- 1
- 2
- next
- | single page
What some claim is $3 million overspent has sparked discussion and change of how one of the region’s largest government agencies awards bids to contractors.
The Imperial Irrigation District is undergoing a massive procurement policy upgrade, changing how it’s been bidding out contracts, some of which total multimillions of dollars.
IID’s procurement process has been an issue for years, said Jim Duggins, chairman of the Imperial Valley Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business. Now, however, the problems seem to be getting bigger and bigger. District officials have said they want to change the policies, but if it doesn’t happen, it’s only going to get worse.
The example being used by COLAB, a private organization that Duggins said represents the businesses and the people of Imperial County, and individuals is a weed spray contract approved by the IID Board of Directors in November 2011. The three-year contract, to kill weeds along IID canals and drains, was awarded to Eynon Management Inc. for $6.186 million through the contract period. Other companies, like Basin Tree Service and DeAngelo Bros., put in lower bids, $4.48 million and $3 million respectively.
In total Eynon’s bid price was more than $3 million higher than low-bidder DeAngelo Bros.
The district took the higher bidder though the low bidders were supposedly qualified, Duggins said. With this contract, the district is spending more than $1 million a year more than if they had taken the low bidder.
IID has been very responsive in getting documents that COLAB has asked for, Duggins said. Now, though, COLAB has expanded its search beyond the one contract to all bids within the last few years.
The coalition is trying to see if there’s a pattern, either favoritism shown toward a set of companies or whether the district has thrown away customers’ money by consistently not taking the low bids, he said.
The district’s procurement process is currently based on a variety of criteria besides prices. That includes understanding the work needed, past experience, businesses with a local presence, project organization and the strength of key personnel.
That leaves the door open for manipulation as some of the criteria is subjective, Duggins said. People evaluate the contracts, and they could choose one for reasons other than the best interest of the Valley.
“This is an easy fix,” he said. “Do what all the other agencies do, and it takes all your people’s hands out of the cookie jars.”
Duggins and others have asked IID to adopt something similar to the state’s purchasing policy, where the contractors are pre-qualified and the government agency takes the low bid.
There’s no question the whole process could benefit from being aired out in the public, said IID General Manager Kevin Kelley.
Kelley’s goal is to reform the process. The district can’t go back in time and rebid the weed spray contract, he said. A majority of the board was satisfied that the evaluation committee that selected the company got it right.
However, staff isn’t doing the board any favors by not selecting a bidder that doesn’t offer the lowest cost for the district, he continued.
Kelley has already called for concrete measures to change the procurement process, he said. That includes a section in the action plan being proposed Tuesday that would include a prequalification element in the bidding process and increasing the weighed value of the bid price.
“I’m mindful that we owe it to the companies that bid into the process and to the public to deliver the greatest value to our ratepayers, and that’s certainly my goal,” he said.
The procurement process was in discussion even before the weed spray contract went to the board, said board Vice President Matt Dessert. He and board President John Pierre Menvielle are serving on a committee to revise the purchasing and procurement policy.
The group, which includes procurement, financial and legal staff, has been working on the policies for more than three months, adding quite a bit of detail to them, he said. That includes prequalifying bidders, pushing more for a low bidder and adding a formal appeal process for a company that doesn’t get awarded the contract.
The Imperial Irrigation District is undergoing a massive procurement policy upgrade, changing how it’s been bidding out contracts, some of which total multimillions of dollars.
IID’s procurement process has been an issue for years, said Jim Duggins, chairman of the Imperial Valley Coalition of Labor, Agriculture and Business. Now, however, the problems seem to be getting bigger and bigger. District officials have said they want to change the policies, but if it doesn’t happen, it’s only going to get worse.
The example being used by COLAB, a private organization that Duggins said represents the businesses and the people of Imperial County, and individuals is a weed spray contract approved by the IID Board of Directors in November 2011. The three-year contract, to kill weeds along IID canals and drains, was awarded to Eynon Management Inc. for $6.186 million through the contract period. Other companies, like Basin Tree Service and DeAngelo Bros., put in lower bids, $4.48 million and $3 million respectively.
In total Eynon’s bid price was more than $3 million higher than low-bidder DeAngelo Bros.
The district took the higher bidder though the low bidders were supposedly qualified, Duggins said. With this contract, the district is spending more than $1 million a year more than if they had taken the low bidder.
IID has been very responsive in getting documents that COLAB has asked for, Duggins said. Now, though, COLAB has expanded its search beyond the one contract to all bids within the last few years.
The coalition is trying to see if there’s a pattern, either favoritism shown toward a set of companies or whether the district has thrown away customers’ money by consistently not taking the low bids, he said.
The district’s procurement process is currently based on a variety of criteria besides prices. That includes understanding the work needed, past experience, businesses with a local presence, project organization and the strength of key personnel.
That leaves the door open for manipulation as some of the criteria is subjective, Duggins said. People evaluate the contracts, and they could choose one for reasons other than the best interest of the Valley.
“This is an easy fix,” he said. “Do what all the other agencies do, and it takes all your people’s hands out of the cookie jars.”
Duggins and others have asked IID to adopt something similar to the state’s purchasing policy, where the contractors are pre-qualified and the government agency takes the low bid.
There’s no question the whole process could benefit from being aired out in the public, said IID General Manager Kevin Kelley.
Kelley’s goal is to reform the process. The district can’t go back in time and rebid the weed spray contract, he said. A majority of the board was satisfied that the evaluation committee that selected the company got it right.
However, staff isn’t doing the board any favors by not selecting a bidder that doesn’t offer the lowest cost for the district, he continued.
Kelley has already called for concrete measures to change the procurement process, he said. That includes a section in the action plan being proposed Tuesday that would include a prequalification element in the bidding process and increasing the weighed value of the bid price.
“I’m mindful that we owe it to the companies that bid into the process and to the public to deliver the greatest value to our ratepayers, and that’s certainly my goal,” he said.
The procurement process was in discussion even before the weed spray contract went to the board, said board Vice President Matt Dessert. He and board President John Pierre Menvielle are serving on a committee to revise the purchasing and procurement policy.
The group, which includes procurement, financial and legal staff, has been working on the policies for more than three months, adding quite a bit of detail to them, he said. That includes prequalifying bidders, pushing more for a low bidder and adding a formal appeal process for a company that doesn’t get awarded the contract.
