November 1, 2007
Joyce Wilson Harley, Esq., Administrator
County of Essex
Hall of Records
465 Martin Luther King, Jr. Blvd , Rm. 510
Newark , NJ , 07102
Resolutions #10, #11 & #12
Dear Ms. Wilson Harley:
CWA Local 1081 respectfully submits the following questions and concerns regarding Resolution #10, #11 and Resolution #12 that were submitted by the Administration and approved by the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders at their public meeting held on October 24, 2007:
-
Resolution #10: This resolution maintained that the County of Essex had a "need for the assistance of a consultant to provide Grant Procurement Services for the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs", that the Office of Purchasing had "publicly advertised for a Request for a Proposal (RFP) for the Services" and that the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs' in house Evaluation Selection Committee recommended that a contract for the services be awarded "to the Funding Group Initiative Inc., said contract not to exceed $57,300.00." While "two (2) proposals were received from seven (7) potential vendors who received specifications", The Funding Group submitted a bid for $57,300.00 while Mosaic, Inc. submitted a bid for $37,500.00 or nearly $20,000 less. Nowhere within the resolution is it explained why the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs' in house Evaluation Selection Committee recommended that a contract for the services be awarded to the Funding Group Initiative Inc. at such a comparatively enhanced contractual cost. In fact, despite the fact the contract was put out to bid, the resolution states "said contract may be awarded without public bidding for Extraordinary Unspecifiable Services pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(1) (ii) on condition that a resolution authorizing the contract for "extraordinary unspecifiable services" without competitive bidding and the contract itself be made for public inspection".
-
a) Why did the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs' in house Evaluation Selection Committee recommended a contract at such a comparatively enhanced contractual cost? What was the ranking process utilized?
-
b) Since the contract was put out to bid, why did the resolution include the language ""said contract may be awarded without public bidding for Extraordinary Unspecifiable Services pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(1) (ii) on condition that a resolution authorizing the contract for ‘extraordinary unspecifiable services' without competitive bidding and the contract itself be made for public inspection"?
-
c) Was a resolution authorizing the contract for "extraordinary unspecifiable services" without competitive bidding ever submitted by the Administration and/or passed by the Freeholders?
-
Resolution #11: This resolution maintained that "the Essex County Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs has been working closely with the Essex County Recreation and Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board relative to specific needs and improvements in the County Park System" and that the Essex County Recreation and Open Space Trust Fund Advisory Board "approved the allocation of funds for General Planning and Consulting Services for Open Space and Recreation in Essex County in the amount of $17,500.00 to be awarded contractually to T & M Associates".
-
Resolution #12: This resolution appears identical in purpose to Resolution #11, and once again awards T & M Associates $17,500.00 for "General Planning and Consulting Services for Open Space".
-
a) What is the difference between the services T & M will provide under Resolution #12 versus resolution #11?
-
b) Did anyone on the Department of Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs' in house Evaluation Selection Committee inquire of the five other vendors to whom bid packages were sent by the County why they did not even bother to respond while T & M did respond and will be paid exactly the same amount as they were paid last year for the same services?
-
c) Since the contract was put out to bid, why did the resolution include the language ""said contract may be awarded without public bidding for Extraordinary Unspecifiable Services pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A:11-5(1) (ii) on condition that a resolution authorizing the contract for ‘extraordinary unspecifiable services' without competitive bidding and the contract itself be made for public inspection"?
-
d) Was a resolution authorizing the contract for "extraordinary unspecifiable services" without competitive bidding ever submitted by the Administration and/or passed by the Freeholders?
-
e) Since the contract was put out to bid, why did the resolution state "That the contract is awarded without competitive bidding as a contract for ‘Professional Services' in accordance with N.J.S.A. 11-5(1)(a)"?
The primary purpose for CWA Local 1081 proffering the abovementioned questions is related to our Union 's experience with contracts awarded by the County to vendors with whom we have taken exception due to what our members and we have opined to have been substandard performance. For example, when we questioned why the County re-awarded a maintenance company with a inadequate performance record within a County-owned building in which a significant number of our Union 's members are assigned we were told the County was compelled to do so because the company was the lowest bidder. Similarly, when we questioned why the County awarded a security company with an unproven performance record within a privately-owned building in which an even more significant number of our Union 's members are assigned we were once again told the County was compelled to because the company was the lowest bidder. Yet, our understanding of State statute stipulates governments consider the "lowest responsible bidder".
CWA Local 1081 looks fervently forward to the Administration's rejoinder to this missive of sincere supplication.
Yours truly,
David H. Weiner, President
CWA Local 1081
|
