Incumbent and rejected bidders challenge RFP process; Angelo's disputes disqualification

Several applicants told the council they believed the RFP process contained subjective elements and that those judgments affected the ranking of vendors.

Brad Ramsey of Road 1, the incumbent provider, told council: "First is the failure of the staff to adhere to the process and procedures it's called for in the RFP." He urged staff to pause and rebid the process, citing experience and transparency concerns.

Angelo's representatives said staff rejected their submission for lacking CHP Form 234B but that signed CHP inspections existed. Ron Lacy, speaking for Angelo's, said the company had the inspections but that the wrong internal contact submitted unsigned copies during the RFP: "We actually had them all along," he told council.

Staff and the sergeant who conducted site inspections said Angelo's neither included signed CHP forms nor an explanation at the time the RFP closed, and that RFP rules generally preclude accepting documentation after the deadline. Assistant City Attorney Richard Romero and Sergeant Scott Shanahan told the council that other vendors either provided the signed forms or a written explanation during the Q&A process and Angelo's was the only finalist that did neither.

Council members pressed applicants and staff for documentary evidence, and several members requested staff return with additional verification of ownership, prior suspensions, and other background checks before a final award.