Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Security Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Subcommittee moves forward on HSA security contract after vendor lawsuit and management changes
Summary
The Budget and Finance Subcommittee recommended a retroactive contract modification for Human Services Agency security services after a contested RFP, out-of-court litigation between bidders and a negotiated award to the incumbent. The one-year contract includes three city-controlled option years and a modest hourly rate increase.
The Budget and Finance Subcommittee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Wednesday recommended forwarding a retroactive contract modification to provide security services for the Human Services Agency.
Dave Curto, director of contracts and facilities for Human Services, told the panel the department ran a competitive procurement in August 2013 and initially made a tentative award to Teton Security. "We completed that and we picked a winner, which was Teton Security," Curto said. Two protests followed; a separate lawsuit between Guardsmark and Teton alleging trade-secret issues led to a settlement and Teton’s withdrawal from the procurement. "It took approximately 100 days for the parties to settle their lawsuit," Curto said.
Because the successful bidder withdrew, Curto said the department followed procurement rules to negotiate with the next-ranked proposer, which was Guardsmark. Curto said the city negotiated a new one-year contract with three option years that are exercisable at the city’s discretion so the department can closely monitor performance. He flagged concerns about a change in local management at Guardsmark, noting the company is under a corrective action from City Services auditors and saying staff will "monitor their performance very carefully."
On financial terms, Curto told the committee the new contract "starts out at about $0.6 an hour higher than the old" contract, and the resolution description in the packet listed the total with option years at approximately $19,800,000. The clerk’s item description in the transcript named the vendor as "Garthmark LLC"; Curto’s presentation consistently referred to Guardsmark and the bidder Teton Security, and the record indicates the procurement and litigation involved Guardsmark and Teton. Because the transcript contains inconsistent vendor spellings and garbled date text, the committee report before the full Board should be consulted for the official contract parties and term dates.
Public comment during the item was brief and nonspecific. Curto moved approval; Vice Chair Eric Marr said the motion carried "without objection," and the committee recommended the item for the June 17 Board of Supervisors agenda.
Next steps: The item will appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda for formal consideration. The department said it will monitor Guardsmark’s performance closely and has option years under the city’s control if additional procurement is needed.
