Antioch picks private consultant to implement DOJ agreement; selection draws criticism over bid record

Antioch — The City Council voted 5-0 May 13 to authorize a professional‑services contract with MS Investigative Services and Consulting LLC to serve as the independent consultant named in the city’s stipulated settlement agreement with the U.S. Department of Justice.

The context: On Jan. 3 the city and the Justice Department entered a stipulated settlement (MOA) after a pattern‑or‑practice investigation into Antioch Police Department practices. The MOA requires the city and DOJ to select a mutually agreed consultant/monitor to help implement reforms and evaluate compliance over a multi‑year period.

Why it matters: The consultant will play a central oversight and technical‑assistance role evaluating policy, use‑of‑force reviews, training, complaint investigations and other elements set out in the MOA. The consultant helps translate MOA requirements into operational changes that the department must implement and sustain.

Selection process and staff explanation: City consultants and DOJ staff posted an RFP and received 14 timely proposals after extending the original deadline. A joint city–DOJ panel interviewed six finalists and completed reference checks. City consultant Brian Addington (executive consultant supporting the city) told the council that the selection panel — which included Antioch Police Department members and DOJ attorneys — recommended MS Investigative Services, led by Manjeet Sipal, as the top candidate.

The company and experience: Manjeet Sipal is a former Bay Area police chief with roughly 25 years of policing experience, including leadership roles in Richmond and Martinez. Sipal appeared at the council meeting and said he viewed the role as an opportunity “to collaborate with the community, with the Antioch Police Oversight Commission and with the police department to really sustain change,” and described the work as meeting MOA requirements and developing metrics.

Public criticism and missing submissions: Several public speakers contested the procurement record and said at least one nationally known consulting firm and other qualified applicants were not interviewed. Resident and longtime city advocate Lynette Hart told council she learned a high‑profile firm had submitted but was not interviewed. Consultant Andrew Becker said he had expected an alternate procurement route such as Homekey coordination and pressed for more transparency. The city’s IT director told staff that at least one late‑arrival email was quarantined by the city’s cybersecurity filter (Barracuda) and therefore not accepted; staff said the panel considered only submissions received before the final, DOJ‑agreed deadline.

Council action and safeguards: The council approved the professional‑services agreement (not to exceed $250,000 annually) and authorized the city manager to execute the contract in a form approved by the city attorney. The contract is three years with the possibility of a fourth and fifth year by amendment. Councilmembers asked about termination and performance: staff said the standard city professional‑services contract includes termination for convenience and that the MOA would guide any changes needed if DOJ or the city found performance problems. The vote was 5‑0.

What’s next: The contract language and exhibit describing the MOA‑based scope of services will be finalized by the city attorney and city manager. The consultant will begin work consistent with the MOA’s timeline and DOJ engagement. Councilmembers and members of the public asked staff to preserve and publish the procurement file for transparency.

Ending: The selection clears the first major administrative step required under the MOA; council and DOJ said they will monitor implementation, and members of the public signaled they will scrutinize both the consultant’s work and the city’s procurement record.