Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Security topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
San Francisco school board rejects security-services bids after union objections
Summary
After public testimony from SEIU representatives warning that a nonunion vendor would undercut wages and benefits, the San Francisco Board of Education voted unanimously to reject all bids for a district security-services contract and directed staff to consider next steps, including reissuing the RFP.
The San Francisco Board of Education voted 7-0 on Aug. 26 to reject all bids for a one-year contract to provide security guards and patrol services, after several public speakers and board members raised concerns that awarding the contract to a nonunion vendor would reduce wages and benefits for existing officers.
Union representatives told the board the lowest bidder was nonunion and urged the district either to halt the award or to rework the bid process to permit "responsible contractor" language that would preserve livable wages and benefits. "We ask that you vote no on this and ... reexamine your bid process, to include responsible contractor language," SEIU representative Emily Heath told the board during public comment. Security officer Keith Ward said nonunion guards he spoke with earned substantially less and lacked health insurance.
District legal counsel said the original RFP did not include a union-or-responsible-contractor requirement, so that requirement could not be retroactively inserted into the current procurement. Counsel advised the board that it could reject all bids and reissue a revised RFP or approve the lowest responsible bid as submitted.
Several board members said the financial savings were modest compared with the potential impact on workers' wages and benefits. "It's my belief that not only is it morally important for union workers to be paid with public dollars, but also with benefits and pensions and good jobs," Commissioner Williams said. Multiple members said they would not support awarding the contract under the current specifications.
After debate, a motion to reject all bids carried unanimously. Staff told the board the district could continue month-to-month with the existing provider while the board directed whether to reissue an RFP or pursue other options.
The procurement under consideration covered security services at multiple schools and administrative offices and was described in staff materials as totaling $1,231,750 for the initial year (with possible extensions). Board members said they would return to the issue with additional legal analysis and, if directed, a revised procurement that could address wages and contractor standards.
