Trash hauling bid comments continued...
Some additional comments on yesterday's post regarding the trash hauling bid process. First, one of you explained to me that there are typically two bonds required in this situation:
1) a performance bond - this is insurance in case the trash hauler fails to perform properly
2) a bid bond - this is insurance related to the bid process
At last night's meeting I learned that the Town requires both types of bond for this contract. Specifically about the bid bond, the Town required a 10% bond. That means, since the first year proposal by Coastal Sanitation (CS) was $763,000, CS had to buy a bid bond valued at $76,300. And I'm guessing that insurance cost at least a few hundred dollars. To me, that validates CS to the extent that they would actually like to win the business. I say that because, for all I knew... anyone could bid on a contract at no cost. And with massive layoffs everywhere... who knows... someone may just fill out some papers to see what happens. Anyway, the bid bond was required for this bid process. And CS got it. So at least some of the very basics exist.
Also, CS' bid included a variety of information. Here's a recommendation from the City of Bridgeport:
At this point, I'm comfortable saying they're a real company in the trash hauling business... but that's about it so far.
Staff is hoping to meet with a principal of CS tomorrow. Then the Solid Waste Committee will likely meet sometime within two weeks. Stay tuned.
Tim White
6 comments:
I would be very cautious about this company.
That recommedation is 2 years old and is written by an employee who was suspended from his job several times for some funny overtime billing. It was also written in the midst of the whole corruption era of the trash hauling companies.
How is it that we haven't heard of this company before? Why wouldn't they have a more recent recommendation??
Be cautious.....
Also not that the letter says that they did a bulk waste pickup, not weekly residential pickup. Huge difference as bulk can be dumpsters, blight control, or, as we know it, bulky waste that isnt picked up with the weekly garbage.
Almost let this one slip by: The letter was written 2 years ago, yet yesterday in the Record Journal, it was stated that the company was only 6 months old. ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Find all the fault you want. The bis was an open process and the lowest bidder was not bidder of choice; AJ Waste. Too bad. The lowest bidder must put up a performance bond nd is covered in case they fail. Bulk trash was not part of the bid because the Solid Waste Committee was to inept to include this as part of the bid package.
According to Town rules; lowest qualified bidder. If they reject Coastal, one can only imagine the lawsuit that will be filed.
Now in regards to AJ Waste. they made a n offer in good conscience to help the Town. The Town then took the offer, made it public and went out to bid. Who is the bad guy here folks, it is the Town in case your not smart enough to figure this out. The Town had plans to ease the deal and got caught. Shall we start to look at the huge fraud issue with trash haulers and what company got what towns, it is called racketering, oh yeah, I forgot, Cheshire is above this sort of thing.
Bill, I'd love to fill you in on the details of what you pretend to know. As soon as you identify your self I'll give you a call and fill you in --until then I think I'll remain anonymous as well. Ask questions if you don't know the answers- don't pretent to know it all. I learned that in 4th grade,
Maye the problem here was AJ tried to help out the Town by providing an estimate of what they would have charged to extend the contract for 1 year. The problem appears to have come from the Town Council that allowed that price info to be released before the bids package went out. So in an effort to help the Town, AJ gets screwed, their private info gets out and another contractor figures out what it will take to get the deal.
Post a Comment