elpasospeak

My imagination is not capable of dreaming up these things.

This post was about some at the city trying to disqualify a bidder because even though they were low bid, their mobilization cost was too high.  The fact that the contractor is a friend of the city manager did not enter into the discussion at city council.  As I recall the city manager stayed out of the discussion.  Ultimately the old city council voted to give the contract to the low bidder and thus ignored the mobilization issue.

The backup material for this first round indicated that “On January 22, 2013 a letter was sent to Karlshruher informing them of the Engineering and Construction Management Department’s recommendation to City Council.  The letter also, informed Karlshruher, Inc that the item was posting to the City Council meeting of January 29, 2013, should they wish to appear before City Council.”

We had a bidder who was low, but was going to be disqualified because of a problem with one line item, getting a friendly letter from the city telling them that they may want to appear before city council and object.  Ultimately the bidder did appear before city council and was awarded the bid.

The result was good.  The low bidder got the job.

Round two

The September 24, 2013 city council agenda has another bid award item on it.  The same two bidders are contending for a different piece of business.  This time the shoe is on the other foot.

The low bidder this time is the firm that lost the first round.  City staff wants to disqualify them because their mobilization costs are too high.

The backup material makes no mention of sending a letter to them telling that they may want to appear before city council like their competitor received last time.

Stay tuned

This one will be interesting to watch.

Will the Karlshruher firm bow out knowing that their bid is higher, and that the technicality setting them up to get this business is one that they fought against and called wrong last time?  Is fair for the goose fair for the gander?

Will the low bidder appear before council and argue that low is low, regardless of an individual line item?

Will the new city council be made aware of the complete situation?  Will they give the business to the low bidder?  Two of the city manager’s supporters are not on council this time.

City staff has been consistent here in recommending that a bidder with mobilization costs that are over 5% of the bid should be disqualified.

Have they been consistent in warning the low bidder about the problem?  We know they did the first time.  Did they the second time?

Will the city manager’s friend get the business again?

We deserve better

Brutus

Item 10A on the city council agenda this coming Tuesday asks for permission to buy $250,000 worth of medical supplies for the fire department through a buy board.  The backup material indicates the supplies will be adequate for one year and that the vendor, Moore Medical “has a long history of conducting business with the city of El Paso”.  That probably is code for we really like doing business with these guys and don’t want to use someone else.

This is another buy board contract where the city is probably not getting the best price it can.

Who says?

The fire department does.  The backup material states:

“A solicitation is being prepared by purchasing to advertise to qualified vendors.  The solicitation, and subsequent award will allow the EPFD the ability to maintain an estimated (3) year continuity of medical supplies”.

This looks like:

The fire department is buying through a buy board because someone messed up and they do not have time to issue a proper bid before they run out of supplies or they use the buy board so they  can pick their favorite vendor.

They want to buy through a buy board even though they plan to issue a bid later.

Why issue a bid later?  Someone thinks it is the right thing to do.  Our new mayor might actually be right in the middle of this.  We will probably get better prices.

Better policy

Direct bidding is almost always a better financial option than buying through a buy board.  Yes the purchasing department will have to do more work and the departments will have to work harder to play favorites.

Buying through buy boards was the norm during the past administration.  The city can and should purchase through the buy boards if after taking competitive bids the buy board is a better option.

We deserve better

Brutus

Item 10A on the regular agenda of the July 30, 2013 city council meeting is another purchasing item with problems.

The city went out for bids for building supplies (light bulbs and the like).   The deal is for about $180,000 per year for three years.

Seventeen firms were notified.  Six firms submitted bids.

City staff wants to disqualify two of the bids as non-responsive.  The agenda item proposes to give the business to the “lowest responsive” bid.

One national firm with a significant local presence is being disqualified because it “took exceptions to the contract clauses”.  This may be the right thing to do.  What is troubling here is that the bid analysis in the backup does not show what the firm’s bid amounts were.  Were they lower than the firm getting the business?  Did the city’s contract clauses serve to unnecessarily drive up the price of the items?  Is the national firm being unreasonable?

Another large local firm is being disqualified because “price list submitted did not match to City’s Cost offered by bidder”, whatever that means.

City could be right

The city could be right here.  What is troubling is that their explanation to council gives us no indication that this is the case.  What are the real reasons for the disqualifications?

The city needs to be more business friendly without rolling over.

We deserve better

Brutus

Item 8C on the consent agenda of the July 30, 2013 city council meeting is troubling.

The item asks permission to reject the sole bid received by the city for some airport property.

It reads:

 Request that the Purchasing Manager, Financial Services, Purchasing Division, be authorized to reject the sole bid received for solicitation No. 2013-192 (Sale of Real Property Improvement, Airport Hangar #7) as the bidder did not agree to the terms and conditions of the Contract.

The backup material tells us that the city solicited bids from 16 parties.  One responded.  The backup material tells us:

Department of Aviation has reviewed solicitation 2013-192 and recommends rejection of the sole bid received as the bidder did not agree to the minimum lease rate for the ground lease.

The item will be rebid.

What gives?

The city sent out a bid.  Sixteen parties were invited to bid.  Only one spent the time and money it takes to bid.  The bidder made an offer.  The airport does not think it was good enough.

What are the chances that the sole bidder will try next time?  Slim is the word that comes to my mind.

What went wrong?

Did the city send the bid to 15 parties that would have no interest in the deal?  We can see the city doing that from time to time when they want to be able to say that they asked for bids but do not really want a wide field of bidders.

Does the city really want to lease the property or were they just testing the waters?  That would be a shameful waste of a private concern’s money.

Does the city want to hold out for a higher bid?  That is what this looks like.  Was the bid low because the solicitation was written poorly?

What makes the city think that they will get a better offer next time?  What will they do differently?  Was the bid poorly written and thus a waste of everyone’s time?

It seems to me that the sole bidder has set the market value for the deal and is being treated poorly.

Not alone

I have written before that I know many firms in El Paso that will not even bid for city business.  They feel the process is unfair and a waste of their time and money.

This bidder has the right to be furious.  It seems the bidder played by the rules but ended up wasting time and money.

We deserve better

Brutus