Los Angeles County

Metropolitan

Transportation

Authority

8~8 West Seventh Street

Suite 300Los Angeles, CA 9oo17

2~3.623..94

TO:

THROUGH

FROM:

SUBJECT:

July 19, 1993

FRANKLIN E. WHITE .~ ~" k~

APPROVE REQUISITION 3-9610-063, EXTENSIONOF INTERIM CONTRACT FOR CONTINUATION OFRED LINE JANITORIAL SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION

Consider the Chief Executive Officer’s report containingrecommendation and authorization to approve Requisition 3-9610-063,and extending the existing interim Metro Red Line janitorialservice contract with Petra Building Maintenance Company, SantaAria, at a monthly cost not-to-exceed $75,000 for a period of up tosix months, on a month-to-month basis until a plan is implementedfor the Transportation Communications Union (TCU) to take over themaintenance of the Metro Red Line. The total cost is not-to-exceed$450,000.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

i. Award contract under RFP 93-02 with Union Building MaintenanceCompany, Los Angeles, for a one-year period, with two one-yearrenewal options at an annual estimated cost of $643,320.

This alternative is not recommended because there arenegotiations commencing between the MTA and TCU regardingobligations under Article 13C Of the Collective BargainingAgreement and any contract awarded under the currentcircumstance would be subject to cancellation prior to itsexpiration, and may incur additional costs as a result of atermination for convenience.

Allow the existing interim contract to expire on July 31,1993, and authorize the Chief Executive Officer to negotiatean interim contract or contracts for janitorial services atthe Red Line Stations for up to six months in duration at anestimated cost not to exceed $75,000 per month.~

Board of DirectorsJuly 19, 1993Page 2

This alternative is not recommended because the FacilitlesMaintenance Department has determined it is not feasible tobring on a new interim contractor without major disruption inthe level of effort required to maintain the stations.

BUDGET IMPACT

This procurement is funded under Account No. 50307 of theAuthority’s FY93 Operating Budget.

BACKGROUND

A. Justification

Continuation of the services beyond July 31, 1993, by aprofessional janitorial firm are required for the Metro RedLine Stations.

B. Procurement Process

The RFP process was completed and a recommendation for awardwas presented to the Operations Committee on June 9, 1993.Subsequent to the recommendation of award, two protests werereceived and a question was raised on whether or not thejanitorial work described in the RFP scope of work should beperformed by one of the represented groups (TCU). Staff hasreviewed each protest and determined both to be without merit.Therefore, both protests were denied.

Pending resolution of the Article 13c issue of the CollectiveBargaining Agreement, the Operations Committee recommendationwas removed from the Board agenda for June, 1993. In order tocontinue interim janitorial services, the existing interimcontract was administratively extended by one month throughJuly 31, 1993, at a cost of $75,000.

Board of DirectorsJuly 19, 1993Page 3

CONCLUSION

In order to maintain the service requirements for clean Metro RedLine stations, it is requested that the Board accept the staffrecommendation to continue the interim Red Line janitorial contractfor up to six months (January, 1994), on a month-to-month basis.

~~r

/ I F~’lti~sVand Procurement

Robert Lewis, Manager

~a~tcili~dministrati°n

,~a~u~L. Como, a~~/g~r

Procurement

LQS ANGLES ~0~T~MET~ROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORIT~

REQUISITION JUSTIFICATION

Requisition No. 3-9610-063 Date 07/19/93

Grant No.

Estimated Cost $450,000

Identify Budget Source:~ern is lncluae~ in Operating P,u(~ge[ unaer ~ccoun~ =’qumber 50307

item is inciuoeo m Capital Budget. Identify Account Number. and AFE

If item is not included in either Operating or Capital Budgets, specify a proposed funding source.

Give a brief description of how item listed on requisition will be utilized. AMENDMENT FOR CONTRACT

#5786 TO PROVIDE JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE OF THE FIVE METRO RED LINE STATIONS ON A MONTH-

TO-MONTH BASIS FOR A SIX-MONTH PERIOD FROM AUGUST i, 1993 THROUGH JANUARY 31,1994.

Brieflyjustifythe procurement. Include costbenefits, ageand condition ofequipmentbeingreplacedo

TO PROVIDE JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE FOR THE FIVE METRO RED LINE STATIONS.

Briefly indicate how the procurement impacts both District-wide Objectives and Departmental Objectives,

Complete specifications must accompany requisition. The naming of a brand name is usually not an adequatestatement of specifications, as this requires qualifying an "approved equal." Specifications should be eitherperformance or technical specifications.

Suggested sources of supply, This should include vendors that have been contacted. ¯

PETRA BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.1505 W. ALTONSANTA ANA, CA 92704

ATTN: RAUL NUNEZ, (714) 513-9255

LOS ,ANG~ELE~ COUNTY METROP~ITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

- SUBGONTRACT PLANNING FORM -

SUMMARY OF GOODS OR SERVICES. SCOPE OF WORK, AND ESTIMATED VALUE.

JANITORIAL MAINTENANCE SERVICE FOR FIVE METRO RED LINE STATIONS

ESTIMATED COST: $450,000

OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBCONTRACTING? YES NO ~

IF YES, LIST ELIGIBLE TASKS OR ELEMENTS AND ESTIMATED VALUE.

IF NO. EXPLAIN.

EXISTING CONTRACTOR IS AN MTA CERTIFIED DBE

LIST OF POTENTIAL SOURCES, IDENTIFY AS PRIME (P), SUB (S), OR SUPPLIER (SP), ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY.

PETRA BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.1505 W. ALTONSANTA ANA, CA 92704

ATTN: RAUL NUNEZ, (714) 513-9255

3CPM-19~EV 4/93

ACCOUNTNO.

50307

Supplier:

REQUEST TO PURCHASELOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

OFFICE OF CONTRACTS, PROCUREMENT & MATERIEL(213) 972-5028

I A.F.E. NO. WORK ORDER/MODE I GRANT NO.I J(~( BUYER/CA

PETRA BUILDING MAINTENANCE, INC.

1505 W. ALTON

SANTA ANA~ CA 92704

ATTN: PAUL NUNEZ~ (714) 513-9255

SHIP Via:Payment Terms

P.O. No. 3-9610-063

; Reqn. No.

Order Placement Date

Jser Order Date 7/19/93

Description/Part NumberQuantity

JF.O.B.JUser

Please Ship To:

D 470 Bauchet StreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

~LACMTA425 S. MAIN STREET, 5TH FLOORLOS ANGELES, CA 90013-1393~TTN: C.;~]q~]~ A~. SERVTCES

Required DateI VendOrcommitmentDelivery I

Only order one class ofMateriel on a Requisition PRICE UNIT EXTENSION

AMEND CONTRACT #5786 TO PROVIDE JANITORIAL

MAINTENANCE OF THE FIVE METRO RED LINE STATIONS

ON A MONTH-TO-MONTH BASIS FOR A SIX-MONTH

PERIOD FROM AUGUST i, 1993 THROUGH JANUARY 31,

1994.

ESTIMATED COST: $450,000

Placed By: [] Telephone

REMARKS: DEPT CONTACT:

Originator ~~~’~ ~" "~BRIAN SOTO

[] Fax [] Mail With

STATE SALES TAX APPLICABLE []BRIAN SOTO~ 2-4790

TECHNICAL INS~P~TION REQUIRED []

Ext.2-47,0 Date7/19/93 Department Head ~/7~.~/~ Date~,/~~/~/~ED ~H / ¯

Date Date

OMB

] Authority SecretaryCEO

Purchasing Pane~

Buye~

A~siztant Director/OCPM

Directo~/OCPM

SEND (3) COPIES DIRECT TO OCPM

Los Angeles County Motropolitan Tmns~rtation Authority /0

DATE:

TO:

FROM:

SUBJECT:

APRIL 21, 1993

OPERATIONS COMMITTEE

FRANKLIN E. WHITECHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

APPROVE REQUISITION 3-9610-48, AND AMEND EXISTINGCONTRACT FOR METRO RED LINE JANITORIAL SERVICES

RECOMMENDATION

Consider Chief Executive officer’s report containing recommendationand authorization to approve Requisition No. 3-9610-48 and -mend anexisting contract with Petra Janitorial Services, Santa AnaHeights, to continue the provision of janitorial services for theMetro Red Line as follows:

Ao Ratify the expenditure of $41,000, covering additional costsincurred on the Metro Red Line for janitorial and maintenanceexpenses through April 30, 1993; end

B. Retroactive to May i,through June 30, 1993,$161,000.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED

1993, extend the existing contractat an additional estimated cost of

There is no alternative to Part A of this report. The Contractorperformed the services at the direction of the MTA. Not approvingthe request would result in a claim being filed by the Contractoragainst the MTA for the additional work already performed,

The alternative to Part B is to consider performing the serviceswith MTA staff. This alternative is not recommended because thelevel of effort to maintain the Metro Red Line stations at anacceptable level requires approximately twenty full-time employees.

IMPACT ON BUDGET AND OBJECTIVES

There is no added impact on the budget by approval of therecommendation contained in this report. Funds to cover theseexpenses have been included in the Operating budget for FY93.

818 W. Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017425 S. Main Street, i__r~_ Angeles, CA 90013

(213) 6~3-1194(21"3) 972~

Operations CommitteeApril 21, 1993Page 2

BACKGROUND

The RFP for Red Line Janitorial Services was scheduled to be releasedon December 28, 1992, with an anticipated award in March, 1993. TheRFP was delayed thirty days while staff attempted to define the levelof effort required to maintain the stations and grounds in anacceptable manner. Despite the delay, it was assumed that themodified schedule would still permit sufficient time to acquire thisservice prior to the anticipated Revenue Operating Date (ROD).

COST OVERRUN

When the ROD was accelerated to January 30, 1993, janitorial serviceswere required to prepare for grand opening ceremonies. Further, thedaily maintenance operation also had to begin commensurate with theROD. It was decided to utilize the services of the existing Blue Linejanitorial contractor on an interim basis until a new contract couldbe awarded. Recognizing the impact of the delay in the acquisitionprocess and the accelerated ROD date, staff received authorization toexecute an amendment to the existing Blue Line contract for interimRed Line janitorial services for a period of two months at anestimated cost of ~$75,000 per month. This item was approved by theBoard on February 25, 1993.

During the initial eight weeks of operation, actual patronage on theRed Line far exceeded pre-revenue estimates of patronage. Thisincrease in ridership necessitated far more attention and servicing ofthe floors and above station patios and grounds. In order to maintainthe areas in an acceptable manner, staff directed the Contractor toincrease the level of service resulting in unanticipated expendituresof approximately $41,000 above the authorized amount.

DELAY IN CONTRACT AWARD

Proposals were submitted on March 1, 1993. Eleven proposals werereceived ranging in price from $212,044 to $1,192,320 annually.The Proposal Evaluation Negotiation Committee (PENC) conducted theirevaluation based upon the established evaluation criteria in thecontext of the scope of work contained in the RFP.

Although it appeared in the minds of the PENC that the scope of workwas definitive enough, it was discovered that the additional serviceswhich caused the contract overrun had not been adequately addressed inthe RFP. It was determined that additional information must beobtained from all proposers to ensure that each proposer fullyunderstands the level of effort required to perform this contract inan acceptable manner.

Operations CommitteeApril 21, 1993Page 3

In order to accomplish this and ensure the integrity of the process offair and open competition, proposers are being, asked to submitmodifications to their submissions which reflect their understandingof the revised scope of work with any corresponding adjustments intheir pricing. This action will not alter the intent of the RFP, butwill ensure the appropriate level of effort required to cover a fullyear’s service and prevent having to amend the contract at a laterdate.

CONCLUSION

It is requested that the interim contract services be extended for anadditional sixty days at an estimated cost increase of $161,000. Thisamount includes a ten percent contingency for emergency type services.

Respectfully,

Franklin E. WhiteChief Executiv~ Officer

Executlve Offi~er, Administration

~ Faci~i~s ~aint~nance

Paul L. Como, DirectorOffice of ContractsProcurement and Materiels

May 19, 1993

TO: Paul Como

FROM: Pat Padilla,~

SUBJECT: DBE Goal for

MInterofficeMemo

Requisition No. 3-9610-0048; AmendJanitorial Maintenance; Received in EO/DBE Office onMay 18, 1993

By action of the Boar~ of Directors on August 8, 1991, Distriotstaff was ~irecte~ to "inorease the parti=ipation of all sooiallyand eoonomioallydisadvantaged groups by setting oontraot speoifiogoals on every suboontra=ting/pro=urement opportunity (includingamendments}." A prime consideration when establishing goals isthe number of DBEs available based on the type of opportunity.

The EO and OCPM Departments have established methodology fordetermining subcontracting/procurement opportunities and DBEavailability. The goal setting process requires minimuminformation which must be provided with all procurement requestsfor DBE analysis. This information is listed below:

Requisition signed by originating Department, ExecutiveStaff and OMB.

2. OCPM-accepted scope of work.

3. Sub-contract Planning form.

4. Basis for contract award.

5. Identification of the method of solicitation.

6. Points of contact for consultation.

a. OCPM and User office

If all of the above is included in the attached request, the goalthat is hereby established is to be considered final. If there aredeficiencies listed below, the goal is established on an interimbasis until all required documentation is provided for analysis.

The DBE Participation Goal for this procurement is 15%;

(If applicable) the following items are required for final goalsetting: No(s).6~

The DBE Representative for this procurement is Lupe Perez.

LosAngeles County Metropolitan Trap.spmtation Anthodty818West Seventh Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017425S, Main Street, Los Angeles, CA 90013

(213)623-1194

AI"I’ACHMENT ̄ "

Contract #5786

Revised Scope of Work for Janitorial ServicesEffective May 1, 1993

Regular Janitorlal Service - Dally

Patlos/Entrances - Dally

Communlcatlon Room Floors - Monthly

Complete Floor Care ’ --Strlp, scrub, seal, wax and buff allfloor surfaces at Unlon Station,Clvl(; Center, Pershlng Square andWestlake to be done twlce a month.7th/Metro to be done monthly.

Monthly Cost

$ 36,052

5,072

1,100

32,000

Total Monthly Cost: $ 74,224

REVJ0/91 "

ACCOUNT NO.

I A.F.E. NO.50307

Supplier:

SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA RAPID TRANSIT DISTRICTOFFICE OF CONTRACTS, PROCUREMENT & MATERIEL

(213) 972-5028

Brd Mtg 5/13/93Item No. 10

WORK ORDER/MODE BUYER/CA

PETR~ PL~INTEI~ANCE COMPANY, INC.

1505 West Alston

GRANT NO. I

Santa t~a, California 92704

Payment Terms SHIP Via: IF.O.B, User

RECEIVED

MAY 0 ~, 1993

P.O. No.

Reqn. Nol 3-9610-48

Order Placement Date__

User Order Date 04122193

Please Ship To:

~]470 BauchetStreetLos Angeles, CA 90012

NTA - General Services425 South Main StreetLos ~mgeles, California 90013

RequiredDate I VendOrcom.~.m., entDeiivery I

Quantity Description/Part Number Only order one class ofMaterial on a Requisition PRICE i[,,~:l, UNIT :EXTENSION~:

$41,000.00

~mend Contract #5786 to provide janitorialmaintenance of the five (5) Metro Red Linestations through June 30, 1993, as follows:

Additional costs for services provided dur-in~ March and Anr~1. 1993 (Att~chm~.t A Scope of Work for March and April).

Janitorial services per revised Scope ofWork for period from ~a7 I, 1993 throughNay 15, 1993 (Attachment B ~ Scope of Workfor May and. Jun~. 19933.

3. Janitorial services per revised Scopeof

$38,000.00

Work for neriod from May 16. 1993. throughJune 30. 1993.

Placed By: [] Telephone r] Fax [] Mail With

STATE SALES TAX APPLICABLEI-7REMARKS: Dept. Cont. : Brian Soto, ext. 2-4/~90 TECHNICAL INSPECTION REQUIRED

~ ~, S~reta~Dire~or/OCPM

SEND (3) COPIES DIRECT TO OCPM ~ ~/

~NCE

_//BUILDING MAINTE .....

S~ECIALISTS, INC.

14059 LANNING DRIVE ¯ WHITTLER, CALI~NIA 90(~5 .-~PH. 213-696-2718 FAX: 213-696-1229 ,.~J ,~1 !~ ?~2 : ~ ~

June 17, 1993

Metropolitan Transit AuthorityOffice of Contracts, Procurement and Material470 Bauchet StreetLos Angeles, Ca. 90012

RE:RFP NO. 9.3-02, Red line Stations Janitorial and Cr,.]flitiRemoval Services Protesl of Administrative Decision

in compliance wilh paragraph 1.11, Protest Procedures, of the subject RFPlBuilding Maintenance Specialists is submitting this protest at the Committee’sdecision to select Urlion lBuilding Maintenance as the contractor for fflis RFP.Further I am requesting the following information;

A. Schedule ol EBoard Meeting, time and place,for whi,.:h this RFP will be addressed.

lB. A copy oi the evaluation reports used to makethis de~:ision.

C. A copy ut the (.~;mmiltee report that was pulled in whi<:hlBMS was recommended as the contractor for [his RFPover Union Building Maintenance.

D. A list of all WBE contractors used by the M~Ain service and construction trades and contactpersons.

lBMS hires only from the communities il serves. All of our employees are paidwell above minimum wages, it, addition to health benefits, paid vacations, paid

holidays and sick days. P ease advise it the chosen con(rector pays suchbenefils which we feel are ne :essc]ry [o pul L.A. back to work.

BMS }s a certified WBE w;th tile M[A. I[ is our perception that Ltr/ion BuildingMdntenance is no[ a certified

BMS has built a reputation or~ honesty and an outstanding job pertormance. Ourclients have always been very satisfied with our quality of work, incIudir/g theMetro Blue Line. Our references are outstanding and include custodial servicesfor the Los Angeles limes fadfifies ;n Chatsworth, Los Angeles end various timesMirror facilities. In addition io our industrial custodial services and steamcleaning services BMS carries, e 6-5.5 State o{ California Contractors License:[his license is required by lhe Sta~e oi~ California [o provide graffiti controlservices tha~ require protective coalings and pant match;n9. We questionweather Union Building Mdntenance have ~he required license, experience orquaiifications.

BMS is concerned over the way this entire evGtualion was hGndled. Among myconcerns were tl’/at t was asked to appear before the Operolions Commiltee [oevaluate rny proposal with less than 24 hours notice, hardly enough time ~oprepare o complete presentation. Although there are other concerns, yourprompt response to the issues rased is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Ms. Kris ALbeePresident/CEO

A~g6ies County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Paul L. Como, DirectorContracts, Procurementand Materiel

Ms. Kris AlbeeBuilding Maintenance Specialists, Inc.14059 Lanning DriveWhittier, CA 90605

Dear Ms. Albee:

Subject: Protest of the Proposed Award of RFP No. 93-02, for theRed Line Stations janitorial and Graffiti RemovalServices

This letter is in response to your protest letter dated June 17,1993. As the Authority’s Contracting Officer, I have reviewedthe allegations raised in the letter in accordance with thePolicies and Procedures Manual of the Office of Contracts,Procurement and Materiel, Section 6.2, Protests Received AfterBid Opening, But Before Award and find that your protest iswithout merit and therefore denied. The following is thedetermination and findings of that review.

According to the referenced procedures, your letter does notconstitute an official protest. These procedures require that aprotest contain a clear statement of the basis for the protestand sufficient information to permit the issues to be understoodand considered. Your letter does not meet this requirement.

However, the following constitutes the Authority’s response toyour request for information.

i. Schedule of Board Meeting, time and place for which this RFPwill be addressed:

Date: Wednesday, June 23, 1993Time: Board meeting will begin at i:00 P.M.Place: Kenneth Hahn Hall of Administration Board Room

500 West Temple St.3rd FloorBoard of Supervisors’ Hearing RoomLos Angeles, CA

2. A copy of the evaluation reports used to make this decision.

Response: These reports are internal, confidentialdocuments not available for disclosure. However, you mayrequest a debriefing of this procurement after the Boardaward at which time the process is considered complete.

LE66/mw

470 BAUCHET STREET, P.O. BOX 2108, LOS ANGELES, CA 90051 (213) 972-5150

Ms. Kris AlbeePage 2

A copy of the Committee report that was pulled in which BMSwas recommended as the contractor for this RFP over UnionBuilding Maintenance.

Response: A contract award to BMS was never officiallyrecommended. According to the Authority rules andregulations, award recommendations are not official untilfully signed by the Authority’s Executive staff. In thereferenced procurement, the award recommendation which hasbeen presented and approved by Executive staff is one toUnion Building Maintenance.

4. A list of all WBE contractors used by the MTA in service andconstruction trades and contact persons.

Response: The Authority does business with number of DBE,WBE and MBE firms both in a capacity of prime contractorsand also as subcontractors. There is no unified listing ofthese firms available from this office. You may contact theMTA Equal Opportunity Office for a copy of the MTA certifiedDBE list.

Your letter also raised the following issues.

i. You asked if Union Building Maintenance pays above minimumwage and offer various benefits.

Response: The Authority can only require that Contractorscomply with existing legislation. The RFP did not requireany specific wage and benefit package be offered byproposers to its employees.

2. You state that BMS is a certified WBE and indicate thatUnion Building Maintenance is not a certified DBE.

Response: The Authority established a 35% DisadvantagedBusiness Participation (DBE) goal for this procurement. comply with this goal, each proposer was required to agreeto meet the goal using District certified DBE firms. UnionBuilding Maintenance complied with the goal.

If there are further questions regarding DBE compliance,please contact Ms. Pat Padilla (213) 972-4903 in theAuthority’s DBE Office.

LE66/mw

Ms. Kris AlbeePage 3

You state that BMS has a C-33 contractor’s license and statethat this license is required by the State of California forgraffiti control services that require protective coatingsand paint matching. You further question whether UnionBuilding Maintenance has this license.

Response: In response to the RFP, the recommended firm metall requirements including the C-33 license.

You state that an additional concern was that you were asked toappear before the Operations Committee to evaluate yourproposal. This statement is incorrect. A notice advising ofthe committee and Board meeting with the staff recommendationregarding this procurement was mailed to all proposers incompliance with OCPM procedures. This notice did not requestyou to appear before the Operations Committee nor make apresentation for purpose of evaluating your proposal.

It is our intent that the final disposition of award shall berendered by the MTA’s Board of Directors at their meeting onJune 23, 1993. The decision to deny the protest may be appealedto the MTA’s Board of Directors.

A copy of the MTA’s protest procedures is available upon requestso that you may know and understand the procedures necessary toprocess an appeal to the Board. By copy of this letter, allproposers shall be notified that a protest has been filed, thebasis of the protest and the MTA’s decision to deny the protest.

Sincerely,

Paul L. ComoDirector

LE66/mw

PROTEST

Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportahi0n Authority:.~-~OnOffice of Contracts, Procurement and Material470 Bauchet StreetP.O. Box 2108Los Angeles, CA 90051

June 15, 1993

Protestor: Petra Building Maintenance, Inc.1505 W. AltonSanta Ana, CA 92704

Re: RFP No. 93-02for Red Line Stations Janitorial and Grafetti RemovalServices

Dear Mr. Johnson,

Petra Building Maintenance, Inc. hereby files its protest ofthe Staff Recommendation of Union Building Maintenance for RFPNo. 93-02, which will be presented to the full Board of Directorsof LACMTA on June 23, 1993. Protest is hereby made on thefollowing grounds:

I) I was told that because Petra Building Maintenance wasdoing an "Excellent Job" on the Blue Line, I could be awardedthe Interim Red Line contract. I started the interim JanitorialMaintenance on the Red Line on January 28, 1993, and was toldto do minimal amount of cleaning to maintain the Red Line untila contract was awarded. MTA Management (formerly RTD) continuedto request additional janitorial services beyond the scopeof the contract. I indicated prior to assuming the Red Linejanitorial contract that the MTA Scope of Work would not beadequate to maintain the stations to MTA standards.

2) In the beginning of the months of March and April, PetraBuilding Maintenance, (PBM) received authorization from MTAManagement to do additional services beyond the scope of thecontract. PBM obtained information indicating that MTA Boardapproval would be necessary, prior to payment for servicesalready completed. To date, full payment for services alreadyrendered has not been paid and has resulted in substantialmonetary penalties for late payroll taxes.

Page I of 3

1505 W. Alton, Santa Ana, CA 92704 ¯ (714) 513-9255 ~ Fax (714) 513-9260

In April, MTA management requested Janitorial manpower schedulesfor the Blue and Red Lines Rail systems. In addition, MTAmanagement requested payroll records for PBM employees assignedto the Blue and Red Lines. Both requests were honored by PBMto MTA Management, but both requests were beyond the realm ofthe contract.

3) I presented a proposal to Ms. Amelia Earnest, ContractAdministrator, on Feb 16th for RFP 93-02 for Metro Red LineRail facilities. I appeared before the Proposal EvaluationNegotiation Committee (PENC) on March 10, 1993.I received a call from Duane Johnson, MTA Senior ContractAdministrator, stating that he now was going to take-over theproject from Ms. Earnest and that they were going to re-evalutethe bids, again.

4) On June 9th at 1:34 PM, I received a fax from Duane Johnson,Senior Contract Administrator, regarding RFP 93-02, that UnionBuilding Maintenance is being recommended for the award of thecontract. Mr. Brian Soto, Project Manager for the Metro RedLine, wasn’t even aware of this recommendion. I felt thisis strange since Mr. Soto is responsible for this project.Mr. Soto wasn’t even included in the final selection process.Because of the late notification by Mr. Johnson, I had no timeto prepare a defense for the Operations Committee meeting at9:30am the next morning.

5) At 9:30 am, I attended the meeting. I picked up the agendaand saw that we were on item #21. Also on the agenda whichwas presented to the Operations Committee it stated falseinformation about Petra. I verbally addressed these items tothe Committee.

6) Mr. Arthur Leahy’s letter dated May 27, 1993, to theOperations Committee has several errors within the narrativecomments pertaining to PBM:

no It is correct that I will be the Project Manager, butit is incorrect that I will "oversee the operationoff-site." I have and will continue to provide "handson" project management.

PBM does not feel, nor has the MTA Project Managerindicated that "far too many incidents of lack ofbaseline janitorial services" have not been performed.PBM has and will continue to provide satisfactorylevels of janitorial services within the scope ofthe established contract.

PBM currently has a sufficent amount of companyemployees assigned to the Red Line. The statementindicating that PBM "is going to hire substantiallyall the janitors and supervisors" is totally false.

Page 2 of 3

7) I would like to know if the PENC had established writtenquestions for each prospective contractor, during the evaluationinterview process? If not, I would believe that the entireinterview process could be prejudical.

8) I feel that a Conflict of Interest may result from havingtwo brothers in the same "Chain of Command" recommending UnionBuilding Maintenance.

9) Petra is 100% DBE minority owned and operated. UnionBuilding Maintenance will have to sub-contract with a DBE companyto fulfill the established 35% goal.

In closing, I feel that Petra Building Maintenance has and willcontinue to put an effort of 100% in all elements of thecontract.

I would like all responses to the elements contained withinthis protest to be in written form to me.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

RAUL E.President, Petra Building Maintenance, Inc.

cc:Richard Alatorre, Chairman of the MTA BoardEvan Braude, Chairman of the MTA Operations CommitteeErnesto Fuentes, MTA Inspector GeneralPaul Como, Director of OCPMBrian Soto, General Services Manager

Page 3 of 3

Angeles~6u~~y ~Miet/:bpolitan Transportation Authorit~y

Contracts, Procurementand ~,LaterieI

Mr. Raul Nunez, PresidentPetra Building Maintenance Co.1505 W. AltonSanta Ana, CA 92704

Subject: Protest of Award Recommendation for RFP 93-02, MetroRed Line Janitorial and Graffiti Removal Services

Dear Mr. Nunez;

In accordance with the MTA protest procedures section 6.2 ofArticle II-4 of the Contracts, Procurement & Materiel policiesand procedures manual, we have determined your protest datedJune 15, 1993 is without merit. This determination is basedupon the findings which correspond to the 9 points raised inyour protest. We feel it is necessary to distinguish betweenthe issues you raised that are relevant to the protest and thosethat relate to your current contract to provide the Red Lineinterim janitorial services.

1) A recommendation and Purchase Requisition from theFacilities Maintenance Dep~rtment was received in December,1992 by OCPM to amend the existing Blue Line janitorialcontract with Petra to perform interim Red Line janitorialservices for one month beginning January 28, 1993, the RedLine opening date. This requisition for $21,552 was basedon a scope of work submitted to you by FacilitiesMaintenance and your quotation based on this scope datedNovember 19, 1992. On February 6, 1993 you submitted arecommendation (sic) to add an additional 6 people per dayto the existing complement of janitors.

Contrary to the statement in your protest which alleges theMTA continued to request additional services beyond thescope of the contract, it appears that the interim Red Linejanitorial services contract contained all elements forperformance of the service when accepted by you, When yourequested the contract be amended to include 6 additionalpersons, you stated that the scope of services was notadequate to maintain the stations. We disagree with yourposition that the scope of work was not adequate. Webelieve there was an initial miscalculation of the level ofeffort or an inadequate work plan on the part of Petra.

LE67/mw

470 BAUCHET STREET, P.O. BOX 2108, LOSANGELES, CA 90051 (213) 972_5028, FAX(213) 972_5053. (213) 972_5745

Mr. Raul NunezPage 2

2)

This allegation is not germane to the issue of the Red Linejanitorial procurement process but relates to the currentBlue Line contract which was amended to provide interim RedLine Janitorial services. No inference for additionalconsideration in the RFP process can be drawn from the factthat you were recommended to perform interim Red Linejanitorial services.

Your Contract No. 5786 section 6.0 clearly states that allcontractual matters, aside from those of a technical natureshall be referred to the MTA’s Director of the Office ofContracts, Procurement & Materiel. Expanding the scope ofwork, thereby increasing the contract amount is clearly acontractual matter which is not within the scope of theProject Manager’s authority. Therefore, by performing theadded scope without proper authorization, your firm assumedthe risk of non payment.

When the unauthorized actions came to the attention of theContracts office, a meeting was scheduled for April 16,1993. At this time you were advised that these added scopeitems would require ratification by the Board of Directorsat the next Board meeting which the item could be placed onthe agenda. This item was approved by the Board at its May19, 1993 meeting.

As of this writing, all past due invoices have beenprocessed and paid. The June invoice, submitted by you onJune i, 1993, requests payment for services not yetperformed. This invoice will be processed in accordancewith the contract payment provision.

In reference to your comment regarding MTA managementrequests for information relating to this contract, pleasebe advised that the Facilities Maintenance Departmentdetermined that the schedule included with the base contractfor Blue Line services was not being adhered to. This factwas confirmed by you at a meeting held on May 4, 1993. Withyour acknowledgment of noncompliance with the Blue Lineschedule and the change requests for Red Line services, arequest was made to the MTA OIG for an interim audit of yourcontract. The purpose Of the audit was to determine if theMTA was receiving the services for which it contracted.Article 1 of Attachment "A" additional terms and conditions,permits MTA representatives to inspect and audit all recordsof the Contractor related to performance under this contractduring the period the contract is in effect.

LE67/mw

Mr. Raul NunezPage 3

4)

This allegation is not germane to the issue of the Red Linejanitorial procurement process but relates to the currentBlue Line contract which was amended to provide interim RedLine Janitorial services.

The process for selection is not concluded until such timeas award is made by the Board of Directors. The fact thatyour firm was called in for a second interview to clarifypoints missed during the initial evaluation is a part of theevaluation process. This is our way of ensuring that theprocess is in conformance with our procedures and that thereis a full understanding of each proposal.

The reason for conducting a second interview was to focus onthe experience of firms in handling large public facilitiesand 24 hour seven day a week operations, not simply toperform janitorial services for office buildings, warehousesor other facilities which may be large but do notnecessarily have daily patronage similar to the Red Line.All firms in the competitive range were requested to appearfor a second interview.

This allegation is germane to the RFP process. However, youhave not stated, and, we cannot conclude that the fact thatyou were requested to appear for a second interview toclarify your firm’s relevant experience somehow created abias against Petra.

Mr. Brian Soto was a member of the original ProposalEvaluation Committee. One of the reasons we reconstitutedthe proposal evaluation committee to re-evaluate theproposals and conduct second interviews was because of Mr.Soto’s absence from some of the interviews due to conflictsin his schedule.

The RFP states that the MTA shall appoint a ProposalEvaluation/Negotiation Committee. It does not requireinclusion of any specific individuals or individuals inspecific positions. The fact that Mr. Soto was not aware ofthe recommendation is attributable to the confidentiality ofthe process. The Facilities Maintenance Department wasrepresented by two members who are well qualified injanitorial type services.

LE67/mw

Mr. Raul NunezPage 4

5)

With regard to your allegation concerning notice toproposers, the MTA (formerly RTD) followed a practice notifying all proposers of award recommendations goingforward to the Board. There is no specific requirement foradvance notice or notice of committee meetings. Prior tothe creation of the MTA, Board and committee meetings underthe former RTD were generally held on the same day.

With regard to this notice, upon receipt of the finalcommittee agenda, OCPM notified all proposers by FAX as soonas was reasonably possible. Firms are not required to

~attend nor are they specifically requested to makepresentations before the committee or Board.

As stated by the Chair of the Operations Committee, thismeeting is not a forum for disappointed firms to lodgeprotests. The protest procedures contained in thesolicitation document clearly advises proposers of theprocedures to be followed in lodging protests of the award.However, it is anticipated.that if improprieties haveoccurred, they would be brDught to our attention prior tothe conclusion of the procurement process.

Protest based on timeliness of notice of committee meetingshave no merit.

Item 21 on the agenda was a recommendation of award of theRed Line janitorial contract. It did not state anyreference to Petra Building Maintenance being on the agenda.A review of your remarks before the Board indicates that youquestion the ability of the recommended firm to perform theservices for the price stated in the recommendation.

This allegation is germane to the RFP process but is withoutmerit. The in-house estimate for these services was between$600,000 to $900,00 depending on several variables,including payment of union and non-union wages and benefits.There was no specific requirement in the RFP regarding how aproposer elected to package its proposal.

LE67/mw

Mr. Raul NunezPage 5

6a) This project requires full time project management which inthe opinion of the PENC could not be performed by you whilecontinuing in your capacity as President and CEO of yourfirm. In addition, you are named as the project manager forthe Blue Line contract. The PENC questioned your ability toperform these duties while assuming full time responsibilityfor the Red Line contract. You stated in your secondinterview that you, as Project Manager, are made aware ofday to day activities and take care of problems as they arebrought to your attention. The duties of the ProjectManager require a person be committed full time toidentifying and solving problems before they require theattention of MTA management. This approach was not asacceptable as others proposed.

This allegation is germane to the RFP process but is withoutmerit. It was the opinion of the PENC that given yourcurrent responsibilities, your management approach to theproject could not be considered as the most favorable.

6b) An incident reporting syst6m is installed within theFacilities Maintenance Department to identify problems andobtain quick turnaround in correcting those problems,Information obtained from the incidents reporting system ispart of the procurement process and can be used in theevaluation to determine the likelihood of acceptableperformance in any future contract. This is not to say youdid not respond to and take care of problems when reportedto you.

One of the elements in evaluating the project plan is todetermine if the plan will minimize the number of incidentreports. In the opinion of the PENC, your project plan wasnot the most favorable.

6c) When questioned by the PENC regarding how you intended tostaff this project, you stated that Petra could not hirefull time janitors or supervisors until such time as acontract is awarded on a permanent basis. During theinterview, you indicated you would be hiring additionalsupervisors should you be awarded the contract. Althoughthis dilemma is faced by all firms competing for work ofthis nature, it was the opinion of the PENC that otherproposers had a better plan for recruitment and hiring offull time personnel for this project.

LE67/mw

Mr. Raul NunezPage 6

7)

These 3 sub-allegations are germane to the RFP but are foundto be without merit since it cannot be determined that anybias was shown against Petra in these areas. The PENC ranksand scores proposers based on the evaluation criteria andthe information obtained from the written proposal and oralinterview. Each firm is scored on that basis and from thesescores a ranking is established.

The PENC is made up of representatives from various MTADepartments which have an interest in the project. Theprocess begins with evaluation of written proposals whichare scored and eventually ranked from the highest to thelowest. A competitive range is then established. Under theguidelines followed by the OCPM, the Contracting Officershall determine which proposals are in the competitive rangefor the purpose of conducting written and oral discussionsand includes all proposals that have a reasonable chance ofbeing selected for award. The content and extent ofdiscussions is a matter of the Contracting Officer’s

judgement based on the particular facts of each proposal.The interview or oral discussion component is viewed as adynamic process which does not lend itself to "establishedwritten questions". To the contrary, if the same questionswere asked of each proposer, it could be construed as"leveling" which is in contravention of federalregulations. The PENC does attempt to be consistent withthe line of questioning to ensure that the scoring andevaluation is in accordance with the evaluation criteria setforth in the RFP.

This allegation is germane to the RFP process but is withoutmerit. This is no specific requirement for writtenquestions to be formulated prior to the start of theprocurement process. Each PENC member is allowed to askquestions at any point in the process based on the writtenproposal and oral interview.

Art Leahy holds the position of Executive Officer,Operations and oversees the Transportation, Maintenance,Customer Service, Scheduling and Facility functions for theMTA. Michael Leahy is an Assistant Director within the

LE67/mw

Mr. Raul NunezPage 7

Facilities Maintenance Department. There are two reportinglevels between these respective positions. At the time thatthe specific procurement began, the Facilities MaintenanceDepartment was not under Art Leahy’s direction. This changedid not occur until May, 1993.

The Conflict of Interest is an issue which is being referredto Counsel for an opinion.

9. Union Building Maintenance is a Authority certified DBE firmand therefore complies with the 35% DBE goal.

In conclusion, the points raised in your protest are either notgermane to RFP 93-02 or the responses to that solicitation(items 1 & 2) or the allegations stated in your protest (items

through 9) have been determined to be without merit.

Based on my review of the process, I cannot find any instanceswherein your proposal was not evaluated in the same manner asall others and I cannot find any instances where you have beendisadvantaged or some other film has been advantaged at yourexpense during the process. In the opinion of the PENC, thehighest rated firm presented a better management and projectplan, had more experience in contracting for janitorial servicesof large public thoroughfares and offered a more attractiveprice.

This decision may be appealed to the Board of Directors. TheBoard of Directors have the authority to make a finaldetermination and the Board’s decision shall constitute theMTA’s final administrative remedy.

You may also seek Federal Transportation Administration (FTA)review of the MTA’s decision. A protest to the FTA must befiled in accordance with the provisions of FTA circular 4220.ib.Any complaint to the FTA shall be made not later than five (5)working days after a final decision is rendered under the MTAprotest procedure.

~ely,

Paul L. Como

LE67/mw