$1 million Richmond police car deal broke rules
TIMES-DISPATCH
“It angers me that that kind of behavior went on,“ Richmond City Councilman Charles Samuels said of the police car deal reported by the city auditor.
• RELATED STORY: Richmond City Council member blasts police car deal
• AUDITOR'S REPORT: Police cars bought without competitive bids
Richmond officials violated procurement rules when the city bought 40 police cars for nearly $1 million in 2007 without allowing vendors to compete for the business, according to a city auditor's investigation.
The procurement services department wrongly treated the purchase as though only one vendor could provide the Crown Victoria vehicles when numerous Ford dealers across the city and nation could have, City Auditor Umesh Dalal wrote in a report Tuesday to Mayor Dwight C. Jones and other officials.
Eric R. Mens, who authorized the purchase of the vehicles, gave notice June 30 that he would resign effective Aug. 30, city spokesman Michael Wallace said yesterday. Mens has been the director of procurement services since January 2007.
His resignation was not requested by the administration, and so far, no disciplinary action has been taken as a result of the investigation, Wallace said.
"The administration just received this report today, and it's under review by senior staff," Wallace said yesterday.
Mens could not be reached for comment and is scheduled to be out of the office until Monday, according to an automated response to an e-mail message.
Richmond paid $993,520 -- an average of$24,838 per vehicle -- to an unnamed vendor for the police vehicles, according to the auditor's report.
State officials said the city and other localities can piggyback on the state's contract for police vehicles, but it was unclear what savings, if any, could have been realized.
In 2007, Virginia State Police paid a base price of $20,626 for Crown Victoria cruisers, spokeswoman Corinne Geller said. It could not be determined whether the vehicles were equipped similarly to the vehicles purchased by the city.
City code requires all public contracts with private vendors to be awarded after competitive sealed bidding or negotiation.
Notices inviting bids or requesting proposals are supposed to be posted publicly for at least 10 days if the contract exceeds $50,000. But that did not happen when the city bought the police vehicles, according to the auditor's report.
Exceptions to procurement rules can be made if officials determine after a "good-faith review" that only one source or vendor is practically available.
The auditor's office said a contract specialist with procurement services had questioned the sole-source designation for the police-car purchase but was directed by the deputy director to treat the purchase that way.
The investigation also found that the deputy director had instructed the contract specialist to send faxes to three Ford dealerships requesting bids for the vehicles. The faxes went out at 3:30 p.m. on Nov. 7, 2007, and they required responses 17½ hours later, at 9 a.m. Nov. 8, 2007 -- well short of requirements, according to the report.
Before the purchase, the department had contacted Ford Motor Co. about buying the vehicles directly, according to the report. However, the deputy director told an investigator that he was advised to contact local dealerships to get the vehicles, according to the report.
"The investigator questioned the deputy director about the manner in which the three vendors were contacted and why the purchase was treated as a sole-source purchase," Dalal wrote. "The deputy director could not explain their rationale for procuring the vehicles as a sole source."
The report added that the deputy director stated that "the original contract awarded to the vendor was canceled and a new invitation for bid was initiated," and that the contract was awarded based on the new bids.
"However, the deputy director could not substantiate his claim with any evidence," the report said. "Subsequent inquiries with other procurement personnel revealed that the department did not solicit any other invitation for bids for this purchase."
The report recommends disciplinary action and was copied to City Council members, as well as Commonwealth's Attorney Michael N. Herring. Herring was unable to say late yesterday whether his office planned to investigate.
Contact Will Jones at (804) 649-6911 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Who is running the show here,no one. SOP and it’s out of control. If someone faxed 3 Ford dealership and Ford told them to call a local dealership owned by Ford what seems to be the problem here. Hummm, the city had to go by a dealerships timeline or the dealership would lose the order. That’s funny.
I have purchased many company vehicles in my day. We would always go to the local dealer first to give them a chance and shopped around to play the game of feeling good that I negotiated a lower price. Shaking hands and looking at plaid jackets for hours, just kidding.
Afterwards I would call ######### Fleet services in Norfolk and order my new vehicle with exactly what I wanted without leaving my office. All makes and models, like today’s dealers right.
Sometimes we had to wait for the vehicle but I always saved 20 to 30% vs. the local dealer price. Order it on a short term lease plan and then paid the plan off in full early with no penalty.
One example at the dealer the vehicle sold between 38 and 42k. I purchased it for 27k but I had to wait 30 to 40 days while GM assembled it, dang I received it just like I wanted it.
Instant gratification or 20 to 30%, you decide. Now that may not sound like much for 4 to 8 vehicles but we were a small business and we had to have patience.
Now for government, we all see how they run their business. The local and State governments learn by example, Big Brother up in DC is allowed to do this so why not Richmond. It’s only money right they print it everyday.
It simply needs to stop!
If Wilder was Mayor during that time, he most certainly is responsible. Even if he didn’t see or sign the PO, he’s still responsible because he’s in charge of the city. He already played the “I didn’t realize” game too many times and unfortunately, not knowing doesn’t mean it’s okay.
First of all more than likely, former Mayor Wilder had nothing to do with this procurement. Folks should stop blaming him for everything that happens in the City.
The City usually has standing Commonwealth of Virginia contracts for sedans, pick-ups, vans and etc.
Other vehicles are usually purchased on a request for bids generated by the purchasing department for the city, county or other government. This includes, snow plows, fire trucks, street sweepers, and specialize equipment that normally isn’t on a fixed contract.
Going off an existing contract can be done by the rules set forth for emergency purchase but has to be authorized by the City Manager or the Mayor or official have that authority to grant this.
Normally the police car contracts are with a local dealer such as Sheehy or Richmond Ford. Most all state, city and counties used this contract as the price is negotiated and is lower than doing a request for bids by an individual locality.
By law the vendor or vendors name must appear on the contract list that any purchase is conducted.
Hey Charles Samuels, I have a tree in my neighborhood (you’re district) that has been on the city’s ‘to remove’ list for almost a year. It’s still there. How about you get on that.
There needs to be a grand jury on this one.
Getting an impartial investigation will be challenging. Mens needs to be looked at to see if he is just dumb or corrupt. Compettion is thebasic element of any procurement. Wonder if the Virginia Public Procurement Act applies to the city?
Another in a long line of corruption stories from City of Richmond.
Eric Mens is being allowed to remain in place until August 30??? How much more will this cost the taxpayers of Richmond? Plus, I wonder how much he cleared on this deal? No wonder he can retire early.
Surprised… No. This is the same party that is in charge at the State and Federal level. Richmond’s underhanded dealings are small change compared to what is going on at the State level and up in DC.
This is what we get when these type of people are voted into office. We have no one to blame but the voters who put them there. Guess there wasn’t a car purchase CZAR in Richmond, like the ones in DC that are suppose to make sure the money is spent correctly…. Yeah Right!!!
Anonymous: I respectfully disagree. The vendors identity is important because the vendor’s identify may provide information that will show that that the illegal procurement may have resulted from a family, business, or friendship relationship with someone on the City Staff. That does not necessarily mean that the vendor has done anything wrong. However, failing to disclose the vendor’s identity could inhibit a necessary investigation. That is not to say, however, that the vendor’s name need be released to the press or otherwise generally publicized unless some improper action on his part is disclosed.
City ordinances having been violated and taxpayer money probably wasted, a thorough investigation and vigorous prosecution of those responsible - up to an including Doug Wilder - is surely warranted.
This serves as one of many examples from the past administration that clearly demonstrate the fallacy of the charter-amendment proposal being floated in preparation for the next General Assembly session. Neither the City Auditor nor City Attorney should report to the Mayor.
By nationally-accepted auditing standards, auditor independence is required and necessary.
Further, as an earlier commenter correctly stated - no taxpayer money - none - should be paid to vendors whose names are not disclosed. Information about everything that is done with should be subject to public disclosure.
The vender’s name isn’t that important - they were not the ones violating procurement policies. No vender will turn down an order of this size or needs to ask if the purchaser followed all procurement policies for the company.
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement