Recommendation to request City Auditor to review the bid responses for the residential recycling collection services. The responses should be analyzed based on qualifications, cost, recycling revenue to the City, environmental benefits, compliance with the terms of the Request for Proposal (RFP), as well as any additional criteria the City Auditor deems appropriate; request City Auditor to report findings of the review directly to the City Council at the earliest possible date; and request that City staff provide the City Auditor with all documents, analysis, and emails related to procurement process for this RFP in an expedited manner.
That would be my preference. But the item that's appearing on our screen right now, it's 20. Okay, perfect. Thank you. Okay. Great. So essentially, we're going to take up item. Item 27 and 20 at the same time that we'll be voting on item 27. And so the staff report from item 20 will here first essentially so that we hear staff proposals that that. Okay, Councilwoman. That's fine with me. I'm going to defer to you on that. Now, that's that's that sounds fine. So, staff, why don't you guys go and give your report as to what what you've done as far as this process? And then we'll I'll turn this over to Councilwoman Price and we'll do that motion and we're going to take a vote first on the on the motion in front of us to to move this on to an RFP. So. Mr.. City Manager Thank you, Mayor. Councilmembers. For the past year or so, we've been working on wrapping our recycling services through our Environmental Environmental Services Bureau. We brought on board the services of a nationwide consultant. So with that, I'm going to turn this over to Jason MacDonald, our purchasing manager, as well as Craig Beck, our interim public works director, to walk us through the RFP and recommendation. And thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Manager. Mayor, members of the city council. We have a quick PowerPoint to walk you through the presentation tonight. So basically, why do we have recycling here in Long Beach? Besides it being a good thing, we actually have a requirement under the California Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 to do recycling that the city needs to do waste reduction, offer recycling in an environmental safe disposal manner. We started our recycling program here in Long Beach in 1993. We've been providing that since that time. Additionally, in 2012, AB 341 added mandatory recycling for commercial properties. The city provides generally recycling service to multifamily units that are ten units or less, and those that are larger will typically go to a private hauler. So currently the city contracts with the Waste Management, who services approximately 118,000 active accounts with curbside pickup. This contract ends at the end of June 630, 2016. And so we're before you here tonight to talk about a new contract for recycling services. Last year in 2015, roughly 27,000 tons of residential waste was collected. Residential recycling, excuse me. And of that many times we find that people put non recycling items in recycling bins. And so that has to be sorted and pulled out. And so we're seeing roughly a 19.5% residual material that then has to either go to the landfill. But in Long Beach, it goes to surf. So with recycling, there is some value to those recycling materials. And in our sharing agreement with waste management, that generated roughly $605,000 in. Last year. There's been some discussion about how all the materials are sorted through waste management. They currently collect the materials in Long Beach and they're sorted through facility potential industries in the city of Wilmington. And we're going to turn it over to Jason McDonald's, who's going to walk through that procurement process. Mr. Mayor, city council members, as the city manager indicated early last year, staff began the RFP process by consulting with HFA consultants. Their expertize and experience is broad and includes work among all of the eight largest cities in the state as well as many other agencies. In April of 2015, the RFP was issued and responses were due back to the city in July following an authorized request. Each proposer provided a revised proposal. Staff conducted interviews in November and following evaluation. A notice to award was posted in January. Which leads us to tonight. In the procurement process. Of these, we received four responses to the RFP. Last year, staff received and evaluated those for four proposals against the RFP criteria and H.F. engage supported that work through their analysis and standard forms. The core contract requirement included provide providing weekly curbside recycling collection for up to 123,000 accounts to operate clean burning, alternate fuel powered collection vehicles and which included a ten year return with no renewals. The unique proposal features offered by each proposer were included in the analysis of the matrix that was provided. At this point, the staff is recommending that the City Council consider award to waste management. The competitive price was offered from Waste Management with a first year savings of $387,000 from the current contract. Waste Management's proposal included unique proposal features. It is a represented company with labor. With Union labor. There is no transition plan required as waste management is the current provider. There is no disruption to service or to residents. Waste Management has a record of 22 years of quality prior service in Long Beach and Waste Management maintains the best safety record when compared to the industry and the other proposers. During the review and evaluation process, staff determined that there was an opportunity to reduce costs by pushing the term to ten years and subsequently asked vendors to provide updated pricing when the city issued the notice of intent to award. A protest was received from one of the proposers and that is not uncommon in a large procurement such as this, where there are a lot of a lot at stake. Republic contended that the staff had not accurately reflected their pricing and missed some of the enhanced features of their proposal. Staff took additional time to review the concerns of the protest, issued a memo to City Council and responded to the Republic with the updated findings. That memo indicated that even with Republic's proposed alternative lower price was used to analyze their proposal, it is still significantly higher than the recommended vendor. Staff also updated the attachment to include all enhanced bid features for all vendors. So in summary, this is a large contract with a significant term term as being recommended at ten years, but because it provides the best rate for the city's ratepayers. To ensure a proper recruitment. The city hired one of the top consulting firms in this field. There are multiple features to consider beyond price, which is the reason for utilizing the RFP process. After a full review have been provided to recommendations to the city. One Initiate a contract with Ed Co, who was ultimately the lowest proposer at $3.4 million in the first year contract, or to initiate a contract with the waste management for the best combination of price and features and the least impact to customers. Their first year price was $3.5 million. That concludes staff report and we're available for questions. Thank you. I'm going to turn this over to Councilwoman Price. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to staff for that thorough presentation. And what I have no doubt was a very thorough process by the staff in regards to this project and this process. In the words of Craig Beck, this is a large contract with a very specific and lengthy term. And therefore, I think it's important that the process that we go through for the selection of this city partner be one that we believe is a thorough process, is a comprehensive process, and is a process that a an objective second set of eyes can look at to. Weigh in on whether or not the process was fair and included all the numbers. I will tell you that I, along with several of my colleagues I know have met with. Three of the four vendors who bid for this contract and all three. Of the four vendors that we met with, all three of them indicated some aspect of the process or the numbers or the figures that were used that they felt was not done accurately, whether it was the accuracy of the numbers used or whether the final numbers were inclusive of the equipment that the RFP called for, or whether there was a process that was followed through the bid submission protocol that was consistent. It seemed to me that there were questions by all of the vendors, even though they may not be resulting in a protest that warranted a second review. So I have no doubt that city staff did excellent work. But in light of the recommendation that was just put up on the last slide from the consultant, it appears to me that there were at least two vendors who were recommended by that consultant. And based on conversations I've had with the folks who were involved in this process, I want to make sure that both of those vendors are qualified. Both of the numbers that were stated are accurate and that they involve the all of the different price points that were called for in the RFP and that there was really nothing about the process that was of concern. So in regards to item number 27, the specific request would be that the city auditor conduct an audit of the process. We are not require I am not requesting by way of this agenda item for a new process, a revised process. I just would like the city auditor to review the process and make sure that all the numbers that were reported, all the things that were called out in the RFP were included accurately throughout the entire process. And again, in my opinion, it's the process for me that's very important. I don't have a particular horse in this race. I've worked with all three of these companies, all their representatives. They're all great companies, wonderful partners to the city. I'm sure any one of them would do a fantastic job for the city. I want us to be confident in the process that was followed so that even if people don't agree with the recommendation of staff, in the end we can all stand firm and say that we agree with the process that was used. Thank you, Councilwoman Mongo. I just believe that this is a large contract. Decisions between seven years, ten years and the amount of money per year. I mean, we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars over time and a huge impact to our community. So I believe that the city auditor does excellent work. I appreciate the report she's used recently put out. I know this is a lot of additional work, so I'd love to hear from her and what the timeline would look like. But I think that an extra set of eyes is always a good thing. Council member Oranga. I too, would like to hear what the creator would have to say in terms of this, because, you know, although the recommendation at the bottom says that there is no. Where is it? That there is no budget impact on this item. There is. There's always a budget impact when you have staff reviewing something that other staff already did. I mean, we're duplicating this process to return it to a certain extent, and I'm not sure to what end are we doing this? I mean, if it's to evaluate the process and the process is good or it comes out positive the way it should be, then we've basically turned our wheels and I don't see any benefit from that other than the waste of the city. Auditors Time to review this, this, this, this, this project here. So I don't see the end game here. I mean, if the end game is to review the process, find a fault in it, and if there is and what is going to be the process after that, I mean, that that's my concern is that staff went through a process. They had an outside consultant review the the proposal, the outside consultant did the interviews, reviewed the figures, did everything that they were supposed to do. And I'm thinking as a nationally renowned consultant, I'm sure that their job is good. Otherwise, they wouldn't be here. But I'm just concerned that if we we open up a Pandora's box to a certain extent and we're going to review this huge contract, because that's the that's what I'm hearing, that it's too big for us to have just one set of eyes, that we need two sets of eyes. Then why don't we do that with all our contracts that are of this nature and huge and have the city auditor be in the process to begin with that right from the get go as opposed to after the fact. So I'm not going either way with this. What I what I am concerned about is the fact that it's a duplication of effort in this respect. And I'm not I'm not seeing the or understanding the endgame here. So you review the process. Fine. Then what? I'm just a little bit perturbed about that in the sense that it's a duplication of effort here. Thank you, Councilmember Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. And thank you, Councilmember Price, for bringing this forward. I think that you're sincere in thinking about the integrity of the process and the integrity of our governing body as well. It's always good to proceed with caution. And, you know, we're fortunate to have city auditor down. So when numbers are called into question, we do have that set of eyes, that additional set of eyes. And this is indeed an appropriate case to make sure that we make sure all the numbers are calculated the right way, the eyes are dotted and the T's across with this process. So thank you and I support this recommendation. Councilman Austin. Thank you. I just have a few clarification point questions. Thank you for bringing this forward. This is and it's turning to this process seems to be turning into a bit of a mess, no pun intended intended here. The the process in which Councilmember Price is talking about, I have a little I have a few questions regarding the scope on what what does study in the process really mean? If you could provide me some clarification on that, that would be be very, very helpful. Number one, you don't have to do it right away for city staff. I'd like to know when when was the last time we were awarded a recycle or went out for an RFP for a recycling contract? Mr. West, can someone answer that question? When was the last time we went out for recycling contract, and what was the impetus for opening up a RFP for this contract? Mr. McDonnells Looking at that right now. Councilmember. From what we understand, we've done the RFP once and that was for the initial vendor and we have not done an RFP since. This is the first RFP we've done for recycled services since 1993, I believe. KAHN And what was the impetus to open up the RFP? What created this process? I believe the extensions to the contracts are ending. As I mentioned, this current contract ends in June this year. And so we need to either do an RFP process or extend the current contract. Okay. And is there a and then this is, I guess, a question for for staff. Is there a precedent for us doing such an audit tour for our piece? Have we done this through the city auditor's office before? Would this be a first time? I'm I don't think we have a history of that. We're not sure of that. But of course, this is a big ticket item and the city council has purview over policy. So this is something the city council certainly has purview over to to review. Again, this, as Mr. Beck pointed out. This certainly is a very large RFP. Okay. I get that. And I am one who is I'd like to err on the side of prudence and caution as well. And then lastly, in this item, I do not see a time specific for the audit to come back. Is this an open ended audit or do we do we would we like to have this back within 30 days, 60 days matter others. Do you have any idea? Let's look. Why don't we have the the audit? I would highly recommend if this is the direction we go, that we do not rush the process or the auditor. So let's have her make some comments on what she thinks the timing will be. Thank you. If the Council desires. Our office to. Take an independent look at. This. We would most likely begin within 30 days, and we would most likely not knowing what we would find once we get in. We would like up to six months. To to come back. 4 to 6 months at the best. And by the way, 4 to 6 months is not a that's that's common in these types of things. If, you know, to ensure, as was mentioned. Um, a thorough and fair process was followed. We certainly wouldn't want to rush it, considering there has been a number of questions and concerns and protests and so forth surrounding this. This would be something that our office would take seriously and look at and make sure we spend the time to to review the process. And I'd be happy to go into a little bit more of what we'd plan to do, if you like. Councilman Roston and. I, in terms of what you plan to do with that, would be addressing the scope question. Yes, right, exactly. And the initial the original contract. Right now. That that's fully. Expired, the council agreed to allow it to go forth, but it is an expired contract. The city did hire a consultant to help with this process. So we would look at the consultant and what the the work of the consultant, the scope of work the consultant put together. We would look at the the whole RFP process. We would review the proposals. The pricing sheets. The calculations, verify accuracy. We would review communications, we would review any other. Relevant documents that we would deem appropriate throughout this process and look at any documentation available to ensure. An accurate and thorough and fair process. Thank you. I think that adequately answers my questions. And I would just say, you know, we've apparently had this contract in place for 25 years. Six months to study seems reasonable. So. Mr. Mayor, Councilman, what I do want to point out that the bids under review do expire in about April. So just just the current the current bids. Correct. Mr.. Mr.. Beck. Yes, Mayor. Members of the council, I think there's two things that need to be considered. So the current contract ends at the end of June this year. The auditor's office is looking at a six month audit process. We're going to need to come back to council and extend the current contract to ensure that we have recycling services available to our communities. That would be one item that we'd want to bring forward. And then additionally, depending on what recommendations come forward, it would be more than likely we'd have to go through a different process because the current vendor proposals are only good for 180 days, and that would conclude prior to the auditor's office being able to conclude her audit. Councilwoman Mongo. So I have a couple of questions. One, I didn't mean to give the impression that any one contract is too big for this council or our staff in any process. I would, however, state that having worked on several RFP and several audits and sole source a sole source contracts and the such, I think that there are key questions that have come up that are of concern specifically that only one of the four bids was a closed envelope bid, that there was discussion between city staff and vendors. I think those are issues that cause me concern. They might all be okay, but again, I was not into the process enough to know and understand that, nor was I briefed on those changes in the situation as they progressed. It is not only because of the size of the contract. I think that if the contract was much smaller and had those staffing types of issues, we should look at it. I think that there has been a review of our contracting process as a whole, as a city that we want to be prudent in advance. So I guess I bring another question to the table. Since you would have to bring back an extension to the current contract. And since we would need to know if. The current bids, if they were valid at all in the first place, would would be if the vendors would stand by those. Would it be appropriate to ask each of the vendors via a formal written notice to provide a response to whether or not they would let their bids stand for consideration and review? So instead of us losing out on April that they would bring those to a say June. I'm trying to figure out what eight or I'm sorry, 4 to 6 months plus 30 days would be June extension. So if you bid and you thought it would be which. Okay. So my colleague said it would be July, so. If we could get them to say we agree that should you commence services by whatever what that would look like? I don't know what the legalities on that. So I defer to someone and stuff. Yes, we could certainly that's appropriate. We could certainly ask the vendors in writing to stay with us while we do this process and get back to the Council on the responses immediately. So I think that that would provide some safety. I think that. I think that it's always good to look. It's hard to be the contract that gets looked at because, again, there's a starting point and we're not looking to say here, force all forward, all contracts, go to the city auditor, but more of a here are the things we did right here are the things we could have done better. It doesn't necessarily mean they were wrong, but it's a good internal process at any time. So I would ask that the maker of the motion and sometimes the secondary, I would accept that we include asking the bidders to extend the term of their bid and then come back to the council with a two from four with that information for us. In case I would expect I would accept that. But I would I hope that we're all on the same page and that we don't want to start a new process with new numbers, because that certainly wouldn't be fair to Waste Management or Ed Co, who got the recommendation from the consultants. So I would like us to not start a new process, but just evaluate the process we've already been through. So as long as we're all on the same page, that's accepted. Mr. West, is that clear? Is that possible? I think that's something we'd have to work with the auditor's office, but certainly we would work toward that end, of course. Let me just keep going through the list. Councilwoman, are you okay? I guess I would just add that if there was found to be gross malfeasance or any issues at that level, then of course we'd have to make a consideration. But should it have gone? Legally well, but could have gone better, which we all know. I mean, just take an average day on the street. You may have rolled a stop sign. You could have done it better, but maybe you didn't. Maybe you didn't. So looking at that, I think is a prudent approach. Councilman Andrews. Yes. Thank you very much. I want to thank our county, a woman, Mrs. Price, for bringing this item to the devices with the part that was already answered for me, and that was with our city auditor when, you know, she she seemed like she made it very clear that we're not going to rush this. And I don't. Whatever time it takes in order to get it done, I think that would be most prudent to me and to anyone else. And I want to thank you again, Mrs. Wise, for bringing this forward. Councilmember Supernova. I think I'm just trying to sort out Councilmember Mungo's. Proposal here. I just have. If there's a way we can make a vote tonight that it's contingent upon. The bid's not being reopened, I think is maybe a different way to phrase it. And I don't know how we as this body can. We certainly can't require that. I don't think my whole idea on signing on to this originally was to examine the process. Just as Councilmember Price stated, the price was right again. So I just just is opening up a whole new issue. And I we can say it here. I just don't know if our actions, our vote tonight can freeze these bids. It just doesn't make sense to me. But that's that's that's my issue. And I would hate to have Mr. Parking to have to sort this out on the fly right here tonight. But he's in conference right now with the mayor, so maybe we'll see. Councilman Price. Thank you. I will have to say, I agree with Councilman Super now that that's an additional aspect that I had not considered. I did communicate with the city manager before I submitted the item just so that he knew where my thought process was. And I didn't want staff to be surprised, but I didn't anticipate this. So I'm going to defer to the city attorney in terms of how we can limit that, because the whole point of it is and to answer Councilman Miranda's question, I agree with a lot of the concerns that he raised. And in response to what is the end game, I guess the end game would be for us as council members to be able to stand tall and in the face of an allegation that the process wasn't fair, that we can say, you know what, we had someone in office that we trust and rely on and depend on . Take a look at this. Potentially up to $70 million contract, which is really the biggest contract other than the civic center that this body has passed. To be able to say that we we have confidence in that process. And although one or two of the vendors may not agree with it, we have faith in the process and we can support staff's recommendation based on the faithful trust, but based on the process. A lot of these issues that have come up are really very unique to the industry. So what the RFP called for was specific items that are very unique to the industry. And I, for one, am not an expert in this industry. So when someone has an allegation that a particular number wasn't considered or a particular requirement that was called out in the RFP wasn't included in a bid, and therefore the bid was artificially lower than another bid. That is something that I should not be analyzing. I don't think that's fair to the vendors. I don't have that expertize. In response to Councilman Austin's question of me in terms of the scope of the process, I appreciate the city auditor giving us a preview of what she would go into or her office would go into. But I did jot down some notes just while my colleagues were talking. And I think at the very least, the scope of this review should be a review of the RFP process and the information that was requested to gather the figures that were submitted by each vendor to determine one, are they qualified? And two were the figures responsive to the RFP? A review of the proposal submitted the supplemental proposals that were submitted and the manner that those proposals were submitted and to determine whether that's consistent with our custom and practice. And finally, whether the ultimate or final conclusions that were evaluated by the consulting firm included accurate figures and numbers throughout the the various proposals that were submitted at the request of city staff. So that that's just I literally wrote this out while we were talking. So I don't know if any of my colleagues want to add to it, but I think that would be a good start of a scope. Thank you. Mr. City attorney. Yeah. Mr. City Attorney wants to weigh in. So, Amir. Charlie Mayor, members of the council, if I may, in my notes, I think the the auditor had mentioned that it could take up to six months. My math I'm not I'm it just puts me in September possibly October and to ask the and we certainly can ask the vendors the folks that had submitted the four entities that submitted proposals to stand by their bids, but we're going to ask them to extend that another year. I think that may be difficult for them to do or they may not be willing to do that. And I don't think the council has I think one of the council members mentioned we have the authority to require that of them. It would be a voluntary by them to do that while this process moves forward. So I think the option tonight would be if it's going to be an extended period of time, council staff would have to come back and go and negotiate with waste management to continue. The contract has expired. As the auditor pointed out, we're on a month to month contract with Waste Management through June to seek some sort of an additional extension from waste management, not only to do the time necessary that you're asking the auditor to do, but possibly another six months beyond that because of the transition period in the event the waste management wasn't selected. So you're really looking at possibly adding a year or more to this process. And it may be that at the end of that review, you're back at a whole new RFP, which may be additional time. So there by stopping where we are today, I think there's risks involved with the council decision. Clearly, this is you can go forward with what you'd like to do today, but those are some of the risks as I see them from sitting right here. We can't control what our vendors will do when we approach them and ask them to stand by their proposals for the additional possible year before we would make a decision. Councilman Mongo. So I do want to be clear that. We're not starting on this path thinking that people did things wrong. But more, as Councilman Price said, that we want to stand by the decision. We're not accusing staff of doing anything wrong. It is quite likely that everything was fine. And so the new six month consideration, I guess, is there a possibility of. I think this is a big decision. Is there a possibility of taking up this item later in the evening when we've all had a moment to simmer and think about the information that's been provided to us ? Or I'd be open to motioning to table it for a week. Okay. Oh, we're not meeting next week. Okay, so let's table for two weeks. Let's all think it over. I think the extension and the six months and a lot of things have come into play. I still would like to. I just think there's a lot to consider that's come up tonight. So I've got to make sure that that's a suggestion to the maker of the motion, because the. Making the motion is Councilman Price. So is that a substitute? Is that a friendly? Friendly. Well, I would like. I mean. I would like to vote on this tonight with the contingency that. The vendors are asked whether they will stand by their numbers. Stand by their their proposal throughout the process. And if the answer to that question is no, then we have a change in circumstance and we can bring it back and then decide what we want to do. But I think at this point, we're giving we're just tabling it for two weeks and giving staff no direction in regards to this process. To me, that doesn't mean I would like to vote on it with the assumption that the the four vendors are going to submit the same are going to commit to keeping the numbers through the through this process. So may I? I think I should have again, lots going on. And so I think within that two weeks we could potentially ask them and have a response of whether or not they are going to. Originally my intent was. Give me just an hour to digest what I've thought about and read through my notes while we go through other council items. But if we want to lay it over a week or two weeks, two weeks gives us the time for staff to ask them to stand by their. Decisions. Record bids. We could certainly do that and provide information to the council as soon as possible. Well, we have several colleagues that are queued up to speak. I'd like to hear what others have to say before deciding whether to accept that that that friendly. Because what I'm hearing as most of us want to see a an audit of the process completed. And so I don't see the downside of voting tonight to move forward with an audit, assuming that everyone is going to commit to keeping their numbers. But I'd like to hear what my colleagues have to say. And just as a reminder, we also have have yet to do public comment, which we should do also as well. Councilmember Richardson. Just following this this discussion. I'm not clear if there is a way to just I don't I'm not hear from staff that it's not possible to move forward. I heard the city city attorney say that there are concerns with that approach. But I guess what I would like to hear from city staff on, is there a way to give give the city council, a way to give you direction? Do you have a recommendation? It sounds like there is interest in doing some sort of an audit. I don't know the whole, you know, extended life of the contract. Six months that I don't understand that. But you guys are more handy with it. Is there a way that you can get us a recommendation that we can move forward with tonight and not have to come back in two weeks and have this conversation again? Mayor Councilmembers I think it's clear that we do have direction, whichever way we go, that we immediately reach out to the vendors and see how long they'll hold these prices and then come back with that information to the council. Whether the council votes tonight will do that or whether they decide whether the council decides to hold off on the decision. But regardless, I think it's very clear for direction to the staff that we are going out to the four vendors and asking if they will hold their prices and come back to the council with that information . What I would like to know, and I'm okay with that, if it sounds like that's that's a good direction, then I'll support that. What what I'd like to know is whenever a contract comes up in the future and someone has the idea to send it to the city auditor, I'd like to just know that that is something that we can actually do and don't have to figure out what that looks like in the process. So I'm hoping that because I have never witnessed this in the time that I've worked here, I'd like to have more clarity on how this process will work moving forward. Thanks. Councilmember Ringa. As I indicated before, I really don't. See the purpose of not being able to vote tonight on a contract and then have the audit take place. I mean, normally correct me if I'm wrong. Normally when you have a process in place, a selection is made, a deal is done. Then you go back and you audit the process in terms of making sure that all the I's we're dotted, the T's were crossed, that the process with the process that was followed and it's not the purpose of the audit to change things is not it's not it's not that purpose. That's not what it's for. What it's for is just to ensure that it was fair that the. All the announcements were made, the RFP was was fairly distributed that the number of of vendors that applied were treated fairly, that they were given all the information that there was a bidders conference with each one of them, that they allbut dissipated, that they all understood what the process was. And apparently from the recommendation that was presented to us this evening that took place and it's all good. However, there's always going to be and there always has been. We had one item tonight that we removed from the agenda because it was a protest that that's going to happen. And that's okay. Because that's that's part of the process is to submit a a complaint, if you will, for lack of a better term. But the point is, is that if this audit is going to change anything, then we might as well just rebid it and do it again, because the numbers are going to be different. They're going to change. And if you're asking the vendors if they can hold to their current numbers. Then you're asking them to change to a certain extent, because then everything is going to it's going to be another another contract again. If you follow my my my logic here is because you're not you're you're telling them if you hold your numbers to the present time, six months, up to a year from now, then we're going to be good. But from a year from now, things are going to change. You're going to be different, prices are going to go up, the demand is going to be different, the prices will go up again. So, I mean, I don't really see the purpose of this discussion to hold off on this contract, turning it off in in in favor of having an audit of the process when that audit can basically change everything. So if that's the point, if that's the case, then let's just put a stop to this whole thing, review the process and then. Have a rebid because it's going to change again in a year. If you're looking at September, October two to finish this, it's going to change. We're going to have a new budget for the city and we're in a budget process now. What's the effect of that going to be in terms of our future with this contract? So, I mean, I really don't see where we're going with this in response to you. All you want to do is audit the process, not the contract. Then let's go ahead and do that. Let's. But vote for the four for the contract and then do the audit. And if the audit comes up with something, we know how to do it better next time. Of course, it'll be ten years from now, and I'm not going to be here. But but the point is, is that I really I really don't see any benefit from from this this this procedure that we're having right now. Councilmember Austin. Thank you. And I'll just be short and brief. I think I made my comments earlier, and I have to agree with much of what Councilmember Urunga has stated. I think this is this is a bit unprecedented in terms of requesting an audit prior to awarding a contract generally and from what I've experienced over the last several years . Processes are audited afterwards. And so I guess the question before us here today is, you know, do we do we vote on what staff is recommended, recommended? Are we questioning the the integrity of our staff, which I think sends a dangerous message and. Do we move forward with this audit post awarding the contract? I mean, I think that those are the questions before us. And again, I think this is this is where we may be headed down a dangerous path in terms of setting a precedent for for for future our peace. Councilman Price. You know what? I see the city auditor walking up and I know we haven't had public comment. I'm going to reserve my comments for now. I just want to be brief and say that I will put two staff members on this as quickly as I can. We have no idea what we will find when we get in there. So I wanted to give allow enough time for a worst case scenario. So we will do everything we can to speed this along. All of our audits, we allow city management or the department in which we're auditing time to respond to our findings of audits . So that's a three week process in itself. So if you have a month on the tail end and a month on the front end, that's two months, and then we'll get in and get out as quickly as we can. But again, we just don't know what we'll find once we get in. And just rest assured that. We'll stay focused. And only look at those things that are most relevant to the request by the Council. Councilman Price. I still want to hear from the public. I have to say, I don't I respect councilman iran a great deal. But what i'm hearing him say is despite. The comments from several colleagues saying that a review of the process would be prudent on a $70 million contract. What I'm hearing him say is even though some of you have questions regarding the process and the numbers, I think we should go ahead and enter into a ten year contract with a vendor with whom we are not confident in a process and then have that process reviewed. And if it comes back, we've learned some great lessons for the future. The bottom line is we're picking a partner for ten years, so I think we should feel confident in the process before we enter that contract because we can't then get out of the contract or into a ten year contract. So what we're trying to say is before we enter a ten year, $70 million contract, we should feel confident with the numbers. And if he does, then that's that's great. But I think the many of my colleagues I'm hearing say that they would benefit from a second set of eyes looking at it. That's really what an audit is. The end game of an audit is to bless a process either before or after the process is completed. The problem with blessing this process after the contract is entered into is that it's a contract between two parties that's going to last ten years and have a value of $70 million. So if there are lessons to be learned. Right, but that's a very costly lesson for us to enter into. So that's my thoughts on it. What I would like to do is, is is vote on this tonight. Ask council staff to go forward and and see if they'll commit to their prices. And if they don't, then I would expect that staff would come back to us and let us know that that the vendors did not commit to keeping their prices and allow us to reconsider. Because right now the options that I feel we have is vote on a ten year, $70 million contract, or ask the city auditor to review a process before we vote on the contract. So those are our two choices, and I'm comfortable. I would like to in fact, I would be recusing myself from a vote on who to give the contract to at this juncture, because I don't have faith in the process. So that's where I would be standing on it. But if the majority of my colleagues feel with, as Councilman Turanga does, that they're confident enough in the process to go forward with a vote tonight, then that's that's the decision. But I think that it's it's prudent to wait and have a review. Thank you. I mean, to get a public comment and then I will go back to the council. Please come forward for you. Identify yourself for the record. Very good. Hugh Clark, as he addressed the councilperson for third district, is to be commended for bringing that forward. And this is proof positive, again, that somebody in the 13th floor needs to be fired. The councilwoman put it in very excellent perspective. Although she may not agree with some of the things I say. This is the second largest contractor that we're entering into. Second only to the buffoonery here. In the rebuild. I can tell you this. Just from a business standpoint. I know. And it was would be unreasonable it would be reasonable to assume that some of the contractors won't hold to that price. They are not going to sit around and wait for that period of time, which is okay. There are plenty of people out there doing that. But what stinks to high heaven? And I'm sure that I'm surprised the M.D. warning signals didn't go off, that we had something this large. Get the buffoonery on out of the 13th floor is just absolutely absurd. You don't hold off and slip in at the last minute. Only in a corrupt paradine would you have that a contract. Of this magnitude. It's just more of it. One nice thing about it, it will be more information for the FBI to figure out just how many corrupt people we have here. I don't know who it is, but you just don't. When you have a contract this size, $73 million and you're rushed through. Without highlighting what the options are and what the downside is and the magnitude of it. That does not speak well for anybody. They provided that brought this forward. And I appreciate the fact that some of your agendas may be social and some of the skill levels are such that you don't get through to these little details. But from this individual's perspective and I think a lot of people share, there is absolutely no confidence in the buffoonery and the mental midgets on the 13th floor. Whether or not. You're in the any council members are in the pocket. Of some of these applying, I don't know, but that that will have the eventually flushed out. But I think it is unreasonable to expect all of the people to hold to that price for the period of time that it takes to do the job they should have been done in the first place. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Richard Suarez. Good evening. As you all know, I really don't have a dog in this fight. But it is alarming to me that a contract that is has now gone out to bid for over 20 years that this kind of debate is going on. I applaud the council. Woman Price I think that another set of eyes you owe to the community, I don't know, especially if there are reports from some of these vendors that they believe they feel that the process wasn't done adequately. Who knows? But to the extent that someone is concerned that the vendors would not wait another two or three weeks or two or three months over a $70 million contract, I think that that's just pure business. I don't know how many $70 million contracts are out there. And if I were a representative of one of these companies, I don't know that I I'd say no. Let's repeat the whole thing again. Our price has an expiration date at the end of the day. Waiting until the last minute to deal with a problem is something that I've that I've dealt with here with this city, with your staff, relative to the people. And now we're dealing with the consequences of waiting until the last minute. Just a few weeks ago, you approved a $900 million excuse me, a $900,000 a month Band-Aid because we didn't have adequate time to deal with issues. So I don't understand the question. I don't understand the concern. 23 years a vendor gets. The right to do business with the city and in no way, shape or form suggesting that that vendor isn't a contender. But if we can put some sunshine and some daylight into this thing, how is that wrong? Where do we go wrong? And doesn't the community rest better? If we've all done our due diligence. There has been a dereliction of duty here. To allow a contract to go unquestioned for 23 years is unacceptable. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. My name's Pat Mangum. I'm a city. Employee, 27 years, and I'm. Also a current member on the I Am negotiation. Team. Anyway, I was looking at Agenda 20 and what caught my eye. Was the annual consumer. Price. Index adjustment that goes. Along with this contract. For the term of ten years. What? Surprised me is sitting during negotiations. The city negotiator has offered. US employees. 0% for our first year pending contract. 0% for the second year. 1% for the third year. But on the other hand, they're offering. A consumer. Price index adjustment for each. Year of the. Ten year contract. Well, I was really surprised the city was willing to do this to me. It's fair. I have nothing against the business person. Or the vendor doing good business. With us and getting this. But in turn, I. Think it should be fair. For the city employees to get this. We're not asking for something ridiculous. Consumer Price Index adjustment. And I would hope that when our contract comes up. Before you and you see it that you take that into consideration too. When it comes to US city employees who have been here year after year after year doing good services for everything you see around here, helping and maintaining this place. Thank you. Thank you. Please come forward. Good evening, Mayor. Council members. City staff. My name is Trayvon Grant Representative with Republic Services to 531 East 67th Street 90805 300 over 300 proud employees here locally. And out of those 300, over 100 of them live in the city of Long Beach. For 36 years, I've been a resident within the city of Long Beach. And on the record, I've I've experienced a process that I believe to be as flawed. And, you know, I usually don't like to talk unless it's facts. And fortunately, we've been able to share quite a few facts with all of you. And I like to remind you of some of some of those tonight. For example, there are four different cost proposals that were submitted perceptually requesting for multiple bids can be perceived as price shopping in my or in my industry. That's considered unfair. In fact, we believe the only bid that has any integrity is the first bid, which was a sealed envelope or box that was hand-delivered to this building personally by me. Second Republic Services prices were misrepresented and that at the very beginning got us off. To a bad start. We wanted to make sure that everyone understood that the asterisk that was clearly highlighted inside of the. Proposals need it to be clarified, needed to be understood. Third, this is a recycling contract. So if it's a recycling contract, why aren't we paying attention to the recycling revenue? We offered over 40% more when it comes to recycling revenue. However, this was not taken into consideration. Proposal enhancements were completely, completely drawn up, completely different than what we agreed to. And the most important part and I think this is the biggest obligation that you all have as council members is as once we trust to make decisions when things don't go the appropriate way. There was a direct violation of the procurement process. We received an email directly from the Environmental Services Managers Department, which clearly was evaluation. It was it was a. It was not in accordance to what the RFQ process asks for. So is it fair? I don't know. Let the facts do the talking. But we're here to support the city auditor to evaluate this process. That's what we're here for. We're just asking for you guys to make a decision. Let us be fair. Fair is the word here. Fair. Thank you. Thank you. Speaker, please. Thank you, Mayor Garcia. Council members my name is Doug Corker and I'm the director of Public Sector Services for Waste Management here in Southern California. And we're here to ask you to vote no on item 27 and yes on the staff recommendation for item 20. I got to tell you, I don't mean any disrespect to anybody, but I don't see the logic in an auditor review. And and honestly, I'm more confused now than when I came in here, because I've heard a lot of discussion about reviewing the process, reviewing the process. But as I as I look at the language there and I read the motion, it's all about reviewing the bids. And it almost seems like a redo of everything that we just did. Let me tell you how it looks from our perspective. We just completed an almost one year comprehensive, thorough RFP process managed by H.F., a clear industry leader in recycling, a solid waste procurement whose process has basically been refined almost to the point that it's boilerplate. Every single proposer for this RFP has gone through scores of HSF and RFP processes. We all know the rules. There's no surprises. It's it is what it is. This tried and true process has led to a vetted, considered and valid staff recommendation. And what about that staff? That's your staff. They're hands down, one of the best in the business. They run outstanding programs consistently and they win awards over and over doing it. Simple fact is, they're reliable pros who always are looking out for the city's best interest. So we had essentially two sets of eyes reviewing everything a leading consultant supporting a first rate staff, following a tried and true process. So you can imagine our surprise when we when we saw the motion for the auditor review. Frankly, we think such an action is a very slippery slope, and it unnecessarily and unfairly undermines the process that we just spent the last year going through, and it threatens to undermine every RFP process for the city in the future. And basically the way I'm looking at it, the way we see it, it encourages anybody who's lost on a process or a bid process or anything else just to say, you know what, let's blow it up, let's take it to the council, they'll run it out to the auditor and everything will start over again. Adding insult to injury, we understand that the party that's making the most noise about staff's recommendation didn't even make it past the first round of the RFP. And rather than try to go back and say, Let's figure out how to do a better job next time, they're saying, let's blow it up for everybody. That's just wrong. Your staff's March 1st supplemental memo more than adequately addresses the issues raised. Mr. Mayor and Council. I have over 100 hardworking people who've been serving. They live in Long Beach and they've been serving the city in recycling services for many, many years. And they're wondering right now, are they have they earned the right to continue serving the city? We think they did. We'll ask you to please vote no in item 27. Vote yes on item 22 award. The contrary, sir, to waste management. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Is it on? Okay. My name is Erica. I'm a case manager for a homeless shelter in Long Beach. But I'm really just. I've been living in Long Beach for 15 years, so this is actually my first time coming here. And it's very exciting. And it's an honor meeting, all of you. As you can see, I'm wearing a waste management T-shirt. I've seen waste management for 15 years, and I do respect whatever decision you guys make as in the audit. But what I've seen in Waste Management this year is they've been actually they've been really good. And one of my favorite things was actually the Special Olympics, and I was able to volunteer through them. And I've. Been through the Long Beach Unified School. District and I've seen how they've come to schools and they've taught. So I've learned a lot from waste management. I support waste management and also whatever decision you guys make. Yeah, that's all I had to say. As a citizen of Long Beach. Thank you. Thank you. And the other public comment on this. Please come forward. Good evening, Honorable Mayor Garcia and esteemed council members of the city of Long Beach. My name is Jeff Snow. I am with Republic Services and I am a native of Long Beach Millikan High School CIF champions in 1979. Thank you. Fifth District Council Member. I've been personally and professionally involved in over 30 municipal RFP s throughout Southern California. This one has a number of irregularities that make me lack comfort in that. In the completed validity. The level of analysis that was shown this evening to me misses a lot of the key points. Recycling. This is a recycling contract and the sustainability or capacity to endure aspect of it. I haven't seen where that's come into play. I am formerly the president of Rainbow Environmental Services in Huntington Beach, California, now a proud member of the Republic Services family. Our environmental campus in Huntington Beach is owned and operated by our company, provides a good green collar jobs to people in our material recovery facilities, and we recycle over 58 different items. Compared to what Long Beach recycles currently that's a tripling or quadrupling of materials that we're keeping out of the disposal stream. And I think that this contract has a lot to do with the sustainability for the city of Long Beach. And we are proud to have helped Huntington Beach just down the road, achieve state of California leadership in diversion and recycling through our outreach programs, through our advanced MERV Technology. As far as this process goes, I have never been involved in a municipal RFP where the evaluation committee didn't come out and do site visits. We don't buy cars or buy homes without test driving them. We never had a site visit to evaluate the strengths of our technology, our workforce development and diversity, and our entire approach to sustainability for our community partners. In closing, I see many irregularities in this process and I encourage Council to consider an audit to. Help make help allow you to make the most informed decision and the best decision for your constituents, for this community and for the planet. Thank you. Thank you. Any other public comment, please come forward. If you're going to speak, please line up so we can make this quicker. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Mayor. Members of Council Steve Southam, the President and. Chief executive officer of family owned and operated Atco. Were the largest family owned and operated company. Serving in the state of California. We also operate as Signal Hill Disposal. We're pleased to be here before you today. Obviously, looking at the proposal, as you see before you, we have the lowest. Overall. Value in. Terms of cost. The thing we would note to. You that is important is that our proposal included replacing 100% of the carts, and that's a rather. Significant liability. For the city. I think the cost proposals that you saw reflected replacing as. Needed carts from some of the others. There's 110,000. Carts out. There. So over $5 million of liability. And our proposal included. Replacing all of the carts, 100% of the carts, which we think offers significant value. And doesn't defer that liability. For future providers. In addition. Is a family owned and operated. Company. We're based here in Signal Hill. We have a brand new state of the art facility, both in terms of collection and processing. It's a vertically integrated proposal. And most importantly, we're here and available to answer any questions you might have. As always, it's the same group that's been here for the last 30 years. So, again. Thank you very much. Thank you. Seeing no other public comment means you get back to the council staff. Wanted to make a couple of comments, Mr. West, and then I'm turn over to Councilman Mongo. Yes, Mayor. I'd like to ask Jason McDonald to respond to some of the comments that were made. From the public and representatives. Thank you, Mayor. City Council members to address some of the concerns raised by Mr. Grant from Republic Services. Maybe starting, first of all, to make sure that we're all talking about the same proposal. In general, this is a proposal that was intended to be awarded at approximately 3.5 million a year for ten years, including in adding the cost of the CPI index. So that's somewhere closer to 35 million just for making sure we're in the same ballpark in the first claim by Mr. Grant that there is this is an allegation of price shopping. Under page 23 of the specifications in the RFP section 5.3, the city may contact the references provided in the proposal. Contact any proposer to clarify any response, contact any current users. Solicit information the city shall not be obligated to accept. The lowest price shall make an award in the best interests of the city of Long Beach. This, in fact, was not a bid. This was an RFP, a request for proposals. A bid would require us to maintain the lowest responsive, responsible bidder as the awardee. But in fact, city staff, through the evaluation, along with the consultant, made a determination that Waste Management's proposal was in the best interests of the ratepayers in the city of Long Beach. Mr. Grant's fourth claim the proposal enhancements were drawn up differently. The original matrix provided to the City Council included the differences between the enhancements among each proposer, not the similarities. Upon meeting with Republic Group that was corrected and all of the enhancements provided by every proposer was included on that matrix. Finally, with Mr. Grant's claim that the procurement process is was a violation of the process by direct communication. Again, same section of the RFP. The city may contact any proposal to clarify any response. Contact any current users of the service to solicit information from any available source. Additionally, in that context, I authorized that communication in the attempt to expedite and ensure that we were moving in a timely manner towards a ward. So that was my decision at that point. The purchasing manager I authorized the Bureau Manager of the Environmental Services Bureau. The last claim from Republic that there were no site visits. That is always the city's prerogative, and certainly city could have chosen but chose not to do so during that evaluation process. So just wanted to make sure that we have talked about a few of those items. Thank you. One last thing, Mr. Mayor. This has all been very quick tonight. So whatever happens, we've been discussing, I think we have some options that we can come back to within a very quick time, perhaps within two weeks, that might satisfy the needs of all the council and prepare that for the city council. It's something I don't think we should get into tonight because we need to study the issue a little bit. But there's definitely more options than just a yes or a no tonight that we can come back to give the council. An opportunity to look at this one more time as well. Councilman Mongo. I want to thank you for the feedback based on the public comment. I think that. First and foremost, as a council member, I try to do my homework. I met specifically with Pat West on this several weeks ago and discussed some of the items which in the two from fours that came out after that, which I've read all of them. I don't think that I got the. Full detail, as I did just now verbally, which I appreciate, and that is helpful. I do still feel that if we had another two weeks, I mean, I'd prefer a week, but obviously of council next week to just be able to meet with staff again and feel more confident. I think that would help a lot. And then at that time, no matter how confident we are or aren't. Because again, I've met with city staff on this and did not get the same answers. I didn't get I didn't have answers at that time. And I expected them to be in the two from force. And now here we are. And so I guess I would just be curious to know about the condition of my friendly. Gentleman Price to continue this to week so staff can come back with recommendations on how we can proceed. Yes, absolutely. Okay. So the motion on the floor is to continue the item for two weeks. That's the motion of the floor. Councilmember Ringa. Before you go, let me clarify, because we're actually taking up both 20 and 27 right now. So this is this is essentially continuing both items as a as a package discussion. Is that correct? Interested attorney? How would you prefer to do this? We need to take two separate actions, but you can obviously continue both. And if you're continuing 27, it would be up to you to consider how you want to handle 20. They could continue both. It's up to you. Let me keep going down the list and then we'll go back. Councilmember. Thank you, Mayor. Actually, I would I would be in favor of continuing both because I was going to make a substitute motion to let's deal with 21st. And then that way we could look at 27 as being the one to evaluate the to do the audit. And then we could go through if the vendors would be able to hold their prices for the for the term of the audit. And that way we could decide everything clear on the board and we're done. But if we're going to hold both items, I would certainly support that. And one thing I want to correct, I mean, it's. There's a presumption here that the process was flawed. It's a presumption regardless of how you feel about what you say. There's a presumption there when it comes to consumer prices that she's going to recuse herself, excuse me, from the vote because she didn't trust the process. There is a presumption that there's something wrong. Okay. I don't want that to be the message that I want that I want to say, because then what we're saying is that if we were to award the contract, let's say we're saying that that the vendor who gets it in this case, Waste Management, is got a contract under under so shady circumstances. And I wouldn't want them to feel that way. That would I wouldn't want our our city management to feel that way, that that their they made a recommendation of a of a vendor based on flawed information. I wouldn't want that. I don't want that. I want the thing to be right. I want it done right. And if it's the process that is in question here, then let's question that not not question the the the validity of the RFP that we're out there. And I'm glad for that clarification of our RFP versus a contract because it is different and it doesn't have to be the lowest value which is still out there in terms of, you know, who did the lowest bid and who it was awarded to. So in this instance, if the city if city management, the city manager is willing to revisit this and come back with other options and other recommendations as to how we can fix this debate tonight and give it two weeks, I would certainly support that. Okay. Is there. Just before we move forward, is there an understanding of what the friendly actually is and what the is this continuation of both items? Really was. As to item 27, because when they come back, it's not going to be about their recommendation that is outlined in item 20 there. When staff comes back, they're going to be talking to us about the recommendation as to item 27 only. That's my understanding is that staff is asking for time so that they can come back with alternatives on how we can get this matter to the city auditor and continue with the bidders that we've already received not to come back for a recommendation, a different recommendation or something like that in regards to who to award the contract to. But then we still would have item 20 to vote on tonight. Yeah, I think I think it's too different. So, Mr. City, joining you both? Yes, Mayor, members of the council, I think if I hear the council person from the third district correctly, if you continue item 27 and you would like to deal with item 20 in two weeks, I would take a separate action to continue that. And I think at that point it would of course be up to staff, but if they were going to bring back options, there's going to have to be council. They can have to come back any way to negotiate an extension with waste management, add more money to the contract to continue that for however long they believe it's necessary to meet the requirements of the Council for so. So there'll be additional items that would be placed on the agenda to that item. So I would do it separately as two separate items. In addition, Mayor Council members, we would like the opportunity to come back with a potential solution to this. And I agree with the Council on approach we wouldn't be coming back with here's a motion to make, but we could come back with an alternative procedure that could wrap this up for the city council. And it might not be something that just refers it to the auditor. It would just be an alternate procedure that the council could look at. Okay. So just to be clear, there's going to be. So we're going to two votes. One item 21. An item 27. Correct. Okay. Let me just get through the rest of the speaker's list and then we'll get back to the motions. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Yes. I just want to. I'm glad we have this discussion back and forth. This is a you know, definitely a a tough one for for all of us. But I think I'm I'm also good and supportive of kind of waiting and seeing what we get back from our city manager's office and then going forward from there. I think that's a really good step that we can do. It is a very large contract. And, you know, I think we're in a bind right now and in understanding this all and exactly what happened. So I'm I'm in support of that. So thank you. Councilor Richard Brenner. I'm on board also as an accommodation for staff and our city attorney and all of us. Thank you. Okay. There's we're going to take two votes. The first is to postpone, hold over for two weeks out of 27. Please cast your votes. Motion carries. Okay. We're going to go to item 20. If there's going to be, there'll be a motion to postpone item 20 believe that's the motion correct for two weeks. In a motion in a second. Okay. Members, please cast your votes on item 20.