Commission sends contested building-services RFP back for re-ranking after public complaints

The commission on Aug. 19 declined to complete an immediate award for RFP 25-010 (building services) after staff reported Calvin Giordano & Associates (CGA) had been re-ranked above CAP Government Solutions following presentations to an evaluation committee. Commissioners and members of the public raised repeated customer-service and performance complaints about CGA dating back several years, prompting a motion to re-rank the shortlisted proposers at the commission level and review all original submission materials and oral presentations before making a final selection.

Background and evaluation: The city issued an RFP for building inspection, plans review and related services. Two firms ultimately advanced to presentations: Calvin Giordano & Associates and CAP Government Solutions. An evaluation committee heard formal presentations on July 22, reranked the firms and recommended CGA as top-ranked. Staff reported CGA again ranked highest when evaluations were completed following the additional presentations.

Public concerns and commissioner questions: Several residents and building-industry stakeholders testified to long-standing frustration with permitting, customer service and response times — concerns commissioners said they had heard repeatedly in town halls and on the campaign trail. Commissioners asked whether procurement had canvassed other municipalities for reference checks, and some said they had not seen the full set of proposal materials or the committee's oral presentations in the commission backup packet.

Commission action: Because the city procurement code allows the commission to rerank shortlisted firms when warranted, a motion to do a commission-level reranking passed on an affirmative 4/5 vote at the meeting. The city attorney advised the commission that any reranking requires the commissioners to review all written materials and oral-presentation records that had been submitted to the evaluation committee. The commission asked procurement staff to assemble the original written proposals and the presentation materials and make those available to commissioners before further action.

Implications and next steps: The reranking does not constitute a rejection of either firm and does not immediately award the contract. It requires more review at the commission level and gives members time to examine the evaluation materials and, if desired, request additional presentations or references. Commissioners emphasized that the decision is consequential because the building-services vendor handles permitting workflows and is integral to an ongoing IT migration to online plan review and digital permitting; multiple commissioners said they wanted clearer evidence from the shortlisted firms on how they would deliver customer service and manage the transition.

Bottom line: The RFP process remains open. The commission voted to rerank and review materials before a final selection, citing resident complaints and a need for greater transparency. Staff will provide the full proposals and presentation records to the commission for review and will return with a recommendation after commissioners have had a chance to assess the materials.