Left In Lowell

Another political drama: The Parking Garage Contract

56 Responses to “Another political drama: The Parking Garage Contract”

1. Laura Says:
   October 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm

   For sure the garages are in better shape now than they were with the last crew.

   Who knew even parking garage contracts could be political? The plowing contract hullabaloo from a few years ago made my head ache. I’m going to lay in a supply of aspirin for this one because you really do need a play list to keep everyone straight.

2. C R Krieger Says:
   October 1st, 2009 at 10:52 pm

   I thought the Lowell Shallot had provided such a chart.

   Regards  —  Cliff

3. Doug S Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 8:24 am

   Mimi, they canceled the bids, ONLY AFTER Inspector General investigated and noted several discrepancies. It is known by the Lowell Sun, and many others that what Bernie Lynch said in the Lowell Sun article is a blatant lie, and once the Inspector General releases its findings you will see that Mr Lynch knew and Ok’d the awarding of the contract based on Chuck Carneys relationship with Zimmerman and Day (worked for company before Martin picked him for his staff) Laura, the LAST CREW is the current crew, just a different name. I am getting the sense that you think I have ANYTHING to do with the security companies, or the city of Lowell itself. I do not. I was present for a conversation between two Lowell Sun Staffers. I posted that information WEEKS ago, and now that the sun picked it up, there are “many levels”. Don’t worry. there is a new story coming out, but I wont post it here, but ill leave you with the words “smart cars” and “election” To post anything further may confuse the powers that be here.

4. Jack Mitchell Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 9:29 am

   Doug S, I’m scratching my head. However, I’m letting you off the hook on this because others do this all the time. Attack the admins. How droll.

   Please, spit out whatever you got. I’m reading. Others are too. Not all of us follow the admins siren calls, though I do tend to lean their way. Also, as a friend, I’ll usually take their side when the long knives come out.

   So blogger-ish people, please remember the words of one of Film’s best characters, Nick Naylor, ‘I’m after them.‘

5. Dan M Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 9:50 am

   haha Doug, she was referring to me. yes, my brother works for Madison Security, the losing bidder, but i haven’t posted anything about it since the original posting weeks ago. When it comes down to it, the facts were correct, my relationship with my brother has no bearing on it. if this were John Cox, you would be picketing, but your binkie bernie is in power, so now your CONFUSED BY THE LAYERS OF LOWELL POLITICS. hah way to call it evenly.. just sayin.. and what the heck is a smart car?

6. Doug S Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 10:27 am

   Jack, I meant to give some attitude, sure, but if it sounds like an attack, I apologize. I just think that this site has always been up front, and very aggressive when it has seen injustices, discrepancies etc in Lowell politics. I felt that instead of possible outrage that the city would waste 200k, or that once again the bidding system in Lowell has been corrupted, that she instead tried to (without any evidence) tie to me to the security firm, or the city of Lowell. When I posted this originally, it was basically ignored, or pawned off as business as usual. Since when does LiL sit there when Business as Usual is going on. I have no connection with either, and I am required to leave my email address to post here. Its not like I have written something scandalous and disappeared. I am here, accountable, and the IG’s office did their investigation, and my information was 100% correct.

7. Mr. Lynne Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 10:37 am

   One of the aspects that was in the Sun yesterday was the issue that the selection committee may have used criteria that they didn’t say they were going to use in the process. Specifically, the criteria of financial stability of the firms. This kind of consideration is used all the time in various RFPs, but usually it’s a qualification for responders, not a factor of consideration during evaluation and usually employed as a gate-keeper provision to ensure minimum qualifications for bidders.

8. waittilnextyr Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 11:12 am

   Not adhering to the evaluation criteria spelled out in the RFP is risky business. If indeed the evaluation criteria were not adequate, then a re-bid may be in order. If the “wrong” firm would get the job with the right criteria then so be it, they win.

   As for the garages, they are cleaner and appear to be safer than several years ago. That should count for something in the evaluation. But so should cost. As far as financial stability goes, it doesn’t seem like that should be a major consideration in a service contract as long as other conditions have been met (like insurance coverage).

   Are there two contracts for the garages, one for operations and the other for security, and is it only the security contract currently at issue?

   As for Smart Cars, I can only imagine that they have been an add-on to the original competed contract. How they were bought (or leased) and who has ownership would be interesting to know. Otherwise, it is impossible to reasonably speculate if they are an issue.

9. Mimi Says:
   October 2nd, 2009 at 11:36 am

   Doug:

   First, you criticize me for not posting; then you criticize for the tone of my post. Please let me know when I do something right.

10. Jack Mitchell Says:
    October 2nd, 2009 at 11:56 am

    I know the Lowell Devils are concerned about an uptick in prices for parking. With discount tix available for groups, ect. parking will be as much, if not more, than the seat to watch the game.

    Gotta figure UML loves having a pro team around. Certainly can’t hurt recruiting talented players to the River Hawks.

11. outsider Says:
    October 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    This is a disgrace — Once again we will not read the truth because the Emperor of Lowell will decide which info he will give out to the minnions of lowell . The Emperor is in Bed with the Manager. He is trying to gain control over the city again so his kids (and others who kiss the ring — jim cook et all)will have nice safe jobs (LHA and the Sheriff).
    Everyone wants good clean Gov — it works on both sides
    I will say it again Keep dividing the City — it will do wonders for us all. The Manager needs to take the hit and stop the BS about rebidding.

12. Jack Mitchell Says:
    October 2nd, 2009 at 12:37 pm

    Let me pull an outsider: This is more fuel to the fire to oust a qualified CM. We all know that some in the delegation have learned well from Bulger. They plan on racking up the years, in state service, and then jumping over to the CM spot to do a high 3. Tidy retirement. Beauty is, the CM spot will get passed down from generation to generation, so the scam won’t get nixed.

    Wow. It is so refreshing to talk crap. Oh, but wait. My name is next to this! Damn!

13. outsider Says:
    October 2nd, 2009 at 2:00 pm

    Whatever ….. my point is this —- Walk like a duck talks like a duck — CM should get his butt busted on this
    He is simply wrong on this one and there is no way to talk his way out
    JM btw i am only voting for 3 of the slick 6 — so wrong again

14. Jack Mitchell Says:
    October 2nd, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    That is about as many as I could manage, but not this year. I think there are 3 that ain’t ALL bad. There is just pressure to act bad. Don’t tell anyone I said this, OK? I have a reputation to protect.

    I hope you cast 9 votes. We have suggestions! ;v)

15. Doug S Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 10:53 am

    wow. didn’t take long. On Thursday, I spoke with Jen Myers of the Lowell Sun. I told her about the fact that the city, had purchased 3 smart GEM cars for the meter maids to use. I also told her that following the IG’s decision, CM Lynch told Mr Carney to “bury the smart cars until after the election” less then 24 hours later, all 3 smart cars are being showcased at local garages, and then, Ms Myers does a puff piece on the new additons to the city..
    FIRST I beg Lynne, mimi, KRS et al,. please go to the Roy Garage and look at car, on it is painted CITY OF LOWELL PARKING ENFORCEMENT.. NOT day and zimmerman, or zimmerman and day… these cars were bought for the meter maids, not security details, or to replace golf carts.
    SECOND.. they were bought illegally.. and MR Lynch admits it in the article!!!! They were NOT put out to bid, and according to Lynch, he had NO KNOWLEDGE of their existence.. I know this is a lie, the Lowell Sun knows its a lie.. BUT for those of you still trusting this guy, this is the 2nd incident where someone who worked for Lynch went of on their own. first Vaughn announced the bids, and now Chuck Carney spends over 45k, without approval and does it by spending the money THRU ZIMMERMAN AND DAY!!!!! how does one spend 45k extra, on a set budget without the city managers approval? How isn’t the security budget 45k in the red????? This is awful… People are calling for Kazanjian to step down? sure… I agree.. Where is the outrage!!!! 250,000 wasted! teachers without jobs! less police patrols!!!! this is the most corrupt administration we have had in lowell HANDS DOWN! and it doesn’t help that there is a civil war between Campanini and Wallace at the Sun. Please visit the garages, please take a picture of the new meter maid cars, please let your voices be heard.. this isn’t many layers of politics, this is a city manager gone bad….Bernie lied, he tried to hold information from the voters of Lowell in order to keep his job.. This is a disgrace..

16. KMM Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 11:05 am

    I am going to leave it to all of you to “duke-it-out” on the contract issue; but I really think we should not dismiss the “WOW” factor of the new cars. I hope Mr. Carney gets the ladies affectionately known as the “meter-maids” out of their clunkers and into these electric cars. The city is undoubtedly paying them mileage for the gas-guzzlers they are driving now…over time the new cars will pay for themselves.

17. Lynne Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 11:09 am

    Doug S, I find it hard to merely take your word for this. You seem to be the only one who thinks this was somehow illegal.

    Second, if equipment needs to be replaced it needs to be replaced.

    Third, why would I be against smart cars (not whole autos, BTW, but what are essentially enclosed golf carts) replacing gas using wasters? Yeesh.

18. mrgrundel Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 12:29 pm

    Lynne, let me break it down for you. What angry Doug is talking about is called a pass through. The cars should have gone out to bid. That is the law. What Carney did circumvented the bid process and also circumvented approval form the city council for the appropration of funds. THAT IS ILLEGAL!!!!
    The most glaring illegal act is the fact the company willing go along with Carney’s crap was recommended to get the security contract again. Why don’t you look into the new cameras and inercom systems that were put in the garaages a few years back, they were as pass through as well. The reason these laws are put into place is to have oversight. For example if I am the parking director and have a cousin who has a “Smart car” dealership, I just can’t go to him and say I need 3 of them. Why do you ask? Because the cousin could inflate the price. That’s why the bid system is in place. How do I know all this? I know because I used to work for Reliable (now Day and Zimmerman).

19. Doug S Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 12:54 pm

    First of all, why do they need cars Lynne, KMM? No, please, explain that nugget of genius. These people are paid to walk from car to car and ticket them. Thats it.. Second, why would the security company need new smart cars to walk the floors of local garages? I guess your not a lawyer Lynne, because when you purchase equipment with city money, and that equipment is over a set amount IT HAS TO BE SET OUT TO BID!!!! Mr Lynch and Carney attempted to skirt this by purchasing under the security companies name.. Once again Lynne, read the article, look at the smart cars.. THEY ARE FOR THE METER MAIDS NOT SECURITY. It nice to know that the “progressives” on this site thinks its OK to waste 45+k so people don’t have to walk, while teachers are laid off.. haha could you be more of a Bernie apologist? are you kidding me? Why is it that teachers dotn need to be replaced.. they can be laid off, and we can have 34 kids in a classroom because of it. BUT the lowest people on the totem poll, people bereft of even a GED NEED a new smart car.. and for your information, the golf carts were electric genius, so u saved on tires.. haha man, this is the day where Left in Lowell jumped the shark… congrats.

20. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm

    “It has to be set out to bid.”

    This seems totally wrong to me. It depends on the particulars of the contract as to the disposition of materials and equipment purchased through the contract for purposes of the fulfilling the contract’s scope. You might as well say that when you contract with an ambulance company any vehicle purchase by that company to meet the coverage demands of the contract has to be put out to bid. Companies are directed to perform equipment purchases in contract scope all the time in private contracting.

    Also note that the way the car’s are painted is a red herring. Agencies public and private dictate this kind of thing all the time. For example, I happen to know that a software outfit called ’school dude’ does the maintenance tracking for Harvard, but that as part of the contract the software says ‘Harvard’ all over it in their implementation and not school dude.

    As to whether the money is, will be, or has been spent wisely, I dunno. I suppose the ‘meter maid’ issue sounds pretty valid.

21. Lynne Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Doug, I say to you again, I’m supposed to just take your word for it? Seriously.

    There are tons of things in acquisitions that don’t have to go out to bid, by the way, even major contracts, like the ambulance and towing contracts. I don’t know whether or not this is one of them offhand, but man, you sound exactly like the people bitching about the ambulance contract…like you want to trump something up over and over again pretending there’s an issue when there isn’t. You’ve been on like ten threads now and THIS is all you talk about. Forgive me for being extremely skeptical about your word on this.

22. Elmer Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 2:18 pm

    Hey Doug, have you had your rabies shot yet. I don’t disagree with some of what you have to say but please calm down. I read the article and the way I see it the City bought some new vehicles for use in the parking operation. Security? Meter maids? I suppose that’s up to the people that run the operation. They say its for security people but maybe they’ll change their mind. I would think that people could probably cover a bigger area in one of these cars instead of on foot. Agaim, not sure why that aspect has your undies twisted. On the way they were purchased? I agree with you and it looks like the CM does too. And, according to the article it sounds like Lynch wants to change the way things are being done with purchasing in general. Again, why the hissy fit?

    Onto the security contract issue. You claim that the City wasted $200K by going with someone other than the low bid. Are we reading the same stories. Pretty clear that the City never gave a contract to anyone and that the Inspect General gave an opinion that it should be rebid. If they had given it out and the General disagreed wouldn’t he have ordered a rebid and not just sugested it? And again, the Lynch says that the purchasing guy had concerns and thats why it wasn’t contracted.

    Bottom line on all of this: Stories? Yes. Newsworthy? pRobably. Huge scandal with wild accusations of corruption? No way. You’ll have to better on that. I think you need to breathe deeply or go back on your meds. It seems to me that the goal here is to throw mud in the hopes that some will stick on people and then maybe the security company, Madison (?) will get the contract. Of course given the way all of this has been being played out I’m not sure I’d want them anywhere near something call security. And no, I’m not a Lynch apologist. Just a level headed observer that has seen many city administrations and like what I see with this one. Even if I sometimes disagreee with some decisions.

23. Doug S Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 6:17 pm

    If the contract wasn’t awarded, why were the applicants informed that the city had? You really think the IG’s office would waste its time with frivolous accusations, and then, strongly suggest that the RFPs be re-bid? This makes sense to the educated people of this website? Really? As for Security or Meter maid.. well Elmer, they are two separate entities. PERIOD. The city purchased smart cars, with city money, but instead of just buying them, they just happened to purchase them through a security company that was just (not announced, which to some of you makes a difference)given another contract.. this seems ok? This seems like business as usual? Its ok, I am on meds, and I was part of Madison security according to Mimi, and now, I may have a role in the ambulance contract too. Seems all anyone has done on here is change the subject. Thats fine, its painfully obvious that Lil isnt a neutral site, its here to now support Bernie, etc blindly. Thats great, its just not what i thought it was when I posted the original post. I thought people may do research, and maybe look up Massachusetts General law :The Uniform Procurement Act, where all this is stated clearly. I thought, that on a Progressive, Liberal, democratic site, there would be more outrage over fired teachers, police etc, when there is enough money for unneeded cars, overpaid security companies etc. That is not the case. Your sceptical that a post from 3 weeks ago, gets investigated, and my claims were backed up. Your skeptical that 2 days ago, I wrote ’smart cars” and “election” and 24 hours later, these cars, BOUGHT MONTHS AGO, miraculously show up, and are not only parked for everyone to see, the Lowell Sun does a semi puff piece on how they MAY save money, and oh.. by the way, were not purchased in accordance to the law, which Mr, and Mrs Lynne WOULD MAKE THEIR PURCHASE ILLEGAL!!! Nope, you all make a lot of sense. You all have Lowells best interest at heart… politics makes strange bedfellows.. never has this saying meant more…

24. Elmer Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 7:01 pm

    Not to belabor the point but how do you “know” that the contract was awarded? Even the owner of Madison agrees that it wasn’t awarded. just that he was told that they weren’t the recommended ones. I don’t think there were any frivolous accusations. It seems that Madison and the CM and purchasing people had questions about how it all was done. Hence the RECOMMENDATION that it be re=bid.

    Security, meter maid, whatever. They are part of one operation: parking. All part of the City for that matter. Following your logic if a backhoe is bought by the DPW it can’t be used by the Water Dept. How stupid is that?

    Did the cars miraculously show up or was this the first time anyone talked about it. I think the problem is that you are a bit too convinced of conspiracies and boogie men.

25. waittilnextyr Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    Garage security and meter maids are two very different tasks. If the smart cars were bought for the meter maids through the security subcontract, that has to be nothing more than an end run on procurement. It would be wrong, and someone should be penalized.

    If the smart cars are for security only, it still seems wrong for the security company to purchase the vehicles and be reimbursed by the City. How does the price vary between city purchase and second party purchase? Was it done to expedite the process, or was it done to by-pass the city council approval cycle?

    It seems wrong either way.

26. -b Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    I can remember going to DTL to have a few drinks with my buddy back in the late 90’s and being greeted at the entrance to the Market Street garage by an attendant that was so stoned he hardly knew what planet he was on. I hope we don’t return to those days.

27. K-R-S Says:
    October 3rd, 2009 at 10:30 pm

    -b, I think that same guy got a job at the car wash on Middlesex St.!

28. Dan M Says:
    October 5th, 2009 at 12:02 pm

    “To the GOB, it’s all about factions and being loyal. They view us “pro-Lynchites” as just another opposing faction. Which is why they don’t understand us, though we understand them quite well.

    What we have wanted all along, and still want, and are getting from Lynch in a way we have not gotten here in Lowell in a long time, is professional management.”- Lynne Lupien..

    haha Angry doug may be loopy… But this quote is priceless considering what we have learned lately..

29. Chelm Red Says:
    October 5th, 2009 at 12:55 pm

    Hey Lynne…your pathetic! All you EVER do is blindly support this corrupt, lying SOB they call the CM…when our own delegation can’t trust the guy then one has to wonder (oh let me guess their all Cox’s guys, right?)…I’ve been reading the comments and can’t believe how f#cken blind you are to this guys manipulation of the truth…Doug S is absolutely correct in his assessment of the facts…you are blinded by your unwielding loyalty to this blowbag. I love how you love to scowl at the insider deals between the former CM and his “boys” but Lynch is much worse, actually what he’s doing may be illegal….by the way…I searched the OIG website and believe I have unearthed a bombshell regarding the infamous ambulance contract…You know the one you said was dead…I have attached the findings of what my insiders say is the OIG opinion letter regarding Trinity (John Chemaly?-oh but John and Bernie aren’t tight….right!?) and Haverhill’s OIG opinion… well take a careful look at Point #5 under Analysis/Findings…it reads as follows….

    “Fifth, the contract exclusivity should not have an adverse impact on competition. The Ambulance Company certified that the Township undertook procedures to ensure an open, transparent, and competitive bidding process, consistent with the relevant government contracting laws. Furthermore, we believe it is within the Township’s discretion to conclude that, for administrative and system efficiencies, the contract should be awarded to one emergency ambulance service provider pursuant to an open and competitive bidding process”

    Here is copy of the entire decision for your review….

    http://oig.hhs.gov/fraud/docs/advisoryopinions/2009/AdvOpn09-14.pdf

    Ummm, does anyone remember that our buddy Bernie Lynch already line itemed $150k to the city coffers for this contract?….unfort there was some pushback and an article in the paper (maybe a few) and much to do on this site …I’ve been wondering why this issue has been so quiet….most likely because Bernie made a backroom deal with his buddy (Chemaly) and has already accounted for these funds and know realizes that if he proceeds he’ll be in violation of the federal anti-kickback statute….ahhhh….our “professional” manager is in another bind….

    I hope the Sun does some research on this and in the meantime Bernie figures out where he’ll get the $150k he’s already accounted for….now thats sound management!!

30. joe from Lowell Says:
    October 5th, 2009 at 9:19 pm

    I’ve read Doug S’s explanations several times now, and all I get out them is how much he hates Bernie Lynch.

    I can’t even find the molehill. The people opening a bid are rebidding it, because they might have considered the financial stability of the bidders, when that wasn’t in the bid.

    And you’re trying to compare this to John Cox? I WISH the bidding procedures for, say, the towing contracts were this honest under John Cox. Are you kidding me with this stuff?

    First of all, why do they need cars Lynne, KMM? No, please, explain that nugget of genius. These people are paid to walk from car to car and ticket them. Thats it.

    This line alone convinces me that you don’t have the foggiest idea what you’re talking about, and are just grinding some ax of your own.

31. A Concerned Taxpayer Says:
    October 5th, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    Lynne-Word on the street is that you’re selectively posting comments?? Say it ain’t so.

32. Anonymous Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 8:16 am

    It is so…read the past posts..plus she has deleted posts that WHERE posted..

33. K-R-S Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 8:52 am

    were or where?

34. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 9:51 am

    With regard to 31, the post in question was 29. She just wanted to look it over first.

    With regard to the linked document, I don’t think it means what you think it means. Your smoking gun is a statement that exclusivity isn’t too much a burden on competition in the case being reviewed in the opinion. For other cases (including the garage) your mileage my vary.

    Indeed, looking at the MGL Uniform Procurement Act that you pointed to earlier, I note that there is a whole long section of the act that enumerates which procurements the act doesn’t apply to. I’m not a lawyer and there are too many external MGL references to spend my time tracking down, but there are enough of them to suppose at least the possibility that the act doesn’t apply in this case. If you think it applies then complain.

    Also, the idea that the rebid process was being considered from the CM office only after the IG commented is supposition.

35. Anonymous Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 11:38 am

    ask Mimi… she posted a comment I made and then it was deleted.

36. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    Stuff gets censored every so often, usually because of personal attacks or general way-out-of-line stuff. Occasionally it’s a judgement call and a moderator may approve it only to have Lynne (this is her house) disagree and take action later.

    Also, sometimes stuff happens by accident.

    I don’t know the specifics of this case, but those are the likely contexts.

37. Lynne Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

    Pick. A. Nickname. I won’t ask again.

38. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 1:38 pm

    There it is Anon… probably got deleted because there was no nickname.

39. A Concerned Taxpayer Says:
    October 6th, 2009 at 10:14 pm

    Comments deleted by accident, yeah right! If there’s so much controversy about these contracts than why not get a legal opinion, or would it just be easier to keep awarding them to friends?

40. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 6:44 am

    “Comments deleted by accident, yeah right!”

    Yup. Its happened in the past. You are, of course, free to set up your own blog. It’s a big internet.

    As to the legal opinion, if the IG is involved I’m sure there are lawyers looking it over.

41. A Concerned Taxpayer Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 3:02 pm

    Mr. Lynne-My point was this- If the contracts were done fair and legally, then the IG wouldn’t have to be involved now would he? As I’ve stated before in the past, the current CM has done some good things for the city, but he is WRONG now and you all just keep defending him. He’s a politician and a GOB, he’s just got a different set of friends!

42. joe from Lowell Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    I lived downtown and parked in the garages before Chuck Carney, and they were deplorable. They weren’t safe, they weren’t clean, and the people operating them weren’t professional. That man’s tenure as Parking Director is one of the most dramatic turnarounds, one of the most striking government success stories, I have ever seen. I will admit to being skeptical of John-Cox-buddy and former-ZBA-member Chuck Carney when he was first appointed, but there is simply no refuting what he has accomplished.

    Clearly, there was a screw-up in the awarding of the contract. No one is disputing that.

    On the other hand, protecting the city from entering into a contract with a company that isn’t on a stable financial footing is a really good idea, even if they didn’t follow procedure. I’m supposed to get mad at Bernie and Chuck Carney because the committee opening the bids went a little too far in protecting the city from excessive risk in its contracting? Good luck with that. I expect it will work about as well as Sarah Palin telling America that Barack Obama wants to spread the wealth.

43. Huh Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 5:50 pm

    Concerned Taxpayer,

    The IG gets involved in many contract issues. Sometimes at the request of a City or town for technical assistance and sometimes if a bidder believes that a wrong decision was made. A suggestion by the IG to do something doesn’t mean something was done illigally or bad intentions. Most of the time its just crossing t’s or dotting i’s.

44. Mimi Says:
    October 7th, 2009 at 9:38 pm

    If you have not already read it, please check out dick’s take on the garage contract issue. Here is the link: http://richardhowe.com/2009/10/07/the-garage-security-controversy/

    Unlike many of us, he presents the facts, and they are fascinating.

    And Joe… I totally agree with you…under Chuck Carney’s leadership the garages have turned around.

45. mrgrundel Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 6:30 pm

    Well Joe I saw the City Life show on replay. It was stated that only one company submitted financial info. So how does make the other bidders unstable in terms of revenue, debt etc. If all the bidders submitted financial info then the process would be fair.

46. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 9:51 pm

    “If the contracts were done fair and legally, then the IG wouldn’t have to be involved now would he?”

    Nope… In addition to what huh said, if a bidder decided to protest and then felt registered a complaint, the IG might get involved even if there wasn’t anything there. Indeed, to find out if there wasn’t anything there the IG would have to get at least a little involved just to get some facts.

47. Mr. Lynne Says:
    October 8th, 2009 at 10:03 pm

    If not all the bidders submitted financial quals the process could still be fair: the incomplete bids would be rejected. Of course according to Dick Howe Jr’s account, financials were not part of the RFP quals. As such, even if all the firms submitted financials, the consideration of factors unstated in the RFP means there was a fairness issue - equal completeness of bids not withstanding.

    Of course, rejection on the basis of financials is done all the time and makes a good deal of common sense. Putting such quals in the new RFP is pretty reasonable.

48. Doug S Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 8:33 am

    If financial were not called for in the RFP’s, they are not allowed to be considered as criteria in the bid selection. Period. Spin it anyway you want.

49. Doug S Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 9:22 am

    I know most on here think I am crazy, on the take etc. But I implore you to think for yourselves. Mr. Howe, a close friend of Martin and Carney wrote a post on this situation. In it, he uselessly mentions that “The current holder of the contract is Day and Zimmerman which, according to the company’s website, has 150 worldwide locations and $1.9 billion (yes, that’s BILLION) in annual revenues. ” What Mr. Howe, a close friend of Martin and Carney forgot to mention is that Security, which is what we are talking about, is less than 2% of the total. Thats right people. Day and Zimmerman are not just a security company. They make their money on (from the website Dick Howe linked in his article, please go to site to confirm his blatant misleading of readers): Commercial Services, Government Services, Architecture, Engineering and Construction, DOD Equipment Maintenance and Facilities Services, MUNITIONS LOGISITICS AND DEMILITARIZATION, Munition Products, Security Services, talent and OUTSOURCING services. etc
    Mr. Howe questions why anyone would get 130% financing, without knowledge of the purchase or the loan, and says so in his post. He just THROWS that out there for what reason? Lets think??? So.. you have a BILLION dollar company that also happens to do security, and you have a 15 million dollar a year company that is employing Lowell residents, paying taxes in Lowell and Massachusetts, and PURCHASING PROPERTIES IN LOWELL. Way to go Mr. Howe, thank you for allowing us to see who you really serve here. Say hello to Wallace, Bernie, martin and Carney for me..

50. Mimi Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:04 am

    Doug:

    I do not think you are crazy. However, I question your motivation. If I am not mistaken, you had never participated in the Lowell blogsphere until this issue came up; so I have to ask, why this and why now? There are a lot of things in Lowell government than can and need to be done better; why the focus on this one?

    It is obvious that Madison has put on a full court press and is utilizing all “media outlets;” it is a good marketing effort. And you seem to be at the center of it.

    And you are misinformed about personal relationships. Those comments are totally incorrect. If you want to meet and discuss this issue please let me know.

    By the way, you are misinformed about personal relationships.

51. waittilnextyr Says:
    October 9th, 2009 at 11:57 am

    I though Doug S. made some relevant points earlier, but he has resorted to the typical tangential arguments when one is losing his case. That doesn’t give much credence to his argument.

    He would be better to stick to his argument that the RFP did not include financial stability as a factor, and any future RFP that does include it should properly weigh that factor as this is a service contract where not much capital is required.

    As far as the Lowell residents issue goes, how many Lowellians are employed by the current contractor? Will it be more, less or the same if his company were selected? How many officers of his company are Lowell residents, and is this more, less or the same as the current contractor?

52. joe from Lowell Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:27 pm

    Mr. Grundel,

    I agree, the procedure wasn’t followed properly, and the contract needs to be rebid. There’s no question about that.

    My point is, this isn’t somebody with his hand in the till. This isn’t somebody steering a contract and getting a kickback. This was an overzealous, ill-advised effort to protect the city and the taxpayer, so just how mad can I be?

53. joe from Lowell Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    “It is obvious that Madison has put on a full court press and is utilizing all “media outlets;” it is a good marketing effort. And you seem to be at the center of it.”

    The way Doug S. is trying to manipulate what he conceives of as a bunch liberal, peacenik hippies by screaming about MUNITIONS DISPOSAL and OUTSOURCING is quite typical of a PR outfit trying to work the public.

54. joe from Lowell Says:
    October 10th, 2009 at 3:32 pm

    Look at that, he even set up a web site. With exactly two posts. About the garage contract.

    We’re being astroturfed.

55. mrgrundel Says:
    October 15th, 2009 at 7:31 am

    Joe, please really?? You thinks its a coincidence that the company that bought the smart cars as a pass through is awarded the contract again, give me a break. Explain to me how the tax is being protected? and from what?

56. mrgrundel Says:
    October 15th, 2009 at 7:32 am

    Sorry meant taxpayer

Leave a Reply