HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 01061987 - 1.54 x._054
HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA
TO: - BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS DATE: December 16, 1986
FROM:
Perfecto Villarreal , Executive Director cc:
SUBJECT:
REJECT ALL BIDS FOR SECURITY SERVICES AT EL PUEBLO, CAL 11-5, PITTSBURG
AND ADVERTISE FOR NEW BIDS
I. RECOMMENDED ACTION:
REJECT all bids for security services at El Pueblo, CAL 11-5, Pittsburg, and
advertise for new bids on the basis of 24 hours per day, seven days per week on an
hourly rate only for both armed and unarmed guards, as recommended by the Advisory
Housing Commission.
II. FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The 1986 Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program funding for E1 Pueblo,
CAL 11-5, Pittsburg, will cover $14,000 per month for 24 hours per day, seven days
per week security services. The Housing Authority Local Management Fund Reserves
will cover the remainder of the monthly security services cost.
III. REASONS FOR RECOMMENDATION/BACKGROUND:
Argus Security, the agency currently suppyling security services at El Pueblo,
has lost its liability insurance. As a result, the Advisory Housing Commission voted
to solicit bids for the security services at El Pueblo. Additionally, the 1986 CIAP
program for El Pueblo contains a request for funding of security services for two
years, and competitive bidding would be necessary for this service. Currently the
Housing Authority is paying $41,000 per month for security services from the Local
Management Fund Reserves. The CIAP program- will allow $14,000 per month for 24-hour
coverage and the Housing Authority Local Management Fund Reserves will pick-up the
remainder of the cost.
Four bids were received, however, only the bids from Argus Security and
Pinkerton are competitive. Argus quoted on the basis of four security guards and
Pinkerton quoted on the basis of three security guards. After discussion of these
bids with the Policy & Strategy Committee of the Advisory Housing Commission, the bid
documents were submitted to County Counsel for review .and recommendation. It is the
opinion of County Counsel that either of two courses may be followed: 1. Award the
bid to Pinkerton as the lowest responsible bidder; or, 2. Reject all bids and
advertise for new bids.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT:__z YES SIGNATURE:
RECOMMENDATION OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR RECOMMENDA ON OF BOARD COMMITTEE
APPROVE OTHER
SIGNATURE(S)
ACTION OF BOARD ON January 6 , 1987 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER
VOTE OF COMMISSIONERS
_.X.... UNANIMOUS (ABSENT "- ) I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS A TRUE AND
AYES: NOES: CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND
ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD
OF COMMISSIONERS ON THE DATE SHOWN.
cc: County Administrator ATTESTED January 6 . i987
County Counsel Phil Batchelor, Clerk of the
mousing Authority / Board of Commissioners
l
M382/7-93 BY DEPUTY
Board of Commissioners
December 16, 1986
Page -2-
At its Regular Meeting on Monday, December 15, 1986 the Advisory Housing
Commission voted to recommend that all bids be rejected for security services at El
Pueblo, CAL 11-5, Pittsburg and advertise for new bids on the basis of 24 hours per
day, seven days per week security service on an hourly rate only for both armed and
unarmed guards.
IV. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION:
Failure to reject all security bids as recommended by the Advisory Housing
Commission would result in the award of the security services contract for El Pueblo
to the Pinkerton Company on the basis of three security guards per shift, 24 hours
per day, seven days per week. The Housing Authority would not be able to readvertise
for bids on the basis of an hourly rate which would provide the Housing Authority
greater flexibility in making adjustments for security guard coverage during the
period of the security services contract.