ROTTEN IN OZ

 

If Shakespeare had placed his play in Oz; Marcellus (not Hamlet) would have said “Something is rotten in the City of Oz”.

Unfortunately there is one resolution scheduled to be on Monday’s agenda that alludes to the possibility that Marcellus might be right. If so something that occurs in too many communities in this nation may just be the tip of an iceberg that no one in a position of political power is willing to explore.

A previous resolution to authorize an increase in the contract to C.H.S Construction Group for “Deconstruction” (don’t you love fancy words”) of property at 326 Leland Ave. had been rejected or tabled. It is back now calling for the addition sum of only $2,700.00* which is the upper legal limit that could be requested.  

I will not go into the ethical issues which Citizen Allan Goldstein has raised concerning that C.H.S. is owned by PMUA Commissioner Sanders; one of the three proponents of the million dollar gift. Also C.H.S. or the subcontractor who they had employed, chose the PMUA to remove the debris.  

My concern had been if RFPs had been posted with specifications. It seems that the additional sum has been requested because an unknown vault with potential hazardous contents had been found inside the building after the work had begun.

I can not comprehend either the City or the contractor having not made a complete inspection before bidding on the job. No one can explain why there was no knowledge of the vault.

Information has appeared that Jacques Howard, Director of Economic Development in or about Dec 2011 had “requested” estimates from four contractors that the city does business with.There was no RFP.

Two came in with the exact same sum; $15,000.00 and the third with $16,000.00. What is unusual is that not only were two the same but when have we seen 3 contracts proposed for just a thousand dollars and nothing in the first three figures. Sanders the “low bidder” quoted $13,750.00.

The original contract has a clause prohibiting the use of subcontractors without approval of the City. On the date the contract was attested to have been signed (and there is some question about that) C.H.S. notified the city that they were using a subcontractor.

A supposed estimate in September 2010 for the owner from a South Plainfield contractor has surfaced in which he requested $10,700.00 of which $2,500.00 is included for the “Vault area”.

What Marcellus would question is why, if one contractor had knowledge of the vault why did not the city’s contractor? And if he bid without inspecting the property, any overruns by contact should be his responsibility?  Marcellus might wonder if the other three ‘bids” were for appearance sake.

There is also another concern; does this contract represent the routine method under this administration how this city has awarded contracts . I suppose if anyone was interested it would be too costly to investigate.

* The previous resolution had requested  over $6,000.00 -I think it was 6700.00.(12:30pm-8/14)