Council splits on branding RFP after audit prompts questions about procurement and conflicts

The Huntington Beach City Council spent more than two hours debating a controversial request for proposals (RFP) for creative strategy, merchandising, media communications and a film office after a privately authored audit prompted questions about procurement, conflict of interest and whether the consultant who wrote the audit had an unfair advantage.

Mayor Casey McKeon and several council members argued the work could create ongoing revenue, capture city intellectual property and unify marketing systems. "We own that logo by right of first use now — we should be able to capture that value," the mayor said during deliberations, describing the potential for licensing and merchandising.

But critics, including Councilman Andrew Grull and other speakers, said the sequence — a paid audit followed by an RFP whose scope closely mirrors that audit — risked creating the appearance that the consultant had shaped the city’s needs then stood to benefit. Council member Gruul moved to terminate or reconfigure the RFP approach, saying the documents created a "three-stage handoff: audit, mayor statement, then RFP" that could leave the process vulnerable to legal challenge.

The council rejected the motion to terminate the RFP (vote 3–4). Instead the council created an ad hoc committee to review incoming proposals and help staff vet submissions; membership for the ad hoc was set by majority vote (members appointed as part of the motion). Supporters said the ad hoc will provide "horsepower" — additional council expertise — to review what proponents said were dozens of incoming proposals and produce recommendations for full-council deliberation.

City Attorney Mike Bigliotta told the council outside counsel had reviewed the legal concerns, and he said his office would prepare a memorandum assessing conflicts and procurement implications; he also recommended possible municipal-code updates to clarify professional services procurement.

Treasurer staff confirmed the consultant's business-license application with the city was filed April 6, after the $30,000 audit had already been delivered; council members said that mismatch prompted the city to tighten procurement and payment processes going forward.

Council members emphasized that any contract award would still require a public council vote. "This RFP is in process; let the proposals come in and let's evaluate them," a council supporter said. Opponents said speed and unclear procurement steps had damaged public trust and urged a public study session and clearer, formalized bid procedures before any award.

The RFP remains open; staff said submissions would be reviewed by staff and the newly created ad hoc, with any recommended award returned to council for final public action.