Correspondence - #12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

conditions. We suggest you go look at them for yourselves.) Furthermore, we never failed to attend any meetings called by City staff, or not perform any extra work that was requested by them. We are mystified by the Staff Report that asserts there are extra services in the scope of work for this new agreement which include Bi-Monthly Scarifying, adding infield mix and annual laser grading. None of these are new, and this is a materially false representation. I've attached an electronic copy of RFP 19-093 and if you look on page 19 these tasks were all part of the current scope of work and are not new or different. It appears as though this misrepresentation is made to justify paying over $114,000.00 per year more (and almost $700,000.00 more over the full term of the contract) to our competitor than the pricing we proposed. We understand that this was an RFP, and there are multiple factors that go into the award decision. However, having done this work for almost 40 years and looking at the finished products in all four Districts today, we believe there are serious questions that should be asked before the City spends over 30 percent more of its taxpayers' dollars for comparable quality and service. I look forward to your response. Upload a file • RFP-19-093-Infield-Ball-Diamond-Maintenance-final.