“Gerbergate” Highlights Need for Council to Exercise Proper Judgment and not Blindly Trust Staff Recommendation

In approving the recent emergency services award to McCormick ambulance Mayor Furey and several others on the Council based their decision on the need to rely on City Staff as they are the subject matter experts.  Mayor Furey even admitted that he could try and read a proposal but would have “no idea of the content.”  In contrast, Councilmember Ashcraft – who opposed the award to McCormick – noted that the “buck stops here” and questioned why the City would even need a Council if all they did was rely on staff recommendation.  Ashcraft is right of course and nothing makes that more apparent than a close examination of the complaints filed by Torrance Fire Department (TFD) against Gerber ambulance.

I took Mayor Furey up on his invitation made at the last Council meeting for the public to stop by the City Clerk’s office and examine the complaints TFD made against Gerber.  These complaints are relevant as several members of the Council have repeatedly blasted Gerber and used their supposed poor performance as justification for their decision to award the contract to McCormick.  Councilmember Rizzo even went so far as to say that Gerber’s continued operations would have exposed the City to lawsuits.  He was quoted as saying, “Gerber had issues, was deficient in its contract. To have Gerber continue to provide [services] would have opened us to huge liability”.

It is true that TFD submitted two notices of default against Gerber.  The first was on June 17, 2013 and the second was submitted February 4, 2014.  It should be noted here, however, that the contract included a Termination of Agreement Clause that allowed the City to terminate the contract for no reason as long as they gave 30 days notice.  The same Clause also allowed the City to terminate the contract immediately upon default or breach by the contractor.  Thus, if the City was concerned about liability as stated by Rizzo, then how come the City did not exercise its right under this Clause and continued to allow Gerber to operate for nearly 19 months after the original notice of default?  Given this context, Rizzo’s statements about liability concerns make very little sense.

So what did TFD actually allege in the notices of default.  According to TFD, Gerber’s primary sins were 1) inability to meet the required response time of 8 minutes (92%) of the time, 2) failure of their communication system to integrate with the City’s Computer-Aided Dispatch System (CAD), and 3) failure to dedicate a minimum of 16 ambulances maintained in good condition to answer TFD calls during the day and 8 ambulances at night.

Was Gerber actually in default to some of these requirements?  The answer is yes.  Gerber won’t deny it.  In fact, Gerber will admit to being in default ever since they signed the initial contract roughly 20 years ago.  Gerber’s continuous failure to meet the requirements of the contract does beg the question, if the City let Gerber off the hook for so long why did their non-compliance suddenly become such an issue in June of 2013 just about the same time now Mayor Furey was kicking off his mayoral campaign?  For insight, let’s examine the claims further.

Allegation One – Response Times

Two of the three evaluated bidders admitted they could not meet this requirement.  One of those bidders even mentioned in their proposal that “the standard response time approved by LA County EMS was 8 minutes and 59 seconds for a code 3 (lights and sirens) response (90%) of the time.”

Gerber is almost exclusively called Code 2 (no lights and sirens obeying all traffic laws).  They also claim that they often have to wait on the dispatch line as precious seconds tick away after an emergency call has come in waiting for TFD to give them the approval to move out.  Due to this, meeting the 8 minute response is a challenge.  Nevertheless, Gerber did have high numbers.  The scores reported by TFD said they responded within the 8 minutes in the high 80’s to low 90’s percent – very close to the (92%) requirement.

McCormick differentiated itself by promising they could meet the response time requirement.  They provided no evidence, however, that they have actually ever met the requirement at a Code 2 response in any of their other contracts.  Their proposal also stated that the majority of the ambulances they would dedicate to TFD would be stationed at locations outside the City of Torrance in places like Redondo Beach, Gardena, Hawthorne, Lomita, and Palos Verdes.  Obviously, I am no expert, but if McCormick plans to bring ambulances from outside the City, I have serious doubts they can meet the 8 minute requirement at a Code 2 response.  That’s definitely something to look for going forward.

Allegation Two – Systems Integration       

In reference to this allegation, Councilman Weidemen was quoted as saying, “If the customer says ‘You have to integrate with our systems as part of the contract,’ you have to do it”.  So why didn’t Gerber?

Again, the TFD didn’t submit a default notice on this requirement until June 2013.  As mandated by TFD, Gerber operates their system using Zoll software.  TFD operates their system with Spillman software.  Gerber, TFD, and the software companies engaged in lengthy negotiations with the result being that Spillman agreed to allow the requested interface as long as Gerber purchased a $30,000 modification to their software agreement.

Spillman submitted that purchase order to Gerber in early 2014.  Knowing that the contract was going to be re-bid, Gerber decided to wait for the outcome of the new contract before deciding whether to purchase the software modification.  Gerber’s position on this sounds reasonable and given the above you have to wonder why Weidemen appeared so hard-nosed about this requirement.

McCormick also uses Zoll.  As part of their proposal, they promised that the required interface would be implemented between McCormick’s Zoll software and the City’s Spillman upon award of the contract.  Whether McCormick has completed this interface as promised is another thing to look for.

Allegation Three – Number of Dedicated Rigs

This requirement is where I think the difference between government and private industry creates natural tension.  TFD sees this as a black and white requirement, for private industry it is more an art than a science.  Gerber has to remain profitable, TFD doesn’t.  To a certain extent, Gerber has to try and match their number of crews to the amount of calls they get.  Gerber simply can’t survive if it has crews and ambulances sitting throughout Torrance not being utilized.  TFD just wants them to meet a number of dedicated rigs whether they are used or not.  Gerber tries to meet the number, but it appears they play it pretty close to the line.

What should really matter here are response times and Gerber has proven to do a pretty good job of that.  One reason for this is because Gerber maintains a competitive advantage as they also have several units operating throughout the City conducting what they call Inter-Facility Transfers (ITF’s) from local hospitals.  Thus, if all rigs dedicated to TFD are in use, they can pull from other units assigned to ITF’s to help.

A concern about McCormick is that they don’t have the pool of available back-up ambulances that Gerber has operating within the City.  If McCormick needs rigs beyond the 5 they will have dedicated to TFD, they will likely have to come from outlying cities at a very significant increase in response times.  That’s something else to watch.

Formal Complaints-Specific Instances Worthy of Note

The City provided documentation about several minor complaints with regard to the maintenance of Gerber ambulances such as faulty lighting, air conditioning, reclining seats, tire tread ware, etc.  All of these seemed to be quickly taken care of by Gerber.  Three of the specific complaints, however, do seem worthy of a more detailed discussion.

May 2013 Incident

In a 36 minute period, there were 4 emergency responses requiring 7 Gerber ambulances.  Gerber only had 6 immediately available versus the 8 supposed to be dedicated per the contract and had to place a call to their back-up provider for what they claim was the first time in their 20 year history under the contract.  Knowing it would take awhile for the back-up provider to respond, and not having ever used the provider before, a Gerber supervisor working at dispatch decided to take an ambulance to the scene so TFD could use the equipment in the rig if necessary and to ensure the back-up provider arrived.

When the supervisor arrived on scene, they called the back-up service who gave them an ETA of 20 minutes.  The supervisor couldn’t transport the patient in the rig, because there was no attendant to care for the patient while the supervisor drove.  Not wanting to delay patient transport, TFD decided to accompany the Gerber supervisor to Little Company of Mary and not wait for the back-up service.

Afterward, TFD filed a formal complaint with the LA County Department of Health against Gerber for transporting a patient with only a driver and not an attendant as is required per regulations.  TFD also cited this instance to Gerber as failure to meet the required number of rigs dedicated to TFD and response times.  The complaint about the number of rigs and response times appears valid, but filing a formal complaint with LA County Health for transporting without an attendant seemed like overkill.  After all, the Gerber employee could have just insisted they wait for the back-up provider.

Other complaints were far less substantial.

September 25, 2013 Incident

I found this incident in particular very revealing as to TFD’s attitude toward Gerber employees.  The subject of the complaint was Gerber Operating Outside Job Description. In that incident, the Fire Captain complained that when they arrived on scene that the “Gerber attendant was literally racing into the structure.” Upon entering the room and seeing that the Gerber employee was assessing the patient, the Captain “informed him [the Gerber employee] that his role is not to race in and start an assessment before [TFD] arrived and that his job description is transportation of the patient.”

The Captain then went on to say that “these actions seem to be happening with increasing frequency,” and that “for some reason they [Gerber employees] seem to think [that] without TFD on scene permission, that they can start an assessment [on the patient].  So essentially, the Fire Captain filed a formal complaint against Gerber because one of their trained EMT’s arrived on scene before TFD and ran to assess the patient.  Are trained Gerber EMT’s not to assess patients without TFD supervision?  I don’t get this one at all.

December 23, 2013 Incident

In this complaint TFD responded to a report of a possible psych patient.  Upon arriving on scene they found the patient very upset and trying to leave a rehabilitation center where she had been staying while recovering from a knee fracture.  Upon calming her down, they learned that she wanted to leave the rehabilitation center and return home.  TFD instructed Gerber to take her home.  According to TFD, Gerber changed their mind in transit and determined they should take the patient to Little Company of Mary ER instead of to her home. TFD filed a complaint against Gerber claiming that transporting the patient to the hospital versus her home amounted to kidnapping.  Kidnapping, really?

The primary interface between Gerber and the TFD and the person that brought forward all the complaints against Gerber is TFD employee Captain Hudson.  Captain Hudson also served as one of the 4 City employees on the evaluation committee for the proposals.  Given that Captain Hudson had such close interactions with Gerber and considering the questionable nature of some of these complaints, it does raise questions as to whether Captain Hudson provided an unbiased voice and whether the Council should have trusted as much as they did in the so-called experts.   Interestingly, rumors are circulating within the community that Captain Hudson was put on suspension with pay about two weeks ago for an undisclosed disciplinary action.