Second Chances

My son was five or six and had done something egregious in the car. I had admonished him.

We were listening to Veggie Tale Christian songs and had just parked at Borders. He was teary-eyed, if not sobbing.

The song talked about our God being a God of second chances. (Third, fourth, fifth, ad infinitum, of course.)

“If God gives second chances, why can’t you?” he asked, much too sincerely.

I caved on whatever he wanted.

This is what came to mind after sleeping on an article I wrote about Huntley School District 158’s do-over on the bidding of salt melt.

What could be simpler that bidding 3,072 fifty pound bags of salt melt?

I looked at the “Notice,” however, and couldn’t find the amount desired listed. The specifications are not posted. You have to call to get them. Lorie Woods, District 158’s Community Relations Coordinator, got me the bid specs. Here’s the addendum issued August 19th. Both are signed by Director of Operations and Maintenance Douglas Renkosik.

In any event, below is the summary of the bids (click to enlarge), which are in the board packet for Thursday night school board meeting:

The bids came in and Greve Construction was low among the four companies that made submissions:

  • Greve Construction – $31,550
  • North American Corporation – $57,216 for an alternative product (3,840 50 pound bags at $14.19 per bag)
  • TruGreen – $32,379.52, plus $100 fuel delivery charge for each of four trucks ($10.41 per bag, if delivered before Oct. 31st, not counting the fuel delivery charge)
  • Kranz – $33,459 (3,200 50 pound bags, because of the number on each pallet, $10.92 per bag)

The full text of what happened can be found online in the board packet. It begins at page 15 of 355 online pages. That’s where I found the bid submissions seen above. Relatively easy to find, considering the lack of links to various parts of the board packet, as the McHenry County College Board packet has.

TruGreen provided a written protest of Greve Construction’s bid, citing its not being in compliance with the bid spec. Read it first and, then, guess what happened.

Here’s the protest in the board packet (click to enlarge):

“TruGreen has filed a formal protest regarding the low bidder. The formal protest states:

“Upon information and belief, the awarded Bidder does not meet the qualifications set forth in the bid notice, specifically that said Bidder is not actively engaged in the work specified in the bid (emphasis in the original). TruGreen was contacted by Bidder prior to the bid to get information about suppliers and pricing for ice melt products which we believe was because of Bidder lack of knowledge and/or experience in procuring products.”

Administrators recommended not only throwing Greve’s bid out, but TruGreen’s and all the others as well. Read why for yourself below (again, click to enlarge):

The report says that none of the bidders included five references.

I’m not sure who is being given a second chance here…maybe all of the bidders.

Coincidentally, a Jim Greve was a former Huntley District 158 school board member, who after leaving the board, I believe, received contracts and/or business as Greve Construction from the Huntley district.

If TruGreen’s bid is rejected and all bids thrown out, this will not be the first time the board threw all bids when Greve’s bid was protested.

Greve was recommended to be the low bidder for a snow removal contract a few years back.

There was one big problem.

The administration’s math was wrong and when the math calculations were corrected Greve was not the low bidder. Moore Turf Care was and David Moore’s wife, now Grafton Township Supervisor Linda Moore, who ran unsuccessfully for school board a year and a half later.

Was the real low bidder awarded with that snow removal contract?

Not the first time around. The bidders were given a second chance.

Board President Mike Skala pushed for a complete rebid and, with his board majority, won the day. I was at the meeting when Jim Greve publicly thanked Mike Skala and the other retiring board members after Skala was narrowly defeated for re-election in the 2007 election.

School district officials typically bemoan how they don’t get enough bidders.

You would think that snow melt would be an easy contract to let.

Maybe because, if you are like TruGreen, you are likely to put time into jumping through all of the bid process hoops and can have your bid thrown out, along with the bidder who you protested didn’t meet the specs.

Of course, the report says none of the bidders met the specifications. None submitted five references.

We’re talking four truckloads of ice melt here. $30,000+ worth of business. It would seem ready-made for someone just getting into business. A beginner wouldn’t have five references.

The idea behind competitive bidding is to have a level playing field, to maximize the number of bids.

What the Building Committee might ask is how something as simple as a bid for ice melt can have a “discrepancy between the bid specification and the bid advertisement,” as highlighted in the reason for rebidding which is reprinted in the image above.

This also points out how, for performing as simple a service as providing bags of ice melt, school administrators have created bureaucratic barriers for competition by including the requirement for submitting

“a list of no less than five (5) clients, from five different companies, for whom they have successfully procured the specified type of products within the last three years.”

No applicants just entering the business need apply, I guess.

In this state of licensed guilds (more people licensed than in any other state the last time I checked), I’m surprised the Illinois General Assembly hasn’t licensed suppliers of salt and salt melt, especially after the salt supply problems last year.

Huntley has a purchasing chain of command consisting of three administrators, complete with administrative assistants. One would think that team could get the bid advertisement to match the bid specification.

Using this discrepancy to throw out all the bids seems strange because the board has granted itself wide discretion. See the wording seen below in the bid notice. The bid advertisement can be read here.

“The Board of Education of Consolidated School District No. 158 reserves the right to reject any and all bids or parts thereof, to waive any irregularities or informalities in the bidding procedures and to award the contracts in a manner serving the best interest of the school district.”

In other words, the Huntley school board could award the contract to TruGreen.

Of course, District 158 could also give Greve Construction the contract.

But the Huntley School Board seems to believe in second chances.

Maybe former chief finance person Stacie Talbert was correct when she wrote in December. 2007:

“No procurement policy exists.”


Comments

Second Chances — 4 Comments

  1. "It begins at page 15 of 355 online pages. That's where I found the bid submissions seen above. Relatively easy to find, considering the lack of links to various parts of the board packet, as the McHenry County College Board packet has."

    Gee, Cal, the board packets posted on-line USED to have links to the various parts of the packet, until people like YOU complained that they weren't posted at the same time they were provided to the board members.

    So, we basically have YOU to thank for the fact that those helpful little links are no longer available!

  2. I am amazed once again.

    So, your son did something wrong, and POOF! — you make it about more abominations with District 158. How you correlated the two is astounding.

    I must've missed something in the middle. Was there something in the middle? There HAD to be something in the middle.

  3. You did miss something that I decided not to post.

    Hint: It’s related to giving second chances.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *