Council hears procurement briefing; staff recommends piggybacking Rosemead tree‑trimming contract, item 16 returned for later action

City staff explained the city’s procurement toolbox and defended use of piggyback or cooperative purchasing to fill ongoing maintenance needs while preserving transparency and legal compliance.

Director Noy Negrete said the piggyback option under consideration would let Pico Rivera use Rosemead’s recent competitive RFP — which received eight bids with West Coast Arborists as the low bidder — rather than conduct a full RFP of its own. "We went through at least five cities that had recently bid their tree‑trimming contract," Negrete said. "Of those five we only found two that had the same services, and Rosemead had the best fit and price for us." He said staff vetted Rosemead’s process, verified eight reputable bids, confirmed the scope matched Pico Rivera’s needs, and that legal review was completed before bringing the item to council.

Negrete gave specifics of the proposed contract and the evaluation: the initial term would be three years with a two‑year extension option; the city’s inventory is about 11,600 trees and the annualized prices vary by zone because the city is divided into three service grids. He said the largest single‑year price increase compared with the city’s prior contract was about 1.44 percent, and that overall increases were close to 1 percent compared with a five‑year‑old bid. He also described a no‑cost tree inventory/GIS service included in the piggybacked contract that staff said would improve the city’s work history tracking.

Councilors pressed staff on oversight and vendor quality. Several members noted that the lowest bid is not always the best measure of contractor fitness and raised concerns about chasing too‑low prices that later trigger disputes, time delays or litigation. Negrete described the city’s checks: legal review, internal evaluation teams that score proposals for professional services, and a separate process for construction contracts that rely on low‑bid rules.

Council member Valada moved to pull item 16 from tonight’s consent calendar and bring it back for council consideration at the next regular meeting so the body could formally act after having this discussion; Mayor Gustavo Camacho seconded. The council did not vote on the underlying contract at tonight’s meeting. Staff said the item will be re‑noticed and returned for a future vote.

What’s next: Item 16 will be placed on a future agenda for formal council action; staff said they are prepared to provide additional documentation on the Rosemead RFP and the full price comparison when the item returns.