Busted Bus Bidding

Watching the School Committee meeting a couple weeks ago, there were two main topics that I felt compelled to write about. One has to do with , what the motion that was made last June really meant (since it continually is misrepresented in the media) and this latest debacle of lawyers, violating policy and discipline (or lack thereof). The other is about  and how a no vote by four of the members to put this back out to bid could put this district in jeopardy of not having a transportation vendor come July 1.

For today, I think I will focus on the bus contract, since it is, in many ways, more pressing. And as I like to be very thorough, I will apologize now for the length of this blog entry, but there really is so much to what happened three years ago, the issues over the past three years and what is currently happening.

So where to start? Usually, I think starting at the beginning is for the best.  That takes us to three years ago, which would have been the School Committee before the one I served on. At that time, Attleboro's busing was being provided by Haskell Bus Service Inc., an Attleboro business that I had always thought had done an amazing job transporting our children to and from school and had done so for the past 50 years. Also, I have always felt that it is for the best whenever a business from our own city is awarded contracts of this nature. Anyway, the contract back then was for five years and was coming to a conclusion.

The rumor (and with rumor who knows what is and is not true) was that the school administration wanted to change the transportation vendor because there were issues of control. Having served on the School Committee for two years and having seen and experienced numerous control-related issues, I could definitely see this being true.

So, supposedly there were some changes made to the request for proposals (RFP) that instituted new requirements and decreased the length of the contract from five years to three. This caused many problems for other vendors to be able to bid on the contract, especially with the high cost of the necessary equipment, and is, from what I understand, why the current vendor at the time did not bid.

I had this explained to me in layman's terms, and essentially the high cost of the buses needs to be built into the contract, so a five-year deal allows for the cost to be spread out, making the contract worth bidding. Some companies might just happen to have the equipment readily available, so they would not have the same problems as others, and let's just say that it is very likely that the administration, who again allegedly pushed for these changes, would know this (but again, this is rumor).

So, first question would be, why only a three-year contract if a five-year deal is likely to make more companies bid (and obviously more bidders means more competition which means more savings—capitalism at its finest). Well, other than the rumors explained above, there is supposedly a requirement within the city's charter that would prevent anything greater than a three-year contract. Of course, that brings into question how the previous contract was for five years and why the superintendent's current contract was written as a possible five-year deal (these were three-year contracts with two possible one-year extensions).

Now again, from what I have been informed (since I was not serving on the committee back in 2009 when this whole thing went down), after the changes to the RFP and bidding process as well as acceptance of the new vendor (H&L Bloom), things were provided by the administration that probably shouldn't have been.

Within the contract is a requirement that the buses need to be parked in Attleboro. If you think about it, this makes sense for a multitude of reasons.  First, it ensures that the buses are local, which should decrease delays or other time-related issues, and it's good for the city as it would benefit a local business (either the local bus company or a local company that would rent the storage facility) and lead to tax revenues.

For the prior vendor who had their own Attleboro facility, this was likely not a problem, but for the new vendor back in 2009, I guess this was an issue that they had difficulties dealing with. And again, from what was explained, the administration (and School Committee back in 2009) gave something to Bloom that they never should have, the ability to store the buses at the  for a cost of $1 a year.

Around six months ago, there was a major issue with this whole thing as a $20,000 tax bill was sent to the school department for the storage of these buses. The bill should never have been sent to the school department, but the tax bill itself was legitimate and uncovered many problems with what the school administration did back in 2009. Here are some links to various stories about this whole mess:

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2011/10/26/attleboro/10388422.txt

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2012/02/28/news/11071232.txt

http://www.thesunchronicle.com/articles/2011/10/20/news/10361202.txt

As many of you will remember the school administration (specifically, the former business manager and the superintendent) had to go before the city Council to try to explain themselves and I found that a couple of the City councilors shared the same concerns that I and other members of the School Committee (at the time) had. There were questions about who made the decision to allow Bloom to park the buses at the high school, why it wasn't a temporary measure, why the contract was for only $1, how this $1 contract led to a post-bid financial savings for Bloom, why there wasn't compensation to the school district for this and how this might have been illegal or at least unethical for numerous reasons.

Pretty bad stuff, right, and made worse when there were questions of whether the other potential bidders were given the same knowledge and opportunity. It turns out, all of these concerns were legitimate as seen by  in which the following statements were noted:

Garaging costs within city limits could have cost between $180,000 and $270,000 for the three-year contract term. Concerns have been raised to the OIG that the use of high school property and the $1 per year license granted four months after the award of the bus contract, amounted to a "sweetheart deal."

The letter further stated that the district's post-contract award decision "contributed to the appearance of a prejudicial bidding process that favored one specific vendor."

The letter closed with informing the school department that "creating a level playing field for all bidders should be the school district's first priority."

So, that gets us caught up to the recent events.

While I was still serving, the administration discussed with us the concept of going forward with possible five-year bids (three-year with two one-year extensions) or even a 10-year bid (three-year with seven one-year extensions). I definitely liked the idea of the five-year total bid since I had the understanding that we lost bidders last time due to the switch to a three-year, but I was on the fence with the idea of a 10-year total. To me, the savings would have to be huge in order to consider being locked in for 10 years.

Anyway, the transportation contract ended up falling to the new and current Attleboro School Committee, and from what I understand, they unanimously voted to direct the superintendent to go out for both five-year and 10-year contracts. Once again, the idea was that a five-year contract would lead to more bidders and a likely cost savings.

In addition, the School Committee specified that any bidder who was not up to date with taxes or owed money to the city could not be considered, which makes a lot of sense to me. Since the tax bill was sent to the current transportation vendor, who allegedly was going to refute the bill and who had definitely not yet paid it when the bidding deadline came, it seems that by the School Committee's requirement, the company was not eligible to place a bid. I understand that since that time a few weeks back, after this was being questioned, the bill has now been paid, but that should be beside the point. 

Worse, I have heard that instead of the bidders being informed that they would be considered based upon whichever contract they submitted (three-year, five-year or 10-year), they would only be considered based upon their three-year bid. This supposedly was not what the School Committee directed. In fact, why would the School Committee specify the possibility of a five-year contract, knowing that some vendors will not bid a three-year, and then inform the vendors that the contract would be awarded based on the three-year. Seems a bit suspicious to me.

So, the biding process happened and only one sole vendor bid, our current one, who again, based on the specification of having to be paid up, would in my mind not have been eligible (whether they have or have not since paid up). Also, there have been other problems with this vendor in which certain elements of the contract had not been followed and I know that this has been a concern to numerous current committee members.

Personally, if I was still serving, I am not so sure that I would be able to approve this vendor. In addition, the bid three years ago was for $5.4 million and the new bid is for $6.5 million. I know the cost of things like fuel (which is covered in a different stipulation in the contract) and maintenance has gone up, but a $1.1 million over three years increase?

Now the discussion at the School Committee meeting was around how there was only one bidder and whether going out to bid again would solicit additional competition or if, as the interim business manager indicated, it would lead to an increase.

Not sure about anyone else, but if the one bidder came back with an increase after having already provided a bid (that was again, $1.1 million higher than three years ago), I would say that they were taking advantage and would automatically be discounted. But also I just can’t see how having more vendors bidding would be a bad thing. Again, capitalism at its best (multiple vendors trying to sell a service creates competition which creates a savings).

At that meeting, a motion was made to go back out to bid. Of the eight members in attendance, not surprisingly four of them voted against the motion. Anyone care to take a stab at the four members who agreed with the administration that the district should not go back out to bid, even though this bidding process was not what was originally specified by the committee and how the sole bidder should be ineligible due to a previous specification? It was the same four that always seem to unquestioningly support the administration—Dave Murphy (At-Large), Bill Larson (Ward 2), Chris O'Neil (Ward 3) and Fran Zito (Ward 5). 

In my opinion, going back out to rebid is automatic since it wasn't done properly in the first place and the sole bidder should have been ineligible. So no motion should have been necessary, but it was made and resulted in a tie (4-4), which by parliamentary rules results in a failed vote.

This deadlock resulted in the issue having to be sent back down to the finance subcommittee, which caused more time delays with this whole thing.  I mean, we're running out of time, and I can tell you from experience, one of the tactics that I have seen employed is time deadlines and how not acting as recommended by the administration will result in "putting the district and the children at risk."

But the truth of things are that the School Committee has the absolute right not to accept any bid they do not want, whether it is the lowest or not and that they have the absolute right to decide to go back out to bid. Since things weren't done as they directed and the results weren't what they hoped for, why wouldn't they go back out to bid for this very large and important contract?

There's also one other component that hasn't been discussed, and that is how the administration has not brought the concept of the five-year or 10-year contracts to the City Council (again, it is supposedly specified in the city charter that only three-year bids are allowed) after having been instructed to do so. The explanation is that it will be brought to the City Council after the committee awards the five- or 10-year contract.

A better method would be for the council to vote yes to the concept first and then the bid being done based on the knowledge that it is acceptable. And in my opinion, any councilor who would not vote yes to the possibility of a contract for three years with two one-year extensions, knowing that it will likely lead to a significant financial savings for the city, and also since this had been done for many, many years before the current contract, is suspect.

I understand that it has been requested that this be put before the City Council, but I also understand that there has been resistance to this happening, which I will not go into the details of who is resisting at this time. But again, time is not our friend here.

During the meeting, one of the opposing members, Murphy, stated that he didn't "know what variables would change to make a company more inclined to bid a second time." Well, how about the fact that some vendors do not want a three-year contract, but do want one for five years. If the bid goes out specifying that the contract will be awarded for whichever term the committee feels is best (for example, five years), my guess is that you'll see new bidders. 

Also, it is often standard practice for transportation vendors to stay away from other vendors' areas. Sometimes, you'll see other vendors who are "friendly" to the current vendor place bids that are significantly higher, as a means to support the current bidder, but other serious vendors will not try to take a district away from another vendor unless they are given an indication that the district is really contemplating a change. If that indication is given, which it would be by going back out to bid and by specifying the five-year contract, or by actually contacting these other local vendors and specifically requesting they bid, then we'll get more bidders. And more bidders will create a competitive atmosphere, which should lead to a cost savings. 

I will say that the finance subcommittee Chair Kenneth Parent (Ward 6), said it perfectly when he stated that it's not in the best interest of the school system to have one bid." So anyone, whether it be the interim business manager, superintendent, city councilors or school committee members, who make attempts to stall or deny the five-year contract and going back out to bid are not doing what I believe is in the best interest of our city or our students and, to use someone else's tactic, is "putting the school district and the children at risk!"

---------

Since the writing of this blog entry, , a motion to go back out to bid, which came from a special finance subcommittee meeting, was brought forward. Of the nine members in attendance, once again the voting was very much split with five members now voting to go back out to bid and hopefully do it correctly this time, while the same four members I mentioned above voted no, knowing that the majority of the committee would not approve the single bid. 

From what I gathered, the official reasoning to go back out to bid was because the administration made changes during the last process that they were not authorized to make. In addition, it sounds like this time the pre-bid and bidding meetings will be in the evening to allow for School Committee members to be present to ensure things are done properly. 

I applaud the five members who are not just accepting the status quo and are ensuring that things are done properly, legally and in the best interest of our city and the children. Let's hope that other vendors out there will understand that this School Committee obviously wants other bidders, and other bidders means competition, and competition should mean more savings. But once again, time is running out, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this all works out.