Exhibit C
Minutes Exhibit C Port Commission Regular Meeting ofAugust 23, 2016 Aug 23, 2016 To: Port of Seattle Commissioners, Ref: RFP # 2016-ABD-1 My name is Elias Shifow and I am here today to strongly protest against the airport taxi response to the RFP award given to Eastside For Hire. The Port of Seattle staff errored in accepting a reSponse to an RFP by Eastside For Hire Inc, as a prime contractor, whereas it is evident that this company has neither the experience, nancial stability nor proven management skills to provide on demand Taxicab For Hire services at the SeaTac International Airport. Eastside listed Standard Parking Inc. as a subcontractor in its response to the RFP in order to supplement their lack of experience to take on such a venture. Fairness dictates that Eastside should have won the contract on its own merits before being allowed to subcontract with a third party. It must be noted that what they submitted, was NOT a joint RFP, and they are not involved in a joint venture. Here are a few points the commissioners may not be aware of; l- Eastside for Hire has thrown their lot in with UBER. In a quid pro quo, UBER rewarded Eastside with contingent nancial backing worth $500,000 (please see page 26 of their response to the RFP). On page 7 of the same response to the RFP, Eastside claims to provide advocacy services for 1000 licensed for hire and taxicab owners and operators in the Pacic Northwest. This statement is utterly false.The Port sta' failed to fact check the claims made by ESFH in its response to this RFP. Writing to the city of Seattle ofce of Consumer Affairs and inquiring about the claim of 1000 for Hire Taxi cabs would have sufced to prove them wrong. 2- In addition, Eastside is actively campaigning against UBER drivers from unionizing. They are on the record testifying against unionization for drivers in front of the Seattle City Council. On Aug 17, 2016 ESFH appeared before the City Council and testied in their opposition to UBER drivers right to collective bargaining/ unionize. This runs contrary to their claims of advocacy as cited on page 7 item C in their response. 3- Furthermore Eastside claimed falsely that they dispatch and provide management and technological support to 1000 for hire taxicabs. These numbers simply don't add up. If that statement were true, it would indeed make them the largest taxicab company in the Northwest. Again the POS staff has failed in its duty to fact check all these claims in their response to the RFP. 4- The proposer actually used the data of a third party Standard Parking -- knowing full well that their own data would be insufcient and thus make them ineligible to compete. The qualications listed in the Port's original RFP document, items 1 thru 6, refers to the proposer as the company or association that submits the RFP should be the party whose qualications must be addressed and vetted. Any proposer who does not meet these basic requirements, the POS should reserve the right to reject their proposal. INBOUND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Eastside claims to have established a partnership with Alaska Airlines where passengers can collect Mileage Plan benets. In fact, this is an exclusive UBER feature that has nothing to do with Eastside. It is very clear that this is one of many false claims that the POS staff entrusted with scoring the RFP never bothered to check. Eastside for Hire has decided to sell the whole Taxi industry to UBER. Any way you look at Eastside's proposal, it was meant for UBER. So if the Port of Seattle Commission intends to be a conduit to surrendering the port to UBER, please do it on the record today. But if you care about justice and fairness for all, then take a second look at Eastside's Proposal, which is not even worthy of the paper it's written on. This award should be rescinded, and a new RFP should be posted. Failure to do so would mean that you are actually choosing UBER, which just 2 came into the market recently. For more than 1000 TAXI drivers, this would effectively render all of us subjects for the new Master in town -- namely UBER. CURBSIDE MANAGEMENT: The recurring theme throughout this RFP is that the SP Plus, the subcontractor to Eastside, has extensive experience in managing curbside activities around 9 airports nationwide. In fact Yellow cab's curbside management, by the Port's own admission, has provided excellent service to the passengers while simultaneously serving the airport and Pier 91 contracts. The obvious problem then is, when it came to scoring on this point, Eastside was awarded 14 points vs 8 for Yellow. Can anyone point out where in the world has Eastside provided equivalent service in order to deserve a 6 point advantage? FINANCIAL STABILITY: Yellow Cab, whom the staff acknowledged has a healthy cash ow versus Eastside, which had just broken even nancially the last three years running, were graded as follows: Yellow 10, Eastside 8. Only a 2 point difference. This calls into question the evaluation and scoring process. It seems very clear that the port staffers who did the scoring were alternating between the strengths of SP plus and Eastside, using whichever serves the interests of Eastside for Hire. This is fundamentally unfair. The incompetency of the staff who evaluated this RFP and the inconsistent criteria of grading calls into question the integrity of the whole process. DEADI-IEAD REDUCTION & TRIP EFFICIENCY PLAN: This is simply a promise by ESFH vs actual, veriable data provided by Yellow. Grading was as follows: 9 out 10 for Eastside, 6 out 10 for Yellow. It should be noted that deadheading is not an exact science. Neither ESFH, using the servic UBER can provide a guaranteed fare back to the airport and thus cause a reduction ofup to 88% in deadheading. Using fancy computer generated modules actually does not translate into reality. The scoring of this and many other points is deeply awed. PROPOSED FLEET COMPOSITION: ESFH proposed a ratio of 61% taxis vs 39% for hire . This contradicts the data that the port has availed to the proposers . It's not a reection of the port's data. It seems once again the staff has utterly failed to do its due diligence in doing some basic fact checking. COMPETITIVE INTEGRITY: We have reason to believe (We have led FOIA request) that Henry Yates, former Post staff and current Eastside for Hire lobbyist has met with Mike Merritt after the RFP submission period and before the announcement of the award. This meeting between a lobbyist, representing one of the Proposers and POS staff after the submission of the RFP calls into serious question the integrity of the RFP evaluation process (Please see Page 8 of the RFP Item 7). In light of these issues, I believe the awarding of this contract he rescinded and that the RFP be re posted. It is indeed our rm belief that the work of scoring this RFP should have been done by outside professionals rather than POS staff. In conclusion, put me in the colunm of those individuals who stand with the taxi community, a community that is made up of small, independent business owners that serve Seattle and King County. We oppose the gifting of this contract to a company serving as the shell for big corporations. I am not a sellout, nor will I ever be a sell out to a corporation as the owners of Eastside for Hire, who chose to oppose the rights ofUBER drivers in every venue in return for money from UBER. So if you, POS Commissioners support and side with the working people and their unions, then do not sign and ratify this award. Its high time for the POS to rescind and repost this RFP and have it evaluated and scored by an independent third party. This will go a long way in allaying any fears of bias in the whole process. 4 I would like my statement to be part of the ofcial record . Thank you. Source: Seattle Finance & Administrative Services November 2015 Dual Seattle King Cty Green ' mmm --=]"lm-EI-il W --!_-2El mmmam-a-am --_ -mm-mmnmm Dual Seattle King Cty Green . MEI"@ -_m_n _-n.n'a-an .IiI-I-I_il-I _-a.I-lmnn _-l-l_1i_ _-EI-l-EH-E-El_l 0 WAT: are not consldered "Green" ' WA'l's are included In previous columns 3. a .3 new "mwum 03 .gl B". _ 3.8% Engage" Ewan "on 332% $62 on saga: R5 ER: 33 3 >2: 53, 4.63833 8.3. "no Essa .338". 02 3838 conmucmEmBE.' ..a:m$i$ "53:8 "3 .3 9:8 .96 53n '8 .50 as 32833 he "5 _ So H 33$..me 3.69.3... . 8'58:mean $38...." 82.2: >32" go: mo< 30 $5 a: Em ucm . gm: new "33. Sow 3* $3 w: .203 $5 Ra macro; 83 53.5% 2 "mm gm: *o 2 50:52 mum6%: :33 Sbagw Etc; d2: 2: ER m> x3" oak- .toEE o Emgm 3:53 PEER m: x3 p.82 05 SEES 2: 0:3 #305 co 3.353.8550 23. m5 3:23:62. .0:3ompsgmm 5805 .coBUmu cozmcmmho 53> van 305 m Enema 395:8 umE MEUEQ 69.3533 35 t. E mnmE new ms... m>m 0:... 3.. 23.. a in mam 50 :8 2933me .0333 m_m:_u_>_tc_ "umbcoU mm>3mucmmm .>_m>_wowtm m cm> am. 53> 39.. m 33.28. 6 v6 m :0 30 ton. "2 Om *0 up. new 323. 9; .50 \cmao macu 3 we: "o: u 39on cozuwxw :0 mam 0.0 :35 cm 'umhmm . w>m Eco an . mmme m3 .650 $5 :32 9.? .5.. cam "cm; Ex
Limitations of Translatable Documents
PDF files are created with text and images are placed at an exact position on a page of a fixed size.
Web pages are fluid in nature, and the exact positioning of PDF text creates presentation problems.
PDFs that are full page graphics, or scanned pages are generally unable to be made accessible, In these cases, viewing whatever plain text could be extracted is the only alternative.