-4418 :R~i 09' 95 ~O:~7 No 001 p 06
. - . -
.
St-l~PPA~C. MULLIN, RIC",TE~ & HA.MPTON
Honorable Mayor and
Maaberl ot the City Council
January g. 19'!
Pa,. 5
parklnq SYltam ta SOCAL in aceordane. with SOCAL'a bid
I'ropo..1.
Very truly youn,
Z~
tor SHEPP1JU), MULLIN, RICHTER , HAMPI'ON
1\I\LOtll7ll1l.L.
co; Mr. John GQepn_r
Mr. Chrlll'tgpher J. Archer
~o.~b Lav~.nQ., Z.q.
-----
ADD TO CC/fA -~
.. CITY OF
SANTA MONICA
CALIFORNIA JAN 1 0 1995
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTOR~EY WRITER'S ~~3lf DI.>,L Kc>.lBER
(310.458-
January 10, 1995 F"" X" OW) 39.5-672~
VIA TELECOPIER 213-620-1398
Jack H. Rubens
Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton
333 South Hope Street, 48th Floor
Los Angeles, CA. 90071-1449
Dear Mr. Rubens:
I am in receipt of your letter dated January 9, 1995, which
concerns city Staff's recommendation that the city Council reject
all bids for the Bayside Dlstrict's Parklng and Access Control
System.
As you know, the City has very carefully consldered your opinions
in this matter. After you protested the initial November 22,
1994 Staff recommendation to award the bid to your client's
rival, Secom International, the City took the extraordinary step
of withdrawing the recommendation so that your concerns could be
reviewed more closely.
Since then, both I and Katie Lichtig of the Clty Manager's Office
have spoken to you numerous times by telephone. city staff even
agreed to meet with you and your client to discuss your protest.
While this meeting was cancelled by mutual consent, these
contacts reveal that the Clty has been more than willing to hear
your concerns and more importantly, to respond appropriately.
All of this has happened so that your client and the City could
be assured that the bid selection process was going forward
fairly and according to proper legal standards.
Now that City staff has co~pleted their review, you are again
protesting. Not content that the city seeks to start fresh so
that it can ferret out any semblance of unfairness in its bidding
procedures, you seem to want the Clty to choose your client
regardless of any shortcomings that may exist ln the bid process.
In a sense you appear to want the best of all worlds -- insist on
"fairer" competition when your client is the only alternative who
can benefit from it; stifle competition when your client alone
has a foot in the door. While your position is understandable
from an entrepreneurlal vantage, from a legal and pUblic policy
perspective it is not. JAM 1 0 1995
ADD TO cc (fA - "-
CITY HALL. 1685 MAIN STREET, SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA 90401-3295
---- -- ~
.. ~.". Y
The city Councll operates well withln lts legal authorlty when it
considers a staff recommendation to reject all bids and start
anew. Pacific Architects Collaborative v. state Dept. of
EMployment Dev., 100 Cal.App.3d 110, 166 Cal. Rptr. 184 (1979) ;
Universal By-Products, Inc. v. City of Modesto, 43 Cal.App.3d
145, 117 Cal.Rptr. 525 (1974) . The decision not to award a
publlC contract rests in the sole discretion of the city council
and the courts cannot compel the city council to direct the award
of such a contract. Pozar v. Dept. of Transportation, 145
Cal.App.3d 269, 193 Cal. Rptr. 202 (1983) . Basic contract law
holds that until such time as a bld is formally accepted, there
exists no contractual relationship between the bidder and the
governmental entlty. 1 Witkin, summary of Cal. Law, Contracts,
(9th Ed. 1987). Thus, your client has no legally enforceable
right which would require the City Council to accept its bid.
l\lhile the City is sympathetic to your claim that your client has
been put at a "competitive disadvantage" by the recommendation to
reject all bids, this claim alone also lacks legal significance
as you must realize. If the rule was otherwise, every time a
governmental body decided to reject all bids the 1I10sing" bidders
could claim foul and prevent the actlon. Policy options would be
eliminated and frozen in time upon the initial decision to
solicit bids, obviously not sound publlC or legal policy.
The City has a strong interest in preserving the integrity of the
bid process and 1n fostering competition. The City needs robust
competition to help insure that public monies are spent
efficiently. staff1s recommendation is calculated to provide
just that.
OSEPH LAWRENCE
ssistant city Attorney
CC: Mayor and City Councll Members
John Jalili, City Manager
Marsha Moutrie, city Attorney
- - -- - - ---- ~
EPWM'CP bike Santa Monica, California
Council Meeting January 10, 1995
TO Mayor and City Council
FROM' City Staff
SUBJECT: Supplemental Information on City Council Agenda Item 10-A, Bicycle
Master Plan
DISCUSSION
At Its regularly scheduled meeting on January 9, 1995 the Santa MOnica Task
Force on the Environment unanimously passed a resolution regarding the proposed
Bicycle Master Plan. ThiS approved resolution of the Task Force is as follows:
"Although the Task Force on the Environment IS deeply disappointed that
the proposed draft Bicycle Master Plan falls far short of reaching the goals of
a sustainable city by fallmg to promote Increased bicycle ridership, the Task
Force supports the plan as an Intenm first step In a needed strategy of
prOViding a safer and more convenient transportation network for bicyclists,
both school-age children and adults alIke The Task Force strongly
recommends that City staff reVISit the Bicycle Master Plan within the next
SIX months with the aim of strengthening and broadening the plan,"
Voting Yes Chairperson Mark Gold, Robert Gottlieb, Mtrlam Koral, Steve DavIs,
and Gero Leson
Voting No none
Prepared by Craig Perkins. Director of Environmental and Public Works
Management