16 057b Employee Uniform Contract

,41 J7M-,. Report No: Meeting Date 16-057b June 28, 2017 Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District STAFF RE PO RT TO:...

0 downloads 176 Views 168KB Size


Report No: Meeting Date

16-057b June 28, 2017

Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District




AC Transit Board of Directors


Michael A. Hursh, General Manager Contract Award for Transportation, Supervision, Dispatch, and Customer Service Employee Uniforms



Consider approving the award of a three-year cooperative contract with two one-year options, to ServiceWear Apparel to provide high quality professional uniforms for ACTransit operators, supervisors, dispatchers, and customer service employees. BACKGROUND/RATIONALE

AC Transit currently uses the services of Anderson's Uniform Company to fit, produce, and deliver uniforms for operators, supervisors, dispatchers, and customer service employees in

accordancewith the AmalgamatedTransit Union (ATU) collective bargainingagreement. In 2016, the District issued a Request for Proposal(RFP) to qualified vendors to enter into a new five-year contract to provide these uniforms. Due to pricing irregularities, the RFPwas cancelled and a one-yearcontract extension was issuedto Anderson's Uniform Companyfor the period of January 1, 20].7 to December 31, 2017 to ensure employees were provided with uniforms while conducting a new solicitation.

Staff conducted meetings with various uniform vendors to evaluate the issuesthat resulted in the cancellationof the prior RFPin an effort to develop a new statement of work and issuea new solicitation for additional competitive bidders who may offer a more attractive cost proposal in line with the needs of the District. During these meetings, the District became aware of two cooperative contracts that were bid competitively to supply uniforms to municipalagenciesacrossthe country.

The managementteamsfrom the two cooperative contracts met with District staff, provided samplesof their uniforms, and demonstrated their on-line ordering systems. The District uniform committee, which consisted of management, ATU 192, and AFSCME39].6 employees, reviewedand rated the two competitive cooperative proposals individually based upon the level of service, uniform quality, technical abilities and accessibility. Based upon established criteria, the uniform committee unanimously recommended establishment of a contract with ServiceWear Apparel to provide uniforms for operators, supervisors, dispatchers, and customer service employees.

1 of 4

Report No. 16-057b Page2 of 4

The other uniform vendor was aligned with a different cooperative contract and had a similar garment tracking system and online customer portal, but the quality of the uniforms were not desired by the uniform committee. Additionally, the cooperative cost of the other firm did not offer the same price reduction discounts as Service Wear Apparel. Basedon allof the factors in the evaluation process,ServiceWear Apparel's cooperative uniform contract was considered the most advantageous to the District. A sample of the rating form completed by uniform committee members for the internal evaluation of the two cooperative uniform providers is shown below:






ia 2a 30 4D 5D 10 20 30 4D 50 ID 20 30 4B 5a


10 20 30 4D 5 D


10 2D 3B 4Q 5 a


IB 2D 30 40 50 l0 2a 3D 4D 50 iD 2a 3D 4D 50 10 20 3B 4D 5 B 10 2Q 30 4B 50 IB 2Q 3D 40 5a 10 20 30 4D 5B



NOTE: Pleasemte eachcategoxl'n'ith lbeiilg the lolaest rating and 5 being the highest mtiilg

Prior to recommending Service Wear Apparel, the District requested a "fit" test be performed by providing uniforms to ten(lO) of the uniform committee members, consisting of at least one male and female from each Division. The two week fit test took place from May 25 - June 7, 2017. This test was designed to wash, wear, show, and advertise the uniform choice selections.

The committee evaluatedthese criteria and selected a grade between I to 5 for the use of solidifying the products quality, look, and durability. The committee "fit" test ratings ranged between a 4 or 5 on all categories. The uniform committee unanimously approved the wear test in favor of Service Wear Apparel.

2 of 4

Report No. 16-057b Page 3 of 4

The recommendation to enter into a cooperative contract with ServiceWear Appareleffectively achievesthe District goal of obtaining the lowest possible pricing and best overall vendor services in providing uniforms for the District's

1500 operators,

supervisors, dispatchers,

customer service employees.Competitive cooperative contracts benefit the District by leveragingtheir increasedpurchasingand negotiating power by servicingmultiple firms, thus resulting in a lower overall garment price for all the participating agencies. The use of cooperative contracts reduces the amount of time and effort individual organizations put into a procurement process,while more importantly, the agencyreceivesmore competitive pricing and better services for garment items.

Service Wear Apparel supplies uniforms as part of a competitive Cooperative Employee Uniform Contract with the NationallPA/T.C.P.N.cooperative that is comprised of fourteen(14) principalagencies: City of Tucson, City of San Diego, the County of Dupage, State of Florida, City of Sacramento, City of Las Vegas, Nashville and Davidson County, Oregon State University, Norfolk Public Schools, Fort Worth County, City of Mesa, City of Rochester Hills Michigan, the County of Sacramentoand Region4.

The ServiceWear Apparel cooperative offers deep pricing discounts for the District in addition to providing superior uniform service above and beyond what could be provided by a vendor servicing a single agency. Cooperative purchasing laws create the authority for members to work together and share in the benefit of lower pricing. Upon the District contracting with Service Wear Apparel, the agency willbegin to reap the benefits of this cooperative contract. Staff recommends awardingthe three year contract with two one-year options to ServiceWear Apparel in the amount of $4,048,350.The current uniform services with Anderson's Uniforms can be discontinued with a 30 day notice of convenience to allow for a transition period with ServiceWear Apparel. BUDGETARY/FISCAL IMPACT

The cost of this contract over the life of the agreement

will be included in the annual

OperationsDepartment operating budget. On an annual basis, this contract will result in a change in the uniform budget from approximately $829,000 to $809,670, which is a decrease of $].9,330 on an annual basis. The average cost for uniform vouchers currently range from $528 to $796.97 (due to larger sizes).Service Wear Apparel cost will remain consistent at $591 per voucher, regardless of the uniform size ADVANTAGES/DISADVANTAGES

The advantage of contracting with Service Wear Apparel is the provision of higher quality uniforms for employees at more reasonable prices. Service Wear Apparel demonstrated their ability to satisfactorily provide the full uniform services for the needs of the District, including favorable pricing, several product lines, a dedicated customer service team specific to Region 4 & National IPA/TCPNparticipants, added services (hemming no charge), and the ability to purchasespecialtygoods.

3 of 4

Report No. 16-057b Page4 of 4

There are no known disadvantages of contracting with Service Wear Apparel for employee u niforms. ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS

Staff considered several alternatives to entering into the cooperative agreement with Service Wear Apparel, including issuing a new RFPfor uniform services. The issuing of a new RFPis not recommended, since the pricing would likely be higher for an individualvendor servicing the AC Transit uniform contract, and the quality of the Service Wear Apparel uniforms have shown to be higher than the current contract. PRIOR RELEVANT BOARD ACTION/POLICIES

SR16-057,Uniform Contract SR16-057a,Award of a One-YearContract Extension to Anderson's Uniforms A'TTACHMENTS


Approved by:

James Pachan, Chief Operating Officer

Reviewed by:

DennisStandridge,GeneralCouncil Claudia Allen, Chief FinancialOfficer Sharon Dennis, Acting Director of Procurement and Materials Phillip McCants, Contracts Compliance Administrator DerikCalhoun,Director of Transportation Dwain Crawley,Assistant Director of Transportation

Prepared by:

4 of 4