The Contract File:
I wrote the Board and requested the opportunity to review the Linen Landscaping and Trucking contract file. Please review "WPA September 19th Board Meeting - Drainage Report", at this site. I transcribed the report from a tape of the meeting. Read what your Board told you, as to how they made their decisions, noted qualifications of the vendor, and the cost.
In the recent past, the Board allowed a resident to copy documents (sometimes for a charge, sometimes not). This time I was told I could review and take notes - no copies. These policies change like the weather and often depend on which resident is making the request. I took notes and will relate the file content to the best of my ability. If you have concerns or questions, please visit the office.
The file contained a handwritten contract draft, a typed and signed contract, and a insurance document. Additionally, I was provided invoices (2) and copies of checks (2), made out to the vendor.
The Contract: is a single page document, signed by Mc Millin and Wilson on 9/14/11, and Linen Landscaping & Trucking on 9/15/11. The description of work and payment, identifies phase 1 at $600, and phase 2 at $900. While there isn't a contract total, you can easily see that the single page contract totals $1,500. Go back to the article, at this site mentioned above and review the report transcription and the WPA Policy Manual quotes relating to Board Member expenditures. After reviewing the contract, the Board failed to follow the policy manual and failed to put this work out to bid. Why? You be the judge, after you review the transcription and consider this Board's contract history.
The Insurance: document is issued by Tapco Underwriters, Inc., and the label/headline is, "Presented Binder Summary Sheet". The "Effective Expiration Date 9/13/11 to 9/13/12. It is important to note the following quote from the document: "In accordance with your instructions, we have bound the following General Liability coverage; provided we receive a properly completed application with in12 days of the effective date shown above."
First, there was a rumor that the Board Members handling this "project" stated to some that this vendor didn't have insurance, but they thought that might be OK on a $600 project. The Wedgefield Examiner doesn't like rumors, anymore than you do. The dates, the fact that they have to complete the application within 12 days, all lend to validity of the rumor. Was your Board going to put the Association in jeopardy by hiring a non insured contractor? It is quite amazing that this last minute insurance is with the same company that insures your Association. Did the vendor complete the application with in the 12 day period? We don't know. Does your Board. Why are we lowering requirements, at the point of contract, or helping them meet standard? Is this good business judgement?
The Invoices & Checks: #1281 - received 9/21/2011 in the amount of $600, does not include the date the work was completed, and is paid on 9/23/11 with check # 6710, signed by Mc Millin and Wilson. #1282 received on 9/29/11 in the amount of $900, does not include the date the work was completed, and is paid on 9/30/11 and signed by Wilson and the second signature is illegible (not claiming any illegality I just can't read it). Shouldn't the invoice have included the date the service was performed? You be the judge, but was it before the contract and the suspect insurance?
What Was Missing? McMillin said, "The contractor we hired is Linen Landscaping & Trucking, family owned, local business, which is licensed and insured and highly recommended by others who have hired them". Who, there weren't any references in the file? I tried to verify their license at the website for the SC Dept. of Labor, Licensing & Regulation, and couldn't find them. Maybe, I missed something. I looked at the vendor website to see if I could find the information there, it wasn't. When your Board tells you the vendor is licensed and insured, wouldn't you think they would document it?
In The End: This just looks like poor business judgement. Why is the Board jumping the gun and rushing projects through, not putting projects out to bid, lowering standards for a vendor, verbally providing credentials that they can't substantiate, etc.? You might say, it was just $1,500, but add that to the $29,000 road contract, the $500 unapproved payment to the attorney, the $1,000 payment for volunteer hours, and the problems are much larger than $1,500.
