Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Security Contract topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board delays award of security contract after union and staff clash over low bid
Summary
Union members and school staff warned the San Francisco Unified School District board that awarding the security contract to a nonunion low bidder could cut wages and undermine safety. District staff said Silicon Valley Security was the lowest responsible bidder under state contracting rules; the board postponed final action pending legal review and additional information.
The San Francisco Unified School District board on Aug. 12 postponed final action on a proposed security-services contract after more than an hour of public comment and board questioning about wages, vendor selection and the district’s legal obligations.
Several speakers representing SEIU Local 2047, security officers and the United Educators of San Francisco urged the board to reexamine the bid that would hand the district’s security work to Silicon Valley Security, a nonunion firm. Emily Heath, secretary-treasurer of SEIU Local 2047, said awarding the contract to a nonunion vendor “threatens those standards” built by unionized officers. Security officers who spoke — including Bob Neal and Keith Ward — said lower wages and reduced benefits would likely follow a low bid and could cost the district experienced, school-based officers who they say provide more than gatekeeping.
“Bringing in a nonunion company … you’re gonna lose a lot of security officers,” Keith Ward said, adding that unionized officers have fought for higher pay and benefits over the prior months.
District facilities chief David Golden told the board the district rebid the contract after the previous vendor’s renewal limit was reached. He said the purchasing office and outside counsel reissued the RFP and received six responsive bids; under the state contracting code the lowest responsible bidder was Silicon Valley Security Patrol. Golden said the district had conducted due diligence on the bidder’s financials, bonds and insurance and that the winning bidder would assume responsibilities previously held by Securitas, including security at several district sites.
Board members pressed staff on whether the district could preference union bidders, whether prevailing-wage rules applied, and whether current site-based officers could be retained. General counsel and outside counsel said the board would need to review public-contracting laws to determine what selection factors the board could permissibly consider beyond the “lowest responsible bid” standard.
Several board members asked staff to provide more detail about which bidders were unionized, the prevailing wages and benefits each bidder proposed, and the legal ramifications of deviating from the lowest-responsible-bid process. Commissioner Kim specifically requested an itemized comparison of prevailing wages and benefits.
Given those outstanding questions, the board agreed to remove the security-item for first reading and to return it at a subsequent meeting after legal review and additional procurement detail. The rest of the previously pulled consent items were adopted.
The board did not make a final award or vote on the security contract on Aug. 12; instead it directed staff and counsel to provide further documentation and legal analysis before taking a final vote.
