Aramark, a national company that provides an array of services to schools, institutions, and a variety of other organizations, manages custodial services and facilities for the Oyster River School District. The contract between Aramark and ORCSD has been in place for many years, is renewed each year and has never been competitively bid.
At the April 2, 2008 school board meeting, the district Business Manager presented a proposal to the school board that Aramark be contracted to provide ‘energy savings’ in the school district. At this meeting, Aramark officials presented an overview of their energy savings services. The proposal would cost the district $316,866 over 5 years, clearly well over the $5,000 threshold for competitive bidding.
As noted in the school board minutes of this meeting, the proposed energy savings contract was the outcome of “six months of review and discussion between ORCSD and Aramark”. No other vendors were included in these discussions. No RFP was created, no other vendors were even contacted, and no other proposals were presented to the board. Aramark was selected for this proposed contract based on a ‘good relationship’ between Aramark and the district business manager.
Energy savings services are available from a wide range of commercial vendors. UNH also provides such services at low or no cost. There was no excuse for the district to deal exclusively with one vendor, especially one who already has another no bid contract with the district.
Outraged that such a large contract was proposed to the board with no competitive bids, several citizens wrote letters to the board objecting both to this contract and the lack of any sort of a competitive bid process.
At the school board meeting on April 16, 2008, the proposal once again came up for a decision on whether the business manager should proceed to negotiate a final contract with Aramark. With the contract now in the public eye as a no bid contract, the board voted against further negotiations with Aramark and instead told the business manager to solicit two additional bids. This episode raises several issues:
--If there had been no public response, it is likely the board once again would have violated it’s own procurement policy.
--If additional bids demonstrate that like-kind services are available at a substantially lower cost, what does that tell us about all the other no-bid contracts currently in effect in the district?
--How much taxpayer money has been wasted on inflated, overpriced no-bid contracts?
Tuesday, July 29, 2008
Monday, July 28, 2008
School District Salary Information
Ever wanted to know (under NH Right to Know Law), the salaries of our school district? Here it is:
Thursday, July 17, 2008
Team of Concerned Citizens to Examine Purchases plus Other Actions
Hello,
Under the NH Right to Know law, a group of concerned citizens have requested to the school district to review all RFPs and Purchases over $5000 (per policy DJ) for the past three years. It is the allegation of this group that the policy has consistently not been followed or adhered to even after public comments regarding policy enforcement to the school board.
In addition, there have been two complaints to the NH Attorney General regarding the purchasing policy and practices in the district and we have extended an invitation to their team during this investigation.
We are encouraging all community members to support this initiative through either the petition signing, letter writing, or submitting your own complaint with the Attorney General
We are all voters and have an amazing power to elect those who will serve in our best interest. From what has been witnessed as well as what is to come from this bidding report, the time to act will be in March. However, general awareness on this subject plus others still remains paramount.
Stay tuned and help out any way you can. I realize that we all have busy schedules. However, the sustainability for young families staying this this district overall is at risk. Without champions on the board to act as change agents, then nothing will ever be done. This fundamental issue crosses all demographics and the school board at this point has yet to offer help to its constituents. Through the great election process in this country, we have final word on this and many other topics that matter to our children and grandchildren.
Stay tuned and help out any way you can. I realize that we all have busy schedules. However, the sustainability for young families staying this this district overall is at risk. Without champions on the board to act as change agents, then nothing will ever be done. This fundamental issue crosses all demographics and the school board at this point has yet to offer help to its constituents. Through the great election process in this country, we have final word on this and many other topics that matter to our children and grandchildren.
Friday, July 11, 2008
Results of the Tri-Town Budget Committee
Please visit this link below:
This was the hard work of many people in all three towns looking to educate the public on financial and public issues as well as identify potential solutions to budget issues.
This is a very well done report and worth the look through.
Ask yourselves and the board why these potential solutions are not all enacted and practiced daily!
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
Is there a pattern with poor purchasing in ORCSD?
More details are to come of this but we are starting to form a pattern outside of the network infrastructure upgrade issue. With the dire state of the economy at this point in time, the school district cannot afford (and neither can we) to continue this pattern. More details will be published as facts materialize but here is what is known now.
1. On April 16 2008, the meeting minutes state the following:
1. On April 16 2008, the meeting minutes state the following:
- Henry Brackett, a resident of Lee, spoke about the Aramark Energy Savings Contract. He feels that some of Aramark’s suggestions should already be covered under our current contract with them. He also feels that large contracts should be put out for three estimates.
- The Board had a discussion on the proposed energy savings contract with Aramark. They discussed putting this contract out to bid to other companies and how much time this would take. Blaine Cox detailed the RFP Process with the Board.
Joe Quimby moved to have the District obtain two other competitive energy savings bids, 2nd by Jennifer Rief. Motion approved 7 – 0. - This was not advertised either to the public. Without a concerned taxpayer speaking up, it is unlikely that the board would have taken action to check up on the single bidder pricing and proposal
- Our question is...why is this not done for all large projects?
2. The Septic systems at Mast Way and Moharimet
- We approved warrant article 5 in 2007 for replacement of BOTH Mast Way and Moharimet Septic Systems. Coincidentally, there was another network upgrade project in this year as well.
- The very next year in March 2008, we voted and subsequently passed warrant article 5 replacing the Moharimet septic system (again).
- It has come to our attention that in the process two years ago to take care of BOTH septic systems, the district again DID NOT follow the purchasing and bidding policy. This resulted in only one septic system replaced when both were supposed to be replaced
- The result was that a year later, ORCSD had to come back to the taxpayers to approve AGAIN more taxpayer money to take care of a project that was a year late and a dollar short.
- As was apparent in the Aramark case, there was no advertisement to the public vendors that the septic system was up for replacement. This resulted in a lack of adequate cost comparisons and potentially unnecessary costs to the district and taxpayers.
3. School Laptops
- The school district is purchasing these from Dell at $1700 each!
- Dell was the existing vendor
- It is unclear if any public bid ever took place for this
- When asked about this at a budget session, the reply was something to the effect of "that is what Dell charges"
- Current cost for acceptable laptops in the school are not $1700! In fact, there are sub $700 laptops available in most vendor outlets
Monday, July 7, 2008
Oyster River Schools Choose to Spend $75,000 MORE for Less Benefit!
In March the voters of Durham, Lee and Madbury approved a warrant article authorizing the expenditure of up to $420,000 for technology infrastructure improvement throughout the Oyster River School District’s facilities. Accordingly, in early May the District released an RFP for the replacement of network switches valued at more than $300,000.
In doing so, the District is required to follow its own bidding requirements (policy code DJ) which mandate:
• “at least three competitive bids”
• “bids shall be advertised appropriately”
Furthermore, the School Board is required to oversee the distribution of funds (policy code DA):
• “the board will be vigilant in fulfilling its responsibility to see that these funds are used wisely for achievement of the purposes to which they are allocated”
The ORCSD did not follow its own policies and procedures, ultimately awarding the contract to a vendor who will provide second-rate technology at a considerably higher price, as detailed below:
Process:
1) The RFP for Network Infrastructure Upgrades was not properly advertised, as outlined in ORCSD Policy Codes DJ and DJC:
a. District personnel claim that a warrant article is sufficient
2) In violation of ORCSD Policy Code DJ, only 2 bids were obtained:
a. Policy states that all contracts over $5000 must be based on three competitive bids
3) Adequate and fair evaluation of bid not completed:
a. Of two “outside” advisors on the proposal, one is a member of the School Board; the other is well qualified but was not given any RFP-related correspondence to review.
b. The vendor for the network solution not chosen was not allowed to correct misinformation in the District’s response to his firm’s proposal; these were not trivial and would likely have resulted in a different outcome.
c. The Business Administrator making the decision has refused to justify why the higher-price option was chosen other than to point to the chosen firm’s track record and pre-existing relationship with the District.
Results:
1) ORCSD chose a system that:
a. Uses obsolete technology, therefore will require replacement sooner.
b. Offers lower functionality (the solution not chosen offered 10x or 1000% faster data speeds).
c. Costs $74,000 more ($335,000 vs. $261,000).
d. Uses 40% more power, and requires proportionally more cooling capacity.
e. Was from a vendor that the District has worked with for many years.
District Response:
1) Business Administrator, Superintendent, and Chair of School Board:
a. All admit policies and procedures not adhered to; Board Chair claims that “the spirit of the Policy was followed.”
b. Responses to questions regarding how and why a higher-cost, lower capability system was chosen have been vague, misleading and in some cases self-contradictory.
c. District personnel refuse to acknowledge their failure to exercise proper fiscal and managerial oversight at both the administrative and Board levels and to take corrective action.
School administrators violated the bidding requirements and ultimately awarded the contract to a vendor who will provide an lesser product at a higher price. Once the School Board was made aware of these developments, they violated their own policy by refusing to take any action to hold administrators accountable.
In doing so, the District is required to follow its own bidding requirements (policy code DJ) which mandate:
• “at least three competitive bids”
• “bids shall be advertised appropriately”
Furthermore, the School Board is required to oversee the distribution of funds (policy code DA):
• “the board will be vigilant in fulfilling its responsibility to see that these funds are used wisely for achievement of the purposes to which they are allocated”
The ORCSD did not follow its own policies and procedures, ultimately awarding the contract to a vendor who will provide second-rate technology at a considerably higher price, as detailed below:
Process:
1) The RFP for Network Infrastructure Upgrades was not properly advertised, as outlined in ORCSD Policy Codes DJ and DJC:
a. District personnel claim that a warrant article is sufficient
2) In violation of ORCSD Policy Code DJ, only 2 bids were obtained:
a. Policy states that all contracts over $5000 must be based on three competitive bids
3) Adequate and fair evaluation of bid not completed:
a. Of two “outside” advisors on the proposal, one is a member of the School Board; the other is well qualified but was not given any RFP-related correspondence to review.
b. The vendor for the network solution not chosen was not allowed to correct misinformation in the District’s response to his firm’s proposal; these were not trivial and would likely have resulted in a different outcome.
c. The Business Administrator making the decision has refused to justify why the higher-price option was chosen other than to point to the chosen firm’s track record and pre-existing relationship with the District.
Results:
1) ORCSD chose a system that:
a. Uses obsolete technology, therefore will require replacement sooner.
b. Offers lower functionality (the solution not chosen offered 10x or 1000% faster data speeds).
c. Costs $74,000 more ($335,000 vs. $261,000).
d. Uses 40% more power, and requires proportionally more cooling capacity.
e. Was from a vendor that the District has worked with for many years.
District Response:
1) Business Administrator, Superintendent, and Chair of School Board:
a. All admit policies and procedures not adhered to; Board Chair claims that “the spirit of the Policy was followed.”
b. Responses to questions regarding how and why a higher-cost, lower capability system was chosen have been vague, misleading and in some cases self-contradictory.
c. District personnel refuse to acknowledge their failure to exercise proper fiscal and managerial oversight at both the administrative and Board levels and to take corrective action.
School administrators violated the bidding requirements and ultimately awarded the contract to a vendor who will provide an lesser product at a higher price. Once the School Board was made aware of these developments, they violated their own policy by refusing to take any action to hold administrators accountable.
Please join other concerned citizens in writing letters (feel free to use the examples on the main blog page to the right) and/or attending future school board meetings to voice your concern. The email address for the school board is orcsdsb@orcsd.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)