Laserfiche WebLink
7.1.C. - Page 2 <br /> another agency and extending that organization's contract to benefit <br /> the City's proposed purchase in order to get the best quality and price. This <br /> is sometimes referred to as "piggybacking" and state law, although not <br /> controlling here, also allows for this procedure under certain <br /> circumstances. Further, alternative procedures may be acceptable even <br /> when there is no specific provision for alternatives to competitive <br /> bidding when competitive proposals would be unavailing or would not <br /> produce an advantage, and thwart the underlying purpose of having a <br /> competitive bid procedure. (See Graydon v Pasadena Redevelopment <br /> Agency (1980) 104 Cai.App.3d 631.) <br /> Section 2.80 of the Purchasing Ordinance allows the "piggyback" procedure to be <br /> used for the purchase of materials, equipment, supplies, or professional services <br /> without competitive bidding under the following circumstances: <br /> • Purchases from vendors whose names are on current established <br /> lists and have been awarded the same type of purchase contract by a <br /> state agency, county, city or other public agency after competitive bidding <br /> processes substantially equivalent to that prescribed by the City Charter <br /> or the Purchasing Ordinance; and <br /> • Such purchases conform to the specifications thereof of the City; and <br /> • The estimated price of any such purchase equal to or lower than <br /> that estimated for such purchase if made directly by the City pursuant to <br /> the competitive bidding requirements of the Purchasing Ordinance. <br /> The Open Market Purchase provisions allowing for piggybacking is somewhat <br /> ambiguous but the City Attorney has opined that it also applies to purchases over <br /> $60,000 because as the regular procedure for purchases under $60,000 is itself <br /> an alternative to a formal competitive bid process, with three written quotations <br /> and City Manager approval. [RWCMC 2.65] However, if the City Council does not <br /> agree with this interpretation, it should not approve the process to purchase the <br /> motorcycles. <br /> Staff indicates that the necessary findings under Section 2.80 may be made for <br /> the following reasons. <br /> First, staff proposes to piggyback on the competitive bidding requirements of <br /> another public agency - the State of California General Services Administration, <br /> Department of Procurement's CMAS competitive bidding process. Public Works <br /> Division staff has reviewed the CMAS competitive bidding process, completed in <br /> November 2012, and confirm that the State's co m p et i t i v e bidding requirements <br /> are equivalent to that prescribed by the City Charter or the Purchasing Ordinance of <br /> the City. <br /> Second, such purchase conforms to the specifications thereof of the City because <br />