Committee Still Has Questions About Proposed Bidding Code Change

By John Voket

What was thought to be a routine matter of changing some code language to provide flexibility in the event the town wants to or needs to reject bids has spurred questions that delayed any action on the matter before the Legislative Council’s ordinance committee December 21. The committee is now committed to taking up and possibly moving a recommendation when it meets before the next full council gathering January 6.

The change was sought after the town was forced to rebid a demolition project at Fairfield Hills to raze Litchfield Hall and the Yale Laboratory, after former first selectman Joe Borst rejected the lowest bid tendered last fall by Standard Demolition.

According to the civil complaint, Mr Borst rejected the company on the basis of its alleged involvement with the Housatonic Railroad, which is also embroiled in legal issues with the town tied to a proposed expansion of a waste handling transfer station in Hawleyville.

Standard Demolition sued the town and the project’s construction manager after the demolition bid was awarded to the second lowest bidder, Manafort Brothers, Inc. This prompted the town to seek a minor language change in the existing code to permit the town to reject “any and all” bids, regardless of the cause, according to Finance Director Bob Tait.

“We just want to give the town that option in the future,” Mr Tait told The Bee Wednesday. “I don’t suspect it will be used very often, but we should have that flexibility, shouldn’t we?”

The settlement, which will result in all previous project bids being thrown out, came in exchange for Standard Demolition’s withdrawal of its suit. Besides the legal fees related to the suit, the town will also face some administrative charges as a result of rebidding the project come spring.

Mr Tait and other town leaders are hopeful, however, that bids will come in around the same amount or lower, possibly offsetting the rebidding expenses.

During discussion December 21, members of the Ordinance Committee came up with a hypothetical scenario in which the new language could be used to manipulate the bidding procedure to favor a particular bidder if the financial authority conspired to do so. The panel agreed that this could only happen if a first selectman and finance director acted in concert to achieve some personal financial gain.

But that scenario was not so far-fetched that the panel wanted to clarify how or if additional language in the code could close that hypothetical loophole.

Another element of the code change being considered by the Ordinance Committee is to recommend an increase in the minimum amount required to go out to bid. Mr Tait said that the current $10,000 minimum has not been reviewed or upgraded to keep pace with inflation for more than three decades.

“Factoring inflation, that $10,000 is now $40,000,” Mr Tait said, adding that the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities is currently canvassing communities similar to Newtown to see the range of minimum bid figures applied elsewhere.

Once he receives information on the minimum bid trigger in other similarly-sized towns, Mr Tait said he will factor that information into clarifying his request to adjust Newtown’s figure. Town Attorney David Grogins previously provided the council and ordinance committee with a redraft of parts of the regulation. The committee agreed that the language of the regulation as it presently stands has been found to be inconsistent with the contemporary practices that Newtown employs.

According to Mr Ferguson, the committee was prepared to act in the affirmative on the revised language because it more adequately aligns the town’s actual practices with that of other communities and thus gives Newtown the with maximum flexibility to seek the best deal.

But since a number of questions remain unanswered, the committee decided to postpone a vote until further discussion with the town attorney determines that the language can be improved, and ensure the changes provide the necessary flexibility without compromising a sufficient level of oversight of the bidding process.

The code language under consideration currently reads: “Nothing herein shall limit the right of the purchasing authority to reject all bids or proposals if it deems it to be in the interest of the Town to do so.”

The current requested change would read: “Nothing herein shall limit the right of the purchasing authority to reject any or all bids or proposals if it deems it to be in the interest of the Town to do so.”

Full Text of Regulation 4, Chapter 90

(The regulatory passage slated for review and possible amendment is in italics.)

A. Before any purchase is made or any contract for public work and/or services, other than professional services, is let involving any expenditure of $10,000 or more, the purchasing authority shall invite sealed bids of proposals, giving 10 days’ notice of the date and hour such proposals are to be opened by publishing at least one legal notice in a newspaper having a substantial circulation in the Town, and thereafter such purchase shall be made from or contract let to the lowest responsible bidder bidding thereon. This provision requiring an award to the lowest responsible bidder may be waived by the purchasing authority, provided that such a waiver is approved by the purchasing authority, which shall set forth its reasons in its minutes. The purchasing authority may at any time reject a bid, select parts of different bids with vendor mixing, where appropriate, or make differentiations and awards on the basis of quality or performance references. Nothing herein shall limit the right of the purchasing authority to reject all bids or proposals if it deems it to be in the interest of the Town to do so. Advertisements for such bids shall contain a statement reserving such right to reject, but an oversight on the part of the purchasing authority in inserting such reservation in the legal notice shall not affect the rights of the purchasing authority to reject such bids or proposals.

B. Where it appears in the interest of the Town of Newtown, the purchasing authority may, at its option, elect to participate in joint bidding operations with other boards of education, cooperatives or municipalities. In addition, purchases may be made by use of the State of Connecticut contract pricing as opposed to a formal bid process. State pricing agreements may also be used as a benchmark in evaluating bids and proposals.