Are you experienced?

If you can just get your mind together
Then come on across to me
We'll hold hands and then we'll watch the sunrise
From the bottom of the sea

But first, are you experienced?
Have you ever been experienced?
Well, I have

-- Jimi Hendrix, Are You Experienced

Beauty and other such judgmental idiosyncrasies are, as they say, in the eye of the beholder. I'd put in that basket, as well, "best value" and "experience". Whenever we allow specifications to drift too far from objective criteria, we open ourselves wide up to appearance, if not application, of favor. When subjective criteria are absolutely necessary, they should be minimized as much as possible, demand articulable justification in the first instance when made part of the specifications and in the second when applied, and be balanced by objective standards as much as can possibly be obtained.

These two stories, the first from the State of Mississippi and the second from the State of Florida, are about experience, and beg the question, "first, are you experienced; and, second, have you ever been experienced". Apologies to Jimi.

Jail bid raises ire

Flintco, which submitted a [higest] bid of $13.847 million, was awarded the contract on Monday as the "lowest and best bid," after the other two companies were disqualified from the process for failing to meet very specific criteria which mandated experience in jail construction amounting to having constructed two jails within the last five years at $8 million each.

Murphy and Sons submitted a bid of $13,563,900. Next lowest at $13,718,000 was the bid from Panola Construction.

Panola Construction had built jails at $3 million and $6 million, below the specifications threshold. Panola Construction is presently building a $20 million jail facility in Washington County.

Murphy and Sons most recently built Lake Cormorant High School, Center Hill Middle School and DeSoto Central Primary, along with animal shelters and other school renovation projects across DeSoto. Murphy and Sons constructed the Olive Branch Police Department which includes jail facilities, according to Murphy.

"The paragraph thrown in there was to disqualify the other bidders, Gary Murphy said of the two-jail, $8 million cost each requirement in the bid specifications.

Michael Childress, architectural consultant on the jail project, said the bid criteria was made public seven days prior to the bid date and if any questions needed to be asked they should have been made prior to submitting a bid.

Vanessa Lynchard, director of administrative services and procurement, cited several state statutes which empowered the county to set the bid criteria as it did.

Lynchard said state statute "clearly says you can ask for experience."

She cited a May 18, 1983 Mississippi Attorney General's Opinion which stated job experience can be cited in a project's bid criteria.

Lynchard also said she contacted Charlie Sharman of the State Board of Public Contractors who informed her any county can include any such requirement it deems important in the bid specification process and "in no way does it (Item 5 rule) relieve a contractor's responsibility to meet bid specifications."

Irb Benjamin, a jail consultant who has been involved with the construction of several jails across Mississippi, said Flinto was not given any unfair advantage.

"When we originally started working on this, the architects wanted someone who had experience with jails," Benjamin said. "We wanted to make sure we didn't end up with a contractor who couldn't do the job. We had no contractors in mind when we (set it out for bid). But when you set criteria you either meet it or you don't. These specifications were written to benefit DeSoto County and be sure you end up with a quality product."

Another Sarasota County bid gone awry

The saga of the canal-clearing contract is a study in how Sarasota County has struggled to fairly award government work and a lesson in why county officials now find themselves mired in scandal.

The problems started in 2008, with the expiration of a contract between the county and ECo Consultants to rid canals of debris and plants so they do not flood. The expected price range for the new two-year contract was between $1.5 million and $2 million.

A selection committee of county employees formulated a new contract and prepared to seek bids, knowing at least four companies, including ECo Consultants, were interested.

Almost from the start there were concerns that some committee members favored ECo Consultants.

According to a former county employee who sat in on pre-bid meetings, county staff sought to disqualify lower bidders on technicalities and purposely crafted bid documents to make sure ECo Consultants kept the contract.

At one point, the county wrote into bid requirements that whoever was hired must have extensive experience clearing canals. The requirement was so specific that it said companies that had not cleared over 700,000 feet need not apply.

That disqualified all of ECo's competitors.

The canal-clearing contract selection committee began meeting in the summer of 2008. After receiving the first round of bids, the committee decided to disqualify the two low bidders and give the contract to ECo, the third-highest bidder.

Procurement officials charged with overseeing and guiding the committee said that was unfair. The committee needed to start over.

So in February 2009 the committee went back to the drawing board, inserting language into the bid specifications that would require a company to have experience clearing over 700,000 feet of canals.

Rick Richards, owner of Rick Richards Inc., protested those specifications, saying they were so narrow that only ECo could win.

County Procurement Manager Jennifer Slusarz agreed with him and dropped the requirement down to 250,000 feet.

After some back-and-forth with the County Commission, the requirement was eventually removed. Another round of bids were accepted.

And ECo won again. The firm had dropped its price by $350,000, becoming the low bidder.

Richards is convinced ECo was told by county employees how much to bid, based on conversations he had with the committee members. An ECo manager said he had no knowledge of this and that the company has never asked for preferential treatment.

While there are no records to prove ECo was tipped off on how much to bid the second time, documents do show the company was contacted by committee members during the selection process and told the project was going out for rebid before a final decision was made. Such contact is forbidden by county code.

The matter went before the County Commission in February 2010.

Commissioners voted to give the contract to Richards after he presented evidence ECo had been cited by the U.S. Department of Labor for withholding overtime pay to some employees.

Four months later, ECo protested the award to Richards.

A year later, ECo is still clearing canals for the county, and Richards has not cleared any.

Since there is no contract, ECo has been granted an extension on its 2005 contract and has been paid more than $1.5 million since September 2008, records show.

[This takes on characteristics of my ongoing saga against Guam Dept. of Education's continued contracting with one equipment supplier for over two decades. See this and this and this.]

The ability of a handful of employees to favor one company over another is exactly what Sarasota County has been criticized for since a former county worker was arrested on a corruption charge in March.

A national group of purchasing experts who visited Sarasota recently said the county did not have the basic policies in place to ensure the bid selection process was fair and above-board. Those basic policies include having someone from the procurement department ultimately responsible for selecting bid requirements and making sure that those involved in the selection process are qualified to evaluate the bids.

The county has already changed the way it crafts bid specifications, and more changes are recommended by the national purchasing experts who visited in April.

Now, contract specifications must be reviewed by two executive directors and must be informally posted for viewing before a formal call for bids.