Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report: Towing Response 9/6/11CITY OF NATIONAL CITY MEMORANDUM DATE: August 30, 2011 TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Tow Contract Committee SUBJECT: National City Towing and Impound Contract: Recommendation of Towing Contractors and Responses to Objections Raised by Towing Contractors INTRODUCTION On August 16, 2011, the City Council of National City requested that the Tow Contract Committee (hereinafter "Committee") provide recommendations for two contractors for National City's Towing and Impound Contract (hereinafter "Contract"). This memorandum sets forth the Committee's recommendations. The City Council also requested the Committee respond to objections raised by towing contractors; this report responds to the objections received. RECOMMENDATIONS The Committee recommends that the Contract be awarded to Tom Moynahan Towing and Road One, for the reasons set forth herein. BACKGROUND The City's current towing contract with Tom Moynahan Towing will expire on September 30, 2011. Therefore, a Request for Proposal ("RFP") #GS1011-4 was issued to establish a new Towing and Impound contract for the City of National City. After the Committee's, RFP review and subsequent site visits, the Committee determined that three proposed contractors who submitted RFP responses met the terms of the RFP and were qualified to be considered by the City Council for possible award of the City's Contract. They were Tom Moynahan Towing, Road One Towing, and Angelo's Towing. 1 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 At the City Council meeting on August 16, 2011, the City Council requested that the Committee return to the meeting on September 6, 2011, and provide recommendations for two contractors out of the three that qualified. BASIS OF RECOMMENDATIONS Three tow contractors met or exceeded the RFP requirements. Based upon factors in the RFP, and for reasons hereinafter explained, the Committee ranked the proposed contractors in the following order: • Tom Moynahan Towing and Storage, 3200 National City Boulevard., National City, CA 91950 • Road One Towing (A to Z Enterprises, Inc.), 3821 Calle Fortunada, Suite A, San Diego, CA 92123 • Angelo's Towing, 1177 S. 26d' Street, San Diego, CA 92113 All three of the above tow contractors appear to be of high quality and are professional tow contractors. For reasons stated below, the contractors were ranked by the Committee based upon the best value and ability to serve the City's needs. 1. Tom Moynahan Towing and Storage Tom Moynahan Towing and Storage (hereinafter "Moynahan") was determined to be the number one proposed contractor for the new Contract for the following reasons. Moynahan has been the City's tow contractor continuously since 1968. In fact, it was the sole contractor from 1968 until 1989, when the City decided to split the towing services between two contractors. It was again the sole contractor for the past year since the other contractor became disqualified. Moynahan's truck fleet meets the RFP requirements and is more than adequate to meet all of the City's requirements for towing vehicles of all sizes, including large, oversized vehicles such as commercial buses and commercial semi -trucks, towing from off -road areas, and underground parking facilities. All trucks are equipped in accordance with the RFP requirements. Moynahan's business office and storage lot is located in National City. and is the closest proposed contractor to the Police Department. With its location in the City, it is the most convenient for both customers and City personnel. The size, layout, lighting and security of the storage lot are sufficient for all City needs. They are the only proposed contractor located entirely within National City. Moynahan has extensive municipal towing experience and significant municipal towing experience with the City of National City. As the current City tow contractor, the business already has a sufficient system in place to post tow reconciliations and collect all fees due to the City. Their personnel are already properly trained in the needs and requirements of the City. Therefore, it can go into full operation immediately upon award of the new Contract. Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 Additionally, Moynahan has an outstanding reputation for accuracy, dependability, and reliability in all areas as a tow contractor for the City of National City. Their interaction with customers and City personnel is professional and customer service oriented. Tow reports have been accurate and submitted in a timely manner. Its employees have been responsive and well trained, and its trucks have an excellent record for arriving on time. The reference checks provided by this company were all positive. There are no areas of concern known, nor any negative history reported or experienced with the company. Therefore, the above infoiivation weighs favorably for Moynahan being the most favorably qualified. Moynahan was determined to be the number one best value for the City. 2. Road One Towing Road One Towing was determined to be the number two proposed contractor for the new Contract. Road One Towing had been one of the two National City tow contractors from 1989 until 2006, a period of almost seventeen years. Road One Towing's truck fleet meets the RFP requirements. It has the largest fleet of trucks amongst all the RFP bidders. Its truck fleet is more than adequate to meet all of the City's requirements for towing vehicles of all sizes, including large oversize vehicles such as commercial buses and commercial semi -trucks, towing from off -road areas, and underground parking facilities. All trucks are equipped in accordance with the RFP requirements. Road One Towing's business office and storage lot is located at 3333 National Avenue in San Diego, which is approximately 1.6 miles from the National City city limits. Its business office/storage lot is the second closest to the Police Department, making it convenient for both customers and City personnel. The size, layout, lighting and security of the storage lot are sufficient for all City needs. A concern with their business office and storage lot was that it was only staffed Monday through Friday, 8:00 am to 6:00 pm. This concern has been rectified. Road One Towing notified the Towing Contract Committee members that this lot will be open and staffed 7 days a week/24 hours a day effective September 15, 2011. Road One Towing has extensive municipal towing experience. Although not a current tow provider for National City, it previously had almost seventeen years of experience as a National City tow contractor. Road One Towing had a sufficient system in place to post tow reconciliations and collect all fees due to the City in an accurate and timely manner when they were a National City tow contractor. Road One Towing representatives state they could re -enable the National City reconciliation system with minimal effort. Personnel who were previously trained in the needs and requirements of the City would not need to be retrained as National City continues to use the same tow reconciliation system. Only new personnel would need to be trained. Therefore, Road One Towing should be able to go into full operation with minimal effort upon award of the new contract. As a former City contractor, Road One Towing had a favorable reputation overall as a tow contractor for National City. Their prior interaction with customers and City personnel was professional. Their tow reports were accurate and submitted in a timely manner. 3 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 One issue the City previously had with Road One Towing was the frequent delay in its tow responses. This often kept officers and other City personnel waiting an excess amount of time for the tow truck to arrive. Road One Towing representatives acknowledged that they previously had difficulty meeting response times and have taken action to correct this issue. Representatives state they now use a GPS Tele-track system to monitor the location of their tow trucks. They state this enables them to send the closest available truck to the location thus decreasing response times. The reference checks provided by Road One Towing in the RFP verify their assertions regarding their improved response times. A representative from the Escondido Police Department stated that Road One Towing was prompt and on time for service calls. A representative from the Chula Vista Police Department stated that Road One Towing was usually on time and always had trucks available for service calls. The other reference checks provided by the bidder were all positive in nature with no late response time issues mentioned. The primary area of concern of meeting response times appears to have been corrected by Road One Towing. The initial after hours business office/storage lot waiting time concern has been eliminated. Therefore, Road One Towing was determined to be number two for best value to the City. 3. Angelo's Towing Angelo's Towing is ranked third as a proposed contractor for the new Contract. It is not within the Committee's recommended two contractors, as compared to the other two proposed contractors discussed above. Angelo's Towing has no prior experience as a National City tow contractor. Angelo's Towing truck fleet meets the RFP requirements. Their truck fleet is more than adequate to meet all of the City's requirements for towing vehicles of all sizes, including large oversize vehicles such as commercial buses and commercial semi -trucks, towing from off -road areas, and underground parking facilities. All trucks are equipped in accordance with the RFP. requirements. Angelo's Towing business office and storage lot is located at 1177 S. 26th Street in San Diego, which is approximately 2.0 miles from the National City city limits. Its business office/storage lot. is the third closest to the Police Department, making it convenient for both customers and City personnel. The layout, lighting and security of the storage lot are sufficient for all City needs. A concern is the size of their storage lot. Although their approximate 20,000 square foot lot meets the RFP requirements, it is the smallest lot of all the RFPs. There is a concern that they could have difficulty finding room to store all the NCPD impounded vehicles at this location. Angelo's Towing has minimal municipal towing experience. They are on the California Highway Patrol's (CHP) tow rotation and have been a municipal towing contractor for the City of Coronado for two years. Angelo's Towing does not have a system in place to post tow reconciliations and collect fees due to the City. They do not collect government fees for either the CHP or the Coronado Police Department. Angelo's Towing would have to create a tow 4 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 reconciliation system and their employees would have to be trained to properly collect, document and forward City tow fees. Therefore, Angelo's Towing would require significantly more time and effort on both their behalf and the City's to become a fully operational City tow contractor. Angelo's Towing has no prior experience as a National City tow contractor; as such, the tow committee can only assess their ability from the RFP process and not from any prior actual experience. However, based on the RFP process, it appears that Angelo's Towing is a high quality, professional tow contractor. They appear dependable and reliable. The reference checks provided by the bidder were positive. The primary areas of concem with Angelo's Towing is their minimal municipal towing experience, their lack of experience as a National City tow contractor, and the potential problems of vehicle storage due to the smaller size of their storage lot. Therefore, Angelo's Towing was determined to be the third in best value for the City. COMMITTEE RESPONSES TO OBJECTIONS RAISED BY OTHER CONTRACTORS 1. Response to Cortes Towing Statement to City Council on August 16, 2011 Objection raised - During the City Council meeting on August 16, 2011, Paulo Cortes of Cortes Towing stated there were inconsistencies with the RFP process. Specifically, he asserted that he had been disqualified from the RFP process for not having a truck capable of large, oversize vehicle towing when the RFP stated heavy towing was over 22,000 lbs and he has a truck capable of 35,000 lbs GVWR. Additionally, he states he has an off road capable tow vehicle that only had a flat tire during the inspection and not disabled as quoted in the site inspection. He alleged the RFP process was tainted. Response - Mr. Cortes is mistaken about the RFP stating a heavy tow vehicle is defined as being capable of towing 22,000 lbs. The RFP does not specifically give a weight requirement for a tow truck capable of large, oversize vehicles. Large, oversize vehicles are considered to be street legal, licensed vehicles that travel the street of National City such as large buses, construction trucks, full size semi -trucks and trailers, etc. These are vehicles that can become disabled due to collisions or breakdowns and wreak havoc with traffic in the City. It is critical to have a tow vehicle available to immediately respond and tow a large, oversize vehicle when needed. The three tow contractors who met the RFP requirements, Tom Moynahan Towing, Road One Towing and Angelo's Towing all have trucks capable of 80,000 lbs GVWR, Cortes Towing asserts they have a truck capable of 35,000 lbs GVWR, significantly less capable than the top three. Mr. Cortes states the RFP classifies a heavy tow vehicle as more than 22,000 lbs. It appears Mr. Cortes incorrectly read the Attachment A, Towing Fee Schedule. Attachment A has a price category for towing a heavy vehicle, the start weight for this category is listed as 22,000 lbs. This means that if Mr. Cortes tows a vehicle in excess of 22,000 lbs GVW, then he would charge the appropriate fee for this category. So whether he tows a 22,000 GVWR vehicle or a 5 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 55,000 GVWR vehicle the price is the same. It is a price breakdown category only, not a definition. All definitions are listed in section B of the RFP. During the site inspection, Paulo Cortes and Juan Cortes, Jr. accompanied Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara. When asked if they had a large truck capable of towing large, oversize vehicles, one of them responded they did not but they can purchase one if they were awarded the tow contract. Additionally, there is a discrepancy with Mr. Cortes alleged 35,000 GVWR truck. The CHP inspections they provided with the RFP package have conflicting weight ratings for this vehicle. The CHP 234-B form has 35,000 typed in the GVWR box, it is scratched out and 30,000 is written in pen, the accompanying CHP Driver/Vehicle Examination Report lists this same vehicle with a 26,000 GVWR. Therefore, it is questionable if this vehicle has a 35,000 GVWR as Mr. Cortes states or a 30,000 or 26,000 GVWR. Regarding Mr. Cortes off road tow vehicle, Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara saw this vehicle had a missing right front tire/wheel, the hood was opened, the vehicle was sitting crookedand appeared partially dismantled. Either Juan Cortes or Paulo Cortes stated at the time of the site inspection, they were in the process of rebuilding this vehicle. It should also be noted that a CHP-234B inspection form was not submitted on this vehicle with the RFP package, which is a failure to meet the RFP requirements. 2. Response to Marco Polo Cortes Statement to City Council on August 16, 2011 Objection raised - During the August 16, 2011 City Council meeting, Mr. Marco Polo Cortes stated he represented American Towing and Cortes Towing. Mr. Cortes requested a continuance of the City Council's decision as he needed time for rebuttal due to inconsistencies with the RFP. Response - Mr. Cortes is able to raise his objections at any time prior to the award of the Contract, which will be not be until the September 6, 2011 meeting, approximately three weeks after the towing company's notice of recommendations. Moreover, the towing companies were provided notice of acceptance or rejection of their RFP five days prior to the City Council meeting on August 16. 3. Response to Donald Fields and Nash Habib's Statement to City Council on August 16, 2011 Objections raised - During the August 16, 2011 City Council meeting, Mr. Donald Fields and Mr. Nash Habib of Angelo's Towing thanked the City for their favorable consideration for the Contract. Mr. Habib responded to questions from Councilperson Zarate regarding his lack of a secured; evidentiary vehicle storage location. Mr. Habib stated he has another storage lot approximately seven miles from the City that has a secure, evidentiary storage location capable of holding almost ten vehicles. Response - In the RFP package that Angelo's Towing submitted, they listed the storage lot located at 1177 S. 26th Street in San Diego. The RFP package states this is the location where. National City vehicles would be stored. This is also the location of the office. This is the location that was evaluated during the RFP process based on the Angelo's Towing RFP package. Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 The RFP states the storage lot and office must be at the same location. They must also be within ten miles of National City. The RFP does not state that the storage lot and office cannot be relocated during the life of the contract. If Angelo's Towing is awarded the Towing and Impound Contract, there is nothing to preclude them from moving the National City impounds to a new location as long as all National City impounds are kept at the same location, the business office is at the same location as the storage yard, the storage yard is within ten miles of National City, and all other RFP requirements for the facility are met. 4. Response to Rodney L. Solenberger's Letter dated August 23, 2011 Representing American Towing and Auto Dismantling, Inc. Objections raised - Mr. Rodney L. Solenberger submitted a letter to the City dated August 23, 2011 on behalf of American Towing and Auto Dismantling, Incorporated. The letter made numerous allegations of bias and unfairness in the RFP process Response - Mr. Solenberger's letter states, "In contrast to the RFP process in 2006, the initial RFP issued May 19, 2011, made no reference to on -site or pre -award inspections." Mr. Solenberger is incorrect. The RFP clearly states on page 12, 3. Inspection The City reserves the right to .inspect, without advance notice, the Bidding Contractor's equipment and facilities to determine if the Bidding Contractor is capable of fulfilling the terms of Contract Inspection will include, but not limited to, survey of Bidding Contractor's physical assets and financial capability. Bidding Contractor, by signing the proposal, agrees to allow the City or its agents' right of access to physical assets and financial records for the sole purpose of determining Bidding Contractor's capability to perform the contract. The Bidding Contractor shall grant access to facilities/equipment for inspection in a timely manner. In conducting this inspection, the City reserves the right to disqualify a Bidding Contractor who does not, in the City's judgment, exhibit the sufficient physical and financial resources to perform the Contract. Failure to permit an inspection upon the City's initial request may be cause for disqualification. No notice is necessary to the Bidding Contractor. Mr. Solenberger states, "As in 2006, once again City employees unilaterally changed the focus of the evaluation process with only limited notice that the primary focus of the evaluation process would be on -site inspections." This clearly is incorrect as evidenced by the above Inspection section of the RFP. 7 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 Mr. Solenberger states, "As problematic as the change in emphasis to on -site inspections was in 2006, the situation is more egregious this time. This is because of the active involvement of Sergeant Fabinski in the process. At Tuesday's City Council meeting, in comparing bidders who had not previously provided services to the City to a child's new toy purchase and subsequent disappointment, Sergeant Fabinski clearly indicated the unfairness of the selection process." The purpose of the Council vote on August 16 was to decide if two contractors or three contractors were to be awarded the contract. Sergeant Fabinski stated the decision was Council's decision and the Police Department would be able to handle whichever the Council selected. One Councilperson asked Sergeant Fabinski several questions regarding the ability to select one contractor. Sergeant Fabinski stated that more than one contractor would be preferable in the chance a future issue could arise and force an. early end to one contractor; this way, there would still be a remaining contractor. Sergeant Fabinski stated that if one contractor was to be selected, he would recommend a contractor who had already demonstrated the ability to successfully handle the duties of the City tow contractor. The new child's toy example was used. Additionally, all of the site visits were conducted by both Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara. During each site visit, they were accompanied by a tow contractor representative who was able to answer questions. Mr. Solenberger states, "City Council approval of the recommendation sets a standard by which no provider who has not previously provided services can hope to be selected no matter how qualified. Is the City so inclined to forget recent history that resulted in a provider who had continuously been awarded contracts being terminated for providing deficient services?" This is incorrect. In 2006, JC Towing was awarded the tow contract for the first time with no previous City tow contracts awarded. They have been awarded the contract only once, not continuously. JC Towing was not terminated; they voluntarily withdrew from the contract. This indicates the City has been open to awarding tow contracts to contractors with no previous City experience. Mr. Solenberger states, "Other than to disqualify otherwise qualified bidders or to unfairly prefer bidders who currently provide services to the City, there is no rationale for requiring bidders to currently possess equipment and facilities to be awarded a contract." In order to be fair to all proposed contractors, the RFP contained specific requirements for equipment and facilities. The specific requirements were due upon the due date of the RFP. This is necessary to ensure fairness. If bidders are not required to possess all the necessary equipment, they cannot be properly and fairly compared. The RFP due date was a solid cutoff date. Without this cut off date, a contractor could possess minimal and inadequate equipment yet demand an award stating the purchase of equipment will be done later. Mr. Solenberger states, "The irrefutable fact is that American Towing possessed `equipment' capable of providing towing in underground garages and from off road areas." During the site visits, Mr. Mercado stated he did not have a vehicle capable of sub -garage towing or off road towing. He stated he would purchase one vehicle that could handle both tasks Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 if awarded the contract. He made no mention of the use of Go -jacks or his off road recovery ability during the site -visit. His RFP response does contain information on the use of Go -jacks and his ability to tow from off road areas. Go -jacks are individual, caster wheel type, vehicle tire lifts. They are generally placed under each tire and allow a vehicle to be pushed around similar to moving heavy furniture. The National City Police Department (NCPD) underground garage has a sloped entrance/exit making the use of Go -jacks difficult and undesirable. The vehicle would have to be pushed near the roll up door; it would then have to be moved up or down the slope using a winch or similar device on the tow truck. With the narrow NCPD garage opening, there is concern the vehicle could be damaged and/or the NCPD building, gate, or gate electrics could be damaged. Additionally, the majority of vehicles towed to the NCPD garage are towed there for evidence processing. This requires minimal physical contact by the tow operator to avoid the destruction or contamination of potential evidence: Physically pushing the vehicle on Go -jacks would normally require increased touching of the vehicle, thereby increasing the possibility of lost evidence. It should also be noted that the NCPD contractor will be required to tow all NCPD vehicle impounds, even from outside of National City. The potential exists for towing vehicles from low clearance, multi -level parking structures where the use of Go jacks is not feasible. In the RFP, American Towing states they have demonstrated the ability to tow from off road areas. However during the site visits, Mr. Mercado did not attempt to demonstrate or explain capabilities to tow from off road areas. Mr. Solenberger states, "American Towing's treatment is vividly contrasted by the evaluation of the same requirement for Tom Moynahan Towing. For that company Sergeant Fabinski's evaluation is largely illegible with respect to an off road towing vehicle. While Sergeant Fabinski's Tow RFP Site Visit sheet notes that 1 sub -garage vehicle is available, with respect to an off -road capable truck, the sheet notes, `MOP/[illegible]CAT (put on rollback)'." The legibility of all of Sergeant Fabinski's Tow RFP Site Visit sheets is similar. Regarding Tom Moynahan Towing's off -road tow vehicle, when asked where his off road vehicle was for inspection, Mr. Moynahan walked Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara over to a Caterpillar tractor that has been modified with towing cables. Mr. Moynahan explained its use and that the Caterpillar is placed on a rollback tow truck, taken to the off road recovery area where it can go in virtually any off road area and tow virtually any vehicle out. The towed vehicle and Caterpillar tractor are then both placed on the rollback tow truck and towed away. This was acceptable for Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara. Similarly, Mr. Lemler of Paxton Towing also displayed an off road recovery vehicle when asked. Mr. Lemler walked Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara to an extremely large tow truck. Mr. Lemler stated he purchased the truck from US Navy surplus. The truck was designed by the Navy to pull ships to shore. He stated the truck had over 800 feet of cable and he could pull anything out of anywhere with it. This again was acceptable as off road recovery equipment by Sergeant Fabinski and Armando Vergara. As previously stated, when Mr. Mercado was asked about his off road recovery vehicle, he did not attempt to display or show anything, he simply stated he did not have one but he would purchase one that could also be used for sub -garage work if he was awarded the contract. Mr. Solenberger states, "In short the City is requiring bidders to make large capital outlays in the hope of the being recommended as an acceptable bidder. This is vividly demonstrated in American Towing's case, which made inquiries prior to submitting its bid 9 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 response as to the cost of a vehicle capable of meeting the underground and off road towing requirement. In essence the purchase of two vehicles is required at the cost of $25,000 to $30,000. There is little reason to incur such a cost for a very contingent benefit that is further speculative because of the disparate treatment given to similarly situated bidders." As previously answered, the RFP due -date -was -the cutoff date for all RFP requirements. This is done to ensure a fair RFP process. The City has not directed anyone to purchase equipment. The RFP has specific requirements, if the bidder elects to submit an RFP proposal, it is incumbent on the bidder to determine if they meet all of the RFP requirements and specifications. Mr. Solenberger states, "Similar considerations are present with respect to the City's requirement that the storage yard have alarms and intrusion sensors. Once again,. Sergeant Fabinski's evaluation fails to note that American Towing has never had a break in at the storage yard, and the security procedures currently in place are acceptable to the other government entities under those entity's respective contracts. Moreover, American Towing does have security cameras in place which would require an upgrade to be motion activated. Such motion activated cameras were deemed to be acceptable in the case of Tom Moynahan Towing. Once again the cost of an upgrade of approximately $5000 along with an additional monthly fee resulting in an additional outlay of $3,600 per year, which would only be necessary under the National City contract, cannot be economically justified in light -of the discriminatory selection process and substantial uncertainty of receiving the benefits of a contract award." The RFP has specific requirements for the tow storage yard. These specific requirements are applicable to all the RFP bidders. The specific storage yard requirements contained in the RFP were specifically added at the direction of the City Council during the May 3, 2011 City Council meeting. The process to require all bidders to meet the same specific requirements for the storage yardis fair. The fact that American Towing does not have an alarm system and currently possesses an out dated camera system does not unfairly target American Towing. Mr. Mercado stated during the site visit the cameras are not monitored and they are "old style" cameras. Additionally, the fact that a business has not had a previous break in, is not an indication or guarantee that it will not be broken into. The purpose of the RFP storage yard requirements is to make sure the National City impounds are stored in the safe and secure manner. Mr. Solenberger states, "American Towing believes there is ample evidence that the tow evaluation committee inconsistently applied the RFP provisions. Another example is the capability to tow large oversize vehicles. It appears that both Cortes Towing and Tom Moynahan Towing have substantially similar vehicles, but that neither meets CHP specifications for oversize vehicle towing. Nevertheless, the tow evaluation committee determined that Tom Moynahan Towing met the RFP provisions; while Cortes was informed it failed to meet the requirement." This is incorrect. Cortes Towing states they have one vehicle with a 35,000 GVWR. This vehicle is an International 4300. The CHP-234B form submitted with the RFP package has 35,000 typed into the GVWR box. This 35,000 is scratched out and 30,000 is written in the block. The writing appears similar the writing of the CHP inspector's notes on the form. The 10 Recotnmendation of Tow Contractors August 30, 2011 accompanying form lists this same vehicle as 26,000 GVWR. Therefore, there is a discrepancy with the claimed GVWR of this vehicle. In comparison, Tom Moynahan Towing has a Peterbilt with a GVWR of 35,000 and a Kenworth landoll with a GVWR of 80,000 lbs. The large tow vehicles belonging to Cortes Towing and Tom Moynahan Towing are not substantially similar, as Mr. Solenberger states. CONCLUSION AS TO OBJECTIONS The objections raised by the other proposed contractors do not validly change the Committee's recommendations as to the top two contractors or the prior ranking of RFP proposals. NEXT STEPS Attachment 3 proposes tow rates for the 2011 Tow and Impound Contracts. Committee representatives met with authorized representatives from the top two recommended contractors to determine fair, equitable, and consistent tow rates which would be applied to all tows for both contractors during the proposed contract period. If the City Council approves the recommended contractors, staff will return at the next City Council meeting with contracts for Council consideration. 11 Recommendation of Tow Contractors August .30,2011