You are here
An Insufficiently Bid Contract in Essex County, NJ
Thursday, July 28th, 2011
Robert Wechsler
It's not every day that an
article about an insufficiently bid county contract appears on the
front page of a major newspaper, but that's what happened today with
the New York Times.
Insufficiently bid contracts are one of the most serious signs of corruption in local government. The requirement of competitive bidding of local government contracts is the first of a two-part attempt to ensure that contracts are made in the public interest rather than to favor the personal and political interests of officials.
The second part is the hard part: ensuring that contracts are truly bid on an open, competitive basis. When contract specifications favor a particular bidder, or keep out one or more low-price bidders, or other efforts are made to prevent unfavored companies from bidding, it is clear that the procurement system is seriously corrupt.
From the Times article this morning, this appears to be the case in Essex County, NJ (home of Newark), where a bid is out for an immigrant detention center. The "bidding rules specified that visitors to the detention center greet detainees 'in the gymnasium' — a requirement that seemed to point to an existing facility, Delaney Hall in Newark, operated by Community Education Centers." Now, why would anyone specify that detainees be greeted in a gymnasium rather than in some other sort of room?
In addition, bidders were given only 23 days to prepare a bid for a big contract such as this. Only one ad was placed, and there was no outreach to potential bidders. These are all signs of an attempt to keep other bids from being made.
It gets worse. "[F]ederal officials said they were already making plans to send immigrants to Delaney Hall because Essex [County] specifically mentioned it in its proposal to the federal government. They were not aware that the county was considering other facilities."
Essex County counsel said that no company had the inside track for the contract, that he expected as many as thirty companies to express interest. “We have a public bid looking for anybody who thinks they can provide these services."
County counsel's job is not to be a promoter, but to make sure procurement is done honestly and for the public's benefit. His response should have been that his department will look at the contract specifications, and recommend that more outreach be done and a longer time limit be provided.
Why, you might be wondering, is Community Education Centers being favored, especially since only three years ago it was "seriously penalized" with respect to using the same facility as an immigrant detention center? The article focuses on company senior vice-president William J. Palatucci, who was not only the governor's mentor and law partner, but also, along with others at the company, an important supporter of the county executive. In other words, this appears to be a case of political rather than personal favoritism.
Whichever it is, it is the public that loses, by paying more for the detention center, by possibly getting a firm that has not solved the problems it had three years ago, and by seeing that their officials care more about their supporters and political allies than they do about the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Insufficiently bid contracts are one of the most serious signs of corruption in local government. The requirement of competitive bidding of local government contracts is the first of a two-part attempt to ensure that contracts are made in the public interest rather than to favor the personal and political interests of officials.
The second part is the hard part: ensuring that contracts are truly bid on an open, competitive basis. When contract specifications favor a particular bidder, or keep out one or more low-price bidders, or other efforts are made to prevent unfavored companies from bidding, it is clear that the procurement system is seriously corrupt.
From the Times article this morning, this appears to be the case in Essex County, NJ (home of Newark), where a bid is out for an immigrant detention center. The "bidding rules specified that visitors to the detention center greet detainees 'in the gymnasium' — a requirement that seemed to point to an existing facility, Delaney Hall in Newark, operated by Community Education Centers." Now, why would anyone specify that detainees be greeted in a gymnasium rather than in some other sort of room?
In addition, bidders were given only 23 days to prepare a bid for a big contract such as this. Only one ad was placed, and there was no outreach to potential bidders. These are all signs of an attempt to keep other bids from being made.
It gets worse. "[F]ederal officials said they were already making plans to send immigrants to Delaney Hall because Essex [County] specifically mentioned it in its proposal to the federal government. They were not aware that the county was considering other facilities."
Essex County counsel said that no company had the inside track for the contract, that he expected as many as thirty companies to express interest. “We have a public bid looking for anybody who thinks they can provide these services."
County counsel's job is not to be a promoter, but to make sure procurement is done honestly and for the public's benefit. His response should have been that his department will look at the contract specifications, and recommend that more outreach be done and a longer time limit be provided.
Why, you might be wondering, is Community Education Centers being favored, especially since only three years ago it was "seriously penalized" with respect to using the same facility as an immigrant detention center? The article focuses on company senior vice-president William J. Palatucci, who was not only the governor's mentor and law partner, but also, along with others at the company, an important supporter of the county executive. In other words, this appears to be a case of political rather than personal favoritism.
Whichever it is, it is the public that loses, by paying more for the detention center, by possibly getting a firm that has not solved the problems it had three years ago, and by seeing that their officials care more about their supporters and political allies than they do about the public.
Robert Wechsler
Director of Research-Retired, City Ethics
203-859-1959
Story Topics:
- Robert Wechsler's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
