The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPRR24189 Masoni - RFP 2401-002 Attachments:RE: Urgent Request for Reevaluation Destination Marketing Services under RFP 2401-002 From: GIOVANNI MASONI < Sent: Thursday, June 20, 2024 2:46 PM To: Clark-Charlesworth, Jacqui <Jclark@slocity.org>; McDonald, Whitney <WMcDonal@slocity.org>; Dietrick, Christine <cdietric@slocity.org> Cc: Luigi Marroni < ; Ashley Mitnitsky < ; Aldo Gucci < Subject: Urgent Request for Bid Evaluation Details and Transparency – RFP 2401-002 Dear Ms. Clark-Charlesworth, Mr. McDonald, and Ms. Dietrick, Attached you will find a letter from our President addressing significant concerns regarding the evaluation of our bid for RFP 2401-002. The letter details the persistent issues and lack of transparency we have faced, specifically highlighting the erroneous scoring of our proposal and our unmet requests for clarification and comparative analysis. Our President has highlighted several critical points requiring immediate attention and action. Notably, the letter addresses the mistaken evaluation of our bid as a one-year proposal rather than the intended two-year term, resulting in a score of 2.43 for 'Budget Approach and Cost Effectiveness'. This scoring not only deviates from our expectations based on the competitive pricing of our bid but also raises questions about the fairness and integrity of your evaluation process. Since our initial request on April 26 for the name of the winning bidder and a comparison to our offer, we have not received any substantive response. This ongoing lack of communication undermines our confidence in the fairness and integrity of the procurement process. As the Secretary of PIRENE2 Inc., I am urging immediate review and response to these issues. Transparency and fair treatment are foundational to the integrity of any public procurement process, and it is imperative that we resolve these concerns promptly. We appreciate your immediate attention to this pressing matter and look forward to your detailed and expedient response. Best regards, Giovanni Masoni Secretary PIRENE2 Inc. 1 Urgent Request for Bid Evaluation Details and Transparency — RFP 2401-002 Ashley M itn itsky President, PIRENE2 inc 17, 28 Ave (109) Venice, CA 90291 infoOpirene2.com 646 704 2407 Date: 6/4/2024 To: Jacqui Claris-Chariesworth Tourism and Community Promotions Manager City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Cc: Whitney McDonald, City Manager, J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney Subject: Urgent Request for Bid Evaluation Details and Transparency — RFP 2401-002 Dear Ms. Clark-Charlesworth, I am compelled to address the ongoing lack of transparency concerning our submission for RFP 2401-002. Despite our bid being designed for a two-year term and competitively priced, it was inaccurately evaluated as a one-year offer. Notwithstanding this fact, it appears that the scoring was unjustly low and not based on the actual competitive value of our proposal. We believe that being the lowest priced offer, as per the facts, should have logically resulted in a higher score in this category. This discrepancy raises concerns about a discretionary use of scoring, potentially reflecting a misuse of evaluative power. Since April 26, we have repeatedly requested the names of the winning bidder and a comparative analysis of the bids, without success. This continuous disregard for our requests forces us to consider escalating the matter by communicating with higher authorities, involving local media, and engaging stakeholders if necessary. All we seek is a clear and fair explanation for our non -selection and a comparison of our bid against others, even if it favors another company. We believe this is in the best interest of transparency and fairness in the procurement process. We expect your prompt and detailed response to rectify these issues. Best Regands, - Aeht6 (I M itn Pres" h z_ PIRENE 2 17 28 Ave #109 Venice CA 90291 pg. 1 of 2 From: GIOVANNI MASONI <giovanni.masoni@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2024 10:05 PM To: Colunga-Lopez, Andrea <AColunga@slocity.org> Cc: CityClerk <CityClerk@slocity.org>; City_Attorney <City_Attorney@slocity.org>; Luigi Marroni < ; Aldo Gucci < ; Subject: Re: Records Request Acknowledgement - PRR24189 Masoni - RFP 2401-002 This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or respond. Dear Ms. Colunga-Lopez, Thank you for acknowledging receipt of our public records request dated June 20, 2024. We appreciate the City's prompt response and commitment to begin searching for responsive documents. To ensure our request is thoroughly addressed, we would like to emphasize the following points: 1. Our request includes all documents related to the evaluation process of RFP 2401-002, including but not limited to scoring sheets, notes from evaluation committee members, and any communications regarding the decision-making process. 2. We specifically request documents that show how our bid was evaluated, particularly regarding the apparent mischaracterization of our proposal as a one-year rather than a two-year term. 3. We seek any documents comparing our bid to the winning bid, as well as the identity of the winning bidder, which we initially requested on April 26, 2024. In addition to these points, we have some specific concerns we'd like addressed: 1. Is the winning bidder Noble Communications again? If so, we request information on the City's policy regarding vendor rotation, as we understand that regular rotation of vendors is a common practice to ensure fairness and fresh perspectives in public contracts. 2. Our proposal included a commitment of $500,000 for Media Buy, which would directly benefit the County of San Luis Obispo. We request information on what the winning bidder offered in this regard, as this represents a quantifiable, objective benefit to the county that should be considered in the evaluation process. 3. We also seek clarification on how our percentage fee was compared to that of the winning bidder. These are objective, numerical factors that should not be subject to discretionary interpretation by the evaluation committee. We remind the City of its obligations under the California Public Records Act (Gov. Code § 6250 et seq.) and the Public Contract Code, particularly: 1. Public Contract Code § 10165, which requires public entities to make records of the content of each bid available for public inspection. 2. Public Contract Code § 20123, which mandates that all bids for public projects be opened publicly. 1 3. The California Supreme Court's decision in Michaelis, Montanari & Johnson v. Superior Court (2006) 38 Cal.4th 1065, which held that proposals submitted in response to RFPs are subject to disclosure under the California Public Records Act. 4. The Court of Appeal's ruling in City of San Jose v. Superior Court (2017) 2 Cal.5th 608, which emphasized the importance of transparency in government operations. We believe these objective, quantifiable aspects of our bid - the Media Buy commitment and our percentage fee - are crucial factors that should be transparently evaluated and compared. Unlike subjective elements such as design preferences, these represent concrete benefits and costs to the county that should be clearly explained in the decision-making process. Thank you for your attention to this matter. We look forward to your timely response. Best Regards, -- Giovanni Masoni Secretary PIRENE2 Inc. EIN: 99-0446973 pirene2.com info@pirene2.com (646)704-2407 2