Awarding City Contracts

[Ardist]

"Dept. of Defense Procurement is a place to look for federal cuts."

The City of Roswell Procurement Office is a good place to start locally...

Actually starting at the City Hall Annex and working across to City Hall to the Procurement Office might be the better approach.

[Jim]

I agree with Ardist. Start looking for waste in city hall, to include staffing and salaries, and the city procurement dept (if they have one). Do they get 3 bids? Those procurement records should be public records.

[saw]

Dave Kunko is the department head that handles purchasing.

Since the procurement procedures are dictated by the State most likely everthing will be in proper order.

I do have some questions about some of the "sole sources" purchases made in the past.

And like in most of the govermental agencies about writing specs that only one supplier can provide. (ie "closed spec")

I don't like the city making purchases via the state procurement. That is where the state bids for police cars(and other things) and the cities and counties can also buy the cars from the same supplier at the price the state pays. The city will pay less than if they buy local but I think the city should buy local if at all possible.


They did attempt to get a bid on a Ford Ranger pickup locally but for some reason it never was able to make a deal.

[Jim]

That's where to focus a closer examination .... sole source or no bid contracts AND as you correctly say specs written purposely so that only one contractor meets those specs. Old procurement tricks.

Is there any quality control follow-up to make sure contractors are complying with specs?

I agree, the city should buy local if the price is in the competitive ballpark.

[Ardist]

Saw said.... "I do have some questions about some of the "sole sources" purchases made in the past."
"And like in most of the govermental agencies about writing specs that only one supplier can provide. (ie "closed spec")"

Jim said...That's where to focus a closer examination .... sole source or no bid contracts AND as you correctly say specs written purposely so that only one contractor meets those specs. Old procurement tricks.

Ardist says... The sole source, closed specification continues today.

Description of Building: Roswell Adult and Senior Center Building 807 N Missouri Ave.- Full AccuShield roofing system- application by sole-source manufacture application contractor- Jace Construction El Paso,Texas $79,160.00
Description of Building:Old National Guard Armory Building-now City Facilties Maintenance Building 4203 W. 2nd Street-installing sole-source AccuShield roofing system- applicator is sole-source Jace Construction El Paso, Texas $92,100.00
Description of Building:East Side Little League Baseball Field Building-installing full AccusHIELD roofing system-application by sole-source manufacture application contractor-Jace Construction $5,405.00

City employees signing off on the requested wage determination Mike Mathews and Floyd Lard.

Source of information: http://www.dws.state.nm.us/cgi-bin/wageinq1.cgi

PAST Sole-Source performance example: 703 East Challenger RIAC...
gone with the wind, go take a look.

[saw]

What were the dates for the three projects that you mentioned?

[Ardist]

What were the dates for the three projects that you mentioned?

Adult center was completed this past week. North Missouri
The Facilities maintenance building is not yet completed. West 2nd
East Side Little League is not yet completed South Garden.
The dates are not were, they are now!
These projects are in progress at this date, as are the major wind damage repairs to the hanger roof at the RIAC. 703 East Challenger

[Jim]

These are currently active city projects being done on a sole source contract without competitive bids. That needs to be explained. Will you look into that for us Mr. Mayor & Councilors?

Why these particular contractors over others? Why didn't they get 3 bids?

[Neil]

Can't find a Jace Construction in El Paso only a Jace Contracting. They are listed as contractors for Plastering Drywall & Acoustical Work also as Insulation Contractors-Cold & Heat.

They have an El Paso contractors license

http://www.elpasotexas.gov/development_services/contractor_detail.asp?id=200310271346077200

And are licensed in New Mexico

http://public.psiexams.com/licensee/showBusinessLicensee.do?licenseId=37504&licenseApplicationId=146272

It does strike me as odd that Mr. Bowers Company is not in the roofing business in Texas, but he holds a roofing contractors license in New Mexico.
And why are we using an out of State Company?

[Jim]

Neil: I agree .... ask Mr. Kunko why that is. Is there some written documentation or justification for giving sole-source out-of-state contracts??

Why not 3 bids and an in-state or preferably local contractor and one that is licensed and insured for the work to be done.

I hope records are kept, and are public records, of all city contracts and how they were awarded, whether by bid or sole source, and the rationale for doing so.

City purchasing/prourement/contract awards needs the close eye of the mayor and council.

[saw]

I don't think you blame Mr. Kunko for this, he works for Mr. Fry who works for Mr Capps.

Mr Capps would have been the one to approve these one source contractors.

I don't what dates these contracts were but I don't think I have even seen the bids come in front of the council.

[67cj5]

I don't think you blame Mr. Kunko for this, he works for Mr. Fry who works for Mr Capps.

Sorry Saw, but if something hinkey is going on and Capps' staff knows about it they should expose it. No pass for any one who knows and not only allows this kind of thing to continue but readily defends it. And yes, Mr Fry did explain exactly how this mess is being done under oath in a court case involving the city and Crenshaw Consulting. Kunko was there as well, however he did not testify.

[pdc]

I frequently see people recommending a preference for "in-state" and/or "in-town" - what ever happened to the "Free Enterprise System"???? **laugh**

[mfish]

Sometimes when too much emphasis is place on "in state" or "in town" bid preference - GREED takes control of the process and the locals start nicking up the prices.

Free Enterprise is definitely a better way to go.

But - I think in the cases being discussed, the issue is "Non - Competitive," "sole source" contracts. So if that's the case, the "locals" never had a chance to bid the jobs. They were simply awarded to a single contractor without the benefit of an RFP being published.

[oladcock]

"I frequently see people recommending a preference for "in-state" and/or "in-town" - what ever happened to the "Free Enterprise System"????"

What the hell are you talking about pdc? Showing a preference of one over another for whatever reason is free enterprise, being told you can't or you have to by the King is not....O.L.

[67cj5]

The best way to obtain pricing for construction work is to have a professional architect or engineer put together a set of plans and specifications using an or equal clause for the specified material. Once this is accomplished put the project out to public bid. Mfish is exactly correct, the problem here is that not only are the local contractors being excluded from having the opportunity to bid, but so is every other qualified contractor either in state or out of state. The main problem with the sole source form of procurement is that there is no way to compare the price you are getting. Another thing that bothers me about this is that as far as I know the council does not approve these contracts, I do not even think they know these projects are under construction.

[Jim]

The mayor and Council need to be aware of how city contracts are awarded.They have the right to question sole source non-bid contracts.

Re preference for local or in-state businesses .... it should be advertised and bids taken. If a local business is close ask for a last and final bid. My experience with contract fraud is that some bidders on gov'mt jobs bid them purposely so low-ball that they couldn't possibly do the job for that cost. They know some gov'mt agencies have to take the low bid or justify why they didn't. Once the contract is awarded that low bidder keeps asking for modification orders (MO's) to the contract to ratchet the price up. It's not unusual to see a federal gov'mt contract with a long list of MO's. I don't know if city contracts are modified, or the price increased, after being awarded. I suppose the City Mgr would be the approving authority on that.

Sounds like this is an area that needs closer scrutiny. Maybe it's squeaky clean but alot of tax dollars are spent this way and that needs to be double-checked and monitored by others than the 2 or 3 involved in the purchasing process. That logically should be the duty of the mayor and council.

[Ardist]

Jim...."Sounds like this is an area that needs closer scrutiny. Maybe it's squeaky clean but alot of tax dollars are spent this way and that needs to be double-checked and monitored by others than the 2 or 3 involved in the purchasing process. That logically should be the duty of the mayor and council."

Two Key statutes every procurement officer should know backward and forward before even considering allowing a sole source procurement.

13-1-126 Sole Source procurement
A contract may be awarded without competitive sealed bids or competitive sealed proposals regardless of the estimated cost when the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office makes a determination, after conducting a good-faith review of available sources and consulting the using agency, that there is only one source for the required service, construction or item of tangible personal property. The state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office shall conduct negotiations, as appropriate, as to price, delivery and quantity in order to obtain the price most advantageous to the state agency or a local public body. A contract for the purchase of research consultant services by institutions of higher learning constitutes a sole source procurement

13-1-128. Sole source and emergency procurements; content and submission or record.
records of sole source and emergency procurements. The record of each such procurement shall be public record and shall contain:
A. the contractor's name and address;
B. All central purchasing offices shall maintain, for a minimum of three years, the amount and term of the contract;
C. a listing of the services, construction or items of tangible personal property procured under the contract; and
D. the justification for the procurement method.

Information Source:
http://www.conwaygreene.com/nmsu/lpext.dll?f=templates&fn=main-h.htm&2.0

These sole source procurements should have involved the councilors making up the Building and Lands Committee, Mr. Perry, Mr. Henderson and Ms. Stubbs. Others which were involved with these sole source procurements were Floyd Lard, Facilites Manager and Mike Mathews, Codes Director over at the annex. One would think Dave Kunko as City purchasing director would have had knowledge of these procurements as well the procurement staff in the basement, Larry Fry as City Treasurer and John Capps as City Manager, maybe even Barbara Patterson as City Attorney.
And that only includes these three sole source procurements, not the eight or more others completed in the recent past.

[Jim]

By statue then these sole source contracts ARE public records. Where can they be reviewed?

"A good faith review" is a nice legalese term to have there but isn't that a subjective judgement on the part of a city employee?

The RDR should publish these contract including the amount, whether it was a bid contract or sole source, who the contractor is and what city employee authorized it. Presumably that city employee then becomes the contracting officer for the city and is the city point-of-contact for the contractor.

I have lots of stories re procurement and contract fraud at the federal level and attended a course on awarding federal contracts. In those days we had to include minority owned businesses as a % of contracts awarded.

[saw]

Any of the records can be had by contacting Dave Kunko, the city clerk.

At the last city council meeting a bid was on the agenda which I believe was awarded. This was a bid for a D6-K Bulldozer for the landfill. The staff recommended that Wagner Equipment From Hobbs be awarded the bid at a price tag of $164,597.00 The other bid from Adobe Truck and Equipment from Albuquerque of $131,989.00 was rejected because it did meet specifications.

Note the staff recommended the award and the council approved it. My question, did anyone on the council know why the Adobe bid did not meet specs?

I am going to tell you a fictional story that is based on non-fictional assumptions.

This fictional story starts back in about May 2008 when The department head at the landfill decided that the department needed a new or another bulldozer. He got a budget figure from the salesman from Wagner equipment and got it the figure($175,000.00) in the 2008-2009 approved budget.

He did not get the ok advertise for a bid in the 08-09 FY. Then the staff in 09-10 FY gave the ok to advertise for a bid and then he had to get a set of specs to proceed.

He called the salesman at Wagner and he told him that he had the ok to advertise and could he, the salesman get some specs for him which of course the salesman said "you bet". Since Wagner is the Caterpillar Dealer you might guess that the specs lean a bit toward the "Yellow Cat" and might contain a sentence that the sucessful bidder must mantain a well stocked parts department and a service department not more than a two hour drive from Roswell.

This is not a bad statement when you consider that these heavy equipment equipment companies charge about $2.00 per mile each way plus $70-$90 per hour for a service call. The only problem is Wagoner is the only company that can meet those specs.

The next problem is that the landfill department department head most likely does not have the expertise to write a detailed spec for a piece of equipment like a D8 Cat and the city staff has no one else that can do it so they have to depend only a supplier to do it. They do know that they like them big "Yellow Cats" which I do also.

The only other option is to hire a professional to do the specs which is going to cost money.

I don't know what Adobe proposed but I would like to know and I think that the councilmen should know and why the equipment that Adobe proposed would not meet the spec.

The fact is that the city only received two bids is disturbing in these days and times.

I think that the only imput by the council is when the budget is approved and when they are asked to approved the staff recommended bids.

[Ardist]

Any of the records can be had by contacting Dave Kunko, the city clerk. **laugh****laugh**

That statement belongs in the "Know a good joke" thread.

Seriously, just by contacting Dave Kunko!:confused:

Try your method, my method of going through the public records act did not work, see what you get.

After you obtain the records required to be maintained by the procurement code, would you be so kind as to post the records for the rest of the Talk Roswell Members to review

[Ardist]

Saw’s fictional scenario….
“He called the salesman at Wagner and he told him that he had the ok to advertise and could he, the salesman get some specs for him which of course the salesman said "you bet". Since Wagner is the Caterpillar Dealer you might guess that the specs lean a bit toward the "Yellow Cat" and might contain a sentence that the successful bidder must maintain a well stocked parts department and a service department not more than a two hour drive from Roswell.”

The statute codified in 2007 to prevent this scenario…

10-16-13. Prohibited bidding.
No state agency or political subdivision of the state shall accept a bid or proposal from a person who directly participated in the preparation of specifications, qualifications or evaluation criteria on which the specific competitive bid or proposal was based. A person accepting a bid or proposal on behalf of a state agency or political subdivision of this state shall exercise due diligence to ensure compliance with this section.

This statute is found of all places in the "Governmental Conduct Act" you know the act which deals with the oxymoron subject, Ethics in Government.

[saw]

I know that the rules says you can't have any assistance preparing the specs for a bid but where do you get the specs if not from a vendor?

The city would require a crew of spec writers to buy anything that was more complicated than a ream of paper or a light bulb.

There is another way to request a bid and that is to state that you want to buy a Ford 150 pickup w/etc. or an approved equal. However this puts the city in a debatable position.

It is a trickey game. I was the low bidder on a piece of equipment sometime ago to the federal goverment and competion that bid against me equipment had more features that the one that was spec, so the goverment department decided to accept the competions bid. I protested and they had to throw the bids out and rebid based on the fact that if they wanted the extra features they should have asked for them.

Ardist: All you have do to get any information from the city is to call Dave Kunko and he may ask you to put your request in writing. The city has ten working days to reply to your request. Try it.

[Ardist]

Ardist: All you have do to get any information from the city is to call Dave Kunko and he may ask you to put your request in writing. The city has ten working days to reply to your request. Try it.

Saw, would you say the following Should have gotten the requested documents?
Office of the Attorney General State of New Mexico
FORM I
REQUEST TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS 2nd Request

August 8, 2008 HAND DELIVERED August 8,2008

TO:Mr. John Capps , City Manager
City of Roswell, New Mexico
400 North Richardson
Roswell, New Mexico 88201

FROM:Ardist Allen
P.O. Box 2733
Roswell, New Mexico 88202-2733

I would like to inspect and select for copying the following documents:
Any and all documents pertaining to roofing and or roof related repair work of any city owned property located within the city limits of Roswell ,NM performed, or currently under any type contract procured from or issued to Advanced Coating Systems, Inc and or JACE Contracting Services Inc. from the date of January 1, 2005 through the current date of August 8, 2008. Attachment A is specific examples of requested documents.
If your agency does not maintain these public records, please let me know who does, and include the proper custodian's name and address. I promise to pay $ 0.50 per page for copying charges. If the copying charges will exceed $100.00 please call me to discuss. I understand that I may be asked to pay the fee for copies in advance before you make any copies.
Please provide a receipt indicating the copying charges for each document.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter.
ATTACHMENT A TO REQUEST TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS
Invitations to bid, request for proposal, bid documents, plan sheets, notices of sole source procurement, GSA contracts, specifications, responsive bidder lists, bid results, committee recommendations for bid acceptance, council action awarding contract, bid bonds, subcontractor listing, contractor state license number, department of labor registration number, notice of award, contracts, performance bonds, payment bonds, insurance certifications, construction submittals, notices to proceed, construction industries division review and approval of construction documents, building permits, contractor construction schedule, schedule of values, contractor payment applications, owner approved and certified payment applications, owner canceled checks in payment of work, manufacturer’s inspection reports, written communications between owner and contractor, internal communications, change order requests, approved change orders, notice of substantial completion, punch lists for final completion, final inspection from New Mexico Construction Industries Division, Contractors warranty documents, Manufacturer’s Warranty documents, close out documentation, Notice of final completion, owners certifications of completion and final payments, contractor lien releases, contractor affidavit of wages paid, contractors payment of certification to apprenticeship and training act, documents relating to approved piggy backing of an existing contract.

FYI, you might ask Dave Kunko how many of the documents requested were indeed provided.

[saw]

Ardist, I take it that you did not get a reply from the city, is that correct?

[Ardist]

Ardist, I take it that you did not get a reply from the city, is that correct?

No, I did get a response which included some written communications between owner and contractor, and some invoices and quotes. Lots of duplication.

What I did not receive and therefore can only believe does not exist are:

Invitations to bid, request for proposal, bid documents, plan sheets, notices of sole source procurement, GSA contracts, specifications, responsive bidder lists, bid results, committee recommendations for bid acceptance, council action awarding contract, bid bonds, subcontractor listing, contractor state license number, department of labor registration number, notice of award, contracts, performance bonds, payment bonds, insurance certifications, construction submittals, notices to proceed, construction industries division review and approval of construction documents, building permits, contractor construction schedule, schedule of values, contractor payment applications, owner approved and certified payment applications, owner canceled checks in payment of work, manufacturer’s inspection reports, , internal communications, change order requests, approved change orders, notice of substantial completion, punch lists for final completion, final inspection from New Mexico Construction Industries Division, Contractors warranty documents, Manufacturer’s Warranty documents, close out documentation, Notice of final completion, owners certifications of completion and final payments, contractor lien releases, contractor affidavit of wages paid, contractors payment of certification to apprenticeship and training act, documents relating to approved piggy backing of an existing contract.

Believe it, Saw…. Obtaining public documents from the City of Roswell is not a simple matter of asking Dave Kunko. Try for yourself, copy the request, change my name as requestor insert your name, change the date and submit the form you can walk it in or mail it in. I invite all Talk Roswell Subscribers to do the same. See how open and transparent the City of Roswell Bureaucracy really is.

[saw]

My request have been fairly simple but I have always received a reply. Sometimes it took two request to make it happen.

I am going to see what I can find out about your request.

[Ardist]

Sometimes it took two request to make it happen.

REQUEST TO INSPECT PUBLIC RECORDS 2nd Request
From the header on the request.

[67cj5]

After my last post I was determined to stay out of this, but I think something needs to be cleared up here. The discussion is “sole source” contracts which as I understand it have indeed been used on all of the projects in progress and completed by Jace Construction. However there is another twist to this whole slimy mess. The “materials” are purchased through a GSA contract. Here is how I understand this topsy-turvy twist-around now you see me now you don’t process. If talk Roswell readers want to know how this is being done I will explain as best I can. Here goes.

This is how I understand the process:
The city is using a piggyback GSA contract to purchase material from a Federal GSA vendor. The city itself is not a “certified applicator” of said material and therefore may not install the material they purchased and obtain a warranty from the manufacturer they purchased the material from. So, the city believes they must use “sole source” procurement to hire a “certified” contractor to install the material, and because there is only one certified applicator in the region they believe that they have no other option. Keep in mind; the city does not believe that these projects have to go out to public bid because the city is using a combination of GSA, and sole source. The way I understand it the city believes this is all perfectly legal and acceptable. I understand this method of procurement sounds kind of convoluted and “could” be rife with corruption as a value approaching $3,000,000.00 worth of work has been procured in this manner over a period of about four years using the same contractor and material manufacturer on several different projects, but the city seems to believe it is the best method of procurement. It may also be relevant that the material being purchased is readily available on the open market through many, many manufacturers; it is not a one of a kind material. It may also be noted that Advance Coating Systems, aka. Energy Seal Products is not the only material of its type approved by GSA nor do I believe that their warranty is in any way superior to other similar products listed by GSA or similar products available to contractors on the open market.

So, the contractor knows going in that he has a lock on the project. Does he sit down sharpen his pencil, and determine the best most economical way to install the material as if he knew others were bidding against him?

What is the material being used you ask? Well, it is similar to the white roof coatings at Home Depot, it may contain more solids or some such other BS used to sell the product, but it is essentially the same. The material is installed in “I believe three coats” with a polyester fabric between two of the coats either using a sprayer, or a paint roller kind of like thick paint, which in essence it is. Now, the city would like to compare the price of this “system” to professionally designed roofing systems used in the past, put out to bid and installed, in other words comparing apples to Ferrari’s and expecting the public to believe they are getting a great deal when asked. It is all BS.

The big question here is, is the city saving money using this process? The answer is who knows. The way to find out is to open the process up to bidding. Let Jace bid using their product, and allow all qualified contractors with an equal product to bid against them. The problem here is that the city probably believes they are saving money by not using a professional architect or engineer to perpare the bidding documents and insure equal products are being bid. They are correct here; however what the city does not seem to know or to be willing to find out about is that a professional seal is required on all reroofing of public projects to obtain a permit and meet building code. That brings up the question; how is the contractor obtaining permits for the projects? Well, up until they were red tagged and shut down on building 1083they simply did not purchase permits that I can find a record of. This brings up the question of how did they obtain permits on the Civic Center, Museum, and Adult Center. My answer to that is: I have no Idea, and The New Mexico Construction Industries Division ain’t talking.

[Daisy]

Wow, that's a lot of good information, 67cj5.

My question is this - is someone related to or good buddies with the owner of Jace Construction? If I remember right, Jace is out of El Paso, so there has to be some reason why they are being used over and over. (besides the sole source thing)

[Jim]

I once worked for GSA (federal). I've never heard of a city doing this with a GSA federal vendor. Not on the federal GSA contract. The vendor could contract with the city separately. The city could negotiate for the same price given to federal agencies under that contract. The city is obviously not a federal agency. Federal GSA Region 8 Hq might be interested to know about this if this is what's happening. If there's any doubt or gray area, or business being done with a wink and a nod, the city shouldn't be involved. If it's perfectly legal and legitimate it still sounds too complicated to me

It sounds like only a very few know what's going on and I doubt that includes the mayor or council. The public should be able to understand. I'd feel alot better if it had been put out for bids. Then you need to check to make sure the two losing bidders actually did bid and weren't just written there by the purchasing person who might be in cahoots with the so-called winning bidder.

This does not seem like the transparency that we need in city contracts. Put city contracts out for bid, advertise them, have at least 3 bidders, verify that 3 legitimate bids were received and have written documentation as to why the contract was awarded to the successful bidder. Open and above board where any citizen could review and understand what occurred. And certainly have the mayor and council at least be aware of these things if not having final approving authority.

[Daisy]

Although I don't know anything about this stuff, that sounds exactly how it should be done, Jim.

I recall reading here (somewhere) that someone (former city councilor?) knew or was related to someone at Jace Construction, but I never knew if it was true. If it was, there was some underhanded dealings going on.

[oladcock]

"If it's perfectly legal and legitimate it still sounds too complicated to me"

Amen Jim...All this red tape, rules, regs, legalese, etc...One would like to think it's to protect the tax payer..Think so?..Or is it to confuse and hide shady doings giving multiple layers of deniablity to multiple layers of bureucracy. This kind of crap is insanity from little ol' Roswell all the way to Washington...O.L.

[Daisy]

Here's the other thread in which Jace Contracting or Construction was discussed:

Another No Bid Contract to El Paso Contractor (http://www.talkroswell.com/talk/showthread.php?t=1007)

[67cj5]

No, Daisy I do not think so. I remember the thread you are referring to well. The only players left since that time are the city staff and Steve Henderson who believe it or not is the Chair of the finance committee, and still perched on the building and lands committee. That’s right the very committee responsible for approving this fiasco. I still want to know how these projects were funded without going before and being approved by the full council. If you recall, it was Henderson who pushed these contracts in open council meetings. Personally, I thought all of this ended with the museum.

We have some new leadership now, and I have seen three of them on TR today. I have a feeling it will stop soon.

[Daisy]

The only players left since that time are the city staff and Steve Henderson...

Councilors Stubbs, Velasquez, Maples and Sandoval are also still there. That would be enough left to get contracts awarded to Jace Contracting, if the Mayor and other Councilors are unaware of the situation.....or am I way off base?

[67cj5]

As far as I know these contracts have never been voted on by the full council. And, I am not sure if these contracts were awarded before, or after the elections. But, yeah if they did go before the full council they could well be approved, or tabled for review. From what I have seen lately the council is no longer a rubber stamp.

[Daisy]

As far as I know these contracts have never been voted on by the full council.

Shouldn't they be voted on, or not??

From what I have seen lately the council is no longer a rubber stamp.

I agree and am very glad our new Mayor and Councilors are not just puppets, as some of the older ones seemed to be. I'm hoping we're done with that part of Roswell's history, but we (the citizens) helped make this change and we have to stay on top of it to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Thanks, 67cj5. :smk3:

[Jim]

Let the City Mgr explain these things to the Mayor and Council in open session so the public can hear and have input. He can also explain the city relationship with Jace. Steve Henderson can add to our enlightenment as well. There may be some very proper reasonable reasons why the city has been awarding contracts this way. We'll have a clearer understanding of what's been occurring in city hall purchasing and contracting. While it sounds complex, and doesn't seem at first glance to pass the smell test, the City Mgr should be given the opportunity to explain it publicly.

I agree the days of puppet rubber-stamp councils should be history. The easy quickest way is to just show up and approve everything staff recommends. They need to ask more quesions and take the time to look deeper.

[67cj5]

Daisy, Henderson pushed to allow Jace to circumvent the bidding process during the museum mess, he said they had done a lot of work under the piggybacking process, made it sound perfectly normal.

The actual contract and the amount of the contract were not to my knowledge ever brought before the council nor were any of the other contracts awarded to Jace.

He pushed the process, not the approval of contracts. Sorry for the confusion.

I am glad you posted the old thread to give some history, but a lot has been revealed since then.

[Jim]

I'll be interested to learn what the "piggybacking process" is.

[Ardist]

I'll be interested to learn what the "piggybacking process" is.
Have not found "piggyback" yet.
This should be of intrest to an old GSA guy

Will get back to with an explanation of (legal) piggybacking

13-1-129. Procurement under existing contracts.
A. Notwithstanding the requirements of Sections 13-1-102 through 13-1-118 NMSA 1978, the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office may contract for services, construction or items of tangible personal property without the use of competitive sealed bids or competitive sealed proposals as follows:

(1) at a price equal to or less than the contractor's current federal supply contract price (GSA), providing the contractor has indicated in writing a willingness to extend such contractor pricing, terms and conditions to the state agency or local public body and the purchase order adequately identifies the contract relied upon; or

(2) with a business which has a current exclusive or nonexclusive price agreement with the state purchasing agent or a central purchasing office for the item, services or construction meeting the same standards and specifications as the items to be procured if the following conditions are met:

(a) the quantity purchased does not exceed the quantity which may be purchased under the applicable price agreement; and

(b) the purchase order adequately identifies the price agreement relied upon.

B. The central purchasing office shall retain for public inspection and for the use of auditors a copy of each federal supply contractor state purchasing agent price agreement relied upon to make purchases without seeking competitive bids or proposals.

[Ardist]

I'll be interested to learn what the "piggybacking process" is.
Sorry about the length of time taken to get back,
The following is an exerpt from the State of New Mexico Public Schools Facilities Authority (PSFA) purchasing guidelines prepared for use of purchasing officers in all the 89 school districts.


STEP BY STEP INSTRUCTIONS: USE OF GSA OR OTHER
GOVERNMENT ENTITY CONTRACTS OR ‘PIGGYBACKING’ FOR
PURCHASES OF MATERIALS, CONSTRUCTION OR SERVICES
Overview:The NM Procurement Code allows any NM government entity (city, county, school district, university, or State of NM) to use any other NM government entity contract for materials, construction, or services, or professional services, if certain conditions are met. It is acceptable procurement practice to inquire within another government entity to determine if they have an existing contract in place that can be utilized to meet your needs in lieu of the time it may take to develop specifications or scope of work, and go through the formal bid or request for proposal process yourself.
Since the entity that is holding the contract has already gone through the formal invitation to bid or request for proposal process, the dollar thresholds stated in 13-1-125 NMSA 1978 for small purchases, do not apply.
Only the contract limitations, if any, apply.
The different types of contracts that you may piggy-back on are
definite quantity, indefinite quantity, and price agreements for goods, services and construction, as well as GSA which is a federal supply contract.
A “definite quantity” contract is very difficult to piggy back on because the contracting entity may have already ordered the total quantity specified in the contract. Once a “definite quantity” contract has been fulfilled, it can no longer be used. It is imperative, therefore, to ask the contracting entity if you may use (that is, “piggyback”) onto their contract. If there are no remaining items on a “definite quantity” contract, or the procuring entity will be ordering the remaining balance on the contract, then you cannot use that contract. You may ask for a copy of their contract to use as a template to create your own procurement documents. If the contract you wish to use is an “indefinite quantity” contract, it is good business and procurement
practice that you contact the entity that holds the contract as well as the vendor, to confirm that your procurement can be fulfilled. The vendor may not be able to fulfill your order requirements or may not be able to meet your time limitations, because the contracting entity’s orders may take precedence over your potential orders
Once you’ve determined that you can use another entity’s contract, you must obtain a copy of both the contract and bid documents, to determine if the specifications, scope of work, and terms and conditions do in fact meet your requirements, before proceeding.13-1-129 NMSA 1978 of the Procurement Code states: “the state purchasing agent or central purchasing office may contract for materials, construction, or services without the use of competitive sealed bids or competitive sealed proposals, at a price equal to or less than a federal supply schedule (GSA), if the contractor indicates in writing that the district may do so.”
Further, it states: “the government entity (district) may also procure from a business that has a current exclusive or nonexclusive price agreement (indefinite or definite quantity contract) issued by the State of NM
or any other city, county, or educational institution, if the business agrees and can meet the requested quantities, etc.”

The following checklist applies to those purchases of materials, construction, or other project related services through the use of an existing contract that you have determined is appropriate for your needs.

Step 1. Obtain a copy of pertinent documents issued by the procuring government entity.
a. If “piggybacking” on another NM government entity contract, documents may vary from entity to entity, and may be any of the following: the bid documents, a blanket purchase order, a price agreement, a contract, a request for proposal, and if applicable, a notice of award, contract amendments, or contract extensions. Check the date that the contract expires, and when, if applicable, the contract will be renewed to ensure you are using a valid contract.
b. If utilizing a GSA (federal government General Services Administration) contract, you must have a letter of authorization from the contractor (not the salesman) extending the pricing, terms and conditions to your district.
c. If utilizing a State of NM Price Agreement, you can download the documents from the State Purchasing Division (SPD) website at www.state.nm.us/spd, Price Agreements.
NOTE: 13-1-129 NMSA 1978, paragraph B., requires that you have a copy of the contract/bid documents in your procurement file for public inspection, for the use of auditors, to document that the procurement is valid; and for procurement purposes, to verify that you have correct pricing, shipping information, terms and conditions, etc.
So....
Piggybacking can be done, no question about it, as long as procedure is followed and documentation is in place. The problem I have with the city's explanation is that they apparently do not have the documentation required and therefore were issuing illegal contracts. If you look at my previous post for documents requested, you will find these documents were requested. The requested documentation was not provided so I can only conclude that the documents do not exist.

[Jim]

Good research! That's like having to read one of those convuluted legal documents and understanding what it says. It does allow piggybacking for any state gov'mt agency, even from federal GSA suppliers (I can still see some possible problems here between federal GSA and the vendors but as long as they have sufficient supplies to provide federal agencies AND state agencies, and comply with the terms of their federal contracts, it should be okay.

I'm inclined to think the contract with GSA federal should have a provision allowing this and/or the vendor enter into a separate but similar contract with State GSA in compliance with the NM Procurement Code. Federal auditors and investigators are concerned with the contract being in compliance with federal requirements versus state requirements. If the federal contractor/supplier is found to be in non-complaince with the contract they can be debarred from bidding on federal contracts. So it's to their benefit to follow the rules and have the required paperwork.

As a side note I've had a federal judge complain that his court must buy from the GSA vendor list while he could get the same things cheaper at Wal-Mart.
GSA vendors/suppliers do not always have the best price.

Typically, when dealing with federal and state agencies and their contracts there is a heap of paperwork and documention required. There should be a clear audit trail. Apparently the city has utilized this piggyback provision but has not complied with the paper trail, or documentation, requirements. At least when those were requested they couldn't be produced.

Lots of rules in place to do this and if you don't follow the rules you're not in compliance. The city should have the documentation on hand for each piggyback contract. That is or should be a public record. Lacking those records raises questions about the propriety of the procurement.

[oladcock]

What a bunch of crap.

"As a side note I've had a federal judge complain that his court must buy from the GSA vendor list while he could get the same things cheaper at Wal-Mart.
GSA vendors/suppliers do not always have the best price."

How else are they going to pay back thier union buddies?

"Lots of rules in place to do this and if you don't follow the rules you're not in compliance. The city should have the documentation on hand for each piggyback contract. That is or should be a public record. Lacking those records raises questions about the propriety of the procurement."

What does it cost to jump through the hoops? Worthless wasteful bureaucracy, nothing more....O.L.

[Jim]

I like the way you see things Oladcock. Expressed so eloquently in terms we all understand. Most times you're right-on. It is a bunch of crap and bureaucratic BS. So much of our dealings with gov'mt are.

Remember that important gov'mt concept of CYA.

[Ardist]

Here are the hoops for Sole Source

Purchasing Guide
State Purchasing Division
State of New Mexico

Appendix D- Sole Source Process/Requirements
By definition, sole sources are not encouraged by the State Purchasing Division because
pricing and terms and conditions are difficult or impossible to negotiate. No open market exists to validate that pricing and terms and conditions are reasonable, and the State’s leverage in negotiating with the sole source provider is limited.
Requirements:
Request and Justification Letter from Agency,Sole Source Validation Letter from Vendor
Requisition
Quote from Vendor
Approval/Concurrence from DOIT if IT related
Documentation that the sole source is justified (no other source is available)
SPD Action
-Ensure above-listed requirements are met
-Try to alternate source the effort
Check industry websites
Google
Other Sources
-Post the sole source specifications on the SPD website to allow vendors to
challenge the request. *
-Document attempt to source
Reject request if alternate sources are identified
Accept if no other sources found
-Negotiate the best terms possible with the sole source provider
-Issue a contract for maximum of one (1) year. (Justification will need to be
validated on a regular basis)
-Create file
-Load into SHARE
*Note: State Purchasing is revising its process to include:
-Post the Sole Source Request on the SPD website for a minimum of ten
(10) business days to allow vendors to respond with their capability to
fulfill the request. If a vendor responds with a viable alternative, reject the
sole source request and have the Agency competitively acquire the
product/service. If no viable response is received, negotiate with the sole
source provider and issue a contract for one (1) year. Justification will
need to be validated on a regular basis.

[oladcock]

Ardist, Wow, I used to think the military was bad! LOL We had GSA sources but if we found a product or service with the same specs, the same or cheaper we could "open source" with hardly any paper work at all. Where's the check book?

Yep Jim, the first rule of a bureaucracy is to protect and grow the bureaucracy. Intricate complexity prevents those out of the loop from questioning exactly what they are really doing behind the scenes! :)....O.L.

[67cj5]

From this thread:

"I frequently see people recommending a preference for "in-state" and/or "in-town" - what ever happened to the "Free Enterprise System"????"

Looks like all that red tape is to insure the "Free Enterprise System" is not corrupted.

From Ardist's last post:
By definition, sole sources are not encouraged by the State Purchasing Division because pricing and terms and conditions are difficult or impossible to negotiate. No open market exists to validate that pricing and terms and conditions are reasonable, and the State’s leverage in negotiating with the sole source provider is limited.

And backs up my own post:
So, the contractor knows going in that he has a lock on the project. Does he sit down sharpen his pencil, and determine the best most economical way to install the material as if he knew others were bidding against him?

Did the City follow the rules? I don’t think so.
Who approved the expenditures? Did anyone see these contracts voted on by the full council? I sure didn’t. And yes, I believe it is required that the council vote on these contracts.

WHO APPROVED THE EXPENDITURES??????????????????????????????????

[Daisy]

Maybe the city manager?? He's the one who seemed to be running everything in Roswell for so many years, with no one questioning anything he did.

Someone once told me he must know where everyone's skeletons are buried because no one dared to go against anything he wanted to do...*shhh*

[67cj5]

Maybe? But, not all by himself.

[Jim]

He had his cronies and do-nothing rubber-stamp Councils voting aye on most all committee and staff recommendations without taking the time to look into these matters and ask questions that should have been asked on behalf of their constituents. And we kept re-electing some of them.

That's got to change with a new mayor and city manager.

[Daisy]

I believe it has already begun to change.........don't you?

I like what I'm seeing with this new Mayor & Council. There are many problems to correct and they are working on them. It takes time and I'm sure if some of you email or call with your concerns about city contracts, it will be put on the long list of things that need to be looked at.

[67cj5]

I believe it has already begun to change.........don't you?

Yes.

I do not doubt that this practice and others like will come to a halt under our new mayor, but I still want to know what was going on, how it was allowed to occur, and who was involved. I would also like to know how many other contracts not involving roofing were done using this or a similar process. I just have a funny feeling these are not the only shenanigans “staff” has been hiding from us.

[Ardist]

The mayor and Council need to be aware of how city contracts are awarded.They have the right to question sole source non-bid contracts.

Sounds like this is an area that needs closer scrutiny. Maybe it's squeaky clean but alot of tax dollars are spent this way and that needs to be double-checked and monitored by others than the 2 or 3 involved in the purchasing process. That logically should be the duty of the mayor and council.

Here is the way to find out,... from the State Procurement Code.

13-1-161. Contract audit.
A state agency or a local public body shall be entitled to audit the books and records of a contractor or any subcontractor under any negotiated contract or subcontract other than a firm fixed-price contract to the extent that such books and records relate to the performance of such contract or subcontract. Such books and records shall be maintained by the contractor for a period of three years from the date of final payment under the prime contract and by the subcontractor for a period of three years from the date of final payment under the subcontract unless a shorter period is otherwise authorized in writing.

Or.. just make sure the independent auditor targets all sole source, no bid, GSA, piggyback contracts during the annual audit (coming up soon).

[Ardist]

I am going to see what I can find out about your request.

So, Saw....did you find a stonewall at city hall, or a refreshing fountain of information?