Conflicts of Interests, Contracts and Plowing
As is the usual case in most small Maine towns, those without a public works department, a contract is awarded for winter maintenance or as is commonly referred to as the “plow contract”.
In Clifton the voters have allowed the select board to enter into multiple year contracts in a effort to reduce costs, all vendors a chance to make it worth their efforts and to lower paperwork associated with contracts.
In general Clifton is governed by Maine Statute’s, policies and directives suggested by Maine Municipal Association (an Association much like the NRA or Maine Dairy Farmers, it does not own or direct the town, nor is there a requirement the town be a member of MMA) and ordinances and wishes established by its residents.
These cover a board section of town government including Freedom of Information, public meetings, ethics, code of conduct, bidding ordinances, contract administration and employment law to list a few.
Over the past several cycles the “plow” contract has been a renewal three year agreement with the selected contractor.
The Town of Clifton has a bid ordinance enacted and recently amended by the voters (2010) requiring competitive bidding. There is an outline of steps for bidding in the Maine Municpal Manual on page 114 and strong advise from MMA that MMA itself can provide a model plow contract.
The bid process itself has some basic steps: specifications for the job, publishing notices (to avoid challenges to the bid and allowing fair and open bidding; opening and reviewing bids; accepting and awarding the winning bid. MMA also suggests language to avoid conflict of interest or perceived conflicts when hiring employees or contractors.
This was the year for renewal of our “plow” contract, from all indications there was a public publishing of soliciting bids for winter sand and plowing.
At the September meeting sealed bids were opened the stock pile of sand and plowing.
It should be noted that many Maine towns attempt to keep the work in town and employee local business. To this end they have ordinances allowing a 10% over run, meaning as long as the local bidder is within 10% of the low bid, it may be awarded to the local contractor. However Clifton doesn’t have such an ordinance at the time of this writing. It does however reserve the right to reject any and all bids by plainly stating such on the invitation is it so chose to do so.
Bids were opened and the stock piling of sand went for the first time in recent memory to an out of town bidder, the usual in town bidder was higher by a few hundred dollars. Remember, this is key to the questions coming forward. It was moved to accept the low bid in an effort to save money. Not based on experience, keeping sand and plowing together to avoid conflicts and problems as has occurred in the past, but because it was the low bid.
Next was the awarding of the plow contract. There were two bids, that of a local bidder and that of a person from out of town. The difference in pricing was great, exceeding $10,000 dollars. The bid was awarded by the board to the local contractor for the same price as previous years. It appeared that all was well, IT IS NOT.
Somewhere or how in the next few weeks a move was undertaken to void the opened and awarded plow contract with motions by Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp.
At the October meeting calls were placed with other vendors (not formal bids) and in fact the bidder who had play his card and his pricing asked for the new formal bid – the answer was that the town didn’t have a written specification bid this time – in a flurry the clerk made calls and to protect there interest provided the old bid sheet to the contractor.
At the next meeting, in a deal that had folks around town commenting a “ back room deal” “good old boy network” “or they are friends and didn’t like the previous contractor”, bids were opened and this time the two bids were from the previous awarded contractor and previous winter maintenance contractor and a new contractor, the husband of the clerk.
Within seconds, a new bid was awarded by (Hatch, Jordan and Beachamp) to the husband of the clerk for $13,000 more than the low bid. It should be pointed out that the previous awarded bidder had lowered his bid from the previous bid by a $1,000. This is what we call GREAT management of our tax dollars – looks like the ethics problems have come to Clifton from another town.
This does not even pass the straight faced test! It doesn’t smell right or appear right. Was the bid re published in the paper inviting formal bids?. Was the previous contract award resinded? Was certified mail with 10 day notice, as required by the contract ever sent to the previous contractor? Was there a meeting with the previous contractor? Did the new contractor have experience with plowing our town roads? Were the same requirements applied to both contractors regarding equipment? Clearly NO since they are sanding at 20 mph with a pickup sander something prohibited under previous contracts.
In fact having ridden with previous contractors and videoed the plowing efforts I know that in one application of sanding it takes at least four full dump truck loads of sand. A minimum of two loads for Route 180 and two additional loads for the remainder of town. And this is just one application and most storms require multiple applications.
This is just the kind of process that gets town’s in hot water, creates law suits and gets voters to the point of “throw the bums out”!
We wonder why voters are angry –
As a former select person, customers (that is what residents are) called and commented to me that the road was ice on the first storm, something that hasn’t happened for a long time. I suggested calling the folks that voted for the new contractor or better yet make it a matter of public record – call the Regional Dispatch Center or the Maine Department of Transportation. Image my surprise when dispatch contacted the previous plow contractor to sand the roads. A few hours later a pickup comes screaming up the road with a “wheelbarrow” sander in the back attempting to sand – it was a waste and made no difference whatsoever in the conditions, in fact the bus turn around wasn’t even plowed or sanded.
So during the course of the winter to insure that proper record of complaints is filed I suggest that you contact Regional Dispatch at 945-4636. Dispatch will contact the plow contractor and send a duplicate information sheet to the select board – there is no sense getting involved in family matters at the town office.
As was the case years ago, we haven’t learned from out mistakes, we probably will wind up paying out the nose and spending thousands on lawyers and lawsuits. From what I hear we have spent that on lawyers already……
