Flock Procurement: Avoiding Competing Bids and Council Approval

“Do you guys have GSA, State Contract, or Sole Source documentation I can have. This will save me having to get other bids.”

Argument: The stated purpose of requesting procurement-path documentation was to avoid obtaining other bids after Flock had already been evaluated and contract language negotiated. This creates a significant concern that the exception followed vendor selection rather than a vendor-neutral assessment of public needs.

Status: Explicit intent to avoid other bids is documented. Whether the resulting procurement legally violated the applicable code requires the complete procurement file and the rules then in force.

Original evidence: 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 113)

Evidence: Flock sent its Axon letter and sole-source letter and wrote, “Here is how we have managed to obtain sole source with other agencies.”

Argument: The vendor provided the rationale used to support exemption from competition. Vendor-supplied information can be legitimate evidence, but it is not a substitute for an independent City determination that only one source can meet vendor-neutral requirements.

Status: Vendor authorship and advice are documented. The available records do not show the complete City approval, market analysis, or price-reasonableness determination.

Original evidence: 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 113) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 25) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 27)

“We are good to go with the contract. I am waiting until February 11th due to our procurement rules changing allowing us to not have to go to council for approval.”

Argument: The official’s stated reason for delaying execution was to use a new approval framework that would avoid Council review. Even if legally authorized, deliberately timing the contract to remove public legislative oversight raises transparency and governance concerns.

Status: The official’s stated intent is documented. The exact historical rule change, effective date, authority, and legal consequence remain unverified without the contemporaneous code, ordinance/resolution, staff report, and delegated-authority schedule.

Original evidence: 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 112)

Evidence: Product evaluation, price discussions, pilot planning, contract drafting, and legal redlines occurred before or alongside the request for sole-source documents; Small later wrote that the City was “good to go.”

Argument: A defensible sole-source process normally begins with vendor-neutral operational requirements and independent market research. Here, the sequence strongly suggests that reasons supporting Flock’s uniqueness were assembled after Flock was already the preferred product.

Status: Strongly supported inference, not a proven legal conclusion.

Original evidence: 📄 View original record(06_Police_Department_Communications.pdf, PDF p. 19) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 28) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 112) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 113) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 114)

Evidence: Contract No. 2023-151 totaled $48,100 for 16 cameras, Advanced Search, and implementation.

Argument: The amount’s proximity to a $50,000 threshold is relevant to audit scope, particularly when paired with the email about waiting for rules to change. It is not evidence by itself that pricing was structured to evade a threshold.

Status: Contract amount is established; manipulation is not proven. The current City threshold should not be characterized as the controlling February 2023 rule without historical documentation.

Original evidence: 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 10) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 11) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 12)

Argument: Avoiding competitive quotes and a Council presentation can reduce public visibility, independent price testing, and the opportunity for elected officials to examine privacy, surveillance, financial, and policy implications. This remains an ethical/governance concern even if delegated purchasing authority made the transaction lawful.

Status: Ethical and governance assessment based on the documented process; not a claim of criminal or civil liability.

Original evidence: 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 112) 📄 View original record(01_Contracts_and_Amendments.pdf, PDF p. 113)