This summer, Oakland found itself embroiled in a contentious debate over a significant contract valued at up to $45 million for security services at City Hall and other public properties.
The Department of Public Works, which led the evaluation of numerous applicants, had recommended awarding the contract to the national company Allied Universal Security Services.
However, members of the City Council disagreed, advocating for a smaller, local firm, Marina Security Services.
Following an intense public debate and an attempt to have the council choose between the two companies, the contract proposal disappeared from the city’s legislative agenda just as the council members left for their annual summer break.
A city spokesperson indicated that a new proposal would arise in late September.
Interim Public Works Director Josh Rowan, overseeing this procurement, faces significant political pressure, particularly from some elected officials who prefer Marina Security.
Despite this, Rowan remains unwavering in his stance, asserting that Allied was the clear winner for the contract.
In an interview, he emphasized, “I believe it either needs to be awarded to Allied, or, if the council wants something different, they can bring their own legislation.”
Rowan’s frustration became apparent during the July 8 Public Works meeting when he contended with several council members who interrogated his staff and rejected his recommendation.
In an email obtained by The Oaklandside, Rowan expressed his discontent, stating that the Public Works committee had made a “mess” of the situation and felt he was being “unfairly flogged” for merely trying to maintain order amidst the chaos.
He even suggested restarting the entire procurement process in his correspondence.
Rowan’s irritation extended to how the City Attorney was guiding the contracting process.
He shared that the City Attorney had proposed two resolutions—one for awarding the bid to Allied and one for Marina—allowing the elected officials to choose.
Rowan rejected this idea, fearing it would set a precedent that could allow political maneuvering to override staff recommendations.
“I just don’t want to set a precedent that if you’re a close number two… you can activate some political process and undo what we as staff have put together,” he explained.
Rowan noted that he joined the security services contract discussions at a late stage, around December 2024.
Upon reviewing procurement records, he felt alarmed by the amount of interaction between city staff and companies vying for the contract.
Reflecting on his past experience as a commissioner for the Atlanta Department of Transportation, Rowan cited the necessity of a “cone of silence” during contract negotiations to prevent outside influence.
“Once the procurement starts, we’re not talking to the proposers,” he asserted.
Both Allied and Marina representatives reached out to Rowan regarding the security contract, which made him uncomfortable.
Rowan opted not to communicate with Allied representatives after a council meeting, stating, “I just told them we have nothing to talk about.”
However, Marina’s lobbyist, Isaac Kos-Read, contacted him via email suggesting that the city could expedite the process by revising their recommendation to support Marina Security Services.
Kos-Read’s email followed the Public Works committee’s meeting, highlighting the council’s preference for a proposal that aligned better with local representation.
At a groundbreaking ceremony later, Kos-Read also approached Rowan, suggesting the need to adjust the position on the security services contract and emphasizing the importance of addressing racial equity in city contracts.
In emails to city officials, Kos-Read cited a 2019 racial disparity study indicating that African Americans received only 0.91% of professional services prime contracts within a specified timeframe.
Kos-Read stated he consistently raised this issue during the procurement discussion for the security contract, indicating the council’s desire for greater consideration of racial equity.
He noted challenges in communication with city staff during the contracting process, stating that Marina had been trying to gather updates for months without feedback.
Additionally, Kos-Read pointed out inconsistencies in advertising the request for proposals, mentioning that outdated publications may have been included in city reports.
While records suggest that ads were placed in existing newspapers, the inclusion of some defunct papers in past reports raised concerns.
Marina Security’s CEO, Sam Tadesse, expressed dissatisfaction with Oakland’s contracting process, citing delays and conflicting policy priorities.
In response to the council’s rejection of a staff recommendation, Tadesse urged that staff should accommodate public feedback before resubmitting any recommendations.
Rowan also chimed in on systemic issues within Oakland’s decentralized procurement process, suggesting it leads to inconsistencies and complications.
City Administrator Jestin Johnson echoed this sentiment, noting that a streamlined procurement process would mitigate lobbying complications identified by Rowan.
Johnson mentioned discussions regarding contracting issues with Mayor Barbara Lee and City Auditor Michael Houston, along with the hire of consulting firm Baker Tilly to evaluate Oakland’s procurement system.
He acknowledged the critical recommendations from Baker Tilly aimed at improving the city’s contracting framework.
The unfolding saga of the security services contract highlights the intersection of local politics, contract procurement processes, and the complexities of addressing community representation in municipal contracts.
As the debate continues, the outcome may set a significant precedent for future contracting practices in Oakland.
image source from：oaklandside
