To: Jason Wickel
From: Deborah Bushnell
Re: Determination for RFP
Date: August 31, 2011
Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) RFP #11-14
TCPN has determined that the use of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) is more beneficial and advantageous to our members than the use of a Request for Bid.
TCPN contracts are used by public and private schools, colleges and universities, cities, counties, non-profits, and all governmental entities throughout the country. The use of an RFP will allow vendors to decrease submitted pricing if needed based on quantity and size of projects, as well as the ability to negotiate supplemental agreements. Each purchase made through this contract will be customized to the needs of the purchasing agency. In addition, competitive sealed bidding does not allow the ability to compare offers and determine the best value for our wide range of members.
Therefore, it is our opinion that a Request for Proposal, rather than a Request for Bid, is more advantageous to our members.
**********
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/investigator-lack-of-bidding-cost-miami-county-tax/nTgdy/
Posted: 11:30 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012
Investigator: Lack of bidding cost Miami County taxpayers
By Andrew J. Tobias
Staff writer
**********
Oh Man, that is BRUTAL!
I have the full pdf file available for you here:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/12/28/HarrahCaseFile.pdf
I will save you a lot of time, and suggest you start reading on Page 103.
Believe me, this case is not unique, and MANY EXAMPLES of grotesque overspending on purchasing cooperatives, and Tremco exist. I will continue to furnish those examples, to illustrate the scope, and dereliction of "Competitive Bid" responsibility to the taxpayers.
Here is a purchasing cooperative that does not accept "Bids" on individual, and unique projects. Tremco WROTE the specifications, acted as the consultant, and specified ONLY their materials. This is illegal in all 50 states, all territories, and provinces of Canada.
Instead, to use their "Preferred Vendor" Tremco. TCPN's deceptive method is based solely upon a "Line Item" method to eliminate all competition.
With TCPN, they simply "choose" based upon favoritism, and greed.
THIS IS PUBLIC WORK, AND PUBLIC MONEY!
YOU pay for it. YOU pay the much higher cost of Tremco, and then pay TCPN an additional 4% for handling the contract.
It seems imbecilic to me.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imbecilic
**********
It may seem rather harsh of me to categorize Ms. Bushnell's message in that way, but her direction is against all known procurement law.
"Fair, Open, Transparent, and COMPETITIVE" is the LAW of this land, and no amount of jibberish, or "wishful thinking" will change it.
TCPN comes from a fundamentally flawed position which is to me, astonishing in it's arrogance.
I am in discussion with TCPN to bring fairness to the taxpayers, and not illegally push a culture of "favoritism" to preferred vendors, WITHOUT BIDDING.
GSA says this about TCPN:
"Mr. Solomon,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am the supervisor for the 03FAC Schedule.
Tremco's GSA Schedule 03FAC Contract GS-06F-0047R was cancelled effective May
19, 2013.
The link provided in the e-mail was to Tremco's GSA Advantage PDF price
list file for the cancelled contract, which is no longer active or accessible
through GSA eLibrary or GSA Advantage. We researched several Tremco commercial
websites and found no reference to GSA or Ms. Cheryl Sharp. If you could
provide the link to the Tremco website where you saw that information it would
be helpful for us.
Thank you,
Janet M. Haynes
Supervisory Contracting Officer (Schedule 03FAC)
Facilities Maintenance & Hardware Acquisition Center
(FMHAC)
General Services Administration
816-823-1297
First, I am VERY THANKFUL to Ms. Haynes who acted promptly, and professionally.
I furnished that link to her, and it can be found here:
https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS06F0047R/0K1DDQ.2DCQFU_GS-06F-0047R_CATALOG0047REV10272011.PDF
That should be abundantly clear to everyone, so I will change direction for a moment. You will notice I am using HUD as the most difficult challenge of all, and sharing public record.
Please let me share with you what HUD themselves say:
I will suggest you look to HUD as ONE reference: (Section 8, to
save time)
"Special Attention of: Transmittal for Handbook No: 7460.8 REV 2
Public Housing Agencies; Issued:
March 2, 2007
Public Housing HUB Office Directors;
Public Housing Program Center Coordinators;
Regional Directors;
Field Office Directors; and
Resident Management Corporations
Public Housing HUB Office Directors;
Public Housing Program Center Coordinators;
Regional Directors;
Field Office Directors; and
Resident Management Corporations
3. Brand Name or Equal Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(vi)).
Under
this form of specification, clear and accurate product descriptions are
developed. These descriptions shall not contain features that unduly
restrict competition.
It may be necessary to describe technical requirements for materials and equipment by referencing brand name products in order to define performance or other salient requirements.
References to brand names shall be followed by the words “or equal” and a description of the item’s essential characteristics so that competition is not restricted.
this form of specification, clear and accurate product descriptions are
developed. These descriptions shall not contain features that unduly
restrict competition.
It may be necessary to describe technical requirements for materials and equipment by referencing brand name products in order to define performance or other salient requirements.
References to brand names shall be followed by the words “or equal” and a description of the item’s essential characteristics so that competition is not restricted.
Specific brand names may be used only for establishing design
and quality standards and only if there is no other reasonable method
of designating the required quality of the item desired. When brand
names or catalog numbers are used, inform the offerors that such
references establish only design or quality standard; in fact, any other
products that clearly and demonstrably meet the standard are also
acceptable.
D. Avoiding Manufacturers
Specifications. PHAs should avoid incorporating a particular manufacturer’s
specification as the project specification. This may give the appearance of
restricting competition and suggest that other manufacturers’ products are at
a disadvantage and may not be accepted.
If the PHA specifies a brand name cabinet, the essential key elements or
features of the product should be stated. For example, if specifying kitchen
cabinets with the key features of solid wood doors and plywood frames.
If the PHA specifies a brand name cabinet, the essential key elements or
features of the product should be stated. For example, if specifying kitchen
cabinets with the key features of solid wood doors and plywood frames.
E. Contractor-Developed
Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(iv)). In order to ensure objective
contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage,
contractors funded to develop or draft specifications, requirements,
statements of work, invitations for bid, or requests for proposals shall be
excluded from competing in the procurement.
The only exception to this rule is if, prior to the solicitation, all respondents to solicitations are provided with materials and information made available to the contractor involved in matters pertinent to the solicitation."
**********
The only exception to this rule is if, prior to the solicitation, all respondents to solicitations are provided with materials and information made available to the contractor involved in matters pertinent to the solicitation."
**********
This is in DIRECT CONFLICT to what Ms. Bushnell suggests to her client, and in DIRECT CONFLICT" to the law, and the spirit of the law. I am in hopes they will cease in defrauding the taxpayers, but then again, I'm an optimist.
My next post will be Nov. 09, 2013. I will announce TCPN's position (if any) at that time.
The taxpayers are NOT TCPN's "Piggybank".
The site will become more about "Public Roofing Procurement", as I feel it the best use of my skill set, time, and benefit to administrators, and taxpayers.
Image from washingtontechnology.com
Corrections of fact are welcome, and encouraged.
Friends, I will once again suggest you reject negativity in all forms (it can be done), and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Thank you so much for spending valuable time with me here, and am humbled you care one bit about what I have to say.
Respect,
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
RobertRSolomon@aol.com
No comments:
Post a Comment