Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Fee Study topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Palmdale council pauses Willdan fee‑study amid questions over $150,000 contract cap
Summary
Councilmembers pressed staff on why Willdan—s submitted fixed fee (~$39,730) sits under a not‑to‑exceed $150,000 contract cap; concerns included post‑RFP scope creep, confidentiality of evaluator identities, and bidder cost transparency. Council voted to table the item pending disclosure of proposals and evaluation materials.
The Palmdale City Council on Tuesday paused approval of a fee‑study contract with Willdan Financial Services after several council members pressed staff for clearer disclosure of bids, scores and the rationale for a $150,000 not‑to‑exceed cap.
Staff said Willdan proposed a fixed fee of about $39,730 to conduct a comprehensive cost‑of‑service and user‑fee study but recommended a contract not to exceed $150,000 to allow for unforeseen follow‑up work (staff remarks, SEG 268–279; SEG 420–426). Councilmembers repeatedly questioned the size of that contingency and asked why other proposers— cost proposals and the evaluation materials were not in the staff report (SEG 415–433; SEG 503–521).
Councilmember Andrea (first name on the record as "Andrea") said the $110,000 buffer above Willdan—s fixed fee appeared excessive and could expose the city to procurement challenges if scope changes after the RFP (SEG 428–436; 4.3 discussion). Councilmember Loa and others pressed for the cost proposals and a record of the evaluation committee—s scoring; staff said score sheets are available but identities of individual evaluators have historically been treated as confidential (SEG 361–376; SEG 515–523).
City staff and the city manager said additional follow‑up work could arise after the initial study and that the larger cap would accommodate that work without interrupting the study, but acknowledged the council—s concern about transparency (SEG 420–437). Council members argued the city could approve a smaller cap and amend the contract later if needed; one motion proposed reducing the cap to $50,000 (SEG 627–633; SEG 896–902).
After debate, the council voted unanimously to table the item and direct staff to return with the competitive proposals, the cost proposals, the evaluation criteria and an explanation of other existing contracts with the selected consultant (motion to table passed unanimously; SEG 981–1024). The item will return with additional procurement documentation so council can consider the staff recommendation with the competing prices and scoring evidence.
What happens next: Staff was asked to provide the four proposals, the scoring matrix, a list of any other contracts the consultant holds with the city and a clearer explanation of the $150,000 cap before the council considers re‑awarding the work.
Sources: Staff presentation and back‑and‑forth with city council (items and exchanges summarized in SEG 265–1024).
