City of Lloydminster Council has officially cancelled the request for proposal (RFP) for safety codes services in the building and plumbing disciplines.
Read more: Council defeats permitting contract award
The city is required to have a vendor for building and plumbing permit reviewing, issuance and inspection. The RFP first presented at the Nov. 4 meeting and was eventually defeated at the Nov. 24 meeting.
At the Dec. 15 regular council meeting, administration requested direction from council on how to proceed with the matter.
Discussions around the council table began with Coun. Justin Vance expressing support to cancel the RFP saying the entire process was a good exercise.
“I feel it’s been a really good exercise to demonstrate when things like this happen, how administration can handle it and how we can handle it,” he said.
Coun. Michael Diachuk, who was plugged into the meeting remotely, says he’s had conversations and comments from both sides of the argument.
“First one was around what is council doing when you have a recommendation coming. Its vetted through the process that council has approved and what you’re doing is undermining the work of your administration,” he recounted. “What’s the message back to them? Are you saying they’re not doing it right? If so, provide the evidence to show they haven’t followed the procurement process.
“The other comment was, let me understand, so in the future, when you’re going to do an RFP, people should go and lobby the community and get them to say vote for me or pick me and that’s how the new procurement process is going to work.”
Diachuk also heard comments from the public to give the contract to the current individual doing the job.
“Another individual went at me and said you should’ve given it to the current individual that’s doing the job,” said Diachuk. “It was around, let’s separate out the individual from the company that’s working because that individual could leave that company tomorrow and you would be left with some of the things that we are aware of that you’re not. That’s part of the role of city council. We get access to privileged information we can’t run around and share in the community. Then it’s our responsibility to make the best decision knowing full well that we know other information beyond what the people in the community know.”
Diachuk expressed concern about the way things played out and the outlook for prospective businesses submitting their requests.
“If we are going to do another RFP here, my question is going to be who is going to want to submit one? Knowing the process and the way it’s occurred, I think it’s a bit of an embarrassment for us,” he said.
He asked what the mistake in the process was, citing the only thing he heard was the lack of direct communication with the community.
“The only thing I heard is that we should have asked the people and businesses in the community, that’s not how that process works,” said Diachuk. “If we don’t follow our processes in the manner we’ve laid out, we are treading on very dangerous grounds relative to the direction we want to go. I think it undermines the confidence that our administration has and perceives we have in them.”
Coun. David Lopez responded to Diachuk’s comments adding his own perspective.
“I guess I can say almost the exact opposite of that. We had the community, who we represent, who came to us, emailed us, sent us information, having questions as to how this was done and wanting to have a sober second thought,” he explained.
“If the people who elected us come to us and are sending us emails, even if they don’t know all the information, if we don’t listen to the community and what they’re saying to us, what’s the point of us being here? What’s the point of us have these motions come towards us? The whole reason we put this out and put this into the community is for the community to question us and question what’s being proposed and what we’re voting on. If we’re not listening to the community, what’s our purpose?”
Lopez says administration didn’t do anything wrong in the process and explained it was simply them doing their jobs as elected officials.
“The community came to us, the people who voted us and elected us in said something’s wrong, we want this to be looked at again,” he said. “I want to know the people out there that voted have the confidence that we have their backs and we are listening to them.”
Diachuk points out there were people in the community supportive of the proposed change.
“I’m saying there were people in the community that were supportive of this decision as well. We can’t dismiss them,” he said.
Looking forward, his concern was regarding the next tender process.
“If we retender this, what are we going to do next time? Are we going to run it again?” he said. “That’s part of the danger of entertaining the process the way its been laid out now.”
Coun. Jim Taylor says they aren’t undermining anyone and explained it’s a chance to learn the process.
“I’m trying to learn how this process works and on top of that, I’m trying to get my point across,” he said. “There’s questions that I’m being asked and details that are being asked of me. I think it’s a two-way street and it’s a great exercise to go through this.”
He explained the next time the RFP comes back to council chambers, there may be more information for them.
“The next time this RFP, if that’s the route we go, comes back, there’s going to be a little more information in there for us to understand,” said Taylor. “Then, whichever way the boat goes, I feel more confident in my vote the next time. I think the people that were approaching me in the community also understand we’ve gone to the lengths to ask the right questions and the expectations of today, not of previous RFP’s.”
Coun. Jason Whiting, who was opposed to cancelling the RFP, says he wants administration to understand council still supports them.
“I just want to make sure that that’s clear, that we are listening to the community but we’re also listening to both sides of the story and that’s how I base my decision.That’s how I base my vote,” he said. “I want to ensure that administration still knows we are supportive of them. I wish it would’ve been a little bit simpler process in this one. But I do think, yes, we are going to learn from this and likely see a new one come through, I don’t know what’s going to change but I do know we have done some learning and see where it goes from here.”
Administration gave some insight into the next request for proposal they’ll put out.
“We don’t anticipate the entire document to be overhauled as a result,” said city manager Dion Pollard. “I don’t know what the results will come out at but certainly, from the procurement document that will go out, will look very similar other than a few tweaks.”
Coun. Michele Charles Gustafson explained this RFP wasn’t a match.
“The only thing that is holding us up is the different in what admin, and maybe this council, and then beyond this council, the community, sees as important,” she said. “What happened was there was a gap. There was a gap in what we saw in the package of presentations and in the presentation of the RFP that just didn’t click into place, for the ideas and importance of this new council.
“Nobody did anything wrong here, it just wasn’t a match.”
Following the meeting, Mayor Gerald Aalbers said it’s a learning experience for both sides of the table.
I think it was a learning experience and I think it was a learning experience for both administration and council,” he explained. “I hope we can clarify and clear the air and move forward.”
Councillors Whiting and Diachuk opposed the motion to cancel the request for proposals procurement issued Aug. 28 for the safety codes services: building and plumbing permit plan review and inspections services.
In the following item, council voted to extend the agreement for the permitting services with Superior Safety Codes Inc. for a term ending April 15, 2026.
Read more:LCSD reflects on a year of growth, achievement and community in 2025
