HomeMy WebLinkAboutPH-2 - 26-304 - 3. Appeal of Denial of Bid Protest - 6/16/2026Alan B. Fenstermacher
Direct Dial: (714) 641-3452
E-mail: afenstermacher@rutan.com
May 13, 2026
Rutan & Tucker, LLP | 18575 Jamboree Road , 9 th Floor
Irvine , CA 92612 | 714 -641 -5100 | Fax 714 -546-9035
Orange County | Palo Alto | San Francisco | Scottsdale | www.rutan.com
3084/036899-0006
23776874.4 a05/13/26
VIA E-MAIL AND HAND DELIVERY
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
cityclerk@costamesaca.gov
citycouncil@costamesaca.gov
Brenda Green
City Clerk
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive,
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
brenda.green@costamesaca.gov
Re: RFP NO. 26-13 Janitorial Services for City Facilities
Appeal of Denial of Bid Protest
Dear City Clerk & Honorable Mayor and City Council:
This office represents Executive Facilities Services, Inc. (“EFS”), one of the eight
responders to the City of Costa Mesa’s (“City”) above-referenced Request for Proposals (“RFP”)
for Professional Custodial/Janitorial Services. EFS has been the janitorial service provider for the
City since 2021.
On May 7, 2026, EFS received the City’s denial of EFS’s appeal and protest of the notice
of intent to award the contract (“Contract”) to CCS Facility Services – Orange County, Inc. The
purpose of this letter is to formally appeal the City Manager’s denial of EFS’s appeal and protest
of the RFP to the City Council, pursuant to Title 2, Chapter IX of the Costa Mesa Municipal Code
(“CMMC”).1 This letter focuses on of the most significant oversights, however, EFS’s protest
letter dated May 4, 2026 is attached hereto as Exhibit A and is incorporated by reference into this
letter, as if fully set forth herein.
First, CCS cannot be the lowest responsible bidder because it failed to disclose past
violations of federal law in its RFP materials. (CMMC § 2-167(e) [contracts may only be awarded
to responsible bidders]; Pub. Contract Code § 1103 [“‘Responsible bidder,’ as used in this part,
means a bidder who has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness,
capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.”].) Here, CCS failed
to disclose the fact that it was fined over $6 million by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(“ICE”) in 2025 for willful violations of federal labor laws. As set forth by ICE, CCS knowingly
hired at least 87 unauthorized workers.2
1 The appeal fee of $3,825 is enclosed with this letter, based on the version of the City’s Master
Fee Schedule available online. Please inform this office immediately if there are any other
procedural requirements for this appeal.
2 The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement press release is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
ATTACHMENT 3
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Brenda Green
May 13, 2026
Page 2
3084/036899-0006
23776874.4 a05/13/26
In response to these violations coming to light, CCS has taken the position that those
violations were specific to its Denver entities and therefore unrelated to its Orange County
operations. This position is plainly inconsistent with how CCS holds itself out to the marketplace.
As explained on its own website, “CCS Facility Services stands as one of the largest building
services contractors in the United States, offering expert janitorial and facility engineering services
to thousands of commercial businesses across 13 states with a highly experienced team.”3 CCS
clearly holds itself out to the public as an integrated facility services company with thousands of
employees across its various offices. Similarly, CCS lists each of its locations under a single tab
on its website, making no distinction between its Orange County and Denver offices.4 It would be
nonsensical to allow CCS to tout its nationwide experience and capacities to improve its standing
in the competitive bidding process, yet hide behind corporate form when faced with wrongdoing.
Additionally, in 2022, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”)
found reasonable cause to believe that CCS failed in its obligation to provide a workplace free
from unlawful harassment and discrimination and, in so doing, violated Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964.5 There, CCS entered into a pre-litigation settlement with the EEOC to resolve
claims made by a Latina janitor that she suffered sexual comments, unwelcome touching and other
unwanted sexual conduct by her direct supervisor for well over a year, despite making multiple
complaints. In connection with this settlement, CCS agreed “to update its policies and procedures
for the future: provide an alternative, anonymous complaint reporting process for employees;
promptly respond to and investigate complaints of harassment and discrimination; and provide
training for employees in the state of Washington.”
Both of these material omissions are violations of both the RFP Rules and the requirements
in the CMMC, and therefore, CCS cannot be awarded the Contract.
Finally, in denying EFS’s initial protest, the City appears to have overlooked the significant
scoring discrepancies identified in EFS’s May 4, 2026 protest and appeal. Despite routinely
receiving top scores from Evaluators 2 and 3, EFS placed third overall, largely the result of
Evaluator 1’s scores.6 For example, in the Qualifications & Experience of the Firm category,
Evaluator 1 scored EFS as a 3 while the other two Evaluators scored EFS as a 5 and 4 respectively.
The same trend held in the Staffing and Communication Skills categories where Evaluator 1 scored
EFS a full two points lower than Evaluator 2 and 3. Ultimately, Evaluator 1 scored EFS lower
than Evaluator 2 or 3 on five of the eight categories, only having the same score as another
Evaluator on the remaining three categories. Notably, Evaluator 1 also scored the other two
finalists significant higher than Evaluators 2 and 3 did. This indicates potential irregularities in
3 https://ccsbts.com/about-us/
4 https://ccsbts.com/locations/
5 A copy of the EEOC’s press release is attached hereto as Exhibit C.
6 The bid results for the RFP provided to EFS are attached hereto as Exhibit D.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Brenda Green
May 13, 2026
Page 3
3084/036899-0006
23776874.4 a05/13/26
the process, whether inexperience on the part of Evaluator 1 or bias against EFS. Had EFS been
graded consistently by all scorers—and with CCS’s disqualification—it would have easily placed
first, given that its average scores from Evaluators 2 and 3 are both higher than the remaining
bidder’s overall score. The equitable solution here would be to reject all bids, and re-issue the
RFP with different evaluators.
EFS has successfully provided the precise types of services called for in the RFP to public
agencies all over the State of California for twenty years, including the City specifically for 5
years. There have been no negative experiences, feedback, or reviews during EFS’s tenure at the
City. Clearly, this is not a situation where the lowest cost provider is a small or inexperienced
company, but in fact the opposite – EFS’s response to the RFP provides the lowest cost from a
provider with robust experience that can stand easily behind its proposal. As a result, there is no
reason to discount EFS when it provides the City and its taxpayers with the best financial value.
Given the paramount concern of protecting the public fisc, EFS should be awarded the Contract.
EFS is not submitting this protest to ask that the City award EFS the Contract, but instead,
respectfully requests that the City rebid the Contract, or at least rescore the proposals submitted
with the foregoing in mind. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
RUTAN & TUCKER, LLP
Alan B. Fenstermacher
Submitted on behalf, and as a representative of, protestor:
Jim Ferraro, Executive Facilities Services, Inc.
6865 Weaver Street
Riverside, CA 92504
(844) 780-2626
Exhibit A
May 4, 2026
Ms. Stephanie Urueta
City of Costa Mesa
77 Fair Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Dear Ms. Urueta:
Please be advised that Executive Facilities Services, Inc via this document is submitting for
consideration a formal protest to awarding of RFP 26-13 for Janitorial Services for City Facilities.
The following is the language from RFP 26-13 regarding the submission of a Protest:
II. General Instructions and Provisions:
5. Protests: Failure to comply with the rules set forth herein may result in rejection of the protest.
Any proposals accepted pursuant to the formal procurement procedure set forth in the Proposal
procedure may be appealed in accordance with the following procedure:
• The Proposer shall flle the written notice of appeal with the Purchasing Officer at least ten
(10) working days prior to proposal award date specifled in the notice of recommendation
to award.
• The written notice of appeal must include speciflcs as to the nature of the appeal.
• The Proposer must provide any and all documentation to support the appeal.
• The purchasing officer will respond in writing to the Proposer within flve (5) working days.
• In the event the appeal is denied by the purchasing officer, the Proposer may appeal the
purchasing officer’s ruling to the City Council at the next available council meeting.
1. This written notice of appeal is being submitted on May 4, 2026, which is at least ten (10)
working days prior to the proposal award date of May 19, 2026.
2. The following pages will include speciflcs as to the nature of each protest point
3. Additional documentation is also being supplied to support our appeal.
As stated in section 5. In the fourth bullet point, the purchasing officer will respond in writing to
the Proposer within flve (5) working days.
• The following are Protest points that Executive Facilities Services, Inc. are submitting for
consideration
• The following table presents each RFP requirement and CCS's compliance status.
Requirements are grouped by section as presented in the RFP.
MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
PAGE #3 OF RFP
PROPOSERS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENTS
A. Similar facility
experience & evidence
of current
licensing/permits
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
CCS provides extensive municipal
experience and lists a DIR Registration
(JS-LR-1001235067) and Costa Mesa
Business License (HDL-29911). However,
the DIR registration shown has an
EXPIRATION DATE OF 3/21/2026 —
predating the proposal submission
deadline of 3/11/2026 by only 10 days,
with no renewed certiflcate provided. No
California CSLB license is listed in the
Company Proflle form despite it being a
required fleld.
Page #3 of RFP
PROPOSERS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT:
B. Disclose pending/past
claims, labor law
violations, formal
notices to cure within
last 5 years
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
No section addressing pending or past
claims, labor law violations, or formal
notices to cure appears anywhere in the
proposal. The RFP states failure to
identify these may be grounds for
rejection. CCS's proposal is completely
silent on this required disclosure.
PLEASE SEE ATTACHED DOCUMENT
RELATING TO FINE BY ICE UPON CCS
FOR EMPLOYMENT VIOLATIONS DATED
APRIL 28, 2025
Page #4 of RFP REQUIREMENT DIR Registration No. JS-LR-1001235067 is
included. However, the certiflcate shows
PROPOSERS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT:
D. Registered with DIR
(Department of
Industrial Relations)
NOT MET an expiration date of 3/21/2026 — only 10
days after the proposal due date of
3/11/2026. No evidence of renewal for the
contract period is provided.
Page # 4 RFP
PROPOSERS MINIMUM
REQUIREMENT
E. Abide by prevailing wage
laws (Appendix D)
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
No acknowledgment, certiflcation, or
statement of compliance with prevailing
wage laws (Appendix D) is included
anywhere in the CCS proposal.
PROPOSAL FORMAT
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
Page #4 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
PROPOSAL FORMAT
GUIDELINES:
25-page limit (excluding
resumes and pricing forms)
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
The CCS proposal narrative section alone
spans 25 pages (pages 1–25) before
addenda, forms, and supporting
documents. Including the Table of
Contents, cover letter, and all narrative
sections, the core proposal clearly
exceeds the 25-page limit set by the RFP.
Page #4 of RFP
PROPOSAL FORMAT
GUIDELINES
• 12-point font size
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
The proposal uses varying font sizes
throughout. Many section headers and
body text elements appear smaller than
12-point, particularly in tables on pages 8–
9 and staffing tables on page 19. Full
compliance with the 12-point minimum is
unclear.
Page #4 of RFP
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
The cover letter is signed by Maryll
Betzold, Director of Government Services.
It is not clear she has binding authority.
The individuals listed with written
PROPOSAL FORMAT
GUIDELINES
• COVER LETTER
Cover letter signed by
individual authorized to bind
the Contractor
authorization to sign contracts on the
Vendor Application are Cameron Hall
(RVP), Bill King (COO), and Troy Coker
(CEO) — Maryll Betzold is not among
them. The cover letter signature does not
constitute binding authority.
Page #4 of RFP
PROPOSAL FORMAT
GUIDELINES
• COVER LETTER
Include proposed working
relationship among agency and
subcontractors
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
The cover letter does not mention
subcontractors. Subcontractors (West
Coast Property Maintenance) are only
addressed later in the Staffing section, not
in the cover letter as required.
PROJECT APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
Page #4 of RFP
II. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SCOPE OF WORK APPENDIX A
Detailed project schedule with
all tasks, deliverables,
durations, and completion
timeframes
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
Pages 8–11 provide monthly hour
estimates and a weekly schedule grid.
However, no speciflc project start date,
mobilization timeline, or phased
completion schedule is provided. The
schedule lacks deflned milestones and
durations for transition activities.
Page #4 of RFP
II. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
SCOPE OF WORK APPENDIX A
• PROJECT APPROACH
AND METHODOLOGY
1. Describes familiarity of project
and demonstrates
understanding of work and
project objectives moving
forward.
2. Detailed description of efforts
your flrm will undertake to
achieve client satisfaction and to
satisfy the requirements of the
"Scope of Work" section.
3. Detailed project schedule,
identifying all tasks and
deliverables to be performed,
durations for each task, and
overall time of completion.
4. A proposed schedule
indicating stages of work, time
frames, and ability to perform the
required services in a timely
manner shall be included in the
proposal
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
Ongoing service schedules are
mentioned, but a formal
mobilization/transition timeline is absent.
QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
Page #5 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
• QUALIFICATIONS AND
EXPEREINCE OF FIRM:
Corporation info: name,
corporate address, state of
incorporation, date of
incorporation, officer names
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
CCS provides the legal name (CCS
Facility Services - Orange County, Inc.),
corporate address (990 S Broadway,
Denver, CO 80209), founding year (1988),
and officer names (Cameron Hall, Troy
Coker, Bill King). However, the STATE OF
INCORPORATION is never stated, and the
exact DATE OF INCORPORATION
(month/day/year) is not provided — only
'opened in 1988.'
Page # 5 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
• QUALIFICTIONS OF
FIRM:
List of current/previous
contracts similar to Costa Mesa
scope, including public
agencies, scope description,
length of service, and contact
name/title/phone for each
REQUIERMENT
NOT MET
CCS provides client lists on pages 12, 15,
and 16. However, phone numbers are
missing for several references in the main
client table (pages 12 and 15). The
Company Proflle & References form (page
32) lists flve references with contact info,
but the 16-agency table on page 15 lacks
individual contact phone numbers and
scope descriptions as required.
STAFFING
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
PAGE #5 OF RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
• STAFFING
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
Pages 19–24 list key management staff
(Cameron Hall, Sebastian Pedreira, Erryn
Moreno) with roles and estimated monthly
hours. However, frontline staffing (the
approximately 10 cleaners/supervisors
assigned to City facilities) is not
List of individuals working on
project with functions and
anticipated hours of service
individually listed with names, functions,
and hours as required. The RFP requires a
list of individuals who will be working on
this project.
Page # 5 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
• STAFFING
Resume for each designated
individual
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
Resumes are provided for Cameron Hall
(p.22), Sebastian Pedreira (p.23), and Erryn
Moreno (p.24). No resume is provided for
Ernesto Flores, the assigned Supervisor,
despite being a named key contact. The
RFP requires resumes for all designated
individuals.
Page #5 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
• STAFFING
Named Assigned Supervisor
with phone and email
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
Ernesto Flores is listed as Supervisor
(efiores@ccsbts.com, 949-239-5606).
However, no resume for Flores is provided
as required, and his qualiflcations are not
described anywhere in the proposal.
FINANCIAL CAPACITY
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
Page #6 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
• FINANCIAL CAPACITY
Copies of audited financials
from the past three years
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
No audited flnancial statements for any
year are included in the proposal. This is
an explicit RFP requirement: 'The City is
concerned about the proposers' flnancial
capability to perform and therefore is
requesting copies of audited flnancials
from the past three years.' This is a
complete omission.
COST PROPOSAL
Requirement Status Finding / Notes
PAGE #6 of RFP
II. GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS
REQUIREMENT
NOT MET
No statement that the proposal is valid for
180 days appears anywhere in the CCS
• COST PROPOSAL
Proposal valid for minimum 180
days following submission
proposal. The RFP explicitly requires this
statement.
GROUNDS FOR REJECTION OF AWARD TO CCS
We have clearly identifled 15 Protest Points which certainly disqualify the proposal submitted by
CCS and the award of the Janitorial Services contract to CCS must then be ruled null and void.
The last and flnal Protest Point I would like to raise is the scoring completed by Evaluator #1 as
recorded in the CCS Evaluator Book (copy attached) As you can see there are three tabs for this flle.
The flrst lab is labeled PROPOSAL EVALUATION
The second tab is labeled INTERVIEW EVALUATION
The third tab is labeled TOTAL SCORES
I would ask that you please review and compare the scoring of Evaluator #1 to both Evaluator #2
and #3 on both the Proposal Evaluation and Interview Evaluation tabs.
You will clearly see the blatant prejudice that Evaluator #1 had towards Executive Facilities
Services, Inc. in ALL 4 categories in which the service providers were evaluated on both the
Proposal Evaluation and Interview Evaluation tabs
Upon review of the Interview Evaluation sheet, you will see that in each of the 4 evaluation
categories, Evaluator #1 gave Executive Facilities Inc, the lowest score which is not consistent with
the scores posted buy both Evaluator #2 and #3.
By removing the prejudicial scoring by Evaluator #1 from both the Proposal Evaluation and Interview
Evaluation tabs, and the disqualiflcation of CSS, Executive Facilities Services, Inc. should thus
receive the recommendation of award for RFP 26-13 the Janitorial Services for City facilities for the
City of Costa Mesa.
Respectfully,
Jim Ferraro
Owner
Executive Facilities Services, Inc.
Exhibit B
An official website of the United States government
Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official
government organization in the United
States.
Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock ( ) or https:// means you’ve safely
connected to the .gov website. Share
sensitive information only on official, secure
websites.
En Español Contact Us Quick Links
Search
Call 1-866-DHS-2-ICE Report Crime
ICE NEWSROOM
APRIL 28, 2025 ●DENVER, CO ●WORKSITE ENFORCEMENT
ICE Denver levies over $8 million in fines on local businesses for
employment violations
DENVER — U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement issued a notice of intent to fine
three local businesses over $8 million following worksite audits that uncovered
widespread employment eligibility violations.
The companies fined include:
CCS Denver, Inc. – Fined $6,186,171 after a 100% substantive violation rate and
evidence of knowingly hiring and employing at least 87 unauthorized workers.
PBC Commercial Cleaning Systems, Inc. – Fined $1,599,510 for a 74% violation rate
and a pattern of knowingly employing at least 12 unauthorized workers.
Green Management Denver – Fined $270,195 after a 100% violation rate and
identification of 44 unauthorized employees.
ICE Homeland Security Investigations’ worksite enforcement efforts focus on ensuring
businesses comply with federal employment laws, primarily through I-9 audits, civil
penalties, and criminal prosecution where applicable.
“
5/13/26, 11:36 AM ICE Denver levies over $8 million in fines on local businesses for employment violations | ICE
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-denver-levies-over-8-million-fines-local-businesses-employment-violations 1/3
Updated: 04/29/2025
HSI uses a three-prong approach to worksite enforcement:
1. Compliance – through I-9 inspections, civil fines, and debarment referrals.
2. Enforcement – through the criminal arrest of employers and administrative arrest of
unauthorized workers.
3. Outreach – through the HSI Mutual Agreement between Government and Employers
(IMAGE) program to foster accountability and legal hiring practices.
“The employment of unauthorized workers undermines the integrity of our
immigration system and puts law-abiding employers at a disadvantage,”
said Special Agent in Charge Steve Cagen. “These penalties reinforce our
commitment to uphold the law and promote a culture of compliance.”
“
For media inquiries about ICE activities, operations, or policies, contact
the ICE Office of Public Affairs at ICEMedia@ice.dhs.gov.
MEDIA INQUIRIES
About Us Enforcement and Removal Operations
Homeland Security Investigations Newsroom
ICE Contact Center
Report suspicious activity: 1-866-DHS-2-ICE
5/13/26, 11:36 AM ICE Denver levies over $8 million in fines on local businesses for employment violations | ICE
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-denver-levies-over-8-million-fines-local-businesses-employment-violations 2/3
ICE.gov
An official website of the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security
About ICE
Accessibility
FOIA Requests
Privacy Policy
DHS.gov
Archive
No FEAR Act Data
Site Links
Performance
Reports
Inspector General
The White House
DHS Components
USA.gov
5/13/26, 11:36 AM ICE Denver levies over $8 million in fines on local businesses for employment violations | ICE
https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/ice-denver-levies-over-8-million-fines-local-businesses-employment-violations 3/3
Exhibit C
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
Press Release
12-22-2022
EEOC and CCS Facility Services
Conciliate Sexual Harassment
Finding
Latina Janitor Suffered Physical and Verbal Abuse by Supervisor, Federal Agency
Charges
RENTON, Wash. – CCS Facility Services, Inc. has agreed to provide payment and
furnish other relief to resolve a sexual harassment complaint filed with the U.S.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), the agency announced today.
The Latina janitor who filed the charge with the EEOC alleged that she suffered
sexual comments, unwelcome touching and other unwanted sexual conduct by her
direct super visor for well over a year, despite making multiple complaints.
Following an extensive investigation, the EEOC found reasonable cause to believe
the company failed in its obligation to provide a workplace free from unlawful
harassment and discrimination and, in so doing, violated Title VII of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964.
Through the EEOC’s conciliation process, CCS Facility Services has voluntarily
entered into a pre-litigation settlement. As part of this settlement, the company
agreed to pay a monetary sum to the janitorial worker and to update its policies and
procedures for the future: provide an alternative, anonymous complaint reporting
process for employees; promptly respond to and investigate complaints of
harassment and discrimination; and provide training for employees in the state of
Washington. In addition, CCS Facility Ser vices will provide periodic updates and
reports to EEOC for a term of four years.
“There is no justification for failing to take action once a company becomes aware of
allegations of sexual harassment, particularly when the alleged harasser is a
supervisor,” said Elizabeth Cannon, director of the EEOC’s Seattle Field Office. “We
commend CSS Facility Services for participating in the conciliation process and
taking these initial steps to protect employees in the state of Washington from
unlawful harassment and discrimination.”
According to https://ccsbts.com (https://ccsbts.com) , CCS Facility Services, Inc., is
an integrated facility services company headquartered in Denver, with thousands of
cleaning and building engineering professionals across the United States, including
in the state of Washington.
More information about sexual harassment can be found
at https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-harassment (https://www.eeoc.gov/sexual-
harassment) .
The EEOC’s Seattle Field Office has jurisdiction over Western Washington.
The EEOC advances opportunity in the workplace by enforcing federal laws
prohibiting employment discrimination. More information is available at
www.eeoc.gov (http://www.eeoc.gov) . Stay connected with the latest EEOC news
by subscribing to our email updates
(https://public.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEEOC/subscriber/new) .
Recent Press Releases from the Seattle Field Office
Builders FirstSource to Pay $26,000 to Settle EEOC Disability and Age
Discrimination Lawsuit (https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/builders-firstsource-
pay-26000-settle-eeoc-disability-and-age-discrimination-lawsuit)
EEOC Sues Little Caesars Franchise for Racial Harassment and Retaliation
(https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-little-caesars-franchise-racial-
harassment-and-retaliation)
Logic Staffing to Pay $217,500 in EEOC Religious Discrimination, Retaliation
Lawsuit (https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/logic-staffing-pay-217500-eeoc-
religious-discrimination-retaliation-lawsuit)
Recent Press Releases on the Subject of Sexual
Harassment, Retaliation
Sofidel to Pay $80,000 in EEOC Sex Discrimination, Retaliation Lawsuit
(https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/sofidel-pay-80000-eeoc-sex-discrimination-
retaliation-lawsuit)
EEOC Sues Cannabis Company for Sexual Harassment
(https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/eeoc-sues-cannabis-company-sexual-
harassment)
Justin Vineyards & Winery and The Wonderful Company to Pay $1.49 Million in
EEOC Sexual Harassment Suit (https://www.eeoc.gov/newsroom/justin-
vineyards-winery-and-wonderful-company-pay-149-million-eeoc-sexual-
harassment-suit)
Exhibit D
City of Costa Mesa
Bid Results for Project Janitorial Services For City Facilities (RFP No. 26-13)
Issued on 02/10/2026
Bid Due on March 11, 2026 2:00 PM (PDT)
Exported on 03/11/2026
EVALUATOR 1 EVALUATOR 2 EVALUATOR 3 TOTAL RFP FACILITATOR TOTALS
4 3 3 10 350
5 4 3 12 420
4 2 3 9 315
3 4 3 10 350
MasterCorp Commercial Services 5 4 3 12 420
4 2 3 9 315
4 2 3 9 315
4 3 4 11 385
4 3 2 9 270
4 4 4 12 360
2 1 3 6 180
3 5 4 12 360
MasterCorp Commercial Services 4 3 3 10 300
4 3 3 10 300
4 3 2 9 270
3 2 4 9 270
4 3 3 10 250
5 5 3 13 325
3 3 3 9 225
2 4 4 10 250
MasterCorp Commercial Services 5 3 3 11 275
Base Hill
35 PROJECT APPROACH & METHODOLOGY
Base Hill
CCS Facility Services
Coast 2 Coast Preservations
Executive Facilities Services
Omni Enterprise
Santa Fe Janitorial Maintenance
Uniserve Facilities Services
30 QUALIFICATIONS & EXPERIENCE OF THE FIRM
Executive Facilities Services
CCS Facility Services
Coast 2 Coast Preservations
Executive Facilities Services
Omni Enterprise
Santa Fe Janitorial Maintenance
Uniserve Facilities Services
25 STAFFING
Base Hill
CCS Facility Services
Coast 2 Coast Preservations
3 1 3 7 175
4 3 3 10 250
3 2 3 8 200
4 40
5 50
5 50
5 50
MasterCorp Commercial Services 5 50
5 50
5 50
3 30
SCORES RANK
910
1155 1
770
1010 3
MasterCorp Commercial Services 1045 2
840
885
885
Uniserve Facilities Services
Omni Enterprise
Santa Fe Janitorial Maintenance
Uniserve Facilities Services
10 COST
Base Hill
CCS Facility Services
Coast 2 Coast Preservations
Executive Facilities Services
Omni Enterprise
Santa Fe Janitorial Maintenance
Santa Fe Janitorial Maintenance
Uniserve Facilities Services
PROPOSERS
Base Hill
CCS Facility Services
Coast 2 Coast Preservations
Executive Facilities Services
Omni Enterprise
City of Costa Mesa
Bid Results for Project Janitorial Services For City Facilities (RFP No. 26-13)
Issued on 02/10/2026
Bid Due on March 11, 2026 2:00 PM (PDT)
Exported on 03/11/2026
EVALUATOR 1 EVALUATOR 2 EVALUATOR 3 TOTAL TOTALS
4 5 4 13 390 30
3 5 4 12 360 30
MasterCorp Commercial Services 4 3 4 11 330 30
5 4 4 13 520 40
3 4 3 10 400 40
MasterCorp Commercial Services 5 3 4 12 480 40
5 3 4 12 240 20
2 4 4 10 200 20
MasterCorp Commercial Services 5 3 4 12 240 20
5 4 4 13 130 10
3 4 5 12 120 10
MasterCorp Commercial Services 5 3 4 12 120 10
SCORES RANK
1280 1
1080 3
MasterCorp Commercial Services 1170 2
Executive Facilities Services
30 GRASP OF THE PROJECT
CCS Facility Services
Executive Facilities Services
40 APPROACH
CCS Facility Services
Executive Facilities Services
20 COMMUNICATION SKILLS
CCS Facility Services
Executive Facilities Services
10 QUALITY OF OVERALL INTERVIEW
CCS Facility Services
Executive Facilities Services
PROPOSERS
CCS Facility Services
City of Costa Mesa
Bid Results for Project Janitorial Services For City Facilities (RFP No. 26-13)
Issued on 02/10/2026
Bid Due on March 11, 2026 2:00 PM (PDT)
Exported on 03/11/2026
TOTALS
2435
2090
MasterCorp Commercial Services 2215
PROPOSERS PROPOSAL SCORESINTERVIEW SCORES
CCS Facility Services 1155 1280
Executive Facilities Services 1010 1080
1045 1170