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.

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.