Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Local Hire topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palmdale approves three-year security contracts with Good Guard Security Services; city asks for local-hire reporting
Summary
The Housing Authority and City of Palmdale approved master agreements with Good Guard Security Services covering a three-year term. Council members pressed staff for regular reporting on local hires after staff said the contractor has already hired 35 local guards toward a 55–60 guard requirement.
The Palmdale Housing Authority and the Palmdale City Council voted unanimously to approve three-year master agreements with Good Guard Security Services, a vendor that will provide security staffing to both agencies.
City staff presented the agreements during the joint consent portion of the meeting, stating the contracts cover multiple years and include specific “not to exceed” dollar figures. The staff report said the Housing Authority portion is not to exceed $2,858,000, and the city portion was stated in the presentation as $7,000,429,900. Staff and several councilmembers discussed the unusually large city figure during the meeting.
The council’s discussion centered on the contractor’s local-hire efforts. Staff said the contract requires roughly 55 to 60 guards to fulfill the work and reported the contractor has already hired 35 locally. Councilmembers asked staff to require or at least to monitor local hiring, and several asked for periodic reporting. Staff responded that they could request regular workforce reporting and suggested a semiannual performance evaluation showing how many hires came from the Antelope Valley.
Housing Authority commissioners moved and seconded approval of the Housing Authority agreement and voted unanimously. The City Council then moved and seconded approval of the city agreement and also approved it unanimously.
The contracts themselves, as presented in the meeting packet, did not contain a mandatory minimum local-hire threshold; staff said they would work with the contractor to obtain reporting and to monitor compliance with the contractor’s hiring goal. Councilmembers who spoke called for a semiannual update or reporting mechanism so the council could verify that hiring goals were being met.
The meeting record does not list a contract number or additional procurement details in the discussion; those items were not specified in the staff presentation on the record. The council did not amend the agreement’s dollar limits during the meeting.
Ending: City staff indicated they will follow up with the contractor to request workforce reports showing local hires and suggested a semiannual evaluation to be provided to the council; a timeline for that reporting was not specified on the record.
