Was bidding process compromised?

BASD awards lighting work, but debates fairness of bidding process

By Jennifer Eisenbart

Staff Writer

Burlington Area School District Board President David Thompson was nothing if not blunt Monday night.

“I don’t think this should have been brought to us without bids,” said Thompson two weeks after a proposal to replace the light fixtures in the gymnasium at Burlington High School came in with just one set of numbers – a proposal provided by Weidert Electric, a local firm that had worked with the district for nearly two years in planning the project.

The Building and Grounds Committee asked on Nov. 5 that the project be sent out to bids – after Weidert’s proposal was discussed by the committee in open session.

After significant debate Monday night – which included consideration of two bids and complaints from committee members that the original proposal should not have been reported in the Standard Press – the Building and Grounds Committee recommended that low bidder Kuchenbecker Electric be awarded the project.

The full School Board followed by unanimously approving that recommendation, though board member Bill Campbell abstained from the vote.

Before the vote was taken, Thompson said he was advocating strongly that the Policy Committee revisit the rules for bidding out projects to ensure that situations like this don’t happen again.

“It’s our fault as a board because we haven’t been emphatic enough in setting a policy,” Thompson said. “This should not happen! We should not be in this position.

“You don’t go out for bids after you put someone else’s numbers in the paper.”

Thompson was one of the few not blaming the Burlington Standard Press, instead saying that the process should have occurred before it went to committee for discussion in an open public forum, which the newspaper covered.

After the committee asked for additional bids, John Kuchenbecker submitted a bid of $35,505.

The only other bid submitted was from Rewald Electric, and came in at $52,169. Two other area companies – Schneider Electric and Breuer and Fell Electric – declined to submit bids, Schneider because Weidert’s numbers were made public, and the other company because they already had enough work, according to BASD Buildings and Grounds Supervisor Gary Olsen.

All of the bids would include rebates from Focus on Energy incentives – which would shave close to $10,000 off the cost.

The timing of the two bids proved to be interesting. Kuchenbecker supplied his bid before the Standard Press was distributed on Nov. 8 – while Rewald’s bid was the only one submitted after the original proposal appeared in the newspaper.

The district agreed to pay Weidert’s engineering fees – a little more than $2,000 – because that work provided the specifications for the bid request. However, board member Roger Koldeway said that could have been done for free by many firms.

The whole process left a bad taste in the mouths of some district officials.

“We’ve really been struggling in making a decision,” said BASD Business Administrator Ruth Schenning. “I think what bothered us the most was that the numbers were publicized and then we asked for additional bids.”

Olsen added, “We struggled with a recommendation. We felt the bid process was compromised.”

Initially, the recommendation Monday night was to not award the project to any bidder, out of fairness to everyone involved. The project would then be revisited in the 2013-14 budget process and then put out to bid.

“Everyone would have a chance at a brand-new project,” Olsen said.

However, board member Phil Ketterhagen openly asked, “Why is it important to be fair to the contractor?” He said he wanted to see the project go forward with the low bidder.

There also was some question on how much of the rebate money would still be available after the first of the year. At the very least, according to district officials, $1,000 of the rebate would be lost.

The Building and Grounds Committee seemed, in large part, to agree with Ketterhagen, though questions were raised about whether Kuchenbecker could handle the scope of the project.

Kuchenbecker said the difference in his bid was merely in overhead – he operates out of his home – and has lower labor costs.

After comparing the processes, though, the crux of the argument came back to whether or not everyone had had a fair shot a earning the right to do the project.

“We’re compromising our whole process,” Campbell said. Scott Barrett added, “It undermines the trust people have in the process.”

Roger Koldeway then said that he had received calls saying people were glad that they put the project out for bid.

Ketterhagen then added during the action meeting that absolutely nothing had been compromised.

“We rejected the original single bid. Therefore, the bidding process started all over again,” he said. “I reject that you think this is a compromised bidding process.”

Campbell responded with, “I think you’re dead wrong, Phil,” and then added, in agreeing with Thompson, “I think it’s a disaster.”