Recommendation to adopt Specifications No. ITB LB18-123 and award a contract to GSSi, Inc., dba General Security Service, of Wilmington, CA, for providing security guard services, in an annual amount of $909,000, with a 10 percent contingency in the amount of $90,900, for a total annual amount not to exceed $999,900, for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one-year periods, at the discretion of the City Manager; and, authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into the contract, including any necessary amendments.  (Citywide)
Thank you very much. That concludes public comment. Let me move on. I believe we're going to item 20, please. Item 20 Report from Financial Management Recommended Contract to General Security Service for providing security guard services for a total annual amount not to exceed 999,900 CDI. Thank you. Short staff report, please. Guess we have a staff report by Terry Yates. Good evening. Good evening. Mayor and members of city council. Before you tonight is a request to award a contract to GSA Inc for citywide security guard services for a total annual amount of $999,900 for a period of two years, with the option to renew for three additional one year periods. The Department of Financial Management's purchasing division facilitated an open and competitive procurement process to select the lowest responsive and responsible bidder to provide for these services throughout the city at its designated facilities. The bid was released in August and 50 potential bidders downloaded with six responses received in October. A provide for the continued for the continuation of these historically contracted services utilized by the Departments of Economic Development, Health and Human Services, Library Services, Parks, Recreation and Marine and Public Works to ensure safety and security of property and buildings along with their visitors and the staff. GSA is the incumbent, and the approval of this recommendation will provide continued support to our local economy by assisting in the preservation of employment for 37 GSA employees residing. In Long Beach. Staff recommends approval of this item in this concludes my staff report. Thank you. Vice Managers. If anything, Councilman Austin, any public comment? Seeing none councilmember appears. I just wanted to ask about the meet and confer process with this item. Are you? We'll have Alex Berkowitz talk to that, please. So. Good evening, mayor and council members just by way of an update. This item was scheduled in December and at the request of I am, this item was postponed. We did engage and we did meet with I am regarding this item. However, we did not reach an agreement. They contend that this particular contract involves contracting out their bargaining unit work. But that's where we disagree. We've we reviewed this item and and we found that this particular work has never been assigned to IAM. And so it doesn't involve contracting out their bargaining unit work. Please cast your votes. Councilman Gonzales. All right, can I just get. I'm a little. Confused by this as well. So what? Can you give a little bit of a scope of work on. I know it's security guard services, but where what how kind of a little bit more detail on on this. There are services provided at city facilities across throughout the city, including the health department facilities, libraries when they're open also for parks, recreation and Marine, there are specific requirements for security guards to be provided at events. Those are similar of those, you know, an example of some of the duties. Okay. Well, I. I don't know that I feel so comfortable at city facilities. It does feel like we're contracting out these services to non city employees. So for that reason, unless. Is there additional information, Pat, you. Yes. Just that this has historically been done. We've never utilized. I am. Or our employees. This this is historically been a company like this providing this facility for how long? Since 2006. So for about 12 years. Let me can I ask you, how many how many are in this? How many how many folks are we employing through this contracting service? Do we have that number? There's 37 that reside in Long Beach, but there are there are more that are provided. 37 companies are 37. Individuals, 37 individuals who are employed by GSA that we're aware of that reside in. Long Beach. But I don't have these. When I just wondering how many individuals. So, you know, and I may have I may have missed this, but did this so this did this come before the council in December? I'm trying to remember it came for the council. And then I believe the council didn't accept the analysis to work on this some additional. Is that right. The council passes the I am spoke and asked if they could take a peek at this. The council said talk to I am so we did we met with I am and basically this was not something in their purview because it's not a function that they've had in the past. And just, you know, and I, I don't know enough about this issue to, you know, make a good assessment of of on that. But doesn't mean that when these when these opportunities come up, it doesn't mean that the job couldn't be done better by city employees or by people that are represented. And I'm not saying that that's in this case, you know, financially feasible for us or I have no idea what what how these companies get paid. But I just want to make sure when these contracts are in front of us, that we're the the issue is not just about whether or not. I represent a group has done the job in the past, but whether a representative should do the job or should not do the job, I don't know the answer to that question, but I just want to make sure that that's something that we're discussing as part of our deliberations. And so I'm I'm supportive if we have some more conversations about this, but I want to hear from the rest of the council. Councilman Ringa. Yeah this that you comes from Gonzales to bring this up and especially this issue because from what I understand, this brings up a prop owl issue or study, if it's not mistaken, especially if there is some concerns regarding city employees being able to do the job, not only in terms of being able to, because whether historically or not they've been able to do this, but also being able to submit a proposal or be able to compete in a contract for that. So I think that I would probably I can't support this tonight. I would I would push this. We've got to do a proper study on this in order to ensure that we're well on the right track. Councilmember You're correct. And in 2005, when this was done, we there was a properly study study done that was approved by the council at that time, and it has been continuously contracted out since that date. So you are correct that this type of work would require that and there was the meet and confer also. Well, I think that at this point we need to revisit that and do it again. What you said the proposal was done in 2000. What? 525 when this was originally contracted out, beginning in 2006. So almost was about 14 years ago. Okay, Councilman Roston. Thank you. So I think this this this begs this issue begs to a process. We we we have a profile consideration for when we contract out. But I don't think we have a process for for in-sourcing work. And so, you know, that might be an agenda item for later. That might be an opportunity for us to to look at our processes in the work with our city employees groups to give them an opportunity to to in-source work. When we do have contracts coming up for for approval to lease, give them an opportunity to to to put forth a proposal to to to to look at the the cost analysis and to give the council an opportunity to make a prudent decision. I mean, in my opinion, it's best when you can control your your you control your own destiny. When you control your your your employees and can direct your employees. And employees are oftentimes better when they have a stake in the process, direct stake and process. And so I understand the the the intent the questions that have been raised here. You know, this this this has a this is a this. The past practice has been to to utilize this firm for for for contracted services. But it doesn't have to be that for the future. And I don't know if I necessarily needed to draw the line this evening, but moving forward, I think we need a process in place that will at least. You know, help us. Make decisions that are that that are in the interest of, you know, the city and our employees as well. I think Councilmember Pearce. Yes. I wanted to you know, I want to highlight how much work we're doing with H.R. and how much work we're doing with our employees, and that it really is important for us if we have the capacity to have employees that can do it better than somebody that's been outsources, we absolutely should revisit that. What does it take to do another properly study it? A It would just depend on our working with the union. It could be something as simple as 90 days or something. It could take up to a year. We should do it. Can I also add the count point I would support? It's been 1415 years since the last time we looked at this. I would support doing it again. If we. If I could let me, Mr. West. But I would also say I just want to make sure that if we move forward, that we're not in any way, of course, stopping the work that is continuing and ongoing. So I would ask the Council that if, as we look at proposal, that we give staff the flexibility to continue working with our current operator so that they can continue to do the work. And and then, of course, we can make a decision for a for a full contract or not. Once we conclude the properly so. So speaking to that point, Mr. Mayor, that is one of the key issues here, is that we are basically out of money for these existing services. These are services that exist today. And so we would need some type of direction either to suspend those services and not to provide the security guards or to do some type of interim six months, nine months while we do this review. So we would ask for some action tonight, otherwise it would be impacting current services of security services. Councilor. If we could do six months. And have you guys do the proper study and then come back in six months for us and. We'll come back in six months, will initiate the proper study. We'll come back in six months and let you know where we are and also the length of time it takes to hire us. So, okay. So I just want to be clear because the item reads for a two year period and so that we're coming back in. And so we would advise this to give authorization for six months and then we'll revisit. And if at that point we still need additional time, we would ask for a short contract extension to get us through that time. Thank you very much, staff, for working with us. Appreciate it. Is there any public comment on this saying nonmembers, please cast your votes? Motion carries. Okay. Thank you. I believe that was the last item. Right. Is there another item? I'm sorry. I don't have those on here for whatever reason, so I apologize. Madam Court, can you read those items, please?