HOW SAUSAGE TSC TAXPAYERS GOT ON SECURITY WAS MADE

By Juan Montoya
Quickly now.

If you were a member of an elective board to the local junior college (Texas Southmost College, in this instance), which security company would you choose if you looked at the document on top? (Click on images to see entire list of bidders and qualifications. One is left out on the outside right in this top graphic).
The bids were for a security company to patrol campus facilities and provide protection to the student body, faculty, and staff.
And what if, in your deliberations in the course of your fiduciary duties, you perused the second document and saw that all the companies that bid met all the specifications required by the TSC administration?
Would that make your decision easier knowing that you not only protected the folks and facilities out at the college but were also giving the district taxpayer a bigger bang for the buck? After all, that's one of the reasons you were elected, isn't it?

Well, it's obvious that we don't live in a perfect world. Instead of choosing the lowest bid (American Surveillance-Brownsville), a majority of the trustees decided to hire one of the other bidders temporarily until the college set up its own in-house security component, something that Chet Lewis, vice president for finance and administration, said could take as long as a year.
Then, a meeting later, trustees approved a one-year contract with American Investigations and Security International, the company that’
had been hired to provide security services on campus for the past two weeks. America Investigations was hired after a request for proposal process drew bids from 10 companies.
The most expensive company was Allied Barton Security Services, a national company, with a $573,009 bid per year.
The lowest bid was made by American Surveillance at $296,982.
The difference between the company that was hired for a year (American Investigations, third highest at $444,164) ) and the lowest (American Surveillance) was a not-insignificant $147,182.
During the two weeks that the company was providing the temporary service patrolling the campus starting on Sept. 20, it billed the college $11,000 per week with the company using its own vehicles. Lewis said the cost will be reduced to about $9,000 per week when TSC provides golf carts for patrols, he said.
(As an aside: American Surveillance included golf carts in its base bid and American Investigations did not).
Let's do the math.
At $11,000, it will cost the college district taxpayer $572,000 a year ($11,000 times 52).
At $9,000, it will cost the college district taxpayer $468,000, suspiciously close to its initial $444,164.
However, during and interview with the local daily (which by the way neglected to point out the lowest bidder) Lewis said that by "running a few scenarios, he expected the cost for American Investigations and Security International would be approximately $296,000 a year."
Where did we hear a similar figure, children?
Yes, of course, it was the lowest bid of American Surveillance, remember? Their bid was $296,982.
The evaluations of each company, Lewis said, were made based on four factors: services offered to TSC, project team and management, references for the companies and the cost of each company.

“Typically when you do an RFP (request for proposals), you see a higher rating on the cost,” said Lewis, adding that in this case it was different because the security services provided are unique to each company compared to a request for proposals for computers which are all the same."
What?
Didn't the TSC RFP report above show that all the companies met the qualifications required by TSC?
The Herald reporter wrote that "the trustees chose the company that’s already been at TSC because of the firm’s familiarity with the campus.
“The company that is providing services for us right now knows the campus,” board member Rene Torres said.
“They’ve been providing the service and they’ve been responsive to us and I’ve seen a high level of activity here on campus,” Lewis chimed in.
A motion to approve the lowest bid was made by trustee Raymond Hinojosa, and seconded by Adela Garza, but died for lack of a majority.
Torres then made the motion to hire American Investigations, got a second, and the rest of the board followed suit with Hinojosa voting "nay.
Board chair Francisco “Kiko” Rendon abstained. Rendon later explained that he abstained because he had worked for American Construction, a company associated with the owners of American Surveillance.
And that, children, is how the sausage fed to the community college district taxpayer was made.