Springfield City Council wary of 5-year contract for future school meal vendor

City Councilor Jose Delgado, seen here at a previous City Council meeting, said he was “pretty appalled” by a March audit of Sodexho, but reassured by porposed changes designed to prevent similar shortcomings in the future.
Reminder Publishing file photo

SPRINGFIELD — The City Council approved a Springfield Public Schools plan to offer a food service one-year contract with four one-year extensions, but not before expressing serious concerns about which vendor would be chosen and the terms of the contract.

A March audit of Springfield’s $30 million contract found that the city has been overcharged, and $300,000 worth of improvements were never made. Other concerns were also identified by City Auditor Young No and the audit committee.

Springfield has had a contract with Sodexo since 2016. It was not until this year’s audit that issues were identified with Sodexo’s services. Superintendent Sonia Dinnall said the School Department had “taken the audit seriously. We have put protocols and policies in place to ensure we provide more oversight.”

At Large City Councilor Justin Hurst said No and his staff are “doing an amazing job. And I want to give Auditor No credit for uncovering a lot of money that the city of Springfield was missing out on.” He described the auditor as a “watchdog.”

Hurst asked if the School Department planned to keep Sodexo as its vendor.

“With everything going on, I’d be surprised if we kept the same vendor,” said Chief Financial and Operations Officer Patrick Roach, but acknowledged that Sodexo is one of the five vendors expected to bid on the contract.

Roach explained that a five-year contract would make the bidding process more competitive. “In the food service world, when a new vendor comes in, they have to do a lot of hiring. There’s 400 employees and staff,” he said. There are additional training and equipment costs, he explained. For this reason, vendors usually lose money in the first year, break even the second in the second year and begin making a profit in the third. Because the existing vendor does not have those added costs, it usually can bid lower than competitors. If a company can spread the cost out over five years, it can offer a more competitive bid.

At Large City Councilor Jose Delgado asked how a one-year contract with four one-year renewals is different than a five-year contract. Roach said that if the School Department is unsatisfied with the vendor at any time, they can decide not to renew the contract. However, he noted that the process to select a new vendor would take about six months, so he expected to use the vendor for “at least two years” before they would end the contract.

Ward 6 City Councilor Victor Davila confirmed with Roach that the city owns the facility where school meals are prepared and the recipes for meals. He said he would support the five-year contract span but wanted to see a copy of the contract “when the ink is dry.” Delgado and Ward 5 City Councilor Lavar Click-Bruce also wanted to see the final contract.

State law requires the council to approve five-year contracts because it wants the body to oversee the process, Ward 2 City Councilor Michael Fenton said. He was not in favor of approving such a long contract space without knowing who the vendor would be or the terms of the contract.

Ward 7 City Councilor Gerry Martin agreed. “This will kind of walk away from a lot of the authority the council has over this to a vendor we’re not really sure about,” he said.

Fenton asked if City Council President Tracye Whitfield or a proxy could participate in the vendor selection. After hesitating, Roach said the committee’s positions were outlined, but he could “kick off” a member in favor of the City Council president. Fenton said that was not his intent but asked Roach to “look into” allowing a councilor to participate.

Ward 8 City Councilor Zaida Govan said she hoped Fenton’s request would be honored and pointed out that Martin is the liaison to the School Committee.

Delgado, who was on the audit committee, said he was “pretty appalled” by Sodexo’s conduct, but felt reassured by the changes the School Department had made to ensure it does not happen again.

With a vote of 10-3, the council approved the School Department’s plan for a more competitive bidding process. Martin, Fenton and Click-Bruce voted against the five-year contract length.