June 21, 2005

SUBJECT: Award of Request for Proposals No. F040233 to Provide Uniforms for Certain City Employees

REPORT IN BRIEF

Approval is requested for the award of a three-year contract, with an option to extend the contract for two additional two-year periods, to Aramark Uniform Services of San Jose to provide uniforms for certain employees located primarily in the Department of Public Works.

BACKGROUND

For many years, the City has contracted with a commercial uniform provider to provide and launder uniforms for certain employees, including field crew members, mechanics, water laboratory technicians and other employees who typically work with materials, such as hazardous chemicals, pesticides, street slurry seal, wastewater, etc., which require an industrial cleaning process. 

Typically, uniform providers provide eleven sets of clothing (shirts and pants) to each employee on a rental basis.  The employee has five sets, plus a spare, to wear while five sets are being laundered.  Clean uniforms are delivered and soiled uniforms are collected for laundering on a weekly basis. In some cases, coveralls, lab coats, etc., are also provided, depending upon each employee’s work responsibilities.  The City is charged a weekly fee per article of clothing per employee.

As clothing deteriorates due to normal wear and tear, it is replaced at no additional cost to the City.  However, should otherwise serviceable clothing be damaged beyond repair (for example, ripped or badly stained), the City is charged a replacement cost which varies, depending upon the item.

Contracts for uniform rental are typically long in duration due to the tremendous amount of time it takes to convert from one uniform provider to another.  Since 1997, the City has contracted with Aramark Uniform Services to provide uniforms for City employees.  This contract was awarded as the result of a competitive bid and has been renewed annually since 1997.  The current contract will expire on June 30, 2005. 

Typically, the City’s annual cost for uniform rental services has been approximately $75,000 although FY 04/05 costs were approximately $10,000 lower, due primarily to staff reductions in response to budget limitations.

DISCUSSION

Staff has investigated a variety of methods for providing uniforms for City employees.  However, the issue is complicated by the fact that the provision of uniforms is included in City MOUs.  Since it is considered a form of compensation, any change in City practice must be negotiated with the City’s labor associations.  Nevertheless, in some cases, purchasing uniforms for home laundry was found to be the most cost-effective method; and that approach has been implemented, where appropriate and possible.  In other cases, however, uniforms become soiled with industrial materials that should not be washed in a home laundry facility; and uniform rental has been determined to be the most cost-effective process.

Request for Proposals (RFP) No. F0402-33 for uniform rental services was prepared by Purchasing and Public Works staff.  The RFP was advertised on the City’s website and distributed to uniform providers through the DemandStar by Onvia public procurement network.  Five firms requested RFP documents; and proposals were received from Aramark Uniform Services of San Jose, Prudential Overall Supply of Milpitas and G & K Services of Hayward.

Written proposals were reviewed by an evaluation team, consisting of employees from Purchasing and the Environmental, Urban Landscape and Field Services Divisions of the Department of Public Works.  In addition, all three proposers were invited to make presentations before the team as well as to submit clothing samples for evaluation.

In addition to cost, proposals were rated on the length, depth and relevancy of the proposer’s experience, its approach to providing the required services and the appropriateness of this approach to the City’s needs.

A thorough review of the proposals revealed that there were more similarities than differences between the three firms.  All three have been in the uniform business for decades, all three offer exceptionally similar clothing choices, and all three offer adequate processes for keeping track of garments picked up and returned each week. 

Following are comparisons of the estimated weekly costs proposed by each firm:

In addition, all three firms charge for replacement of damaged garments as well as for affixing employee names and City logos on garments.  Prudential also charges a $1.00 per garment prep fee.  Although they have waived this charge for the first ninety days of the contract, this fee will add as much as $22 per new employee and for any current employee who undergoes a size change.     

After a thorough review of all three proposals, staff recommends award of contract to Aramark Uniform Services.  Overall, Aramark has provided satisfactory service to the City during the past eight years.  Occasional problems with missing garments have been resolved quickly; and Aramark has agreed to implement an improved quality control system to preclude these problems in the future.  Aramark has also agreed to provide a new set of garments for each uniformed employee to duplicate the benefit the City would enjoy if the contract were awarded to a new service provider. 

Finally, continuing with the same uniform provider will avoid the significant costs and disruption to City services that would be experienced with a change of uniform provider.  Changing providers would mean that all 180-200 uniformed employees would be required to return their existing uniforms to a central location where they would be fitted for new uniforms (estimated time – 2 hours per employee).  Discrepancies between City and uniform provider records would have to be resolved (for example, number of garments due for return to the provider). New uniforms would then have to be received and dispensed to all 180-200 employees; and the inevitable errors (size, color, employee name, type of garment, etc.) would have to be corrected. In addition, all of this disruptive activity would have to be coordinated by management or administrative staff (estimated time – 40-80 hours). 

Although it is likely that G & K’s fees would be slightly less than Aramark’s (lower weekly costs but higher garment replacement costs), staff believes that the cost savings, if any, are insufficient to justify the costs that would be incurred during the conversion from one supplier to another.

FISCAL IMPACT

It is anticipated that, based on current staffing and uniform inventory levels, total cost to the City will not exceed $65,000 per year.  Funds are routinely budgeted in various activities throughout the City.

RECOMMENDATION

It is recommended that Council award a three-year contract, with an option to extend the contract for two additional two-year periods, for uniform rental services to Aramark Uniform Services in substantially the same form as the attached Blanket Purchase Order.

Prepared by:

Elaine Wesely

Purchasing Officer

Reviewed by:

Mary J. Bradley

Director, Finance

Reviewed by:

Marvin Rose

Director, Public Works

Approved by:

Amy Chan

City Manager

Attachment

Blanket Purchase Order No. 27624-B (.pdf format)