Giddens Lawsuit, This Will Cost Taxpayers $$$
October 6, 2019
Here it is, Less than 6 months into James first term as Mayor and we have a lawsuit. The entire court documents can be read below, here are the highlights.
Filed on 9/13/2019 in the Circuit Court of the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit.
Plaintiff: Giddens Security Corporation Vs. The City of West Palm Beach.
Court documents state in part: “The underlying controversy involves the erroneous, arbitrary, capricious, anticompetitive and illegal actions of the city in proposing to award the 5-year $7.9 Million contract to PSC in clear violation of the City’s own Charter, it’s competitive Procurement Code and other requirements and policies.”
Ten (10) Security Co. submitted a RFP (Request for Proposal) and all met the deadline (4/17/19) to submit their proposal.
Giddens was asking the court for “temporary and permanent injunctive relief against the City.”
Parties, Jurisdiction, and Venue
#20 “Via a letter emailed the morning of September 9, 2019, Plaintiff, through its undersigned counsel, alerted the Mayor, the City Commissioners, and the City Attorney that such a contract was potentially illegal, contrary to the City Charter, and contrary to the City Procurement Code, and requested the resolutionbe “tabled” for two weeks to allow for more time to investigatethe circumstances (Exhibit C), (September 9, 2019 letter)
#21 “The City refused to delay the matter, Instead, at it’s regularly scheduled meeting the evening of September 9, the Commission voted unanimously to approve the contract with PSC.”
April 18,2019 The city sent via e-mail communication “The city is hear by cancelling RFP No. 18-19-207 & 18-19-208.” Letter states the “City will re-issue the solicitation in the near future.” View Exhibit B
Sept.9, 2019 Letter from Smith & Associates (representing Giddens) to City Attorney Kimberly Rothenburg requesting the city postpone their vote on selecting a security company for 2 weeks. View Exhibit C
Read entire court filing here: Giddens history 1st filing
Outcome
9/27/2019 Order Denying Motion for Temporary Injnctive Relief without prejudice. leaving Giddens “to file another motion to set for hearing”
Read court’s 1 page decision here: Giddens Judge’s ruling
9/27/2019 The day the court’s decision was handed down the city held a Special City Commission Meeting.
Resolution No. 328-19 canceling the Security Services Agreement with Professional Security Consultants to provide security services for City facilities and in Northwood.
I attended both the court hearing and the “Special” Commission Meeting. Attending the City Commission meeting were approxamately 15-20 residents along with Gidden’s attorney and members of their staff and reporters.
3 Commissioners were absent, Lambert, Shoaf and Peduzzi.
On the dais were Commissioners Neering, Ryles, James, Jeff Green and Kimberly Rothenburg. After waiting 15 minutes (of watching most of them texting) after the meeting was to start I stood and asked James how long he would keep us waiting, wasting our time when most of the people in chambers knew 3 commissioners would be a no show and a quorm would not be met. No quorm, no meeting, go home. We went home.
The agenda for the City Commission meeting for 10/7/19 has been posted and contains 18 items for discussions. Not on the agenda is one word concerning the no-bid contract. I’m assuming they hope this will go away, and it will if people allow it. I would love to have residents show up and use their 3 minutes of comments to ask commissioners and James if they plan to place it back on the agenda, and show up to vote the issue. There are residents that show up to speak out about issues and don’t live in that district but support the residents that do. If we want to make change, no matter where we live that’s what must happen. Please join me at Monday’s (10/7/19) and voice your opinion. Hopefully commissioners will see voters and with 3 up for election in March we may make them nervous.
Below are the court documents dated 9/19/2019 which contain the lawsuit filed by Giddens Security. What do you think will happen if the other 9 Security firms also file suit for the no-bid contract?
