Glendale council approves five-year Glorietta tennis contract after debate over dual bids and evaluation details

The Glendale City Council on May 12 approved staff’s recommendation to award a five‑year contract, with an option to renew annually for up to five additional years, for operation of the Glorietta tennis courts to the joint proposers the staff identified as the highest‑scoring selection.

City staff said the request for proposals required a minimum of three years’ experience operating public‑agency tennis facilities and emphasized public open‑play hours, instruction and programs. Oni Polonikian, director of Community Service and Parks, summarized the three finalists’ proposals and the selection committee’s scoring, saying the committee used a three‑point rating scale for experience, programming and proposed public access and that the recommended joint proposers scored highest in interviews and evaluations.

Public commenter Susan Nardi of the HEELS Act Foundation (LA Tennis) told the council that the staff report omitted and misstated key items in her organization’s proposal. “We offered 205 at no cost to the public,” Nardi said, disputing staff’s description that her proposal provided far fewer free hours and arguing that her bid included a month‑by‑month projected revenue breakdown and adaptive programming. She asked the council to review the evaluation packet before approving the award.

Staff responded that the finalists and the selection committee were given a final clarified packet prior to interviews and that a page in the proposal packet marked some court rentals as free. Gabrielle Golia, community services manager, said the selection committee had been told the proposers intended a sliding‑scale pricing structure for lessons and that the committee found the top end of lesson pricing unclear during interviews.

Council members pressed staff about the numeric comparisons in the evaluation and raised a separate procurement concern: one council member said a principal appearing as part of two competing proposals raised questions about the anti‑collusion certification and the integrity of the process. City Attorney Michael J. Garcia and additional legal counsel told the council the RFP did not prohibit submitting multiple proposals and that a legal finding of collusion requires evidence of a sham or collusive intent; staff said it would provide further legal detail if council wanted it.

Despite the objections, Council Member Asadrian moved and a colleague seconded the motion to approve the award to the staff‑recommended proposers and to authorize the city manager to execute the contract. The council carried the motion. The contract is scheduled to begin July 1, 2026, per the staff recommendation.

The council’s action authorizes staff to finalize the agreement; staff also said council may want to revisit procurement policy language in future RFPs to address single‑proposal limits or other safeguards.