Trustees on the Mercedes school board again delayed awarding a security guard services contract last week, voting to reject recommendations and restart the selection process.
The board tabled awarding the contract in June because the district failed to review references in its initial ranking of providers.
With the references included, the committee again rated L4 Security Group most highly, although what was “awkward,” interim Superintendent Richard Rivera said, was that the firms had been ranked before their presentations occurred last month.
“There were some issues that occurred during this time, and again I’m not blaming anyone. And staff, for the most part, they did a good job,” he said. “There was nothing — as far as I could see — nothing maliciously that was done to any firm. They took the instrument they had and they ranked the firms based on the information that they had.”
Rivera noted he had not been installed in time for that meeting.
“In going back and looking at all of this, we have the option of going with the committee’s recommendation or rejecting that recommendation and starting the process over again,” he said, noting that time will be tight for completing the process in time but doable. He also recommended including elementary principals on the selection committee this time around.
Whether or not to rebid the contract didn’t spark as much conversation for trustees as whether to leave the process in the hands of the selection committee or put it in the hands of the board.
Trustee Lucy Delgado suggested having the board rank bids, saying she felt committee members were rushed and didn’t fully understand the ranking process last time.
“There were a lot of questions here on the ranking, that — I’m afraid that your committee members didn’t know how these questions pertained to a security company and security services,” she said. “For instance, the purchase price, the budgeted amount, how much was in the budget for security services. How are we utilizing our security officers.”
Delgado also noted that of the three security bidders, two were still missing references.
“Not to step on anyone’s toes or anything, but safety and security has got to be at the top of the list, and it is on mine,” she said.
A majority of trustees, however, felt more comfortable leaving the process in the hands of employees.
“I think our staff are the ones that live in the campuses,” Trustee Brian Acosta said. “They’re the ones that deal with the security, they’re the ones that have the communication with the security guard services. And I think that’s very important because they’re the ones that have to deal with that. And I think that is something that I value — I need the input and feedback from our staff, since they’re the ones that are interacting with the security guard services.”
Ultimately the board voted to continue using the selection committee rather than shifting the responsibility to the board.
