Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4917 ...... RESOLUTION NO. 4917 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ARCADIA OVERRULING THE PROTEST OF YELLOW CAB COMPANY OF SAN GABRIEL VALLEY REGARDING THE PROCESS FOR SELECTION OF A DIAL-A-RIDE OPERATOR FOR THE CITY OF ARCADIA AND MAKING FINDINGS OF FACT IN RELATION THERETO. Whereas, on Tuesday, October 7, 1980 the Arcadia City Council held a hearing to review the protest of O. D. Stalians, President of Yellow Cab Co. of San Gabriel Valley, also known as Yellow Cab of El Monte, herein- after referred to as "YCCSGV", regarding the City Council of the City of Arcadia's instruction to Staff to negotiate a contract with Community Transit Services, Inc. to operate the City of Arcadia's Dial-A-Ride system: and WHEREAS, Mr. O. D. Stalians and all other persons were given full opportunity to be heard at said hearing: NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Arcadia, California does hereby resolve as follows: SECTION 1. Based on the testimony and written documentation sub- mitted at said hearing, as well as all written documentation and testimony submitted at the September 2, 1980 and September 16, 1980 public hearings conducted by this City Council on the City of Arcadia Dial-A-Ride contract, we hereby make the f~llowing findings of fact: A. By March of 1980 the City of Arcadia was receiving poor service from its existing Dial-A-Ride operator and the operator failed to maintain the required proof of insurance, creating likely possibility the City would be required to obtain the services of a new operator within a few weeks to ensure that dial-a-ride service to the community would not be interrupted. B. In April,. 1980, Mr. George Watts, Assistant City Manager of the City of Arcadia contacted YCCSGV through its Executive Director, Peggy Beeks, who indicated they would be interested in submitting a proposal to operate Arcadia Dial-A-Ride. 'C; On April 4, 1980, Ms. Beeks and YCCSGV consultant, Mr. Clyde Sweet, met with Mr. George Watts in his office. During initial contact with Ms. Beeks, and at the April 4, 1980 meeting, Mr., George Watts explained: 1. That the City of Arcadia was informally soliciting proposals rather than going through a formal bid process or a formal request for proposal process because the current operator had not provided the City with proof of the required insurance, and that it was very likely that we would have to obtain a new operator within a matter of weeks, even possibly days, if the dial-a-ride service to the City was not to be inter- rupted. 2. That the immediate urgency of the situation did not allow us sufficient time to develop and advertise a formal written request for proposal. -1- 4917 3. That the evaluations of the proposals would not be solely or principally on the basis of cost, as the City Council was also concerned about management, supervision, maintenance and training because of the problems in those areas with the current operator. 4. That the City Council would select the operator deemed most responsive and qualified with which to negotiate a formal contract. Mr. Sweet and Ms. Beeks indicated that they understood the need for following that procedure, and that they had no objection to it. Mr. Watts then provided them with operating data, answered their questions concern- ing the City's operation, and explained the parameters within which the proposals were to be made, including hours of operation and maximum res- ponse times. They were provided the same information the other two operators who submitted proposals received. Mr. Sweet and Ms. Beeks stated that they would be most happy to submit a proposal on that basis. Subsequent to the April 4 meeting, Mr. Watts had several telephone conver- sations with Ms. Beeks and Mr. Sweet and also met with them again, The City Manager, Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tern, and Mr. Watts also toured their facility, at which time Ms. Beeks and Mr. Sweet provided Mr. Watts with their revised proposal. At no time did they express an objection to the selection process. D. During the last week of March and the first week of April, 1980, the Assistant City Manager also orally solicited proposals from the San Gabriel Valley Cab Company (the existing dial-a-ride operator), and Community Transit Services, Inc. The City was also contacted by Americab, Inc. (the current taxicab operator in the City), as well as by a group of independent taxicab drivers who expressed an interest in making a proposal. The City asked each to submit proposals, in keeping with the UMTA Guidelines, to honor to the maximum extent practicable, reasonable requests by other sources. However, both subsequently declined to submit proposals. E. The Assistant City Manager explained to each of the prospective proposers the reason for the oral request for proposals, the information to be included in the proposals, and the selection procedure. The request for proposals contained information sufficient to enable the prospective proposers to properly prepare their proposals. The informa- tion provided included hours of operation, maximum acceptable response time, equipment and vehicles to be provided by the City, and cost data requirements. The existing contract was provided to each propspectivepro- posers, which contained contract clauses desired by the City. Opera- tional data for the current year was also provided to each prospective pro- posers. All significant evaluation factors were communicated to each of the proposers. Those factors included price, management, supervision, maintenance programs, training programs and experience with dial-a-ride operations. The relative importance of the factors in descending order was not communicated. However, management, supervision and maintenance was stressed to each of the proposers because of recent problems in 4917 -2- / those areas with the current operator. It was further explained to each that the selection procedure would involve the Arcadia City Council's evaluation of the proposals submitted, followed by the selection of the operator determined to be most qualified and responsible with whom to negotiate a contract. Should the City Council fail to reach agreement with first operator selected, the next operator deemed most qualified and responsible would be asked to negotiate a contract, Each of the prospective offerors stated that they understood the need for and had no objections to the procedures being followed, and each subsequently submitted proposals. In using this selection process, the City of Arcadia .has encouraged maximum competition and has attempted to eliminate, in- sofar as possible, any restrictive features that might limit competition. F. The City of. Arcadia had been advised by its consultant that it has been UMTA's'historic practice not to require the application of the third party contract guidelines for the selection of a transit operator where UMTA Section 5 operating assistance funds are used. These are the UMTA funds used to partially finance the oial-A-Ride operation. The Arcadia Oial-A-Ride has been in operation since 1975 and has been receiving UMTA Section 5 operating assistance funds since then. At no times have we been required to follow the third party contract guidelines or to"submit an operator contract for review and/or approval by UMTA, SCAG or LACTC pursuant to the third party guidelines. Subsequent to receiving YCCSGV's protest letter, the staff at LACTC was contacted and confirmed the City's understanding that, as standard practice, the third party guidelines are not applied to UMTA Section 5 operating assistance with respect to selection of a contract operator. The City of Arcadia's consultant also contacted the UMTA San Francisco office, and was told that the guide- lines have not been applied to such matters. The City of Arcadia knows of no transit system that is required to follow the guidelines for selection of an operator. G. Recognizing the value of the UMTA guidelines (specifically UMTA 4220.1, Chapter III - Negotiation), the City o~ Arcadia attempted to follow them as closely as practicable, given the circumstances at the time. However, as a result of the unusual urgency, with ~he services being needed at once, the City orally solicited proposals from prospec- tive operators, and determined that the public exigency would not permit the delay incident to preparation, advertising, and distribution of a formal, written request for proposals; it was, however, the City of Arcadia's intention throughout the process to maximize competition to the extent practicable. H. The City of Arcadia has also attempted to follow the UMTA Section 5 contract requirement that the applicant will make all purchases under -3- 4917 any grant through competitive bidding in accordance with the applicant's established procedures. I. The services for which proposals were sought are unique and not sufficiently subject to competition and are, therefore, not subject to any competitive bidding procedure of the City of Arcadia, and even if they were, such procedure is hereby expressly waived. The City has followed similar procedures for the award of refuse and cable television franchises for the City. J. In reliance upon the lack of objection from YCCSGV and other pro- posers, the City of Arcadia proceeded to receive and consider the pro- posals of each. K. That after April 16, 1980, the City of Arcadia received a proposal accompanied by the following letter from O. D. Stalians, President of YCCSGV: YEl.LOW CAB CO. OF SA1\ GABRIEl. VAl.LEY P,O. Bo.'\ 5.tSg .- II i.J7 Valley BIni. EI Mlln(~. California 917.14 Phone (:!IJ) 4-18.<)ltd. 962-2491. :!X7~155R April 16. 1980 Mr. George J. Watts Assistant City Manager City of Arcadi a 240 West Huntington Drive Arcadia, California 91006 Dear t.1r. \'iatts: In response to your request at the,meeting of April 4 th, we are submitting our proposal for the operation of the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride. The current service requests and ridership (week of 3-10) is showing 80 and 76 weekday operations. Initially. this would indicate that: 2 sedans would be adequate for providing a regular 30 minute response service. The 1978-79 ridership demand of 9S passengers per day would also support this level of service. Based on your discussions with Mrs. Beeks and Mr. Sweet, we are providing you with a cost proposal which identifies a number of the various options available to you. We are also -4- 4917 enclosing a copy of our Experience and Qualifications State- ment. For your information, we are also enclosing a copy of the level C State Controller's report which is used in one of our other systems~ We trust that you will find our proposal to be satisfactory and we look forward to being of continuing service to the City of Arcadia. Yours very truly. O.;J; ~ 'C4<A--'-J ~ O. D. Stalians President L. On April 22, 1980 the City received the required proof of insurance from the current dial-a-ride operator, the San Gabriel Valley Cab Company. This eliminated the immediate urgency of obtaining the services of a new operator. The Assistant City Manager communicated this informa- tion to each of the proposers, and each stated that they had no objection to continuing with the existing process rather than have the City stop the process and prepare a formal, written request for proposal. By this time the operators had submitted their proposals to the City. The Arcadia City Council did, however, request that each proposer submit additional information, and each did. M. Meetings and telephone conversations were held with each of the pro- posers, both before and after the proposals were submitted to the City of Arcadia, in order to resolve any uncertainties. Certain members of the City of Arcadia City Staff and two Councilmembers also toured the pro- posers' facilities. In keeping with the UMTA guidelines, no information was conveyed to any of the proposers which would give them a competitive advantage, and the city's solicitation did not disclose a ceiling or budget price. N. On September 2, 1980 the Arcadia City Council held a public hearing to consider the proposals submitted and to allow the proposers to make oral presentations and answer any questions of the Council. At the con- clusion of the hearing, the Council continued the matter in order to obtain additional information from each of the proposers. On September 16, 1980 the City Council considered the additional information sub- mitted, and allowed each of the proposers another opportunity to address -5- 4917 the Council. At no time during this process did YCCSGV protest.the use of this procedure, nor did O. D. Stalians speak or protest despite being present at said hearing. The Council then unanimously voted to direct Staff to negotiate a contract with Community Transit Services, Inc., which the Council had determined to be the most qualified and responsible operator. O. On September IB, 19BO, the City received a letter from Mr. O. D. Stalians, President of the Yellow Cab Company of the San Gabriel Valley, protesting the City Council's decision to negotiate a contract with Community Transit Services, Inc. In keeping with OMB . Circular A-I02, Attachment 0, the City followed its protest procedures by allowing Mr. Stalians to formally address the City Council with respect to his protest at its meeting of October 7, 1980. Mr. Stalians did present his protest at that meeting. The Assistant City Manager responded to the points of protest summarized as follows: 1. Representatives of the YCCSGV agreeq to, and at no time.prior to th~ Arcadia City Council's decision, objected to, the pro- posal process and selection procedure utilized by the City. 2. The YCCSGV was aware that the contract would not be awarded solely on the basis of cost. 3. The YCCSGV is not a local taxicab operator, 4. Community Transit Services, Inc., is the most experienced of the three proposers in providing dial-a-ride transit. CTS' proposal was the most responsive with respect to management, supervision, and training. CTS offered the most professional and sophisticated dispatching system. P. That Peggy Beeks of YCCSGV informed City of Arcadia Assistant City Manager, Mr. George Watts, on more than one occasion that YCCSGV no longer provides taxicab service and has not done so since January, 19BO. Q. That YCCSGV has never had a permit to provide taxicab or any other service to the City of Arcadia. -6- 4917 R. That YCCSGV never has been and is not presently a local Arcadia taxicab operator, and that award of the Arcadia dial-a-ride contract to another private operator would not be in competition with, nor to the detriment of YCCSGV's operation in El Monte. SECTION 2. That based on aforedescribed findings of fact, we hereby further find and determine: A. That the Arcadia Dial-A-Ride contract was not a "purchase" as that term is used under UMTA guidelines. B. That the City of Arcadia's local bidding procedures are not applicable to such contract. C. That UMTA third party contract guidelines have not been and are not applicable-to UMTA Section 5 operating assistance grants to the City of Arcadia. D. That despite the inapplicability of the third party contract guidelines, the City of Arcadia has substantially complied with their provisions. E. That YCCSGV and the other proposers 'legally waived applicability of such guidelines. F. That YCCSGV's protest is hereby overruled. -7- 4917 SECTION 3. That the Clerk of the Council shall certify to the adoption of this resolution. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing at a regular meeting of the City Council of held on the 4th day of November, 1980 of at least three Councilmen, to wit: resolution was adopted the City of Arcadia by the affirmative vote AYES: Councilmen Gilb, Haltom, Saelid and Pellegrino NOES: Councilman Dring ABSENT: None SIGNED AND APPROVED this 4th day of November, 1980. ArcadJ.a ATTEST: ~A~~~a~ City C erk - -8- 4917