hotWatergate 05/13 part 2 (hWg 23)
Here is most of the rest of the May 13 discussion on hotWatergate... though I'm still missing the actual vote (5-3, Ruocco, Sima, White opposed, Hall abstained) and a few minutes of discussion. I'll see what I can do to get the last bit. In the meantime:
Tim White
5 comments:
I would like to know if the new software system will slap someone in the back of the head when day 45 of a bid process is due to arrive. Common sense carries no cost to our town. It's time we invested in some.
Do you think all of the cost overruns for this project are behind us? Wait until you see how much extra we pay to get the right job done at this school. Watch the tape carefully when our awarded contractor talks. Bite down on something because this is going to hurt. It is ironic that this project was done to save us money.
Did anyone catch the town attorney's comments saying (in so many words) that the TC didn't award any contract (for CT Combustion)...they award the bid and then the contract is drawn up.
So as I watch the rerun on channel 14 tonight, at the very end when Ecke calls for a vote he says, "all those in favor of awarding the CONTRACT..."
This whole process was BS. What it BOILS down to, in my opinion, is that the bid was rigged - as soon as CT Combustion was looking for the add'l 16,500 (even though still being the lowest bidder), some one decided that they no longer wanted to deal with them and decided to give it to Bowman. It wouldn't surprise me if some one advised Bowman to "sharpen that pencil" and drop the price 20K just to try to make it look legit.
10:22 I strongly encourage you to put your name on your comment and send it to the paper.
news@cheshireherald.com
The pathetic part, if you listen to this video (pts 1 & 2), is that this was done for one reason on the part of our PBC (three bid processes)... fairness. It was unfair to other bidders to extend project time (#1). It was unfair to take a price increase because we can't watch our calendar (#2). Listen to DiCaprio pontificate (OOO! big word!)about it.
Even if you believe that (and if you do you must not be too aware of what's going on here), what no one addressed is how it is not unfair to take Bid #3 when it is apparently a clear rules violation of bidding. Not one Dem or the TA addressed that during their purist review. We're going to get screwed for whatever the difference is, and we probably won't be informed of that either.
To the Town: Next time, don't bother using a bid procedure if you're going to ignore our own rules. If you want to give the project to our local blowhard, why not just do it? Wouldn't it cost us less and keep us from looking ridiculous? The whole process stinks and is probably not over yet.
Post a Comment