Gov't

City Services Bids Opened

By  | 

By Dave Freneaux

 

    Four companies submitted bids Wednesday for Central’s City Services Contract.  While the actual dollar amount of the bids were revealed, the evaluation process includes many criteria, with the dollar amount making up 22% of the final scoring.  The low bid was placed by Institute for Building Technology & Safety at an average yearly amount of $3,237,680.  The average annual bids of the other three companies were CSRS dba Central Municipal Services at $3,600,000, Severn Trent at $3,740,714 and CH2M Hill at $3,779,655.  Based on the preliminary figures discussed at Tuesday’s City Council budget workshop, it appears that Central’s budget will, in any case be sufficient to cover the cost of City Services and operate with a surplus for the coming year.

    The “Option 2” bid structure provided for one administering contractor and smaller contracts for roadway maintenance, grass cutting and drainage maintenance.  Since there were no bids for drainage and roadway maintenance, Option 2 could not be considered.  Central’s City Services Contract will be provided by a single contractor.  While the preliminary bid information is known, several factors remain to be resolved.  One bidder, Central Municipal Services, has disclosed several potential conflicts of interest which will be discussed by the committee in a meeting tonight, Thursday, at 8:30 PM at City Hall.  Additionally, all bids must be evaluated to determine whether they are responsive to the bid request.  Barring irregularities, the evaluation process will proceed with all four bidders.

    Next Wednesday and Thursday at 5 PM at City Hall the nine member Selection Committee will meet to do its ranking of the bidders, considering all factors to be addressed in the Request for Qualifications and Proposals.  Financial stability, insurability, experience, resources and equipment, and other identified areas make up 78% of the evaluation.  Each of the bidders submitted a binder of information in support of their ability to effectively meet the demands of the contract.  On May 16th & 17th at 5 PM at City Hall the Selection Committee will interview selected bidders and a final recommendation will be made to the Mayor.  On May 19th, at the City Council meeting moved from May 24th, the Mayor is expected to inform the City Council as to which company he intends to award the contract, and request that the City Council budget sufficient monies to pay for the provision of Central’s City Services for 2010/2011.


Above: City Services Selection Committee Members, City Attorney Sherri Morris, and David Barrow at the bid opening

30 Comments

  1. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 9:49 am

    Dave where are the bid numbers ? Kinda important isnt it ?

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 10:02 am

      Only second jalf of article got pasted into on-line article. Our error. Complete article in paper and Beth is correcting on-line now. Thanks for calling this to our attention.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 10:11 am

      Fixed. Thanks. And I hope the low number holds up. It would be a great thing for our City.

  2. Mike mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 10:37 am

    Absolutely. When a bid is that far out of range, it requires close evaluation.

  3. Mike mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 10:43 am

    Dave average is one thing to look at but it distorts the comparison to current costs. The bids look to be adjusted yearly for inflation at ~ 3%. Starting costs are much lower than the average and all were below current costs from what I could tell. The surprise to me and I will admit, I thought CH2 had the inside track and would come in at the low bid. Not only were they the highest, their excavation costs were 20X what the low bidder was. Very encouraging that it appears we will save some dollars no matter who is chosen.

    • dave

      May 5, 2011 at 10:58 am

      I figured the only overall fair way to compare is by the annual average. The first year numbers are certainly lower. In general, the selection process has a lot of work yet to do and we could see the second lowest bidder end up with the contract. i hope not, but we need to keep an opn mind. Remember that a couple of change orders can blow the entire up-front savings.

  4. Another Central resident

    May 5, 2011 at 1:37 pm

    As much as people want to bash him some credit must be given to Woody Jenkins for pressing certain issues in his paper. I want to thank Junior Shelton for pressing the issue about permit fees during his campaign. I want to thank CH2MHill for running the ad the day for the mayor election. It is obvious from the bids that were submitted that Central has been over paying for services way too long. If the committee decides to stick with CH2MHill then they should never be allowed to chair another committee for the City of Central.

  5. Ray

    May 5, 2011 at 8:24 pm

    Did Shaw decide not to bid because of perceived controversy. It would seem that they were planning to bid since a possible conflict of interest was brought up and discussed at the last meeting. Mike do you have any insight into why they wouldn’t bid. I think I remember you stating that if they were awarded the contract there would be a lawsuit. Will you reveal your reasoning that would lead you to this conclusion.

  6. Ray

    May 5, 2011 at 8:35 pm

    AC resident I give Woody credit for excellent picture taking at various community events. Mom’s and Dad’s love seeing great pictures of there children in the CCN. He produces excellent historical articles about the Central community and does a good job with human interest stories relating to city residents. Can you please tell me what greater good to the community was brought about by lowering the permit fees.

  7. Ray

    May 5, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    The institute for building technology and safety, the low bidder, is a not for profit 501 c company. Does anyone know why a company would operate in this fashion.

  8. Mike Mannino

    May 5, 2011 at 9:04 pm

    Ray I never heard of this company so it would serve us well to start digging. Non-profits, despite their claim, do benefit some people. They can take all income and distribute to employees and provide a lower cost service because there is not a stockholder, or owner to answer to. All they are worried about is meeting payroll. Great for the end user, all other things being equal. Churches are one of the biggest non-profits around and many a preacher is living the life of luxury on their congregations money.

    I have no idea why Shaw didnt bid. Maybe they didnt want the controversy since they are based in BR. Who knows. My statement about lawsuits was that there was the potential for a lawsuit(s) from the losing bidders. People will sue for anything these days, no matter how frivilous and it would have cost us money. Not saying it was warranted at all. Just seemed to me with the hissy fit some councilmen threw about the city being sued for Tony releasing what is claimed to be private records, this would have been taken more seriously. Inconsistent in my opinion.

  9. Ted

    May 5, 2011 at 9:26 pm

    Mike when are you going to start looking into the churches in Central? Since so many preacher’s living the life of luxury please tell me, are you going to start demanding to see church records now? Your accusations are comical. LOL

  10. Ray

    May 5, 2011 at 9:31 pm

    Mike, thanks for responding to the Shaw question. The “Institute” won a city services contract with the city of Bastrop in March for Building Code and Inspections and for flood plains management. I knew Church’s fell under the 501 c category. Mike, I would guess when you were a kid walking in Grandpa’s pasture you never considered stepping around or over cow patties. I think God is more than capable of handling those who represent him. LOL

  11. Ray

    May 5, 2011 at 9:35 pm

    Mike, please don’t tell me your Mom agreed with you when after Catechism class you told her you were God’s lil helper.

  12. Mike Mannino

    May 6, 2011 at 7:26 am

    Ray,
    These churches are not who I worship. I worship only my savior Jesus Christ. To deny that some of these churches are scams, is to deny the obvious. Probably 95% are spreading the word , but there are some bad apples. Two locals examples, Ricky Sinclair and Jimmy Swaggert. Many, Many others that may have started out honestly but strayed along the way. Thats for them to answer for and none of my business.

  13. Mike Mannino

    May 6, 2011 at 7:28 am

    Ray serious question. Did you find any other info on this company ? We need to give feedback to the committee if there is something that needs to be looked at.

  14. Another Central resident

    May 6, 2011 at 8:27 am

    I have a feeling that this committee will do everything in their power to find something technically wrong with the lowest and second lowest bidder so they can award the contract to CH2MHill again. Too many relationships have formed in the last two years with this company.

  15. Ted

    May 6, 2011 at 12:08 pm

    Mike glad you cleared up your comment’s about some church’s and pastor’s. In case you forgot you quote Mike “Church’s are one of the biggest non-profits around and many a preacher is living the life of luxury on their congregations money”. Now since I questioned your comment you now say “Probably 95% are spreading the word , but there are some bad apples”
    I did not know that many and 5% were the same thing. Mike when are you going to realize that Dave, CS and the rest of the people that disagree with you are just human, like you, and may make mistake’s. Why try to discredit their reputation’s? I will be glad to stop when you do.

  16. Mike Mannino

    May 6, 2011 at 2:45 pm

    Like I said on the other page Ted, Love You Buddy.

  17. Ray

    May 6, 2011 at 5:36 pm

    Mike the website to the Institute is laibts.org.

  18. Mike Mannino

    May 6, 2011 at 8:48 pm

    Ted by many I meant all over the country. But just in the small world where I work, I know of 4 people that have left to establish “churches” that offer classes on how to collect different forms of government assistance. They are dressed much nicer, driving nicer cars, and living in a much nicer neighborhood than when they worked with me and the job they left was what would be considered upper middle income. Living large off of their congregation and not paying a dime in taxes. Also clearly participating in political activities which a non profit church is not supposed to do or they lose their tax exempt status. But Ive never seen that enforced. These are the type people that give the others a bad name.

  19. Wade Evans

    May 7, 2011 at 9:08 am

    Here is a little info that you may find helpful Inspector Mike. the “(3)” designation is what differentiates this from a church. Straight from the IRS Website ”
    Exemption Requirements – Section 501(c)(3) Organizations

    To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

    Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170.

    The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization’s net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction.

    Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues” http://www.ibts.org will help you understand who they are and how they were founded. Good luck defaming them, I do not think it will work.

  20. Mike Mannino

    May 7, 2011 at 7:26 pm

    You know Wade, I dont understand your attitude. You have been hellbent on defending CH2 costs and permit fees everytime I post something about how bad we were getting hosed. I have no interest in defaming this company, In fact, I hope they are squeaky clean because it will make my point that we HAVE been getting hosed. I just want all of you who have defended CH2 to see me asking questions about the winner so we dont hear the whining about how much better CH2 was. BOTTOM LINE , JR WAS RIGHT, I WAS RIGHT. But I see none of you that have been openly defended CH2 admitting that we could do better. And there is the problem out here. Too many people defending a person instead of standing up for what is in the best interest of Central. Thank you for your arrogant explanation of non-profits. I am not too arrogant to admit that I learned something so thanks for the inforamation. It would serve some of you well to do research on things you defend before you jump out there because you are losing credibility…………….

  21. Mike Mannino

    May 7, 2011 at 7:27 pm

    Oh and Wade, most important, WOODY WAS RIGHT< AGAIN!!!!!!

    • dave

      May 7, 2011 at 7:39 pm

      Mike,
      I think I’m going to wait until the selection committee finishes before I weigh in. Those proposals had alot if data in them and I have not read them all. I am guessing you have. Lots of things to consider before a selection is made. “PF2BG2CoC”(ask me about that in June.)
      As to getting “hosed”, as long as we get the service we expect for the price they bid, I feel the CH2 tenure as our city services contractor was a fair transaction. Do you agree?
      Dave

  22. Mike Mannino

    May 7, 2011 at 10:18 pm

    Worst case scenario, even CH2 was cheaper than what they are charging now, except for what obviously a mistake on change orders for excavation. Have to say there is a ton of work left to do though before we claim victory. You convinced me of the last statement in one of our discussions so I do agree on that and also agree that under the pressures and circumstances, the people who worked this first contract did the best they could. What I have not agreed with is the constant ridiculing some of us took for even thinking we could do better. For the betterment of this community, I am gald to see we will on this.

    • dave

      May 7, 2011 at 10:25 pm

      Mike,
      I’m gonna say I have never been the source of ridicule. Not my style. I think you know that since the beginning I have defended ch2’s right to finish out the contract we signed with them, and I have defended the city’s right to negotiated a better deal the next time. Still don’t want to jump to conclusions on the bids submitted. Gonna let the committee do it’s work first.

  23. Wade Evans

    May 8, 2011 at 5:13 pm

    Mike, I am not sure what you, Jr, Woody and whoever else was right about. If you did not exist, The city would still have put this out to bid. Ch2 having the advantage of knowing their cost submitted what they thought would be the low bid (speculation). We did not get “hosed”, we got a contract that was fulfilled by both parties. You are right about nothing except your opinions. Woody lauded CH2’s work up until the notorious ad and then astounding public records request. A judge ruled that certain aspects of CH2’s records are not public and BOOM. What exactly were you right about?

  24. MiKE MANNINO

    May 9, 2011 at 7:19 am

    Go back and look at the archives Wade.

  25. Ted

    May 10, 2011 at 10:03 pm

    Mike why don’t you explain what you are talking about. This is another example of you inability to answer a simple question from Mr Evan’s.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *