Left In Lowell

Oops, You Need a Competative Bid For That?

20 Responses to “Oops, You Need a Competative Bid For That?”

1. Fran McDougall Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 9:56 am

   Now you’re perking. Keep it up!

2. JackFrom01854 Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 10:31 am

   Is it necessary to even ask if he thinks he is above the rules?
   Has the Sun mentioned yet that the owners of the construction company who “Won” the bid are campaign contributors of his?

3. MOONLIGHT Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 11:08 am

   marty is getting what he deserves, and its true
   the company did contribute to his campaign.

4. Ryan Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 11:39 am

   Best title of a blog post ever.

   It’s amazing how UMASS Lowell seems to be progressing in spite of its leadership.

5. Eleanor Rigby Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 12:12 pm

   A little late in the game aren’t they?

   I saw a flyer they passed out at UMeehan yesterday and it focused on the planned purchase of the 15-Million dollar hotel coupled with tuition and fees hikes and Marty’s salary.

   It didn’t mention the dorm being built.

6. Lowell Resident Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 1:09 pm

   So not only is Marty and the construction company corrupt, the Lowell Superior Court is too! Anything he’s involved in: automatically wrong. Even though the court agreed with him, and not Coakley.

   Everyone is quick to point out that Marty is a politician but Martha Coakley is more likely candidate for US Senate at this point than anyone. How do we know she’s not the one playing political games? If it was someone besides Meehan would you be in support of the University trying to save money and get the facility built in time (remember the complaint was filed by a company that by its own account couldnt fufill the parameters).

   I think its fine that Coakley is appealing. I just don’t like this insuation that the courts are corrupt and beholden to Marty Meehan, based on absolutely nothing but location. LiL is getting more like The Column every day.

7. Anonymous Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 2:46 pm

   Thank you Lowell Resident. Everybody knows that this is about Coakley hoping to embarass Meehan in case he challenges her in a race for the US Senate! Judge Haggerty’s decision was legally correct. But Coakley has NO CHOICE but to appeal to attempt to maintain her credibility. I also agree that questioning the integrity of a Superior Court judge (who, by the way, has an excellent reputation) is irresponsible but not surprising coming from LiL. Lynne used to be obsessed with John Cox. Now it’s Marty Meehan.

8. Anonymous Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

   P.S. The judge in this case was not a “guy”.

9. Lynne Says:
   May 6th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

   I’m just wondering in what universe it’s OK to get a major public job done without a bidding process.

   Also, John Cox was a terrible CM who screwed up royally and almost took us down towards the road of receivership, and the loss of our Moody’s rating. “Anonymous,” you mentioning John Cox in this context tells me all I need to know about you.

   I don’t like GOB’s, and you don’t like that I don’t like ‘em, well, too bad.

10. Anonymous Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 7:35 pm

    But she stressed, “This is a private project, not a university project.'’

    Although Meehan has become a union lightening rod for the dorm project, McCafferty said the project was started long before Meehan was named chancellor and to avoid any perceived conflict of interest he recused himself from the project. A UMass Lowell committee, along with the UMass Building Authority, put out requests for proposals and Brasi came back with the lowest bid, she said.

    McCafferty noted that what the union doesn’t mention is that the university has a number of ongoing public construction projects, including the renovation of Fox Hall, that have created many union jobs.

11. lowellresident Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 7:36 pm

    Although Meehan has become a union lightening rod for the dorm project, McCafferty said the project was started long before Meehan was named chancellor and to avoid any perceived conflict of interest he recused himself from the project. A UMass Lowell committee, along with the UMass Building Authority, put out requests for proposals and Brasi came back with the lowest bid, she said.

    McCafferty noted that what the union doesn’t mention is that the university has a number of ongoing public construction projects, including the renovation of Fox Hall, that have created many union jobs.

12. sd Says:
    May 6th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    With all due respect here, I think the university was looking out for the best interest of their students, the community and the citizens of mass. meehan was not involved in the original proposal. the administration needed to quickly get a space that worked for students to live near the university. they put out a request to lease space, not to build a dorm. brasi had the reply that was most competative, and was chosen. if he had been allowed to build, there would be a new place for students in the fall, it would have been affordable to them, and it would have been a new building. any private university could have easily done this with no question. the only loser in this is organized labor that can’t set up their ‘prevailing wages’ on a private project.

    and actually . . . i have a good idea that if meehan had been allowed to choose, he would not have chosen this project on this site, as others were even more politically connected to him. there was a competative process for this project, and they picked the project that met their rules.

    the sun is actually on target with this one. this is all about coaksley trying to play to the unions and set up a run for governor. if you believe the unions deserve to lock up control of all construction in the state, then side with coaksley, but if you want to look out for umass students and the taxpayers, i think that the unversity leadership had it right.

13. kami Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:56 am

    Lynne, you obviously know nothing about the public bidding laws. This is not a construction project, it’s a lease. The University doesn’t and won’t own the building. They put out an RFP for a lease. I guess you’re in favor of having college students foot the bill for big union wages. When a laborer is making over $35 per hour because of prevailing wage we need to re-think what a fair wage is. Are you makign that kind of money? do you really think someone pushing a wheel barrow deserves $35 per hour? I sure don’t. Thats more than I make and I have a degree. Why do construction projects in MA cost so much?? Because of prevailing union wages. Marty is trying to get the students the best bang for their buck. They ultimately will pay for their housing through their student loans. So I guess you don’t mind sticking young student with huge loans to pay back as long as it benefits some union thug? A small percentage of the construction labor force in MA is unionized. These guys protest every project that doesn’t use their labor. They picketed the new CVS on Bridge street as well. Maybe if they lived in the real world and accepted a “fair” wage instead of an outrageous wage they’d get more work. Our AG Martha Coakely is going to put a local business out of business pursuing a case that makes no sense. I hope the courts do the right thing. Marty is also an attorney and his take appears to have been right based upon the court decision. The project is a lease and doesn’t have to adhere to public bidding laws. This isn’t the first time this has been done in the University system. UML isn’t breaking new ground here. This is just the first time a Union has protested so our AG is going to lay down and let them walk all over her for their votes.

14. Mr. Lynne Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 9:14 am

    Kami, you do get that if it isn’t a construction job it still might need to be put out to bid, right? Do you seriously think that bidding laws only apply to construction bids?

15. Lowell Resident Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 10:31 am

    From my understanding it was put out to bid and Brasi had the lowest bid and the complaining group couldn’t fufill the parameters of the project.

    I am actually very much pro-union, but only if they can get the job done on time.

    If it was solely a money issue that would be one thing, but the complaining group did not fufill the parameters. This isn’t a question of whether there were competitive bids, the question is whether Brasi’s bid was legal for a state project due to labor laws.

16. Mr. Lynne Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 10:40 am

    That’s my recollection about the deadline on the RFP too Lowell Resident, and I think I said the same thing at the time. I don’t know anything about the labor laws issue. I’d be kind of surprising if they did run afoul of those laws because this is pretty standard stuff for any state agency used to putting out RFPs.

17. waittilnextyr Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    Maybe its time to scrap the “prevailing wage” law if it forces unreasonable costs for State projects.

    http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2008/08/20/next_target_the_prevailing_wage_law/

18. Josh Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 3:14 pm

    The only reason the unions are protesting is because if it officially became a public works project then it would fall under the state’s anti-competitive “prevailing wage” law. They don’t want to compete with non-union workers. Cry me a river!

    There is a budget crunch and everyone wants Marty to take the most expensive route in order to please a bunch of special interest groups. The so called “competitive bid process” is a worthless piece of regulation captured by unions and well connected construction companies.

19. sd Says:
    May 7th, 2009 at 8:55 pm

    Let’s go to the facts. Here’s the judge’s ruling:
    http://www.socialaw.net/slip.htm?cid=18936&sid=121

    It says: “On February 19, 2008, UML issued a Request for Proposals for a privately developed resident housing facility located in close proximity to the University Campus that would be leased. . . . the RFP included a list of “preferred criteria” for the housing complex, which addressed a wide range of issues including bedroom size, laundry facilities, parking, common areas, and various safety and security mechanisms.”

    It goes on to say that UML received seven responses. Three proposals were to construct new facilities, while four were to modify existing structures to suit UMLs needs.

    This was a fair, competative process and Brasi won because they had the best proposal based on the criteria. The judge ruled that it is legal. One of the other bidders protested, backed by a group called the “foundation for fair contracting of Massachusetts”. This is about unions trying to protect their small bit of turf against a competative process that was looking out for the best interest of the students.

    Sorry Lynne . . . I respect your opinions, but I have to disagree with this one.

20. Lowell Resident Says:
    May 8th, 2009 at 6:47 am

    Thanks for providing that sd, that was what was so frustrating about this post, i know I am probably going to be likewise criticized for always defending Marty but this was definitely a bash Meehan first, ask questions later post. And that was all and well until the idea that the Lowell Superior Court was somehow in Marty Meehan’s pocket (in other words, corrupt). I think that was too far.

    Although I guess the headline is actually still accurate…it applies to the other party, but still works.

Leave a Reply