Monday, March 5, 2012

TONIGHT'S MEETING

Two presentations may take time tonight. The first is Maria Pellum's 10 minutes to propose a Citizen's task force to investigate a replacement for MRMC. The second is by Remington & Vernick to discuss their Road Management report originally sent to the Council early last fall.

To the best of my knowledge there are only two projects scheduled at this time for 2012. The South Ave replacement will be increased to include the short Pacific and Atlantic streets at an additional cost of including engineering fees of approximately $142,200.00. There is also a resolution for an additional $146,556.03 to cover increased costs of material for the South Avenue Project. Administrations procrastination continues to be costly and take funds that could be used elsewhere.

The Status of the delayed Watchung Ave project is still unclear. I do not believe that even the engineering work has been done. In the mean time the cost of asphalt continues to rise.

Also on the agenda are the 7 contracts to be awarded to " State approved vendors" for a total that is less than $100,000.00 under @ million dollars. None of these contracts appear to be a result of seeking bids. I thin in the past. that Councilor Storch has protested this routine.

In one contract a bid of $63 K won over one of $62K. There is no explanation why the lowest bid won except a statement that the vendor was the most qualified. However in the little support data present there is no difference.between the two bidders.

That is not a great amount of money however to paraphrase Dennis Byrne;s Blog "The Barbershop" instead of trillions in Oz a thousand here and a thousand there pretty soon you are talking real money.

I was planning to post a blog on the 'abortion/contraceptive Catholic facilities issue but have not finished it. That blog will take a back seat for several days. The Council and Super Tuesday will have priority.


19 comments:

  1. A state contract is a contract that the State put out to bid for every municipality. They get better pricing for the state instead of each town doing it themselves and duplicating efforts.

    I repeat it is bid but the work and costs are done by the State.

    Seems like government officials need to go to class.

    ReplyDelete
  2. 2:49PM,Thank you for your comment. These resolutions do not involve State Contracts. The city's contracts are being awarded to one of a group ofvendors who are on a list of those approved by the state.

    No mention is made if any were granted by the so called "fair and open" method or just given. Bids could hgave been asked from the approved vendors but I doub t ifi it were ever considered.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Interesting that you mention Storch votes against these no bid contracts. Watch and see how under Mapp's new alliance we will see a lot more of these. Jerry says he doesn't control Plainfield, but thats only as long as you keep his Vendors happy!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sorry olddoc but you are wrong the contracts are state contracts. If you look at the supporting documents the contract number is listed for the vendors for the various items sought.

    You can look up the contract on the state purchasing site with that number.

    Thats the problem things are said on blogs that are incorrect and people believe it. Do your homework correctly.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Also Storch misses out on the fact that if we did not use state contracts nothing would get done in the City as we would need a large staff to put the bids out and receive them which they would not provide.

    Then we would have to wait for Council to approve the award at their once a month meeting.

    Look how long it takes to bid a street paving.

    Can you imagine having to put a bid together for auto parts.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 4:07pm; Please identify yourself so I canverify your statement. One of is way off base about the contracts.If I can still read the agenda reads;"Appove Authorization for the City of Plainfield to enter into contracts with certain State approved vendors for contracting units pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40A11-12A". To me that means it is the City that is entering into a contract. The vendor is one from a State approved panel.

    Non the less the issue is not clear due to the wording of N .J.S.A. 40A11-20A which reads

    40A:11-12. Contracting unit purchases through State agency; procedure

    a. Any contracting unit under this act may without advertising for bids, or having rejected all bids obtained pursuant to advertising therefor, purchase any goods or services under any contract or contracts for such goods or services entered into on behalf of the State by the Division of Purchase and Property in the Department of the Treasury.

    English used to be clear, has it changed?

    ReplyDelete
  7. An additional comment on 4:07 coment. Anon is partially right in that the "approved vendor" does have a contract with the State. It is an agreement not to charge more than a set price which I believe is based on federal guidelines. It does not prevent the vendor from charging less. The actual purchase/sales contract is with the purchasing entity who has a choice of vendors and does not have to pick the one that could be lowst in cost.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Still putting your wrong spin on it.

    olddoc says "The actual purchase/sales contract is with the purchasing entity who has a choice of vendors and does not have to pick the one that could be lowst in cost."

    The State say

    The Division of Purchase and Property ("DPP"), within the Department of the Treasury, was created under N.J.S.A. 52:18A-3 and serves as the State's central procurement agency. Our Mission: professionally and ethically procure the best valued products and services, in a timely and cost effective manner in accordance with State laws and regulations, to enable client agencies to meet their objectives.

    The choice of vendors is lowest in costs because they are awarded contracts for specific items. There is only one vendor for Fords, one vendor for chevy and dodge.

    Council has to approve using the various vendors through the state contract. Easy to do in bulk than to go to council for each individual purchase.

    sorry not way off.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't know about the autos but if you look at the list for bulletproof vests there are three vendors and vests run between $707, 717, and 797 per.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Here I looked up office supplies with Staples getting the contract.

    This is the link to the price list.


    https://wwwnet1.state.nj.us/treasury/dpp/ebid/Buyer/GetDocument.aspx?DocId=13373&DocName=M0052PriceList.xlsx&DocLoc=15


    maybe the dollar store would be cheaper.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I don't know about the autos but if you look at the list for bulletproof vests there are three vendors and vests run between $707, 717, and 797 per.

    I find it demeaning to have to have a discussion with an anonymous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. what is the contract number for the bullet proof vests you quoted as the state web site seems to show vests with the percent discount off list price.

    I guess you are doing apples to oranges. Not all vests are the same. There are different levels. So you would like the police to wear based on price or how they perform.

    ReplyDelete
  13. sometimes you have to stay anonymous because of retaliation in the City.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I did a little more research on your thought on vests.

    More than 3,000 police officers' lives have been saved by body armor since the mid-1970s when the National Institute of Justice (NIJ) began testing and developing body armor and performance standards for ballistic and stab resistance. Recognition and acceptance of the NIJ standard has grown worldwide, making it the performance benchmark for ballistic-resistant body armor.

    The NIJ Standard, Ballistic Resistance of Personal Body Armor, describes the minimum performance requirements and test methods for the ballistic resistance of personal body armor, categorizes the types of body armor available and describes the various threat levels.

    so don't mislead people by just throwing out three prices. again apples to oranges.

    ReplyDelete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. olddoc said...

    Anon, I surrender. Obviously you are better informed than I am and I respect under the circumstances your right to anonymity.
    AS to the vestssome are for males and some for females; obviously there is a structure difference. It is not one size fits all. But without supporting documents the difference in others are not explained.

    As I understand the "rules" the approved vendor agrees to sell at that price and no higher. No wheres does it say that a lower price can not be negotiated.
    March 7, 2012 9:03 AM

    ReplyDelete
  17. To Anon. I have read your latest communication although I have not posted it since this seems to be a conversation between you and myself. Is it possible that there are different types of approved vendors? There are 41 different "approved" vendors for prescription blanks.not one.Whe I was purchasing there was a variation in price among different vendors for exactly the same product.The difference may be that the purchase of Rx pads is an office unit mattter not a government agency like a city.

    ReplyDelete
  18. to olddoc

    it was a conversation between us since.

    So I get it your blog is able to post inaccurate info and that's where it stands. Sounds like how the City works my way or no way.

    That's the problem I found your list of prescription blank vendors. I checked the state contract site and they are not under state contract. Approved vendor from nj consumer affairs most likely means they comply with some regulation to print them. Since they are purchased by private doctors you have to seek out your own pricing. State contracts are for government.

    People will read your post about prescription blanks and think you are correct.

    Just trying to bring out how it works. but I guess it will not be published.

    sorry to take up your time.

    ReplyDelete
  19. ANON, despite your insulting comments, if you look at my blog over the years you will find that I always have admitted an error when pointed out. I have several times in this discourse noted that I could be mistaken and since you are hiding behind "FEAR OF RETALIATION" insist on being "ANONYMOUS" I am being taken advantage of. What are you doing in pointing out what is correct and gives us a better understanding that you could be basis of retaliation? Reading my blog? This is deserving of a reply.
    The one comment you wrote that I did not post contributed no new information

    ReplyDelete