************************************************
Do you have information, or an opinion - agree, or not, you can email The Wedgefield Examiner at wedgefieldexaminerthe@yahoo.com. We'll remove your name to protect the innocent, and publish it . P.S. If you would like your name published, please note that on your email, otherwise we leave your name out.
***************************************************
Sunday, February 1, 2015
THE PROBLEMS WITH THE WPA BOARD SECURING BIDS
This board, has claimed meeting after meeting, that they can't get bids. They've claimed that no one wants to work in Wedgefield. They have laid blame on a number of things, but of course, never the board itself. The subject becomes important, once again, because McMillin announced during the January board meeting, that despite the efforts of posting an ad in the newspaper, and putting a sign out on the main road, that to date, only one bid had been submitted. I contend, that it is the board's ridiculous behavior, lack of proper request for proposal, lack of honest sealed bids and review of bids, and failure to actually want to award a contract (We'll do it ourselves, or award a contract to the board president's company.), that has worn out any willingness by contractors, to even consider wasting their time with this board. Think about it. If you attend the meetings, and observe their process, or lack there of, you might understand.
First, before we list a few things to consider on this point, remember that I posted the content of the newspaper ad for the ground's contract, and thanked the board for taking that step. In the end, it could have been a case of too little, too late.
A SHORT LOOK AT THE BOARD'S HISTORY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL, SEALED BIDS, CONTRACT AWARDS, CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT, AND OVERSIGHT:
*The board often fails to prepare a proper bid package, including specific instructions that truly hold everyone to a sealed bid process. For instance, I asked to review the very first request for proposal, the bids themselves, and the contract for the gate house repair, which really turned into "the gate house fix". The proposal was specs, with no instructions for a sealed bid process, such as return no later than specified date and time, in a sealed envelope. The spec's were outlined in three specific areas. The award was given to our president's company. I had made an appointment with the office, to review the documents. When I asked for the contract it wasn't there. First, I was told that it was probably at President Walton's for signature. Then calls were made, and I was presented with Walton's company bid, and told that, that was the contract. There wasn't even a line for signatures by both parties, let alone start date, total award, and terms! Additionally, the board had only voted to fund stage I, which makes the instrument ridiculous, because the other two stages were bid, on the very sheet that I was presented with. DeMarchi had put this package together.
*The board is so lax when voting, that it appears, each member has not taken the time to review the request for proposal, the bids, or whether, a true process was held. During the last six months, when discussion about a bulk head, and other details of work for the pond just outside the gate, was discussed, McMillin first claimed to have written specs, held a envelope in his hand claiming it was a sealed bid, and then admitted that he had talked to some contractors, and when the facts came out, the bid had been sent via the fax machine, and placed in the envelope. When, in a credible bid process, except for a bidder's conference where all potential bidders are invited to hear the same thing - only after the package went out and included a date and time for the conference, is speaking to individual bidders, part of a legitimate process? Talking to individual bidders, is nothing more than an opportunity to provide a favored bidder, an advantage. Additionally, at times, like the gate house, the pond project has had McMillin at one point, and DeMarchi, as leaders of the project. It could appear to be a behind the scenes battle of who gets to be in charge. The second, and latest round of bids for the gate house, finally had Johnson, asking to see the bids, and saying something about them not quite being what they should be.
*On a negative side, regarding the bidders, it sometimes appears that the board calls some of their particular industry friends, and asks them to bid. In the case of the gate house, we have DeMarchi's ex-boss, who has been high before. It could appear that they want you to think that they made the effort. When DeMarchi, started his first drainage projects in his neighborhood, there were two bids, one was our current grounds vendor, and the other I believe, was contacted by DeMarchi. DeMarchi stated at the board meeting that a contract was awarded, that there was only $20 difference, and he'd save $20 where he could. At the time, I wondered why for $20, you wouldn't select a vendor with a concrete work history, with the WPA. I went to the office to review the bids. While they were $20 apart, the figures on the awarded contractor's bid were crossed out and changed in several places. Additionally, when I reviewed the invoice for payment, the contractor had sent it requesting the original amount of his bid (before cross outs), and again, someone had crossed out again, and brought the invoice to $20 less than the other bidder. What does it look like to you?
*As to bidders, this board wouldn't get the time of day from me, after my exposure to their ridiculous behavior, the first time. Legitimate professionals, expect a legitimate process with intention to really award the contract to SOMEONE, other than do it yourself-wanted it that way, in the first place - board and volunteers. Professional time spent visiting a site, preparing a bid, is time wasted, if there was no real intention to take you seriously. Additionally, those brave enough to bid, have at times been named as should be, but laughed about, from the board table, by our so called experts, in any field you can name.
Our board can appear to be unfair to the few bidders who have received awards. If you consider the current ground's contractor, I believe they have been working with the WPA since 2009, and have had little to no, raise, and have been cheated out of some of the very funded line items, of the contract.
The only time that the WPA has had several willing bidders has been when we hired an engineering firm to draw the specs, run the bidding process and oversee, the contract. The recent road contracts would be an example.
As a vendor, I would not want to be overseen by people who claim they know it all, lack the credentials to oversee my work properly, and have an agenda that isn't always consistent with the project.
I sincerely hope we get more bids for the grounds contract. It doesn't take an engineering firm to send out the request for proposal package, and handle oversight, but it require a legitimate process, and integrity by those who are supervising, and I think we lack that.
First, before we list a few things to consider on this point, remember that I posted the content of the newspaper ad for the ground's contract, and thanked the board for taking that step. In the end, it could have been a case of too little, too late.
A SHORT LOOK AT THE BOARD'S HISTORY REGARDING REQUESTS FOR PROPOSAL, SEALED BIDS, CONTRACT AWARDS, CONTRACT DEVELOPMENT, AND OVERSIGHT:
*The board often fails to prepare a proper bid package, including specific instructions that truly hold everyone to a sealed bid process. For instance, I asked to review the very first request for proposal, the bids themselves, and the contract for the gate house repair, which really turned into "the gate house fix". The proposal was specs, with no instructions for a sealed bid process, such as return no later than specified date and time, in a sealed envelope. The spec's were outlined in three specific areas. The award was given to our president's company. I had made an appointment with the office, to review the documents. When I asked for the contract it wasn't there. First, I was told that it was probably at President Walton's for signature. Then calls were made, and I was presented with Walton's company bid, and told that, that was the contract. There wasn't even a line for signatures by both parties, let alone start date, total award, and terms! Additionally, the board had only voted to fund stage I, which makes the instrument ridiculous, because the other two stages were bid, on the very sheet that I was presented with. DeMarchi had put this package together.
*The board is so lax when voting, that it appears, each member has not taken the time to review the request for proposal, the bids, or whether, a true process was held. During the last six months, when discussion about a bulk head, and other details of work for the pond just outside the gate, was discussed, McMillin first claimed to have written specs, held a envelope in his hand claiming it was a sealed bid, and then admitted that he had talked to some contractors, and when the facts came out, the bid had been sent via the fax machine, and placed in the envelope. When, in a credible bid process, except for a bidder's conference where all potential bidders are invited to hear the same thing - only after the package went out and included a date and time for the conference, is speaking to individual bidders, part of a legitimate process? Talking to individual bidders, is nothing more than an opportunity to provide a favored bidder, an advantage. Additionally, at times, like the gate house, the pond project has had McMillin at one point, and DeMarchi, as leaders of the project. It could appear to be a behind the scenes battle of who gets to be in charge. The second, and latest round of bids for the gate house, finally had Johnson, asking to see the bids, and saying something about them not quite being what they should be.
*On a negative side, regarding the bidders, it sometimes appears that the board calls some of their particular industry friends, and asks them to bid. In the case of the gate house, we have DeMarchi's ex-boss, who has been high before. It could appear that they want you to think that they made the effort. When DeMarchi, started his first drainage projects in his neighborhood, there were two bids, one was our current grounds vendor, and the other I believe, was contacted by DeMarchi. DeMarchi stated at the board meeting that a contract was awarded, that there was only $20 difference, and he'd save $20 where he could. At the time, I wondered why for $20, you wouldn't select a vendor with a concrete work history, with the WPA. I went to the office to review the bids. While they were $20 apart, the figures on the awarded contractor's bid were crossed out and changed in several places. Additionally, when I reviewed the invoice for payment, the contractor had sent it requesting the original amount of his bid (before cross outs), and again, someone had crossed out again, and brought the invoice to $20 less than the other bidder. What does it look like to you?
*As to bidders, this board wouldn't get the time of day from me, after my exposure to their ridiculous behavior, the first time. Legitimate professionals, expect a legitimate process with intention to really award the contract to SOMEONE, other than do it yourself-wanted it that way, in the first place - board and volunteers. Professional time spent visiting a site, preparing a bid, is time wasted, if there was no real intention to take you seriously. Additionally, those brave enough to bid, have at times been named as should be, but laughed about, from the board table, by our so called experts, in any field you can name.
Our board can appear to be unfair to the few bidders who have received awards. If you consider the current ground's contractor, I believe they have been working with the WPA since 2009, and have had little to no, raise, and have been cheated out of some of the very funded line items, of the contract.
The only time that the WPA has had several willing bidders has been when we hired an engineering firm to draw the specs, run the bidding process and oversee, the contract. The recent road contracts would be an example.
As a vendor, I would not want to be overseen by people who claim they know it all, lack the credentials to oversee my work properly, and have an agenda that isn't always consistent with the project.
I sincerely hope we get more bids for the grounds contract. It doesn't take an engineering firm to send out the request for proposal package, and handle oversight, but it require a legitimate process, and integrity by those who are supervising, and I think we lack that.
