The Boston City Council committee hearing on July 24 examined the city’s civilian flagger procurement after community groups and a competing vendor questioned how the award was made. Casey, procurement staff supporting the presentation, told the committee that the RFP for third‑party management of civilian flagger personnel was posted on Jan. 2, 2025, with proposals due Feb. 14. "Two vendors submitted proposals. First Armor Protection Services submitted a proposal and, and Davis Company submitted a proposal as well," procurement staff said during the hearing.

Procurement staff described the evaluation criteria used by the review panel: proposal clarity; vendor qualifications and experience; hiring, recruitment and demonstrated ability to recruit employees representative of the civilian population; training and management; and detail assignment logistics. Staff also noted contract terms shaped by a collective‑bargaining agreement, including that the vendor must hire employees (not independent contractors) and demonstrate a training track record. The procurement presentation said the evaluation panel rated Ed Davis Company as "the most advantageous" on the combined qualitative and price factors.

The losing bidder, Ayesha Miller (owner of First Armor), testified to the committee that she had difficulty locating the RFP and that the request for proposals appeared written to favor a specific firm. "It was extremely hard to even find the RFP," Miller said in public testimony, adding that she received no feedback after submitting a proposal. She told the committee her firm is a female‑ and Black‑owned business with 12 years of operating experience and said the process did not provide an opportunity for oral interviews or clarifying presentations that vendors often use to supplement written proposals.

Other public commentators raised concerns about possible conflicts of interest, noting relationships between the successful bidder and individuals involved in prior selection and oversight. Procurement leaders said they would take committee questions back to the Boston Police Department and other implementing agencies for clarification and that, at a high level, the city does have mechanisms to amend or terminate contracts if needed.

Committee members asked administration staff to provide: a timeline of the RFP process; documentation of vendor outreach and advertising steps; the evaluation committee membership and scoring; and whether the city could provide more detailed, vendor‑specific feedback after evaluations. No formal council vote or rescission was taken at the hearing; witnesses agreed to follow up with requested documentation and to consider whether future procurements could further increase discoverability and local participation.

Ending

The committee requested additional documentation from procurement and implementing departments and signaled it may revisit the procurement if the follow‑up raises procedural concerns.