Losing bidder complained to city about cruiser contract
DEAN HOFFMEYER/TIMES-DISPATCH
A Ford dealership in Prince George Co. challenged Richmond’s handling of a nearly $1 million contract to buy police cars in late 2007.
• Richmond police tighten rules on cars taken home
• $1 million Richmond police car deal broke rules
AUDITOR'S REPORT: Police cars bought without competitive bids
PDF: Take Home Policy
|
A Ford dealership in Prince George County challenged Richmond's handling of a nearly $1 million contract to buy police cars in late 2007, a deal that's now under investigation by the city administration and commonwealth's attorney.
Robert A. Wilkinson, a commercial account manager with Crossroads Ford of Virginia, sent a protest letter to Richmond officials on Dec. 7, 2007, after then-Mayor L. Douglas Wilder's administration had awarded the contract for 40 Crown Victoria vehicles to Sheehy Ford of Richmond.
Wilkinson's complaints mirror issues cited by City Auditor Umesh V. Dalal last week when he concluded that the city had violated procurement rules in awarding the $993,520 contract.
Wilkinson's letter was sent to Director of Procurement Services Eric R. Mens and was copied to then-Chief Administrative Officer Sheila Hill-Christian.
It was unclear yesterday how Hill-Christian addressed the claims at the time. She did not respond to two messages for comment, and Mayor Dwight C. Jones' administration declined to discuss the matter, citing the ongoing investigations.
In his letter, Wilkinson complained that the city's rules for purchases over $50,000 "were clearly not followed," and he challenged Mens' decision to treat the contract as if only one vendor could supply the cars. He noted that the city had asked at least three dealerships to provide bids, "which seems to make it not a sole-source contract."
Wilkinson also complained that the bidders were given less than 24 hours to respond to the request, and he called on the city "to rebid the purchase and follow its long-established policies."
The faxes went out at 3:30 p.m. Nov. 7, 2007, and they required responses 17½ hours later, at 9 a.m. Nov. 8, 2007 -- well short of the city's requirement that bid invitations be posted publicly for at least 10 days.
City code requires all public contracts with private vendors to be awarded after competitive sealed bidding or negotiation, although exceptions can be made if only one source or vendor is practically available.
Mens authorized the sole-source purchase Nov. 27, 2007, according to Dalal, whose report said it was wrong because the vehicles were available from dealers locally and across the nation. Mens has resigned, effective Aug. 30.
In a point-by-point response letter, Mens defended the handling of the contract and noted that Sheehy's bids on two vehicle-option packages were several thousands of dollars less than Crossroads' bids.
However, Mens later canceled the final two years of the three-year deal with Sheehy Ford, located in Chesterfield County, and encouraged Crossroads to bid in the future.
"I have been made aware of alleged inappropriate contact that has occurred in the conduct of the previous procurement," Mens said in a letter that directed Wilkinson to interact in the future with contract specialist Tyrone Davis.
The city released the letters and other documents this week after a request by the Richmond Times-Dispatch under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
Reached yesterday, Wilkinson declined to comment and referred questions to Crossroads General Manager Will Nichols, who could not be reached.
Crossroads Ford, Sheehy Ford and Universal Ford in western Henrico County responded to the city's request for quotes. Sheehy's bids were more than $3,700 lower than Crossroads' and more than $5,500 lower than Universal's, according to the responses.
In a letter to Wilkinson, Mens said price was the overriding factor in awarding the contract. He also said his office had worked with Ford Motor Corp. with the understanding that it would give discounts to dealers upon request to help them submit "the best possible pricing to the city."
Mens said that before the quotes were requested, the city had been talking to the dealerships for weeks about plans to buy the vehicles and asked for "unit price quotes."
He said that after the bids were received and reviewed, officials determined that additional options were needed that increased Sheehy's price by $1,742 per vehicle.
The contract ended up costing an average of $24,838 per vehicle, according to Dalal.
Contact Will Jones at (804) 649-6911 or
.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
When the topic of mayors comes around, let’s point out that, in this case, auditor independence from being hired/fired by the Mayor allows us to read about these City administration misdeeds today.
The only way that we can count on our elected Mayor (and the people he recruits to join him) to be held accountable is to have independent watchdogs such as the City Attorney and the City Auditor.
There is a current Charter commission proposal to appease the Mayor’s Office by having both of these positions fall under his authority! This will alter the balance of power, and we taxpayers will be in the dark once again!
The previous Mayor didn’t have the power to fire either of these professionals, yet somebody is trying to instill the Mayor’s Office with this power now! Why? It would be a bloodless coup if this proposal were passed! Would someone like the preceding mayor be tempted to run for office with that much unfettered power? Only if we’re stupid enough to let this happen!
We feel anger at the waste of our tax dollars or the notion that public offices are being used for private gain. So how do we continue to combat this ongoing problem?
The answer is to ensure that the independence of the City Attorney and City Auditor is preserved. With this independence intact, we are allowed to remain informed and decide every four years whether we want to retain the mayor and his present administration or start over again and hope that we’ve made an improvement.
The previous Administration was a huge disappointment, and it’s mostly gone. The City Attorney and the City Auditor let us know when charter law was not upheld or millions of dollars were being wasted and procedures were lax. The Mayor’s Office howled in protest with reports by the City Auditor, but the facts behind those reports were beyond dispute. Would the previous mayor have tried to sack the City Auditor? We think so.
We need stability at City Hall to effect coherent long-term strategy and change. Two things will help us get that stability. First, keep the infrastructure intact to ensure a balance of power: Allow the City Attorney and City Auditor to remain apart from the Mayor’s grasp! Secondly, elect the best mayoral candidate and hope (s)he will prove to be a good leader and competent administrator.
We can afford to have the Mayor’s Office be a revolving door. That is our safeguard against electing wasteful, lousy mayors! There is no way we can afford to have the City Attorney or City Auditor’s office become revolving doors subject to the Mayor’s whim or displeasure. To do so would be to have a “domino effect!“ We might have a lousy mayor and administration wasting our money, betraying our trust, and robbing us blind, and NO ONE WOULD REMAIN AT CITY HALL WITH THE INDEPENDENCE TO REPORT THIS TO US! We wouldn’t even know that something was going wrong!!
We need someone who will tell it like it is, and we received too much “spin” or “no comment” from the previous administration. The City Auditor and City Attorney have demonstrated their willingness to speak up for us. Why would we want to “sacrifice” them? We can only conclude that somebody wants to rig the game at City Hall and return things to the way they were. IS THAT WHAT WE WANT?
If we’ve learned anything about politics and management at City Hall, we’ve learned NOT to place blind trust in the Mayor’s Office to be good fiscal stewards and carry out the laws and procedures. Ultimately, these people work for US, not for themselves! We require accountability—period!
City Hall blew its chance over the last two administrations to earn and retain our trust. Let’s keep this game honest by keeping the City Attorney and City Auditor independent instead of stacking the deck against ourselves! We are not mindless sheep!
Common_Sense - I like your name, but dislike your thought process. Something smells here. It’s something more than your lack of originality.
well put badger!
Common_Sense—where is it? I’m sure you’re right about the reasons for Crossroads’ whining here—that much makes perfect sense—but the entire story shows WHY protocols, rules & procedures should be followed scrupulously, to-a-T.
When an issue or complaint arises, and the city had followed its own rules of procurement correctly, then the city’s butt can’t be held to the fire. We won’t have to pay for the legal jive later. But what we had instead, was a cocky mayor who’d just chuckle ‘Hey! I’m Doug Wilder, so…‘. To heck with rules, they apply to other people instead.
And so, Are we saving any money NOW by having to defend that clownish nonsense—now that the city’s a** CAN be held to the fire?
Where is your Common_Sense?
Common_sense, you have none. The city didn’t have to physically go out and shop for the vehicles. The dealers put in sealed bids / or negociate the price via correspondence and phone. No man hours were lost because its what the procurement department of any government office gets paid to do. I agree with oldschool good for Crossroads to stand up, its not whining when the protocol is not followed.
Crossroads Ford Sucks! The city doesn’t have to take the lowest bid, as long as they can show they are not going to get the quality and service they are looking for, so it is pretty fair to say that Crossroads does not have an argument. It is not to say that Sheehy is the best. The problem with this system is that all these companies try to give the lowest bid, and do so by cutting back with quality.
The city should have gotten new bids for the cars with the additional options. $69680 was added to the contract after it was awarded to Sheehy.
What is this world coming to?
Common sense obviously didn’t read the article or understand it if they did. They violated every rule the city has in the proceedings to get the bids.
Common_Sense, you comments demonstrate a lack of understanding about public procurement. Public bodies are required by law and their own procedures to get the best deal for their citizens and treat all potential suppliers fairly. They do this by competitive seal bids and/or competitive negotiation. The time spent is the cost of fairness, and every taxpayer should demand that government adhere to those laws and procedures. Whether the poor economy motivated Crossroads to complain is irrelevant. I agree with oldschool; I’m glad someone stepped up and demanded rectitude.
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