The College Station City Council voted 6-1 on June 26 to award a citywide landscape maintenance and mowing contract to Encircle Management Inc. for a contract not to exceed $1,079,050.42.

The item had been pulled from the consent agenda after council members requested more information about bidder locality and scoring. Pete Koehler, assistant director of public works, said Encircle submitted the lowest cost proposal and received the highest combined score in the city’s request-for-proposal evaluation, which weighted qualifications and experience (50 percent), rates and expenses (35 percent) and references (15 percent).

“The score was based on qualifications and experience, rates, and references,” Koehler said during the briefing. The staff presentation and the bid summary included the line-item amounts for the six proposers: Encircle (about $1,079,050), Landmark (about $1,200,000), Yellowstone (about $1,210,000), Earthworks (about $1,260,000), Green Teams (about $1,295,000) and Texas Landscape Creations (about $1,585,000).

Local vendors who spoke during the public-comment period said the city’s decision to remove a previous local-office requirement from the RFP disadvantaged long-standing local firms. Tucker Gallagher, second-generation owner of local firm Green Teams, told the council his family company has served College Station for 50 years and that the firm was disappointed not to have been selected.

“Green Teams is here for you,” Gallagher said, adding that the company would welcome future opportunities and urged the city to increase the number of annual maintenance visits in its specifications.

Dan Riddle, representing Yellowstone Landscape, told the council he was concerned an out-of-town vendor with no local employees might not be able to staff and reliably service the 189 city sites in the contract. He also highlighted a discrepancy between a posted award amount on the Brazos Valley marketplace and the amount in the city agenda and asked for transparency on that change.

Council members focused their questions on the RFP design and local-preference policy. Council Member Yancey asked whether references were local and whether the awarded firm could staff up and meet performance expectations. Koehler said staff had followed up with references and municipalities that had used the company.

Council debate referenced the state-local procurement rules. A city attorney summarized how the Local Government Code’s local-preference provisions apply to contracts within certain dollar ranges and the limits on council action when advertised evaluation weights are in place. Several council members said they prefer local providers when feasible but that the advertised scoring criteria govern an awarded procurement when the RFP has already closed.

Council Member Smith, who moved approval, noted the recommended award complied with state law and the advertised evaluation weights. After discussion, the council voted to approve the award. The motion was made by Council Member Smith and seconded by Council Member Wright; the motion passed 6-1. Council Member White cast the lone no vote.

Following the vote, staff said contract terms include termination and performance remedies should the selected contractor fail to meet service expectations. Koehler said the city could cancel and pursue the second-ranked proposer or re-solicit if performance proved unsatisfactory.

The council’s discussion flagged follow-up items for staff, including posting the weighted score sheets to the city procurement portal for bidder review and returning with options—should the council desire—to require a local-office criterion in future solicitations or seek short-term extensions to rebid under different preferences.