As part of the Long Beach Airport’s current expansion project—which aims to put the once-municipal airport on the national map—an extensive branding contract was awarded to a prominent Los Angeles agency Tuesday. But many local ad companies that answered the airport’s Request for Proposal (RFP) are upset at the out-of-town choice, citing both registration requirements as well as a city ordinance that requires local businesses to be given preference on City contracts.

Despite receiving bids from many Long Beach-based creative agencies, LGB’s $195,000 contract—put forth to help the airport create a larger name that will attract business-oriented travelers away from the chaos of LAX and John Wayne Airports—was eventually awarded to CoreBrand LLC of Los Angeles by a City Council vote Tuesday night.

The company—whose clients include big names like ATT, Target and Samsung—was recommended to the council via a selection panel composed of Michael Grazi of Jet Blue; Steve Goodling of the Long Beach Area Convention & Visitors Bureau; Reggie Harrison, Deputy City Manager; Carolyn Carlton-Lowe, Operations & Facilities Bureau Manager of LGB; Kerry Gerot, Public Affairs Officer of LGB; Becky Ames of the Mayor’s Office; and Mario Rodriguez, Executive Director of LGB.

Local creative business owners, however, questioned why, after an extensive Request for Proposal (RFP) process for said contract, local businesses were ultimately shunned.

“Fifteen responses were received to the RFP,” stated LGB’s Gerot to the Long Beach Post. “One third of those were local companies. Six finalists were chosen and one third of those finalists were also local […] The selection was eventually unanimous for CoreBrand. It was not, by any means, a discounting of local talent—truly, the finalists were the cream of the crop.”

But what about registration requirements and the 2011 ordinance passed by City Council requiring local preference on City contracts? Critics of the choice, particularly the local agencies who bid on the project, claim that CoreBrand was not registered as a bidder which, according to those who spoke out during Tuesday’s City Council meeting, was a requirement in order to bid. 

Suzanne Frick, Assistant City Manager, stated that online bids do not require registration. “We encourage [all agencies] to register… But there is no mandatory requirement [they do so],” she said.

However, according to arguments presented by two of the local bidders on the project, the language on the City’s website as well as the RFP itself suggested otherwise.

“On addendum two on page two,” said Cindy Allen, owner of ETA Advertising, one of the local agencies that bid on the contract, “question six asks specifically, ‘Do you have to be registered to be awarded this contract?’ Answer: ‘Yes.'”

Frick’s only response when presented with this information during the City Council meeting was, “We can look into that,” while Gerot claimed that indeed, CoreBrand was registered on Planet Bid back in March.

A second argument—and one that certainly stirred up confusion both amongst those speaking out against the choice as well as members of the very Council who passed the policy—was the June 2011 ordinance which stated that the City must provide preference to local businesses in such contractual bids. 

The ordinance was passed to assist local small businesses in being awarded City contracts, however, it came with two stipulations—one, that it cannot be enacted if the contract exceeds $100,000 and the other stating that the local preference does not apply to professional service contracts, which include things like architects, branding and other creative services.

“Is there a reason for [these stipulations]?” asked 5th District Councilmember Gerrie Schipske. “For some reason, I don’t recall them.” City Attorney Robert Shannon quickly quipped, “I cannot comment on that; that was, of course, a policy decision on your part… I am not aware of other cities that [give preferential treatment to local agencies] for professional services.” Mayor Bob Foster suggested that the ordinance was an experiment to see how local preference worked on a small scale first and many councilmembers expressed interest in revisiting the ordinance at a later date to possibly expand its uses. As it stands, though, the ordinance is not applicable to LGB’s branding contract.

A final—and certainly the most philosophical—argument against the choice of an L.A. agency was the simple fact that local agencies, in a time where budget constraints rule and local business is always in need of a boost, were widely ignored by the City they attempt to do business in. It seemed for these locals, that the powers-that-be were ultimately against them.

Cynthia Monet, whose Oracle Brands in the 4th District was part of the RFP, was explicit and succinct in her concern. “There’s actually a stigma being associated with Long Beach,” she stated, following a point that it was more logical for a creative business such as her own to be located in a place like Culver City or Orange County. “But we moved here anyways, we renovated the building, and while I respect the RFP process[…], I really think this is a situation that can bring the City to discuss how it can actually support the businesses here. We’re not going to have a better city if [we don’t recognize local business]; we’re not going to have a city that TED wants to come to, that attracts a creative class, that brings intellectual companies into this city.”

Allen expressed a similar sentiment, telling the Post, “My agency wasn’t even one of the top finalists—so this isn’t about me. This is about making Long Beach work and care for Long Beach. It’s about making business more efficient here. And ultimately, it is about the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law,” she said with a slight sadness. “I served as a police officer for ten years in this city—and it pains me that an ordinance was handed to staff to dig deeply into in order to pretty much shun Long Beach’s own businesses.”

With the CoreBrand choice deemed legal and philosophical arguments taken into consideration, Gerot stands by LGB’s decision. The airport included local talent in the bidding process, but in the end, the implications of the intensive branding project—which comes at a time of massive airport expansion and hopeful exposure on a national scale—necessitated a larger, more experienced company and unfortunately overrode the urge to “buy local.” 

“The airport is not, by any means, anti-local,” Gerot said citing both the local businesses that will have spaces in the new concourse as well as the local contracts awarded for the terminal construction itself. “Our decision was based on branding—not just marketing collateral. Everything we are doing is to brand the airport as the gateway to the city and, as a result, help to brand the city itself, to make it more business-friendly and attract more business and tourism.”