I'm not sure there is another way to term it. I learned at the last County Facilities Meeting on October 2, 2007 (transcript) that the county had "come to an agreement" with a construction company to do work on my office. That night, I requested to review the various bid documents that would have led to this agreement. Ten days later I received Mr. Inman's denial, and today I received Mr. Weibel's denial of my appeal.
Mr. Inman has pretty much walked all over the the County's Purchasing Policy. There is no prequalified vendor application or vendor list. He's compiled a list of preferred vendors but that list is entirely selected by Mr. Inman and has nothing to do with the County's purchasing policy. To use that list in any way to solicit bids would be to violate the County's purchasing policy. I wrote in April about the fact that the Prequalified Vendor policy which Steve Beckett bragged about in his reelection campaign has gone nowhere and in August I wrote about Mr. Beckett's disdain to even address the topic.
But this particular case is really outrageous. By this interpretation, no one would ever know about the contents of a bid until after the bid had been awarded. Mr. Inman could be currently soliciting bids to build a covered parking space for his car, and we couldn't know about it. Even if Mr. Inman was using the Prequalified Vendor program (which he isn't) does the County really want a policy that keeps bid soliciations secret? Even if the FOIA allowed this, would anyone really want to adopt that as County policy?
Of course, this begs the question as to what else is being hidden.
Public procurement has been one of the biggest areas of graft and corruption over the years. Openness should be the policy of any government body that wants to engender public trust in this area.
Another point. I'm confident that the firm who Mr. Inman claimed he had "come to an agreement" with is reputable. I have no reason to think they aren't. Unfortunately for them, they are dealing with a disreputable individual. They are merely following the rules as presented to them by Mr. Inman. I wouldn't expectd them to know the rules they are supposed to follow. And in fact, since one of the rules is to annually fill out an application to be on the prequalified vendor list, there is not a single vendor in the County who can do that, since the application doesn't even exist.
And of course that start date of October 15 is two days passed and there still isn't a contract.
Mark,
So that people are clear, at what spending level(s) do county policy and state law require the county to openly solicit bids?
Hmmm...
Mark, how is it that "procurement has not yet been completed" when the transcript of the recent board meeting includes detailed discussions of specific construction tasks and timelines? Clearly, both Inman and Weibel are claiming that the bid process is ongoing (perhaps specifically to deny your request, perhaps not), but the relationship with the vendor has clearly passed that point.
I could see a desire not to disclose bidders' responses to an RFP before the bid was awarded, but "bid documents" include more than this. Are you saying you haven't even seen an RFP? Do you know whether or not such a document even exists? If Inman was currently soliciting bids for a covered parking spot, I would think an RFP 1) would have to exist, and 2) would be a public document. Bid responses would not be considered public documents until the bid had been awarded.
Were you consulted in the past about what needed to be done to your area as part of this construction project? I would think you would have had significant input into at least part of the RFP.
Mark, how is it that "procurement has not yet been completed" when the transcript of the recent board meeting includes detailed discussions of specific construction tasks and timelines? Inman has been lying to us for years. This particular incident isn't any different.
Not necessarily anonymous. There are certain spending levels at which the county is required through county policy or state law to solicit bids in various ways, whether by bidding, purchase order, what have you. The question put to Mark is whether or not this particular work met one of those benchmarks. Nothing in what he posted lists the dollar amount of the proposed work.
Politicalchemy,
Bid Documents are public record in their request form. Anyone can ask to see what is being proposed and also the bidder's list. Engineer's and Architects prepare these documents and submit them to the proper authority for completion of the RFP process. Many times a bidders list is at the copy shop that distributes the documents.
In fact, the bidding process is another means by which the accuracy of the bid documents is ascertained. If a prospective bidder realizes a plan error that could dramatically change the bids, he notifies the Bid officer of that error, and in turn, the Bid officer, issues an addemdum clarifying that error with additional bid instructions and/or bid opening dates. All bidders work on the same level field with that additional information and bids are not tainted or slanted because of the error.
Additionally, the Bid documents from each contractor become public record after they are opened, not after the bid is awarded. The bids are read by the Bid officer or individual in charge of recording the bids and many times the contractors are in the room at that time. The award process may not occur at the time of opening, as certain obligations must be met or confirmed and that process may take some time.
To that end, I am, and shall always remain;
Rex Bradfield
I have no idea how Inman could have suggested on October 2 what he suggested, other than to say that he probably cooked up this deal. I wouldn't be surprised if in fact there were no solicitations sent out, perhaps just a phone call and a wink and a nod. Why else the secrecy?
I was informed by Mr. Weibel today that the project was anticipated to start on Friday or Monday.
The County Purchasing Policy can be seen here. If this project is anticipated to cost between 5 and 20 thousand (which I would suspect) then the provisions of the prequalified vendor ordinance kick in. That would mean that the administrator would go out and find three bids from people on the prequalified vendor list. Since there has been no application and there is no list, we really are stuck. This should have been done over two years ago when this proposal was first passed. But at a minimum, we should have sought three bids.
By the way, I have been assured since April that this project would be completed by November 1. That changed to mid November earlier this month. When it will be completed is anyone's guess. But the area being remodeled is the area where our ballot design is done and where our central tabulator resides. So this project has a major impact on this upcoming election for me. That's why we all agreed that it should get done by November 1.
The absentee voting area which I was told would be done by the end of September last year was not done until after April of this year.
A final point. These plans have been available since April or May. If the prequalified vendor application and list had been done when they were supposed to have been done, getting this project done on time should have been no problem. Once again, Inman's procrastination creates a crisis for other departments.