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