A resolution approving a proposed Agreement between the City and County of Denver and Universal Protection Service, L.P. for security personnel services. Approves a contract with Universal Protection Services, LP, doing business as Allied Universal Security Services, for $25,000,000 and for three years, with two one-year options to renew, to provide security personnel services in City facilities (GENRL-202055482). The last regularly scheduled Council meeting within the 30-day review period is on 11-16-20. The Committee approved filing this item at its meeting on 10-6-20.
Then on Monday, excuse me, November 9th, Council will vote to either adopt or reject the mayor's proposed 2021 budget. Councilmember Torres, will you please put Council Resolution 1042 on the floor for adoption? I move that council resolution 20 dash 1040 to be adopted. It has been moved. Thank you, Councilwoman. It has been seconded. The 30 minute courtesy public hearing for council resolution 20 Dash 1042 is open. May we have the staff report, please? And this key image, I believe and I believe Brandon Gagne is going to provide the staff report for us. Hopefully he's been promoted. All right. We've got him promoted now, so thank you. Hello, everyone. Can you hear me? Mm hmm. Go ahead. Sorry for that. I'm sorry for that. Getting off from you and getting promoted. So. Good evening, members of council. My name is Brandon Gainey, representing the Department of General Services. I appreciate your time this evening. I will give a brief report providing a general overview of the security services contract tonight. So we have on the phone with us today, this evening, representatives from the Denver Security Office, excise and licenses, post purchasing and city attorney's office risk management and Dispo to assist with any questions and clarifications. And so I do think there is a presentation that we forwarded to City Council or actually to maybe to Zach. I don't know Zach how we get that on there. And I can keep rolling if we want to wait or not wait on it. So I understand it's late. So it was just really one slide that we were going to keep up there, which was just an informative slide, but really want to start out with sharing the purpose of this contract, which is to ensure the safety and well-being of employees, residents and visitors conducting business in our city facilities. The security guards primary scope of work entails facility entrance screening for to sorry to prevent prohibitive items from being brought into city facilities. Ensuring those that. Are entering city facilities are. Provided with positive customer service and wayfinding and performing routine facility patrols to ensure security practices and protocols are in place. They also assist with locking down and securing city facilities during emergency and responding to emergencies in city facilities using in-person and video surveillance. And lastly, we provide walk or safe walk escorts for anyone leaving a city facility, especially after hours. So the contract states the primary function of agents is to observe and report agents. They shall not use physical force against any person except for the use of reasonable force, only protect oneself or another person. And then only as a last resort. So responses to crimes in emergencies, they're coordinated with local law enforcement and public safety officials. Thank you very much for getting the slide show up there. And I also want to emphasize that these security guard positions are dedicated positions that the city would not otherwise have for the sole purpose of keeping people safe. These positions are filled by dedicated employees who are the city's advocates when it comes to maintaining safe environments for our city facilities. The contract consists of 109 different positions, employing approximately 130 individuals across. 19 city locations. Thanks to the Executive Order 136, which is the non displacement of qualified workers of city service contracts, we expect to keep the overwhelming majority of the city's existing security guards on the city contract. Currently, SEIU Local 105 represents security guards working in the city and county of Denver, and I understand they would also represent security guards under the new Allied contract. Security guard wages are governed by the higher of either the livable wage or the minimum wage, and currently minimum wage is higher set at 25 per hour. However, we know that market rate is the most important comparator and a third party analysis of the proposed contractual wages indicates that they fall within the 75th percentile the industry's market rate with contractual wages ranging from 17 to $24 per hour, depending on the responsibility experience of the position. The contract also offers a comprehensive benefit and wage package, including a $500 retention bonus to those existing employees who choose to stay on the city contract. The contract will also invest up to $4 million back into our local mwb business community through the 16% minority and women business enterprise goals associated with contract. And then I want to talk just a little bit about the request for proposals and selection process that was was taken on through through this RFP process. So the purchasing division, the selection committee, followed a fair and transparent process aligning with Executive Order eight, which establishes the policy and procedures for preparation and execution of city contracts. Selection Committee consisted of a cross-agency representation from Department of Motor Vehicles, Denver Animal Shelter Facilities Management, Denver County Courts and the Denver Security Office, all of whom are stakeholders in the city security program. Various members of the city teams work extremely hard to make improvements on the existing security contract by increasing training requirements, implementing a quarterly review scorecard and introducing punitive damages for contract noncompliance. None of those things were in the existing contract or are in the existing contract. Lastly, I want to share where we see opportunities for improvement. I believe in continuous improvement. Continuous improvement is actually included in the contract scope of work. I believe in giving people an opportunity to learn and improve from mistakes. I, along with those that are here representing the contract tonight, denounced the inexcusable crime committed against Rivera's minute. And three former allied security guards that have been sentenced to prison as a result of the crime. I believe his contract can be used as a vehicle to change the way security guard services are provided throughout Denver. I want us to lead by example, by leveraging the city's emphasis on equity in applying it to how this contract is managed. I want to thank you for your time, and I'll turn it back over to you. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Brandon. And we have a 30 minute courtesy public hearing that we will hear from members of the community. We have 24 people signed up. But I want to give a reminder, we only have a half an hour allocated. And so if folks can keep their comments brief, we will try to get through as many individuals as we possibly can. And our first speaker is Jeremy Lee. Council president. Can you hear me? Yes, go ahead. On four questions. I'm sorry for Jeremy Lane. Okay, great. All right. Thank you. And then I'm assuming then Mike Daly is with Jeremy there. That's awesome. That's great. Very good. All right. We will go ahead and move to Dr. Nita Mosby. Tyler. Thank you, Madam President. Thanks for this opportunity. I I'd like to just share a couple of things on on this matter. I'm seeing this as a real opportunity for us to influence, of course, the security services and Denver buildings, but honestly, to really effectuate change on the industry and this opportunity to do it through Ally. I think this is an opportunity for us to influence how security systems and services are provided, and working with a company to change their own company is a good thing for us to be doing the work with their employees, their interactions with our fellow Denver residents and and our guests. I have started to work on the scope of services with with Allied, and I wanted to share just a little bit about the scope. One of the things that I have shared with them that I would think would be a mandatory thing to do is to provide an equity audit of all of their training programs with the potential to even certify or credential some of the programs that either get developed out of this or redesigned out of this. We also have recommended an equity blueprint or a roadmap that includes the strategies, goals and tactics for allied in this work as well. I think more importantly, there has to be an intentional focus on some direct outreach to communities, especially the ones that have experienced harm from the Union Station event involving Mr. in that. And I would absolutely take the lead and leverage other community members in helping with that. The last thing that I would want to share with you in this opportunity, which I think would be a an important one for us to do as we think about the advancement of systems of equity is to talk about the timing of this. I've heard comments that, you know, was this timing of reaching out to me at the equity project reactive or was this something the company was thinking about doing? And I have to just be frank with all of you as council members, there's rarely a client that I have ever worked with that didn't do both. They were reaching out on something that was reactive while having a commitment to undertake work intentionally. And I think that that would be the case here to undertaking intentional actions to provide restorative justice in the communities. Thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to share my really vulnerable thoughts about this manner. I do think it is a big opportunity for us to model what we mean when we say create a system of equity. What an opportunity for us to work through another organization just to do that. Thanks for the time. Thank you. Our next speaker is on the leave, the Victoria Lobo. And I'm sorry for any mispronunciations. Thank you, Madam President. Good evening. My name is Angelica, Victoria Lobo. And I'm the national campaign director. For janitorial and security. Services for the. Service Employees. International Union with headquarters in Washington, DC. SEIU represents nearly 2 million. Members throughout the United. States, Canada and Puerto Rico. In the health care. Public and property services sectors, including approximately 70,000 security offices. I thank you for letting me speak. To you today. About the relationship the SEIU has had with Allied Universal Security Services. Over the past decade and spanning. Multiple markets from coast to coast through our many locals. We have a strong collective bargaining agreements. With Allied that cover. Contracted out security. Services at public accounts, commercial real estate, universities. Hospitals and tech. Campuses. These CBAs. Over. 20 in fact, allow for all local such as local one, two, five and allied. To have very. Productive labor management. Partnerships which. Have one, provided. Good union jobs with health care and a living wage to over thousands of security officers from New York to Boston to Chicago to Seattle, Portland and throughout. California to have created responsible contracting. Relationships with ensure essential, excellent service and lower turnover. To clients. And have raised security industry standards across the country. We believe that in Denver, a labor management partnership will also be particularly valuable for purposes of allied training, curriculum. SEIU and in particular our standard for Stand for Security Campaign is committed to racial justice work. We believe de-escalation and implicit bias trainings with feedback from security officers are crucial to reducing. Turnover. And ensuring the delivery of quality security services to communities. SEIU and our security locals look forward to continuing to work with responsible contractors like Allied to ensure that security officers have a voice on the job. That we are working to provide the best opportunities for these hardworking men and women, and that we continue to keep the security industry moving with its best foot forward. Thank you. Thank you. Our next speaker is Mary Catherine Fleming. You might need to meet yourself. Hi there. I'm so sorry you won't be able to look at me because I am live streaming this on all my other platforms right now. So I'm not specifically for or against this contract, but all I really want to know is what the are you people thinking this company be reversed in it within an inch of its life and it's given all of your opposition fodder for months. It's one of the things we talk about. It's not the only thing we talk about that in the middle of a movement for Black Lives, what in the world makes you think this is a good idea? Who is advising you? All of you need help. This is terrible. Not only the optics, terrible, but the fact that you have to come in and explain. Well, at 10:00 at night, waiting everybody else out, why we're going to be leaders and set the example. If it you screwed up that bad, I promise we would not let you set the example of how to fix it. Why in the world are you going to pay $25 million to this gigantic corporation to do better? Which one of them I would like to know is putting money in your pockets or helping you find your next campaign. Either way, you are failing all of your people. You have failed. Reverse connect. You are failing me and you're failing my kid who came in earlier asking me, Mom, I'm scared of dying. He has autism and he knows he's likely to die at the hands of the police while you sit there and do nothing. Absolutely nothing. Meanwhile, and nutjob on the internets been posting pictures of my family and my home while the police say they can't do anything. And he continues to do this to elected officials. The police are useless, defund them. This company ally, it is terrible. Who is advising you? And why do you need me. To stay on TV? Staying up late past my bedtime. To tell you what the right thing to do. Is? How in the world is. There a question left in your mind? Clearly, the education system here. Failed you as well. That's all. Have a good night, y'all. Thank you. Next up, we have Shannon Hoffman. Good evening, Michigan and Hoffman. I am a member of District ten. Thank you so much for staying up late with us for this discussion. I'm tired. I will also be tired tomorrow when I administer the S.A.T. to my students at Northeast Early College and mom below. And I hope that you will remember the black and brown students I support and their families and loved ones who are disproportionately targeted by a police state. When you cast your vote on this contract in a recent production about Rivera, Jeanette Rivera, an actor who plays him, says, What will you do with your hands? And that's what we're asking you tonight. We as a city, both RTD and the city of Denver, are about to give $65 million to a company that has a history of violence. And we have not given a single dime to Rivera's. Jeanette And thank you to the folks from SEIU who are on here. I am not against workers. This is all about all of us fighting together against a corrupt system. I'm scared because of how you have voted earlier tonight to use this CARES funding for Allied. But I hope that perhaps on this three year contract one of you might have it within your heart to change your mind. One of you might look outside and see that there's snow on the ground and there are people sleeping outside because they're afraid to go to shelters and they will be more scared with a violent security company there. We will all be scared and be afraid in our public spaces with this company terrorizing our city. And I sat in the Finance and Governance Committee meeting where Cami Joly presented this and made it seem like there's just no other company that can do what Allied can do. And then in the Denver Post says, But of course, a large company would have so many lawsuits against it. And I just don't think that's true. We don't have to live like this. We don't have to live in a constant police state. And I really encourage you to read Parable of the Sower by Octavia Butler to see what happens when when we allow this to happen. And, you know. To what Councilwoman Candace CdeBaca mentioned in that committee meeting. Where is community voice in this process? Why do folks get to make a presentation before this? And none of our community members get to have a voice in this process and who you hire. Thank you for this opportunity to to give voice this evening. Thank you. Our next speaker is James Ginsburg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I'm James. Ginsberg. I'm the deputy director of Housing, Stability and Homelessness, the resolution for the Department of Housing Stability. And I'm really here to just verify that as oversee multiple contracts with our nonprofit shelter providers. And over the past six months, Allied has been a a very positive partner in providing security at the shelter at National Western and at the Coliseum, as well as more recently across shelter. And the report is, while I don't have firsthand experience, the report from our partners is they have been very engaged, very good communicators. They're certainly working with a very vulnerable population. They've adhered to our are calls for trauma informed engagement and principles. And they continue to adjust to any feedback from our partners and to communicate clearly. And I certainly want to verify that they've been a positive partner. All right. Thank you, James. Up next, we have Rebecca Henderson. Oh, I'm back again. This is my comment. From last week that I didn't get to do so. My name is Rebecca Henderson. I am a resident of Denver Central Park. Neighborhood tonight vote to give $25 million to Allied Universal in light of. Their reprehensible treatment of Rivera tonight, as well as other violent. And murderous incidents across the country is a travesty. And I do ask you to vote. Now and become truly transformative leaders. I realize I've asked you to do this before I sent you these comments in an email. I do not believe. I have heard back. Sometimes I know the emails and we get lost. And there are things. That I did send you. A podcast that I thought would be helpful for you to listen to. I'm thinking as we're starting to. Really think about what it means to. Defund the. Police. And I also. Wanted to bring up the killing of weed killer. This week. And I was actually last weekend at the Denver Art Museum, and the man who killed him was a private security guard. And again, this is why we're asking you to be the most thoughtful about you that you've ever. Written and to really listen. And as we're watching, like, fascism, like for real, because I even. Think fascism is not a thing you can like. I mean, I'm just saying. Okay. I do wonder, you know. What would I have done in Nazi Germany? And I want you guys to also think about when you're looking at like, what about your legacy? What are your children going to say if you have any children, you know? I know I don't want it so late, but at the same time, I just. I just want you memory. Nothing. Well, they. Will. They will. Will people look back and say. I'm so proud of you and you fought on the side of the people and made the world a better place? You feeling much like the descendants of slave owners, white supremacists and racists ashamed of their ancestors of crimes against humanity that they committed? Will your descendants and families look back on you with pride. Or shame. If future legacy does not move you to do what's right? And I do hope you can be moved by the testimony of your constituents. And I know it's really scary to be part of transformation and to be brave, but. And it makes sense. But what are we going to do? We can't do anything. I am confident that you. Will come up with solutions. Okay. And I think that. If by voting no tonight, you are going to demonstrate. That. You do you do care. The value, you know, was brought up. We put our money where our values are. And I mean, it's I would love. To see you vote now on this country. Thank you. And I know it's been long. And I was here the whole time. Ooh, ooh. I cut. All right. Thank you. Next up, we have Mary Buckley. I'm sorry. Lisa Buckley. I'm sorry about that, Lisa. Good evening. Madam. President. You do that for the long day that you had. So thank you so much for the opportunity. I am not only a 20 year veteran, if you will, of. Owning my own business along with my husband. I also am a mother of two beautiful kids. My son, who is. 18 and my daughter who is 13. And so many of the things that we. Go through today as a community, as a citizenry. I go to bed at night. With those same thoughts. When my son be okay, will he be safe? Will my daughter be safe? And more than that, what am I doing as a part of this. Community to help that. To be a reality? It is just a. Honor to. Be here tonight. This for my company as an opportunity to be at the table. With companies like like Ally. Like the great doctor that spoke earlier. To be a part of. A process in our community that will. Take us all forward. 2020 is unique to all of us in so many different ways. My heart breaks for the. Various companies and families and people that have not only suffered from this terrible. Pandemic, but have also had to lose businesses, lose livelihoods, lose jobs. I am proud within my company that we are approximately 40% female and approximately 80% people of color. Ah, my husband and I. Perfect. No, not. Not by a long shot. But every day we grow to learn and to improve. But the other. Thing, too, is to be. That voice at the table. To be able to understand what our community not only deserves. But demands and should have of us. And that is any person that we come into contact with in our industry, as we would call it. Civilians. To be treated with respect. To be treated with dignity, to be treated in such a way that I would like my son to be treated. In this regard. Again, this is a opportunity for us to be at the table on this contract, basically 20 years in the making. But we've we've worked hard. We've learned our craft, and we understand and we won't be silent. We will be. There to do the right thing. Madam President. Council community leaders, thank you for the opportunity to speak tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have Luis Ponce. Is a thank you, Madam President. Good evening. My name is Response and I'm the research director for ACA will go one on five. I'll going to speak first on behalf of Earn. And as Hicks is an actress as. Employee and member of SEIU Local 105. And he's actually the lead unions. To work for the agencies, the US contracts. Then I will make some brief. Remarks as a. Representative of SEIU. Look, a lot of members of City Council as an employer for the current contract holder, HHS, me and my fellow SEIU Local one on five union members realize that. Tonight many factors are being done. For Robin. As you move forward, what sort of I'd like to hear some more about some of the guidelines or protocol. 94% yes vote in March 2018. Since then, as a union, we have made significant strides to. Improve working conditions, gain higher pay, increase PTO and possibly most important, fair and equal treatment among all employees at a higher level than my own. SEIU has had dialog with other universal. Mainly because of the relationship between the two working within our contracts around the country. From these conversations, it is understood that Universal intends to assume and honor. The current union contract held between SEIU Local one and five. And it says if awarded in the US contract. Therefore, it is my humble opinion that all you in the original will be a safe choice to retain for the biggest contract. Because we know they are going to respect the contract union. And hire all current employees as long as they. Pass the background checks. Again, ladies and gentlemen of the Denver City Council, thank you for hearing me out on this matter in unity. Ernest Hicks. Now I'm going to make remarks us on the SEIU one on five Representative. We as SEIU Local 125. We are a union representing the 100 security officers working grandly in the city and county of Denver. We support all universal getting this contract. SEIU has had a long and constructive national relationship with ALID across. The country and in many other SEIU markets, where they have shown to be a responsible contractor in Denver and it has committed to continue being a. Responsible contractor and keep this work. Union respecting the wages, benefits and rights this local, one of five security officers have already won. Hourly, it has also committed to retaining the security officers. Who have protected. And security buildings for years, which means that the hardworking. Dedicated security officers who you know and trust will continue to keep our buildings, public spaces and communities safe. We will also be consulting with and providing. Feedback throughout training for this union's security officers. With our members and the Denver community's. Best interests in mind. We look forward to working with Allied. And ensure good jobs and high quality services for the city. And that's your time tonight. Thank you. Next up, we have Ian Tafoya. Hello. Of City Council interview. You know, I had a chance to meet Ramiro right after this happened, and he was literally coloring in a book, and he wasn't sure if he was ever going to read again. I'm very happy to see that we move forward. But beginning at that point, we began these conversations about the privatization of security of of islands, of merchant guards and oversight. But I want to go back one step and say to whomever is saying that the shelter experience is so damn great, then why aren't people going to them? Right. This is just one entry point in a system that is so flawed and so broken. And I don't think we need that much security over the people who are going there. I work with these people on a on a weekly basis. I'm out in the fields again. I want to say privatization. Who is that serving? And why can't they? Why can't the city sheriffs? And this is a solution I want to put in front of you. 19 locations, 109 positions. The sheriffs have $150 million budget. We have a record low jail population. Why wouldn't we want them policing their own buildings where they have the most oversight? Listening to a private firm call people, civilians get real. You are civilians. You are not military or police, but you act like you are policemen sometimes. We all know that privatized security has crossed the line far too many times to continue. It's also a place where people go to to seek power, to abuse power, where we might see people go once they're kicked out of the police department. This is a three year three contract with two extensions, five years. If we had sheriffs, we had a oh, I am. Is there oversight or more public accountability on public property and to the union people? They would be a union with the higher standards and being included in with the Fraternal Order of Police here in the city . And in the time where only 11 of these officers have weapons and were escalating, wouldn't you feel safer with the sheriff anyways? I will say, though, that a merchant guard system does need to have overhaul, that we need to be looking at this. We've seen mistakes happening along the way and we're authorizing this private security. And I really think it's a fundamental part in restructuring the justice system. And the last thing I want to say is I have not heard a single community member, and I want you to be careful if any community member comes here to testify in favor that doesn't have skin in the game, because what I'm hearing are people who stand to gain from this and people are in the community who are frustrated and want something different. I think you can extend whoever is serving now in the interim, but I really want you to think about the sheriff, 150 million and the smallest population . It would build goodwill to the public to interact with these people. Oversight is better. We should serve our own citizens with our own safety. Thank you. Thank you. Next up, we have Warner Smith. Hello. My name is Warren Smith. I've been with Allied for seven years. Retired military spent 22 years in the military and part of that was with the Colorado National Guard. I am a licensed security guard officer. They had my background check and everything before I could become a security guard with Allied. I've been lucky in my seven years with Allied to work with different avenues. I was on the original 16th Street Mall project as an armed security, working with the homeless folks and stuff down there. I also lived in Samaritan House. I was homeless, so I was able to talk to homeless folks and let them understand that I do get what they've gone through. I've been there. I also have been to a lot of training, which I really like with Allied. We have training monthly, quarterly and yearly. One of the trainings is about safety, our safety program, where I, as security personnel can talk to my employer. The place I'm stationed at and let them know I see situations that are wrong. I also report a bad officer. Now, security. Work is not easy. We are supposed to deal with our clients, take care of people answering questions, keep the peace. And a lot of times Reagan abuse. In fact, some officers have been killed just trying to help people out on the street. This company is really good. I enjoy living here in Denver. I love the interaction that we have. And again, I am not a police officer. I know my role and in our training we learn that. We learn the laws. We learn the things that we are supposed to do and can not do. De-escalation is one of the biggest things. We try not to put ourself in danger because that is not my role. My biggest role is use my eyes and use a pen that is more effective, and that's what we try to do. Do we have some bad people and we find them? But this is a great company and I'm proud to be with them. Thank you for your time. I appreciate it. Thank you. And we're rounding out the half hour that we had allotted for the courtesy public hearing. And so our last speaker will be Morrow Zacharias. Yes. Thank you. My name is Mara Zacarias. I'm from Fort Collins, Colorado. I have a daughter and a future. Son in law who live in Capitol Hill in downtown Denver. I watch the. Play. I am Rivero. It is so upsetting. That it's I'm actually welling up right now to think about the egregious abuse of this man. To think about how his life is altered forever, to think about how there. Is still no. Settlement. And this company that we think is going to be good and is changing their ways. There is still no settlement. There is still no restitution. To Rivera obstinate. I think about the phone call that we just started. And, you know, I've been here for four and a half hours. I heard about the diabetic person and the little boy who was on the call earlier. The diabetic. And keeping him safe. And you agreed to that resolution. But you know, even a diabetic child, they can become incoherent, they can become aggressive, they can become anxious keeping if their blood sugar levels aren't out of whack. I wonder how an allied security guard would handle that diabetic child. In light of what we've seen. You know, Ribeiro did nothing. He was an artist. He did nothing. And he has a traumatic brain injury at this point. It's been difficult for me to be on this call this whole time, listening to people from unions. People have an interest in doing this work. I appreciate that. But I am just here as a citizen who has an interest in keeping people safe. This is a company with a plethora of podcasts, CPR and PR information on sexual harassment, racial biases. They're talking about coming back and doing some trainings in punitive damages for noncompliance. Allow me to mention what we know about organizations, because I am an organizational development expert. Organizations really learn from the top down what the values are from the CEO. It's not a matter of training. It's a matter of knowing the values of the CEO on down. I really hope that you keep us all safe. I really hope that this issue gets returned to providing for the safety of our citizens. In the Denver area. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you to all of our speakers who stayed with us through what we know is a very long evening and I'm sorry to the speakers that we weren't able to get to tonight, but we wanted to maintain the half an hour courtesy public hearing. And so we will have questions from members of council. Councilman Haines. Thank you, Madam President. Allied security. You all have a credibility problem. I just want to start with General Services. So if I could chat with someone from General Services, I think that you're the stewards of the contract. There were the question I got. Just start with the questions. There were three bidders for this contract, correct? Yes. Councilman Hines, this is Kim. Okay, great. And what were the other two companies? The current contractor, HCA, and then Securitas. Okay. Um, were there any local vendors who placed bids on the contract? I know those were the only three. There were two other companies that did bid. However, they did not meet the dispo criteria. Hmm. Okay. So you said Securitas? Yes, sir. And are. Are those? Is Securitas also engaged in the very visible discussion about the shooting near the art museum? I know that Pinkerton was definitely identified. I don't know if security was also identified. Do you know? I believe Securitas and purchased Pinkerton sometime ago. So they are both in nature. Okay, so. So I can't comment on whether or not. If there's any sort of direct correlation there and how that that relationship works. I don't know those details. Okay. But I think it's fair to say that they also have a credibility problem here in Denver. So are there any local vendors who could perform this contract? Like why? Why did no local vendors apply. Sought so yet? Great question, Councilman Himes. And I think that the issue that the city runs into is that it's the size of the contracts. So, you know, we're a fairly large contract. Several of our facilities are 24 seven with multiple positions. And so it is definitely the size of our contract that is a bit more difficult to staff and to be responsive to the RFP. It has been mentioned on a few occasions during some of our committee meetings and then some of our individual discussions that, you know, why? Why can't we unbundle or split this contract into multiple contracts? We could do that. I think that there are some definite, pretty significant risks whenever you look at doing something like that for a security contract. And, you know, our chief security officer who is on the call, George Hunt, as well as our contacts here locally with the Department of Homeland Security, have definitely advised against doing that and for a few different reasons. And, you know, this could lead to significant risks, such as force on force incidents, communication protocol differences, some inefficiency of management, as well as difficulties in just managing any of our emergency or crisis response when we have to have a coordinated response around a particular issue, possibly in the downtown core area, which a lot of our buildings are. So. So someone just mentioned that each SS is a local vendor. Is that. True? You're a Colorado vendor. That's that's yes, that is correct. Okay. And they have held the contract for 13 plus years. That's correct. And they did apply. They met the the maybe threshold, but they were not selected. Is that right? That's correct. Okay. And then Mr. Tafoya suggested that our sheriffs might could take the contract. Why? Why is that not a viable option or is it a viable option? Sure. So we do work very, very closely with the Denver Sheriff's Department in several of our buildings where there are court functions. And because they do obviously operate very closely with with the courts. And so, you know, if we did the cost analysis on that, I would imagine that we would probably triple the dollar amount of what this contract is, double to triple what it is. And if you can just imagine the the salary of a sheriff versus a security guard, and you're really looking at apples and oranges there as far as how much that would be. So and so it would be cost prohibitive to this prohibitive to the city as well. And so layered security was had the contract in Union Station on behalf of our duty is our right. I believe so. There are allies Mike Daly and Jeremy Lee are on the line. If you have specific questions about that contract, I'm not well versed in it. Sarah Okay. So I guess the last question I have, Madam President, is and I don't know if it's general services, that is the best answer. RG Considered getting rid of allied security and replacing them with social workers that I think didn't pass. Is that is that right? I think it was a 14 to 1 vote against doing that is at least what I saw in the media. And I don't know if perhaps Mike wants to unmute and just confirm that for Councilman Hines. Yeah. Councilman, can you hear us? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. That is true. McKamey said it was, I believe it was either 14 or 15 to 1 vote by our board of directors to not do that, sir. Okay. Thank you. That's all for now. Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman Hines. Councilwoman Black. Thanks, Madam President. Several speakers mentioned a settlement. With Mr. Synnott. It can. Jeremy. Jeremy and Jeremy Leigh, can you please. Provide some information about that. Yes. Councilwoman Black, thank you. So we have I do have a joint statement from Allied Universal, as well as. Counsel for Mr. Stein, that they have reached an agreement in principle to resolve the claims arising from the 2018. Incident. April The agreement is subject to. Finalization of formal documentation. Both parties were able to work cooperatively to address this unfortunate incident. So we do have an agreement in principle currently with that interested in. All right. Thank you. That's all I have, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilwoman Black. Councilman Torres. Thank you, Madam President. Also, for Mr. Lee and Mr. Daley, were your Denver staff or your Denver contracts unionized prior to working recently with SEIU? Oh, not currently. Nope, not at all. So this is our first opportunity to work with the local SEIU. But you've got union. Is it true that you've got union contracts in other states or other cities? Yeah, that's correct. Is that accurate? Okay. Thank you so much. Cami, just a question for you. Was the did the decision come down to a bottom line bid between the three vendors who bid it and made it to kind of the final round? Yes. And thank you. Councilwoman Turismo and the evaluation committee looked at a lot of different criteria. So it wasn't just the cost of the contracts. And because all of the bids came in relatively around the same dollar amount and which kind of shows that they all fit the contract very, very well from a pricing perspective. Really, what the evaluation committee looked at was the hiring and how the how the companies went about their hiring and background checks included as well as retaining because it's very important for us first as a city to maintain as many staff as possible from the current contract as well as the training. And I've spoken at length with many of the councilmembers and leading up to this meeting about our expectations as far as training with the city. We went from 24 hours of a mandatory training before going on to post to 40, 40 hours, and that's for an unarmed guard at the most basic sort of level. And then the training increases from there as guards go to different levels as well. As, you know, I believe Warner Smith mentioned as well, the The Monthly, The Quarterly, the annual training on top of that. And also it was the transition plan, again, really focusing on how the this contract, because it is such a major contract for the city would transition very seamlessly and successfully from the current vendor to the new vendor. So having a well thought out transition plan as well as, you know, the focus on customer service and then of course the overall overall proposal, how that was proposed. And because we get both the written and the written proposal as well as the the virtual interview since we're in a time of COVID. So it was a lot more in addition to the pricing of the contract itself. Is there any criteria or judgment on on unionization of those employees? No. And and our buyer supervisor, unfortunately, with purchasing is is no longer with us. And she did retire. Lance J is on the line. However, I can I can just say that the city remains agnostic whenever it comes to and comes to the the union question. I don't know if Lance J. Wants to unmute, maybe add further add to that, but that is my understanding of that. That's correct, Kimmy. Thank you, Lance. And then final question for you, Cami. Did agencies also have a minority owned business subcontractor or did they subcontract? Yes. So they it was also a 16% goal for assistance contract. And that was achieved through a national. And actually one more question for you. I worked in the Web building for over ten years. I worked in the Memorial City building before that. I don't recall major safety or security issues. Were there issues in the 13 years that each of us held that contract? So when you say issues, do you mean as far as just kind of incidents? We do experience incidents less frequently now just because we have fewer people in our buildings. But I would say just about every day we would have some type of incidents. You know, occasionally it would just be, you know, different types of prohibited items that are being brought in. We do have people that have medical emergencies that our security staff do do respond to and engage with both our security operations center as well as 911 to get assistance on that. But we we are quite busy, I would say. And also George Hunt is on the line. He's our chief security officer. He is he manages the day to day operations of the security contract. He can probably comment a little bit better as far as the incidents that occur in in our facilities. And I'm thinking much may be more egregious. Sorry, Brandon, go ahead. No, I was just going to say, I just want everyone to understand the city's procurement process. It doesn't really base it on historical data. You know, it's about the a fair and transparent process based on a request for proposals and what's submitted and then what makes it through as a response proposal. Once our Department of Small Business Opportunity looks at it. And then it's a very specific criteria that that can be mentioned in terms of scoring that each selection committee member made up of, you know, diverse groups and city agencies works through. So it's a very deliberative process. And so it's not really those other pieces kind of extraneous peripheral pieces typically aren't brought into that process. And so it is customer service is performance based, it's data and metrics. So I just wanted to make sure that that that piece is kind of understood as, as the city moves through any procurement of any contract. Thank you for that. Mr. Hunt, is there any information that you have on perhaps lawsuits filed against each assets in one of our buildings? I understand their daily conflicts, issues and coming through security, things like that. But I'm talking about things that would be really concerning. So assuming I'm unmuted, I'm a little confused by the question. Councilwoman, are you. You're asking about my awareness of lawsuits for agencies or incidents on their own? Both. Okay. So sure to answer the first part there. As Candy pointed out, incidents daily, whether that's in support of someone needing medical assistance. In the downtown core or at DMV's or at the animal shelter. Escalating all the way up to. Unfortunately, incidents that would be much more violent and would be a direct threat or an attack on a. City employee at the animal shelter. They've had several incidents. We've had people typically about once or twice a week attempt to bring firearms into city buildings, whether that's the city county building or the Wellington Webb Building or the Empire Building. We've had bicycle thefts out of some buildings. We've had assaults occur outside buildings and sometimes inside buildings. So we to answer your question, we yes, we do have incidents that run the gamut of medical assistance for someone who's having some issue all the way up to violence. And then the second part of the question, I am unaware of any lawsuit related to HFCS and an incident that would have occurred on city property. The only thing that comes to my mind with HFCS that I'm aware of in any detail at all would be a employment h.r issue internally with with HFCS as a company. And that was something to do if my memory serves me right was back in March and it had something to do with the sheriff's department and an NHS agent on duty. Some type of. Interpersonal drama there. Oh, okay. Thank you, Mr. Hunt. And by definitely my last question, Cami, are these three year contracts each time? That have come before this one in particular. So do we build them out for three years? Yes. So typically they would be bid out for three years plus the two one year extensions? That is correct. So typically, you would look at probably about five years if the performance is there. That's correct. Got it. Thank you. Thank you. Madam President, you. Right. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilman Cashman. Oh, thank you, Madam President. Tammy, could you talk a little bit about as I understand it, there is a quarterly review of performance and monetary penalties. I guess what I'm what. I'm looking for. If you could please, as I said, talk about that a bit. But what is what do they have to do for us to say, take a hike? Thank you for the question, Councilman Cashman. I'm actually going to ask and George, once again to add, I'll defer to him on that question. And he wrote those pieces within the RFP and can comment better than I can. George, can you move again, please? Sure. Thank you. So, Councilman Cashman's, excellent question. The Court You are correct. There is a score quarterly scorecard review. And that's. Seven pages, eight pages of very specific questions that deal with the operational status of the security vendor. I'll be very frank. It's not it wasn't it's not allied centric. It's it's security vendor. Whoever the security vendor partner is or ends up being for the city will also be subject to the the quarterly scorecard review process and that that from the city side would be staffed by a stakeholder committee that would include more than likely the same advisory committee that was on the evaluation. So EFM partners, dmv d0f partners, animal shelter partners, etc.. Those those of us that are intimate users of the security services. And the idea is to to rate the security vendor with how they're doing operationally and then also back office management invoicing. Are they listening to what the city needs? And that results in a score line, line item score and an overall score per site. So each patient in the city would receive a score. And if there were items that were that fell below a three rating or below on a scale of 1 to 10, that would instantly invoke a performance improvement plan by the security vendor. Who would need to address why the deficiency and what their plan is to improve it and an associate a timeline to achieve the the improvement. Does that answer. Your question, George? If you can talk about the punitive tour item that was. Sure. So in the punitive language, it's in the contract. That's something that that is not in the current contract with IHS as. We felt in in the general services group that that contract compliance that that was very crucial to have some teeth to the contract. That just to your point, you know, some at some point you need to get someone's attention about trying to accomplish what the city needs, whether that's short staffing or continued short staffing, whether it's intentional or not intentional by the security vendor or refusal to do something that they're contractually bound to. Is the idea behind the punitive language? And to give you an idea of the the den security contract for their security vendor also has punitive language in it similar to the to what we have. And that's, you know, a familiar path that the industry is going towards as far as the client is concerned. And it's not something that Allied or other security vendors are not familiar with. It's a normal and normal thing. Okay. Thank you, Madam President. All right. Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Hines. Thank you, Madam President. And thank everyone who's still with us. Still a lot of people with us. It is late at night, so I apologize that I'm asking more questions, but I am surprised to hear that the bids about the bids were about the same for the various vendors and that the incumbent applied but was not selected . So when you you mentioned that there was a scoring process in the selection committee. Does the incumbent have any sort of an advantage? I, I guess I'll go ahead and ask the next question. Change management is hard and it has to be carefully planned. And so, you know, is is there some value placed on that cost of change management? Absolutely. That's an excellent question, Councilman Hines. And so I would say that the evaluation committee throughout the process was very mindful of that. However, I think that that there is something to be said for changing things up, to sort of improve upon things like transparency within data collection, our ability to review records on a daily, if not , you know, real time sort of situation with incidents and you know, post who's who's posted where, what those hours look like. And the data collection I think was extremely challenging with with the current contract. And and I also think that some of the folks that were on the evaluation committee were also looking for more support out in these remote type of locations, which normally have maybe only one person on that post. And so what Allied was able to do through the proposal process was really put in a solid supervisor structure that allowed for a lot of oversight and support and training of those remote sites that we we did not necessarily have in the current contract or was not necessarily proposed on the current contract or with the new contract. So I think to answer your question there, there was a lot of discussion with the evaluation committee on that. And because it is such a major shift and change, however, I do go back to the fact that it's 136 does apply. And so really we are trying, you know, if if we can get a contract executed and, you know, and we're successful there, we can start that transition a.S.A.P and and start to get people information. You know, the current agent assessed folks information about the benefits package and what this looks like of coming over to the contract. So that's the intent is to get as many people on the contract as possible. So perhaps that transition won't be as as difficult as it would be if someone was coming in and just replacing 100% with new staff. Well. So thank you for your candor. I mean, if we did not have transparency on data collection reporting, who's posted where support and remote location and supervisory structures, I mean that. That concerns me. So we do have some of that. So that's and I don't want to misspeak there or I don't want to give the impression that we don't have some of those things in place. I think the evaluation committee was looking for improvements, looking for more of a greater sort of electronic transparency with some of those items. Okay. And then one other I guess one of very lot questions I'd like to hear maybe both from Allied and SEIU. Local 105i don't know, Allied Security. And frankly, based on the information I've heard so far and the responses from committee, you know, I'm I don't trust Allied. However, I do trust SEIU and the leadership team at SEIU Local 105. If this contract contract were approved, how can you ensure that SEIU will be a partner in making sure that security workers are represented? And how can you ensure that SEIU and its members will have a proactive role to ensure that we don't recreate situations like we've heard too often from Allied in Denver and and around the U.S.? Mike and Jeremy. Can you. Yeah. It's Jeremy. I'll answer that. So the answer to that is, it's just there's a real. Appetite to. Partner with our local SEIU. We wouldn't want to jeopardize. Any. National relationship that we have. We've done some great work nationally. Yes. We have not had the opportunity locally to work with these folks. We've had several meetings with them. They've been very positive. There's a real willingness to enter into a relationship to include training audits from their from their folks. And so there's no reason for us not to partner with them and to make this a successful relationship with those folks. So we're all in agreeance. It's going to be better for the program and it's certainly better for the security professionals involved. So it's it's again, there's no reason not to do it. Every reason for us to continue to work on that relationship. And the SEIU brings another community voice to the table, which we think is critical, especially with everything that we've been talking about it, because contracts are. Is the local SEIU, Luis Ponce. Is he. He's he's. Here? Yes. Council members, council member Hines, thanks for your question. We take this with the highest responsibility to partner with earlier in order to better serve our community and to serve the working people that already in majority. You know, people of color, we we believe that by our universal respecting the union contract, keeping the hard fought benefits , enhancing some of them what they have told us as well, us collaborating on training specifically our members on the only training that we already give to our members that we have given throughout the years here in Denver is going to be critical in in moving forward these this contract and really maintaining what the community has been asking . Right. Which is responsibility and and and a mindfulness of of what the community really needs. And I think the the silver lining in all of this is that by having the union. There is an accountability piece that probably, you know, wasn't there before. And now, you know, it will be. There. And I think that that's very important for for the community and for city council members, too. To know that that by our members being local 105 sorry, by the workers being local one or five members, there's going to be an accountability. And an oversight. By by the workers on their job and on their duties. All right. Thank you. And, Madam President, one last question for general services. What if what if, what if this what if you don't say yes? What if this contract dies tonight? What's the next step? Sure. So I can I can answer that and Brandon and please assist if I, if I get anything wrong here. But we will, in essence, look at all of our options. Our our focus has been on doing everything that we can to support this contract going forward. So I don't know that we've spent a great deal of time thinking about the the alternatives with with any and with a lot of focus. You know, we we do know that we have options like potentially going to the other the other proposers for this RFP process or going out to RFP again. And so I know that those are at least a couple of the options that that are available to us. And that would mean that we would have to negotiate for some type of extension with our current provider. And because those processes, as you know, and tend to take some time, obviously a new RFP would take much more time than negotiating with one of the other proposers. And if we add on our current providers one of the other options, right? And so that's why you would theoretically continue the relationship with the current provider if if we ended up selecting the current provider. Yes. So business does have that agreement with the local 105 Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Thank you, Councilman. The public hearing for council resolution 20 Dash 1042 is closed. Comments by members of Council. Councilwoman CdeBaca. Thank you. Madam President, this debate has taken a very disappointing turn. We cheapen the lives of black people and unhoused people in a way I couldn't have imagined to have a conversation tonight that even elevates a union contract or diversity training above the real and undeniable deaths of people at the hands of this company right here in our city, on our own taxpayer dollars makes my stomach turn. I wish that the workers we all heard from tonight could start an employee owned company to compete against this narrative that only these companies, these global companies, are capable of competing or implementing these contracts. It's almost as if we're taking a step back in what we're even expecting of police. We've said repeatedly that police are ill equipped to deal with the challenges our city is facing, yet we're employing a company to observe and report and then call the police. Why exactly are we employing people to observe and report when we need, especially in the places that we're employing them, when we need experts to guide, to support, to connect, to de-escalate, to comfort, to assure the people in those spaces. Why are we paying for them to observe and report when we are actually all aware of incidents where they've gotten fatally physical? Why would we not recognize the financial interest of those who were supporting this contract tonight? We're not telling our citizens we want to protect them. We're telling them we're willing to give them money whenever they want it, no matter what. We have no standards. We have no expectations of protection of life. We have no intent to do the hard work to find out what really makes people safe. If the job is observing and reporting, then it makes no sense to me that we're only contracting with one company to do this work. If we can unbundle. If we're nearly 50% reduced in our in-person venues, if we're insistent on civilizing this role, why aren't we taking the moment to do it now? Explore creative options. The sheriffs could have a civilian nice branch of their department. We could do this in a way that creates more accountability and opens us up to less liability and vulnerability with predatory companies. The same issue raised by Ms.. Jolly for not wanting to unbundle the issues of communication protocols, use of force, a lack of a coordinated response among multiple contractors if we were to have them. Those are the exact same real life challenges that led to a loss of life on this agency's watch in our facilities just a few months ago. A settlement after three years and an attempted gag order on this victim doesn't show that ally is changing its ways. It shows us that they know that paying off this case and paying for trainings is needed in order to to silence the opposition to this contract. That's the only leverage they have in this moment. And it was cheap for them to use it. While this company should be doing these things because it's good business, Denver should be doing our own good business and denying this contract we can revisit after they're better trained. When the local cases are settled and paid and they're doing a better job at being humans. We'll come back to it. A simple Google search shows us that in other city councils across the country, they are standing strong and finding this company to be out of alignment with their values and refusing to enter into contracts with them . Why is Denver not taking the lead knowing that they have a history of wage theft, sexism, racism, harassment, intimidation, abuse of force, etc., etc.? Those are all red flags proof a track record that we need to take into consideration. We weren't even told they were in the top running or even in the RFP process for this contract when we had these same issues on their $4 million emergency contract. Until they build a better track record. We need to take human lives as serious as some of us take derogatory comments from national chains. We decide to boycott them in the name of justice for comments. But right now, we're giving $25 million to a company that has stolen lives from people in our very own city. We need a boycott on any entity perpetuating racism, classism, and facilitating murder with taxpayer dollars. That's all I have to say tonight. Thank you, Councilwoman Gilmore or President Gilmore. And thank you, everybody who stayed to testify. And I apologize on behalf of our body for those of you who stayed and were unable to testify. Thank you, Councilman CdeBaca. I don't see any other hands raised. And so I will go ahead and share my comments. I have looked at this closely and. It's a little bit too late. It's a lot of learning, a lot of shuffling. But it wasn't going to be done unless we asked the questions, unless we held it up in committee, unless we had this courtesy public hearing. But it still seems a bit hollow because. It feels like it's a house of cards a little bit. It feels like there's a lot of change management going on now. When I didn't see it in committee, I didn't hear it on the phone. And so I have regretted and I don't regret any of my votes. I do not. That's not an issue that I have. The one vote that I regret is the vote on this contract at the beginning of the pandemic when we were hiring them for our shelter care. That is the one vote that I regret and I won't regret it again and put that to fate. And so I will not be supporting this tonight either. Madam Secretary, roll call, please. CDEBACA No. Clark. I. When? I. Brendan. I. Hi. No. Cashman? No. Can I? Ortega. I. Sandoval. No. Sawyer. Now. Taurus. No. Black. I. Madam President. No. Madam Secretary, please close the voting and announce the results. 65786 I's seven nays. Council Resolution 1042 has failed. The pre adjournment announcement on Monday, November 23rd, Council will hold a required public hearing on Council Bill 1086, changing the zoning classification for 1010 West Colfax Avenue, 1050 West Colfax Avenue and 1443 Kalama Street in Lincoln Park are required public hearing on Council Bill one 1 to 7 changing the zoning classification for 2655 and 2659 Downing Street in five points and a required public hearing on Council Bill 1128 Changing the zoning classification for 4820 West Hayward Place in West Highland. Any protests against council bills? 1080 61127 or 1128 must be filed with council officers no later than noon on Monday, November 16th. There be no further business before this body. This meeting is adjourned.