My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
CORRESPONDENCE - 25F
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
11/18/2014
>
CORRESPONDENCE - 25F
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/21/2016 3:39:04 PM
Creation date
11/17/2014 11:56:53 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
25F
Date
11/18/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
rya <br />November 18, 2014 <br />Maria Huizar <br />Clerk of the Council <br />City of Santa Ana ( "City ") <br />20 Civic Center Plaza, 8" Floor <br />Santa Ana, CA 92702 <br />Re: City Council Agenda Item No. 25F <br />Agreement with All Vision, LLC for Outdoor Advertising Management Services <br />Dear Ms. Huizar, <br />The purpose of this letter is to express our concerns with the staff recommendation and the proposed <br />agreement for the above referenced item. <br />As noted in the staff report, the City received two proposals in response to the Request for Proposal <br />(RFP) for Outdoor Advertising Management Services issued on May 30, 2014. 1 am the Managing <br />Director for TR Advisors, LLC, who submitted the other proposal in response to the RFP. <br />We have a number of issues with the proposed agreement: <br />The proposed agreement provides that All Vision may develop, construct and maintain signs on <br />City property. This right to be granted to All Vision directly contradicts the RFP. The RFP states <br />in the Introduction that the successful proposer "may not be directly affiliated with any <br />company whose primary business Is the construction or operation of outdoor advertising <br />products." The proposed agreement, with an expanded scope now allowing this dual role of <br />independent consultant and interested developer, cannot be the product of this solicitation. <br />The RFP, as issued, seeks an independent consultant to advise the City and work solely on its <br />behalf in the policies, plans and management for its outdoor advertising program. TRA <br />proposed to fill only that advisory role and was deemed qualified. We stand ready and able to <br />negotiate a contract based on our response to this RFP. If the City, despite the potential <br />conflicts, now wants both an advisor and developer, a new RFP must be issued to open the <br />development piece to the competitive process. To now allow the proposer to develop sites not <br />only flies in the face of the independent advisory role but also introduces an opportunity <br />specifically excluded from the RFP and never opened to full competition. <br />The dual role presents a potential conflict of interest which the RFP, as issued, sought to avoid. <br />The City is allowing All Vision to provide consulting services which gives it a significant role in <br />setting policy for an Outdoor Advertising Strategic Plan, while at the same time granting All <br />Vision the right to develop sites per its own recommendations. <br />o This would violate section 10365.5 of the California Public Contract Code which states: <br />"No contractor who has been awarded a consulting services agreement may submit a <br />bid for, nor be awarded a contract for the provision of services, procurement of goods <br />or supplies or any other related action which is required, suggested or otherwise <br />deemed appropriate in the end product of the original consulting services contract" <br />Although this code is applicable to State agencies, the wisdom of this good government <br />policy should be followed. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.