MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD

Subject: Review of RFP# P0003 - Alabama A&M University Facilities Services Contract

Conducted by: James D. Montgomery, Sr., Trustee 3rd Congressional District

Submitted: June 14, 2010

Purpose and Overview

The University is a party to numerous contracts for goods and services. In order to maintain a
viable process for contract review and awards it is necessary to comply with the requisite
internal policies overwritten by the applicable statues and regulations for the state of Alabama.

During the Alabama A&M University Trustee February board meeting Dr . Hugine ( University
President) introduced to the board an information item that dealt with the awarding of a $4.8
million dollar Facilitates Services Contract to ARAMARK Higher Education. Most of the
attending board members were unaware of the contract award and attempted to gain an
understanding of the transaction from Dr. Hugine but after varying explanations were
presented by different board members and there were apparent conflicting views of the
awarding of the facilities Services Contract award all discussion on the contract award was
halted. It was after a decision was made to halt discussion on the contract that I decided to
exercise my authority as a duly appointed trustee to attempt to gain a full and clear
understanding of all occurrences associated with the facilities contract award. In an effort to
know where to go and to whom to go to request information I asked Mr. Kevin Rolle
(Assistant to the President) and he replied that he was not involved with the contract and
didn't know any of the details. I then spoke to Mr. Charlie Rucker ( Former Vice-President
Business & Finance) and he indicated that he was not asked to be involved in the contract but
it was being handled out of the President's Office.

A request was made by me to the board's President Pro Tempore, Dr/ Riggins to review all
documents associated with the award of the facilities services contract. The initial request
was met with opposition by the University President wherein he opined that " Given the
circumstances of this request, we must be mindful that Comprehensive Standard 3.2.6 of the
Southern Association of Colleges and Universities (SACS) states that there is a clear distinction
in writing and in practice between the role of the Board of Trustees in policy making and the
administration in carrying out the policy. Furthermore, the Bylaws of the Board of Trustees of
Alabama A&M University states that the Board of Trustees delegates to the President full
authority in the administration and operation of the University. The execution of contracts has
been in policy and practice, the purview of the President and the administration. Based on the
decision and re-affirmation of the Board of Trustees, the administration has followed the
procedures of outsourcing by following a fair competitive bid process consistent with the laws
of the State of Alabama and with the best interests of the University in mind. " Of course there
did not exist then neither does there exist now any violation of SACs policies associated with
any trustee or citizen requesting to review documents associated with RFP's. In fact contained
within the very RFP itself was language that asserted " Proposals are subject to provisions of
state law relating to inspection of public records. Proposals will be kept confidential until a list
of recommended offerors is approved by the university. Following that approval all documents
pertaining to this submittal will be open for public inspection - except those which the offerror
has stamped or imprinted the words " proprietary or confidential."

On March 12 -13, 2010, I was allowed to receive documents associated with the contract
award and was required to review those documents in the office of University Counsel. I was
not allowed to copy documents or remove any of the documents from the University Council's
Office. I carefully examined each document created for the bid, reviewed comments from
bidders, reviewed the rating scales applied to each bidder, reviewed each monetary bid
submitted , noted complaints, tried to determine who was directing the bidding process and
compiled all of the relevant information into a report for the President Pro Tempore and
board members. At the time of my review the contract finalizing the award to ARAMARK had
not been signed by Dr. Hugine.

Finding of Facts

1. A majority of the companies listed as attending the pre-bid meeting on Jan 8, 2010 did not
submit a bid for the Facilities Services Contract.

2.Aramark was awarded the Facilities Services Contract at a cost of $3,866,112 but the contract
( as presented in the February 2010 Board meeting) was awarded at $4.8 Million .

3. UNICCO UGL Company submitted a bid for the Facilities Services Contract
in the amount of $4,818,924.
4. The solicitation was released on Dec 14, 2009 and bids were received on Jan 19, 2010 @
2:00 pm CDT and certified by Delores Hudson who is a senior staff member in the A&M
purchasing office.
5. There is an RFP evaluations sheet used to rank companies . Companies are ranked in four
(4) different categories and given a numerical rating ranging from 1-5 with 5 being the highest
rating. The sheet also contains a comment section. The names of the person conducting
interview assigning points is not listed on the interview sheet.
6. The RFP proposal evaluation sheet rankings are the sum of all categories and 10 interview
questions.
7. Companies that did not bid on the contract requested more time to respond to RFP and their
requests were denied.
8. University Officials ignored requests by companies to extend time to allow a thorough
review of university facilities, invoices and repair costs and time to conduct interviews with
department heads and faculty to understand the critical needs of student life.
9. Companies only had approximately one week to prepare bid for Facilities Services Contract
RFP.

10. Companies interested in bidding on the Facilities Services Contract were not provided with
necessary documentation required to prepare a comprehensive competitive bid.

11. RFP for the Facilities Services Contract was issued Dec 14, 2009 - proposal pre meeting Jan
8, 2010 - 10:00 am CDT - deadline for submitting questions proposal due date - Jan 15, 2010 -
10:00 am CDT. ARAMARK Higher Education was the low bidder with $3,866,112 but the final
award ended higher.

12. There was no indication that a new bid was prepared or that other companies were given
an opportunity to re-bid based on an increase in the actual RFP.

13. Letter of intent for ARAMARK Higher Education services was signed by Dr. Hugine on Feb 9,
2010.

14. Contributions by ARAMARK Higher Education to enhance appearance of campus ($500K)

and contributions (Investment) of $356K in custodial and ground equipment have
reimbursement clauses and do not represent donor contributions.
 Discussion and Analysis
FACT #1:

A majority of the companies listed as attending the pre-bid meeting on Jan 8, 2010 declined
to submit a bid for the Facilities Services Contract.

Discussion:

The following companies that attended the Jan 8, 2010 pre-bid meeting declined to submit a
bid:

Company (1): Johnson Control

In a letter a dated Jan 19, 2010 Karen Henly Raymond/Solutions Design Leader with Johnson
Control indicated Johnson control would not submit a response to the request for the following
reasons:

 Historical Budget informatiion was not available related to repair history, maintenance
records, actual expenditures on physical facilities .
 Ample time would be needed to review all invoices and repair costs to understand
facilities operations ....

Ms Raymond also commented that with the tight response time, holiday schedules and
inclement weather, there was not ample time to prepare a comprehensive response.

Company (2): GCA Services Group

In a letter dated Jan 19, 2010 to Ms. Delois Hudson , David Edmonson Senior Sales Director
stated:

 He did not believe it was in the best interest of either the company or Alabama A&M
to submit a proposal at this time.
 An invitation was extended to inspect the university facilities during the holidays, no
buildings or asset data was provided as a guide for such a survey.
 In spite of numerous requests from GCA, and several other companies to delay the
due date, the university chose (for whatever reason) to stand firm on the due date
(with weather and MLK Day delay) of Jan 19, 2010 - still not allowing adequate time to
produce a valid proposal.
  The RFP was issued by A&M on Dec 14, 2009 within four (4) days of the Christmas
Holiday closing of the university.
 No building or asset data was provided as a guide for conducting a facilities survey.
 Without concrete facilities data, without any technical specifications, and without a
clear statement of expectations it was their decision not to submit a proposal using
incomplete and speculative information.
 Several of the data and information items that were not included in the RFP but were
essential to producing a complete, valid proposal were as follows: (1) A complete
employee listing ( positions, no names) with wages, and time in service (2) A list of
capital assets ( i.e. boilers, chillers, HVACs equipment, vehicles) (3) A list of existing
equipment available for use by the successful contractor ( i.e. tools, machinery, non-
capital vehicles) (4) a current budget ( M&O) for the physical plant. (5) Preventive
maintenance and work order histories (6) a listing of technical specifications for all
service disciplines (7) No technical specifications were included in the RFP - service
definitions were included but no definitions of outcomes or expectations are provided
by AAMU. Without this critical direction there would be ho commonality of
outcomes, or pricing in proposals submitted.

Company (3): Southern Management

In a letter dated Jan 19, 2010 Edris Pledger - Director of operations wrote:

ABM/Southern Management has decided not to pursue the Facilities Services Contract. at
Alabama A&M.

Request that due to the short response time given that the bid process be re-opened for all
respondents for a period of at least three weeks. This additional time would allow for a
thorough site survey for each vendor in order to ascertain the best and most effective
processes to achieve A&M's goals.
Company(4) : Environmental Systems Corporation

Ken Laney - VP of Business Development

Letter Dated Jan 19, 2010 to Delores Hudson - Senior Buyer Purchasing Department Alabama
A&M university.

Ken Laney Wrote:

The time restraints imposed prevents us from adequately assembling a proposal that
incorporates the existing assets, required assets, scheduled maintenance, unscheduled
maintenance and deferred maintenance requirements. Should the RFP be extended we would
be interested in continuing the process necessary to provide a comprehensive and complete
proposal that Alabama A&M deserves.

Company (5): Service Solutions

Julie Dickey - Associate Director of Business Development

Declined to bid because only had interest in Housekeeping services.

Company (6): Rite Way

Barry Lowery - Sales Manger

Letter Dated Jan 13, 2010

Wrote:

We will have to decline the opportunity to provide a proposal at this time unless the university
extends the due date twenty-five to thirty days; thereby allowing the necessary due diligence to
supply you with a comprehensive proposal and plan to meet facility services needs. If the
university decides to extend the bid date, please notify us and we will proceed as originally
planned
Company( 7): Linc

Alan B. Cristal - Director of Sales

Letter dates Jan 12, 2010

Wrote:

Linc must respectively decline to furnish a proposal to AAMU at this time and under the present
circumstances, especially since we plan to self perform most of the requirements and needed
services . The reasons are as follows:

 Sufficient information has not been provided to us by AAMU

 Questions regarding the RFP have not been answered
 the time frame to present a well thought out, efficient, cost effective maintenance
program for AAMU cannot be accomplished in the three working days or six (6) days if
you count weekends and MLK Holiday remaining after the pre-proposal conference and
subsequent cursory site tours of facilities.

FACT# 2.

ARAMARK Higher Education was awarded the Facilities Services Contract at a cost of
$3,866,112 but the contract ( as presented in the February 2010 Board meeting) was awarded
at $4.8 Million . #2:

The Certified Tabulation of Bids for The Facilities Services Contract were as follows:

ARAMARK Higher Education : $3,866,112

Sodexho: $5 , 806,157

UNICCO UGL: $4,818,924

For some unknown reason ARAMARKs low bid of $3,866,112 finally ends as a $4.8 Million
award without a rebidding to allow other companies to adjust their bids. On page 28 of the
RFP it clearly states that during the proposal acceptance period all proposals remain valid for
minimum of 90 days. No proposals maybe modified or withdrawn by the offeror during this
period unless prior written notice is granted by the university.
I did not discover any letter of any other document or written communication that permitted
a change in anyone's bid.

FACT #3

UNICCO UGL Company submitted a bid for the Facilities Services Contract
in the amount of $4,818,924.

The certified Tabulation of Bids for the Facilities Services Contract was as follows for UNICCO
UGL Company:

UNICCO UGL: $4,818,924

It appears that the UNICCO UGL company bid is in line with the final award given to
ARAMARK. There was no narrative in the bid papers to explain how the bid escalated to $4.8
million dollars and why wasn't UNICCO considered as low bidder? or what consideration was
afforded UNICCO's Bid?

FACT#4.
The solicitation was released on Dec 14, 20069 and bids were received on Jan 19, 2010 @ 2:00
pm CDT and certified by Delores Hudson.

It is clear from the numerous complaint letters submitted to Ms. Hudson and to Mr. Alexander
that many of the companies responding to the RFP felt that more time should have afforded in
order to prepare a thorough bid that would be fair to the university and to the respective
companies. There remains now a question regarding why the letters were not responded to
and why the time frames could not be extended to accommodate a significant pool of
respondents.

FACTS#5 & 6

There is an RFP evaluations sheet used to rank companies . Companies are ranked in four (4)
different categories and given a numerical rating ranging from 1-5 with 5 being the highest
rating. The sheet also contains a comment section. The names of the person conducting
interview assigning points is not listed on the interview sheet.
The RFP proposal evaluation sheet ranking are the sum of all categories and 10 interview
questions

I was unable to determine the efficacy of the evaluation sheet and what purpose it served.
There did not appear to be any standard objective set of rating criteria used by each of the
evaluators to assign points. I was not able to look at the evalustion sheets and determine who
had rated a particular company. Of course evaluators names should appear on rating sheets in
case there is a dispute regarding a rating or if there is some misinterpretation of a rating then
the actual rater would have to provide a response. If rater/evaluator's name is not on the
sheet then clarifying questionable information could be difficult.

FACTS#7&8

Companies that did not bid on the contract requested more time to respond to RFAP and
their requests were denied.
University Officials ignored requests by companies to extend time to allow a thorough review
of university facilities, invoices and repair costs and time to conduct interviews with
department heads and faculty top understand the critical needs of student life.

I found no evidence among papers or reports provided to me by the legal office that confirmed
that any response were provided to companies that requested additional time to respond to
RFP.

FACT#9

Companies only had approximately one week to prepare bid for Facilities Services Contract
RFP.

Given the nature of the RFP and the technical information required to prepare a substantive bid
it appears that one week to respond to the RFP was not adequate. The question of course is
what or who was driving the rush to complete the bid process in such a short period of time?
Was the university under some external mandate to have the bid completed within a certain
time frame and who prohibited someone from favorably considering a request to extend the
bid process so that more than half of the companies responding could have had a fair chance a
submitting their bid.
FACT#10

Companies interested in bidding on the Facilities Services Contract were not provided with
necessary documentation required to prepare a comprehensive competitive bid.

Several companies submitted letters to Mr. Alexander stating that documentation needed to
prepare a fair bid was not provided and in some instances no documentation was provided I
did not see in the RFP documentation any response in writing to suggest that the requests of
those companies requesting documentation was considered.

FACT#11

RFP for the Facilities Services Contract was issued Dec 14, 2009 - pre- Proposal meeting Jan 8,
2010 - 10:00 am CDT - deadline for submitting questions _ proposal due date - Jan 15, 2010 -
2010 10:00 am CDT. ARAMARK Higher Education was the low bidder with $3,866,112 but the
final award ended higher.

Companies that did not submit bids complained they did not have enough time to obtain a fair
assessment of crucial documents in order to prepare a bid that was fair and equitable to their
company and Alabama A&M. The companies also complained that the time allocated to
conduct a walk through inspection of the physical plant was not adequate. It appears
ARAMARK Higher Education was able to conduct the necessary inspections of documents,
physical plant and to satisfy other requirements necessary for them to become the low bidder.

FACT#12

There was no indication that a new bid was prepared or that other companies were given an
opportunity to re-bid based on an increase in the actual RFP.

Although ARAMARK Higher Education won the Facilities Services Contract with a low bid of
$3,866,112 the A&M budget line item for the award shows $4,818,924. There was no
documentation in the RFP documents that I reviewed which showed that a new RFP was
advertised nor an extension given to allow for the bid adjustments.

FACT#13

Letter of intent for ARAMARK Higher Education services was signed by Dr. Hugine on Feb 9,
2010.

Dr. Hugine signed the letter of intent committing the university to the Facilities Services
Contract award to ARAMARK Higher Education prior to notifying the Alabama
A&M University Trustee board of the particulars of the award. During the Feb 25, 2010 board
meeting Dr. Hugine presented cursory information on the Facilities Services Contract award
and described the presentation as an information item.

FACT#14

Contributions by ARAMARK Higher Education to enhance appearance of campus ($500K) and

contributions (Investment) of $356K in custodial and ground equipment have reimbursement
clauses and do not represent donor contributions.

Contributions that are made by ARAMARK Higher Education for equipment and custodial
upgrades ( Nearly $1 Million dollars) will have to be reimbursed if according to the language in
the RFP which states "Upon expiration or termination of the agreement by either party for any
reason A&M agrees to reimburse ARAMARK for the unamortized balance of the $500K
investment" . the same language is used to cover the investment of $356K in custodial and
ground equipment .

Conclusion
I started my review of the administration's award of a Facilities Services Contract to gain a clear
understanding of how RFP's are executed and processed at the university. I initially inquired of Mr.
Kevin Rolle ( Assistant to the President) regarding to whom I should speak to understand how the
Facilities Contract was Awarded and Mr. Rolle stated that he was not involved with the contract and
didn't know. I spoke to Mr. Charlie Rucker ( Former Vice-President Business & Finance) regarding to
whom I should speak to understand how the Facilities Contract was Awarded and he stated that he
was not involved in the Facilities Services Contract but it was being handled in the President's Office.

In my view it is imperative that each appointed trustee be aware of how the business of awarding
contracts is handled at A&M. It is important to know and understand the RFP process because the
university is party to numerous contracts that translate into millions of dollars that are expended to
insure that adequate goods and services are made available to accommodate our student body.
Trustees are held accountable by statue for the amount of money that is expended for goods and
services consumed by the university and more importantly is held accountable for how it is expended.
This review has caused me to wonder and question the methodology used with the Facilities Services
Contract and to want to gain clarity on the current administration's philosophy on Requests for
Proposals. For example a significant number of companies wrote letters complaining to the
administration about the lack of information provided by the university that was crucial to preparing
a competitive bid but their requests were ignored. The administration also ignored requests by
companies to extend the time for final bid submission although all of the requests identified
substantive and critical reasons to justify their requests for an extension.
Assertions by the administration during its presentation during the February 2010 board meeting that
ARAMARK Higher Education was somehow donating funds to upgrade equipment and to do
other upgrades at the tune of approximately one-million dollars omitted the universities
liability if the contract expires or is terminated for any reason by either party.

Information that translates into exceptions and possible future expenditures of hundreds of
thousands of dollars for future current and future administrations should be stated clearly
and with transparency. In today's environment of budget cuts, dwindling resources, and
strict accountability, we as trustees are required to know and understand how funds are
being spent and if they are being spent for the right reasons. We cannot delegate financial
oversight and review to someone , or some agency but fiduciary oversight rests with each of
us. We must know beyond any doubt that any contract that is awarded from Alabama A&M
University has been thoroughly vetted and every action associated with it is transparent.

We must create a board level review of selected contracts that is consistent with our role as
trustees and fulfills our obligations as a protector or the Alabama A&M University

Recommendations
The following Recommendations are made:

 That, a permanent board level Contract Review Committee with a permanent chair
position be appointed to oversee Contracts. The Committee would develop the
guidelines for which contracts would be reviewed prior to an award.
 That, the President Pro Tempore appoint a committee to obtain more details on the
awarding of the Facilities Management Contract to ARAMARK Higher Education. This
committee should not include any members from the budget and finance committee..
The committee should include one person with a legal background.. or Submit A
request to the Alabama Department of Public Accounts within next 15 days requesting
a review of the Facilities Contract Services Award.
 That, the President provide the board with a list of all contracts that have been signed
since he was selected as president and provide a monthly list each month for any
additional contacts that are signed.
Questions

1. When did ARAMARK Higher Education conduct its full site survey and what did that
involve.
2. What prevented other companies from conducting site review.
3. What is meant by this statement " Any year one cost that are over the targeted plan will
be direct bill as transition costs to Alabama A&M. ( Year one costs planned $3,866,112)
4. What is meant by this statement " ARAMARK Higher Education will review any expected
maintenance occurrences and those costs will be deemed a project or capital project
and funds will be allocated from other A&M Sources?"
5. Explain the annual donation of $10,000 made to A&M Scholarships.
6. Explain "Any property purchased for A&M shall be on a sale for resale to the client."
7. Has a notice to proceed been issued to ARAMARK Higher Education : when, who issued
it?
8. Will ARAMARK Higher Education have any subcontractors for this contract? Who are
the subcontractors and where are they from? What work have they done for other
universities ?
9. Is contract a firm fixed unit price contract? If so what does that mean?
10. Why did North Star Cleaning & Waste Gone only Bid on custodial work - could either
company bidding have won only the portion of the contract.
11. A maximum of 20 points could be received for financial proposal - explain how a
company could receive points for this item.
 COMPANIES THAT SIGNED UP ON PRE-BID MEETING SHEET

 Lee Company
 Rite Way Service
 Al Lawn Master
 Linc Facility Service, LLC
 Sodexho
 GCA Services Group
 Datacom Solutions , Inc.
 River Country Development, Inc.
 Service Essential Systems, Corp
 Southern Building MTR
 Environmental Systems Corp
 Johnson's Controls, Inc.
 ARAMARK Higher Education
 ARAMARK
 Waste B Gone
 UNICCO
 Adams Brown Services