Goldner Presentation Against IT Contract
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 8/20/08 @ 1:39 am - Filed Under City Council
Councilwoman Karen Goldner gave a presentation at tonight’s meeting on why she opposes the city’s IT contract. I strongly agree with Goldner’s reasoning but even if you disagree you should take the time to hear her argument.
Comments
11 Responses to “Goldner Presentation Against IT Contract”
Leave a Reply
I agree with at least 80% of what Karen said and I am aginst this contract for reasons I have previously stated on this blog; many of which coincide with Karen’s reasons.
The only comments I disagree with her on are those directed at the City Purchasing Director, Mr. Howard. I think he followed the process that was put into place by the previous Mayor’s direction and by the current Mayor’s direction. I do not think he is at fault for this…
The fault lies with the policlies that govern Fort Wayne’s bidding process and those lie with the Mayors office (Current and previous) as well as City Council (Current and previous).
I hope this contract is stopped.
Mike Sylvester
I think Mr. HOward is a strong Purchasing Manag
Thank you Mike. Sometimes I feel like I am treading water with this group of polticians (and note I didn’t say which ones here). Scape goatism is in. Leadership is out. That’s all I will say here. Hope somebody hears me.
I agree that this is a policy issue and Pape and Goldner are making Jim Howard the “whipping boy” for the administration whose policy, he as Purchasing Director is implementing. If they don’t like the policy, get the Mayor to propose a change to it and vote on it. I thought that was attempted with Goldner’s proposed “Buy Local” ordinance which failed spectacularly.
Though I rarely agree with him, I do agree with Glynn Hines’s assessment that the Council is setting a new precedent in the review of this contract not exercised on any other to date. Not to say it is right or wrong, just that it is not consistent with the review process of other contracts for goods and services acquired by the City/County. Should they decide to continue dissecting every line of every contract brought before them by the administration, they better pack a lunch because one day a week will never be enough time to keep the trains running. Clearly this level of review was a delaying tactic. Asking for the Exhibits was a joke as the Exhibits to the contract are largely sections of the RFP which Council has had for months.
Finally, how appropriate was it for Karen Goldner’s friend, Stacy Smith of Prairie Quest, a member of one of the eliminated teams competing for this contract, to be invited by Goldner to the Council table to speak on this issue when no other competitors addressed Council? If Smith has an issue with the selection process, certainly there is an appeals process she can exercise to protest the award instead of leveraging her connections to receive special treatment. Now, anyone who does not like the outcome of a source selection can skirt the process and go directly to City Council for appeal? It is unusal that a subcontractor with no standing, Prairie Quest, would be protesting an award instead of the prime contractor, Haverstick, who submitted the bid as the legal entity with whom the City would contract with had they been selected. I’m sure the response to this will be that Smith was there as a “concerned citizen” and “local business owner” as opposed to a member of a team that submitted a failed bid.
To paraphrase James Carville,”It’s the policy, stupid”, not the process. The question should be, is it appropriate to change the policy in the midst of a competitive procurement. I say no, it is BAD BUSINESS because it means there are no rules on which companies can rely for a fair procurement.
Fred,
There are a few items from your comment I want to address:
Council should send a message to the administration that no contract will be discussed unless it’s finalized and fully presented - period. I would bet that delaying a couple of these would change that practice mighty quickly.
But I think this speaks to the larger problem. I’m saying this without singling anyone out but it appears to me that the administration doesn’t always take council’s oversight role seriously. When a councilmember asks for something they get the typical “yea I can get that for you” but I know for a fact they don’t always follow through. It’s as if the administration thinks council is a big waste of time.
Having said that, it is the council’s responsibility to approve these contracts and not just rubberstamp what comes from the administration. If a company feels they were slighted, especially on a $20 million contract, then they should go before council to air their grievances. I have a feeling most councilmembers would agree with that as well - especially for local businesses.
Jeff,
We can disagree on the magnitude on the defeat, but it was put down. Whether by a “party line” vote or not, it is a vote of the Council elected to represent the voters, a mix determined at the ballot box.
I agree with you substance of your second point, the administration should be reponsive to Council. How long has Council requested a monthly income statement and balance sheet from the administration to track spending? Months! How about public access to accurate minutes of Council meetings? If this were simply an attempt to get the attention of the administration, I’d be OK with it, but they are NOT addressing the policy aspect of this issue and attempting to drive a directed outcome without to the regard established process. There is a way to address their issue, clubbing Jim Howard and Clifford Clarke is not going to get them there.
With regard to the contract, I’m not sure if the proposal is incorporated into the contract. Perhaps it should be. If key personnel was included as a requirement, where resumes are provided along with a committment by the offeror that the key personnel listed will indeed be assigned in those positions once the contract is awarded, then the list should be included in the response to the RFP. That is my experience with these kinds of provisions.
With regard to Stacy Smith’s appearance, you state, “… she was there to try and inform council about the local team and their proposal”, to what end if not to appeal since a selection had been made? Further, Prairie Quest did not submit a proposal to the City, Haverstick did, so what standing did Smith have to discuss Haverstick’s proposal of which she was simply a subcontractor? How come Equity Management Group of Fort Wayne did not address Council, or any of the other Fort Wayne companies that teamed with other prime contractors whose offer was not selected? Your argument here is weak and inconsistent. This would be considered tampering with the acquisition process any other place but Fort Wayne apparently. Either there is an appeal process or there isn’t. If there is and companies with standing have a legitimate claim, exercise the process to protest an award.
I have not heard anyone clamoring for “rubber stamping” of anything. I recognize Council’s responsibility and applaud the review. My concern is with the inconsistent and uneven application of a standard of review. Had the administration been compelled to provide the kind of detail on Harrison Square, and Council conducted a review with the same kind of scutiny as the IT contract, I don’t think I’d have an issue with it. Perhaps the new Council is simply setting a new standard.
Let’s hope so.
Mr. Rost:
If you are willing to commit your money to a contract that has blank pages, that’s your money! For the taxpayers to be once again asked to “belly up to the bar” and fork over 11.9 million dollars is a matter that screams for review and much study. It is obvious the citys IT director had NO clue as to what the contract said about employee retention (looks like Barrett & McNagney may not have either).
“Asking for the Exhibits was a joke as the Exhibits to the contract are largely sections of the RFP which Council has had for months”.
If this is true, one would think whoever presented the contract would be smart enough to run a copy machine and include them before plopping the contract on the desk of one or more attorneys!
John,
If this is just about “blank pages”, then I agree with you.
But the discussion here leads me to believe there is more to it than that. The cry for “Buy Local” has been sounded long before any selection was made or a contract was provided for review.
I am all for a thorough review of contracts, and I am all for a local company delivering services to the City and keeping the money in Fort Wayne if possible. But the company has to be qualified, must bid in accordance with the process, and deliver the best value for the City.
I can’t be any clearer.
I want to interject something into this discussion:
My company considered bidding this job. We did not.
there were TWO primary reasons:
1. The requirement that we had to keep “key” employees (or pay them a severance….so I guess you really do not HAVE to keep them).
We prefer to choose our own employees.
2. The City/County gave an asset list that the ADMITTED was only about 75% accurate. It was impossible to bid when 25% of the machines we woudl be maintaining were unknowns.
If we were a multi-national company, we would most likely have the deep pockets to cover that 25%……but we are not multi-national, we only cover the top 1/3 of the State.
Just to confirm the accusation that I truly am an idiot, I am going to weigh in on a couple of points.
1. I asked Stacey to speak at Council as an illustration of the type of companies we have in Fort Wayne and the type of customers they deal with. She explicitly did not “appeal the award” and to describe her presentation as such is simply inaccurate. I had planned to have another IT entrepreneur there as well, someone who did not bid on the contract, but he was called out of town.
2. 5-4 is a defeat, but not a spectacular one. The upcoming vote on this contract? THAT will be a spectacular defeat (from my perspective, not from the administration’s).
3. This contract is different from most other contracts that we consider. What else did we do Tuesday night: we approved buying real estate and we approved several construction projects. Both of these types of contracts are very standard and routine. The IT contract is an $11 million “one of a kind” contract - and I believe as such it SHOULD receive a higher level of scrutiny than routine contracts where the names and a few details are changed but where the basic components remain the same.
4. I try very hard to be civil and polite at the table, and respectful of the people who come to speak, including city employees. I don’t think that Mr. Howard or anyone else was being made a “whipping boy” here - but I am going to challenge things that I think are incorrect. That’s my job, and that’s the job of my colleagues on the Council. We can and should do it politely and respectfully but we must do it. If that’s uncomfortable sometime, so be it.
I’ve sat on the side for quietly but a recent community leadere bash is sadly wrong. During Karen’s election run, she ran on growing and supporting Fort Wayne businesses. Not IT businesses but all businesses. As I believe Fort Wayne almost holds being local against vendors, I agreed and have been a supporter. Our friendship did not come into the effort. In fact, the opposite is true. Karen has been exceptionally careful not to violate the process and sway. To say the different is a lie.
We did have a team, we didn’t win. No protest, no arguement. In my discussions with the city, I’ve gone above and beyond to make sure that this is not about sour grapes. However the continued blasting against local businesses is further evidence that Fort Wayne has a bias about Fort Wayne Small Businesses. When Karen asked me to appear, it was in my interest to speak about the quality of the businesses that are in Fort Wayne. I spoke on the team becuase it was the way I was able not only to highlight my company but the four other qualified and capable companies that are located in Fort Wayne. It also helped represent the fact that there are great companies in the state. At the end of my discussion, my only question was that now that we have another IT company in town, I hope that they will join into the technology and project management forums, meet with the universities, engage our students as interns and make this another field location. We’ve done the same in Indianapolis and we’re doing similar actions as we grow in Ohio and Maryland. If your a good corporate partner, you’re suppose to care about your company, your employees and your community.
I’m very confused as to the ongoing slamming that goes on regarding the IT companies here in the “Fort”. Prior to moving here, I thought the intent of a fort was to protect its citizens and help them grow and prosper. I must say that I don’t get that feeling and some so called community leaders, should look themselves in the mirror and ask themselves if the IT cluster is something we really support. If so, then how do we fuel those businesses to go from a start up to success. to go from garage to servicing the city of Fort Wayne. As for PQC, we’ve grown from a small startup to having a staff of 22, our customers include The Navy, the Air Force, the states of Indiana and Michigan, IBM, CGI-AMS and plenty of others. We have a sizable contract that we’re neck in neck on and the win will add about 100 jobs to our Indiana base. I am aware of about 20 other companies that look just like me and Fort Wayne should be jumping for joy that they are here. Are you really trying to push them out??
And on the comment on Jim Howard, he’s done a good job. He’s worked hard to follow the process and there may have been some early excitement about international vendors, but he’s followed the process. He already has recognized that we shouldn’t just be using the EME policy to help construction companies. Although we need young start up constructions companies, we need to apply that same rational to service, supply and construction services.
I would hope that people representing the City at the end of the Council table would learn from Tuesday’s performance and be better prepared to answer questions that I thought were not terribly difficult. If you want to see truly combative Council grilling find old footage of Schmidt vs. Animal Control. Those were classics.
I don’t see any need for Council to rush into settling this Tuesday. We have an existing firm doing the job and I am sure they could continue to do their work while this is figured out.