Trimess

Trimess
FOLLOW THE TWITTER FEED FOR UPDATES

Saturday, February 22, 2014

Red flags

Whenever I see that the board is allowing an exemption to the standard request for bids it raises red flags.

http://trimet.org/pdfs/meetings/board/2014-2-26/Res_14-02-10.pdf

And I for the life of me don't understand why they bother bidding at all since they routinely allow the 'bids' to be exceeded at will. In this resolution they DOUBLE the original bid from $3 million to
 $7 million . Nice to have unlimited funds to give away at will to things that don't actually provide riders with anything. But we don't have the resources for this, or that, or the other.
 RED FLAGS!

http://trimet.org/pdfs/meetings/board/2014-2-26/Res_14-02-11.pdf

(the debate that ensues in the comments between me and Jason is the SOP for Jason when it comes to me and Erik, he finds it entertaining to challenge everything either one of us says, since Jason is a pal of mine I tolerate this shit from him)

20 comments:

Jason McHuff said...

Regarding the first one, it's not like they're eschewing competition. They're just going away from only considering price, and having to take the option which is cheapest but could end up being bad. Look what happened with the Morrison Bridge decking.

Regarding the second one, it will indeed "provide riders with something", specifically new ticket machines and maintenance. It's not like they're giving $7 million to complete the original $3 million contract.

Al M said...

They're just going away from only considering price, and having to take the option which is cheapest but could end up being bad. Look what happened with the Morrison Bridge decking.
~~~>None of that gives any justification for avoiding competitive bids. They could still go with a higher bid if it was warranted. Having no bidding in a public contract is horrible public policy

Regarding the second one, it will indeed "provide riders with something", specifically new ticket machines and maintenance. It's not like they're giving $7 million to complete the original $3 million contract.
~~~> Oh I get it, no need to bid that out either since we are 'getting new equipment' and since that wasn't in the original contract who needs to go around looking for deals, we will just hand to these people FOR TWICE THE AMOUNT of the original contract.

You just like arguing with me and Erik, it's your hobby, I'm on to you

Anonymous said...

Jason should stick to writing transit tracker programs.

Al M said...

It's also interesting that the public never gets to see EXACTLY what that $4 million dollars is buying."new ticket machines and maintenance" as if that is an acceptable explanation of how millions of dollars of tax payers funds is getting spent. The oligarchs never provide the public with specifics, that right there tells you they have something to hide

Jason McHuff said...

They could still go with a higher bid if it was warranted

I'm sorry, but according to the resolution that's not true. It says that "Under the traditional low bid procurement method, TriMet may consider only price in selecting a contractor."

no need to bid that out either

I did not say that. All I said was that they are indeed getting something for the additional money. That it's not like the contractor is asking for more money to complete the same amount of work.

Also, this resolution is only for the $1.6 million for new machines. The other things were already authorized.

You just like arguing with me and Erik

I just try to point out statements that evidence shows are wrong.

Anonymous said...

When it comes to transparency and cost effective contracts, Trimet is a small scale version of the Pentagon. And then they turn around and brazenly take it out of the hides of their workers and riders.

Jason McHuff said...

The oligarchs never provide the public with specifics

The specifics are in this resolution and the one from 2011.

Al M said...

Whatever I don't like and I never will be ok with these people just handing over more money tacked onto a previous contract because 'they added something extra'.

I SAY AGAIN, WHY BOTHER HAVING ANY CONTRACT WHEN TRIMET AMENDS THEM AT WILL FOR MILLIONS AT A TIME.

Jason McHuff said...

What would you do if you were having a house built and had given a contract and money for the foundation, and now needed the first floor done?

Al M said...

Obviously the first floor should have been part of the original contract

Al M said...

I hate to tell you this Jason but you're not half as smart as you think you are

Jason McHuff said...

Obviously the first floor should have been part of the original contract

What if you weren't ready to have the first floor built at that time or are wanting to keep the different steps separate so there's better control over the project (by doing them one at a time)?

Al M said...

If you're doing one floor at a time then you need to start the RFP process over for each floor, you don't just hand over each consecutive floor to the current contractor at whatever price they think is best.
IT'S CRONYISM WHAT IS GOING ON HERE!

Jason McHuff said...

Even if the RFP or whatever process at the start was for the whole house?

Also, doesn't it make sense to have the same contractor do the entire project (or in this case have all the ticket machines be from the same vendor)?

Jason McHuff said...

And the resolution says that this option to purchase additional machines was in the original contract, and that there was a competitive procurement.

I understand your argument that there should be fresh competition at each purchase, but it can also be good to get an overall agreement and then buy as needed.

Al M said...

The whole job should have been bid at once and there would be no problem, but even then they would come back for more because THEY ALWAYS COME BACK FOR MORE AND THEY ALWAYS GET IT

Anonymous said...

Again, Trimet is the local version of the Pentagon, scant transparency and massive
amounts of wasteful spending. The Pentagon gives short shrift to soldiers' pay
and benefits while Trimet tries to do the same to it's workers and riders.

Jason McHuff said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jason McHuff said...

The whole job should have been bid at once

The entire job often isn't ready at the start (in this instance the machines weren't needed then), and doing things piece by piece provides better oversight by keeping the pieces separate.

THEY ALWAYS COME BACK FOR MORE AND THEY ALWAYS GET IT

It's not the contractor wanting more money to complete the work they were given, its TriMet giving them additional pieces of work to do.

Al M said...

As I have stated in an earlier debate with you....SOMETIMES YOU CAN BE SO FULL OF SHIT I NEED A ROLL OF TOILET PAPER TO READ YOUR COMMENTS!

I do not agree with you even the slightest bit you wanna keep beating this horse into the ground be my guest