NOTE: I did not attend the meeting, but I have listened to this part of the meeting tape, as always, I suggest that you listen to the tape to verify it for yourself.
The selection of a grounds contractor was a drawn out affair. Grounds chair, McMillin announced that five bids were received. From what I heard on the tape, the bids were opened at the table. A board member suggested that the bids be copied, so that each board member could review them. While the bids were being copied they moved on to other things.
Once the bids were presented to the board, discussion began. McMillin began by saying, "I want to mention that at no time, did I discuss any terms - not a word. They all got equal..." He went on to report that he asked all the contractors whether they were able to do the scope of work. All contractors were given an opportunity to see the contract format. From what I heard on the tape, McMillin gave each of the bidders a tour of the work areas and stated their associated work requirements. This is a problem, as it opens the possibility of one being provided more information than the other. This is no accusation against McMillin. It would seem if you sent a request for proposal, and felt that a site visit by potential bidders, would aid in understanding the scope of work, that you would state a date and time, a bidders meeting/conference, where all could hear and see the same things, at the same time. It levels the playing field and removes any potential claims of favoritism.
Once again, private lot mowing was included, which generated a lot of discussion. The current grounds vendor was highly criticized. It appeared from the discussion, that not all bidders addressed every aspect of pricing. Please keep the following term in mind, as it will be used in another article. The term is, "not responsive", and it was used by DeMarchi. It appeared to me, that if a contractor didn't address all aspects of pricing in each individual area, they were ruled out. That's fair, if it is applied by this board, every time they are looking at a bid process, and contract award.
In the end, the contract was awarded to Southern Lawns. The board should be congratulated for posting the request for proposal in the Georgetown Times. While we won't go into the complete discussion, DeMarchi held McMillin's feet to the fire during the discussions, regarding the private lot mowing portion of the contract. We, as residents, have subsidized the mowing of private lots in the past, because of McMillin's pricing. Southern Lawns is under contract with the condos, and reports are positive, regarding their work.
NEXT: THE POND BULK HEAD
