AFTER 30-MONTH FIASCO, Puh-leeze Kill "Digital Consultant" Torpey's Village Website Redesign
Tom_Reingold said:
What's the minimum for requiring RFP's?
Even if this proposal is below some minimum, it seems to me that this sort of IT project begs for and RFP and competing proposals to help ensure that the project is appropriately "scoped" and defined. The cost of this project is not just the actual dollars, but also the heavy investment of internal time that will go into building a new website.
This also comes during the same BOT meeting where they discussed possibly relaxing regulations on the pay-to-play. And the CEO of the web building firm lives in Maplewood. What are the chances there is a personal connection between the CEO and the VP?
This contract is not to exceed $16,800, reflecting $15,000 consulting fee plus $150/month hosting fee for 12 months. So imagine my surprise, when I discovered under N.J.S.A. 40A:11-3 that the threshold for circumventing bidding is $17,500. Now, that’s a close call for this vendor.
And, with Ordinance #2011-20, adopted 12/19/11, the Board can extend contracts “for additional services without the need for a fair and open process.” So, once a professional services vendor slips in under the statutory bid threshold, its scope of services can mushroom without additional open, advertised RFP’s:
http://southorange.no-ip.org/weblink8/0/doc/117997/Page1.aspx
Ordinance #2011-20
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE, CHAPTER 27 AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF COVERED CONTRACT SECTION 27-7 TO INCLUDE EXTRAORDINARY UNSPECIFIABLE SERVICES AND BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION 27-13F TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A FAIR AND OPEN PROCESS
NJSA 40A:11-3. Bid threshold; period of contracts
a. When the cost or price of any contract awarded by the contracting agent in the aggregate does not exceed in a contract year the total sum of $17,500, the contract may be awarded by a purchasing agent when so authorized by ordinance or resolution, as appropriate to the contracting unit, of the governing body of the contracting unit without public advertising for bids, except that the governing body of any contracting unit may adopt an ordinance or resolution to set a lower threshold for the receipt of public bids or the solicitation of competitive quotations. If the purchasing agent is qualified pursuant to subsection b. of section 9 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-9), the governing body of the contracting unit may establish that the bid threshold may be up to $25,000. Such authorization may be granted for each contract or by a general delegation of the power to negotiate and award such contracts pursuant to this section.
b. Any contract made pursuant to this section may be awarded for a period of 24 consecutive months, except that contracts for professional services pursuant to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 5 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-5) may be awarded for a period not exceeding 12 consecutive months. The Division of Local Government Services shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations concerning the methods of accounting for all contracts that do not coincide with the contracting unit's fiscal year.
c. The Governor, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, shall, no later than March 1 of every fifth year beginning in the fifth year after the year in which P.L.1999, c.440 takes effect, adjust the threshold amount and the higher threshold amount which the governing body is permitted to establish, as set forth in subsection a. of this section, or the threshold amount resulting from any adjustment under this subsection, in direct proportion to the rise or fall of the index rate as that term is defined in section 2 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-2), and shall round the adjustment to the nearest $1,000. The Governor shall, no later than June 1 of every fifth year, notify each governing body of the adjustment. The adjustment shall become effective on July 1 of the year in which it is made.
L.1971, c. 198, s. 3; amended 1975, c. 353, s. 2; 1977, c. 53, s. 1; 1979, c. 350, s. 1; 1985, c. 60, s. 1; 1985, c. 469, s. 6; 1991, c. 143, s. 1; 1996, c. 113, s. 18; 1999, c. 440, s. 7.
And, with Ordinance #2011-20, adopted 12/19/11, the Board can extend contracts “for additional services without the need for a fair and open process.” So, once a professional services vendor slips in under the statutory bid threshold, its scope of services can mushroom without additional open, advertised RFP’s:
http://southorange.no-ip.org/weblink8/0/doc/117997/Page1.aspx
Ordinance #2011-20
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE TOWNSHIP OF SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE, CHAPTER 27 AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF COVERED CONTRACT SECTION 27-7 TO INCLUDE EXTRAORDINARY UNSPECIFIABLE SERVICES AND BY THE ADDITION OF A NEW SUBSECTION 27-13F TO PROVIDE FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A FAIR AND OPEN PROCESS
NJSA 40A:11-3. Bid threshold; period of contracts
a. When the cost or price of any contract awarded by the contracting agent in the aggregate does not exceed in a contract year the total sum of $17,500, the contract may be awarded by a purchasing agent when so authorized by ordinance or resolution, as appropriate to the contracting unit, of the governing body of the contracting unit without public advertising for bids, except that the governing body of any contracting unit may adopt an ordinance or resolution to set a lower threshold for the receipt of public bids or the solicitation of competitive quotations. If the purchasing agent is qualified pursuant to subsection b. of section 9 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-9), the governing body of the contracting unit may establish that the bid threshold may be up to $25,000. Such authorization may be granted for each contract or by a general delegation of the power to negotiate and award such contracts pursuant to this section.
b. Any contract made pursuant to this section may be awarded for a period of 24 consecutive months, except that contracts for professional services pursuant to subparagraph (i) of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 5 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-5) may be awarded for a period not exceeding 12 consecutive months. The Division of Local Government Services shall adopt and promulgate rules and regulations concerning the methods of accounting for all contracts that do not coincide with the contracting unit's fiscal year.
c. The Governor, in consultation with the Department of the Treasury, shall, no later than March 1 of every fifth year beginning in the fifth year after the year in which P.L.1999, c.440 takes effect, adjust the threshold amount and the higher threshold amount which the governing body is permitted to establish, as set forth in subsection a. of this section, or the threshold amount resulting from any adjustment under this subsection, in direct proportion to the rise or fall of the index rate as that term is defined in section 2 of P.L.1971, c.198 (C.40A:11-2), and shall round the adjustment to the nearest $1,000. The Governor shall, no later than June 1 of every fifth year, notify each governing body of the adjustment. The adjustment shall become effective on July 1 of the year in which it is made.
L.1971, c. 198, s. 3; amended 1975, c. 353, s. 2; 1977, c. 53, s. 1; 1979, c. 350, s. 1; 1985, c. 60, s. 1; 1985, c. 469, s. 6; 1991, c. 143, s. 1; 1996, c. 113, s. 18; 1999, c. 440, s. 7.
If I had to do a full RFP process for even modest work, it would drive me crazy. Then again, I would never want a role with such high scrutiny and such small responsibilities.
Here is the video of the Website RFP Discussion from the BOT meeting:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dn9nbAUewo&feature=youtu.be
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dn9nbAUewo&feature=youtu.be
Trans_Parent said:
And, with Ordinance #2011-20, adopted 12/19/11, the Board can extend contracts “for additional services without the need for a fair and open process.” So, once a professional services vendor slips in under the statutory bid threshold, its scope of services can mushroom without additional open, advertised RFP’s:
For the record, I voted against this Ordinance. It was reflected correctly in the minutes (http://southorange.no-ip.org/weblink8/0/doc/102091/Page1.aspx), but is shown incorrectly in the link posted above to the Ordinance. I have requested a correction.
He needs to stop calling the other trustees "you guys." And "like" is also not helping.
This is the same guy who just won the open government award, right? Just checking.
building a web site to those specs is not that big a job, by the way. you can set up a wordpress blog and have 90% of that in about 10 minutes.
Content-managed websites like the one described in the OP are what I do for a living, and I would be more than happy to be paid $15k for such a site.
Won't that be interesting if new contracts are issued, all under the threshold.Trans_Parent said:
This contract is not to exceed $16,800, reflecting $15,000 consulting fee plus $150/month hosting fee for 12 months. So imagine my surprise, when I discovered under N.J.S.A. 40A:11-3 that the threshold for circumventing bidding is $17,500. Now, that’s a close call for this vendor.
And, with Ordinance #2011-20, adopted 12/19/11, the Board can extend contracts “for additional services without the need for a fair and open process.” So, once a professional services vendor slips in under the statutory bid threshold, its scope of services can mushroom without additional open, advertised RFP’s:
Apparently, opportunities like this are only given to a SELECT few.jeffmarkel said:
Content-managed websites like the one described in the OP are what I do for a living, and I would be more than happy to be paid $15k for such a site.
I'm wondering about those who are in favor. Will that vendor donate to their future election campaigns? Will they be donated WEB services for their campaigns?
16,000 for a job of which 90% can be done during lunch.tom said:
building a web site to those specs is not that big a job, by the way. you can set up a wordpress blog and have 90% of that in about 10 minutes.
Is that capitalism or what?
Oct 12, 2012 at 3:54am Edited
This VP has no idea what transparency means. And he has zero business sense.
And if you want to see how embarrassing he is, try to watch last night's video of the joint BOT/BOE meeting where he was talking about his SPREADSHEET. That's what he contributed to the discussion.
And if you want to see how embarrassing he is, try to watch last night's video of the joint BOT/BOE meeting where he was talking about his SPREADSHEET. That's what he contributed to the discussion.
There are about 25,000 towns in the US, most of which I would guess have a website. I have to believe that most of those towns have used a company to construct those websites that have done it for other towns, and for whom, this type of thing is pro forma. Companies, who because they have done it before, could actually add some value. So, do we put out an RFP? Do we reach out to other towns and find out who they used? Do we do some reasonable due diligence? No. We go with a company who has never worked for a municipality, who is known to the VP. And then, the BOT (except for Goldberg) goes along with this!
What kind of leadership is this? I would argue its actually a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
What kind of leadership is this? I would argue its actually a breach of fiduciary responsibility.
Jay Jay - its all on the spreadsheet, and I am guessing the pay-to-play part is also there given all the transparency.
To be fair, and I'm sure Tom knows this from experience, 1) his 90% number is hyperbole - It's more like 60-75%. And 2) it's the remainder that takes most of the work. Without knowing the full scope of the project I can't really say if $15K is too much or just right - the devil, as they say, is in the details.
IIRC, Maplewood paid a bit more for their website, and it was put out to bid.
IIRC, Maplewood paid a bit more for their website, and it was put out to bid.
True; no one has repealed the 80/20 rule.
Plus the bid includes hosting, so there's some additional setup involved. Plus content to be blown in.
Plus the bid includes hosting, so there's some additional setup involved. Plus content to be blown in.
The problem with this concept of the web site -- is indeed as Jeff notes -- the devil is in the details.
While we'd all like a web site that easier to navigate and has one decent calendar (vs. hunting all over), the real power of the web site is the ability to access the trove of materials specific to the village -- everything from ordinances to minutes, etc. As best as I can tell -- this web site doesn't touch that stuff. That's unfortunate -- because then all we're really getting is window dressing -- and not much more, if anything, than the current site does.
But then I'm quite clear that except for 1 BOT/VP member, not one person there, particularly the VP, has a clue about this kind of thing.
While we'd all like a web site that easier to navigate and has one decent calendar (vs. hunting all over), the real power of the web site is the ability to access the trove of materials specific to the village -- everything from ordinances to minutes, etc. As best as I can tell -- this web site doesn't touch that stuff. That's unfortunate -- because then all we're really getting is window dressing -- and not much more, if anything, than the current site does.
But then I'm quite clear that except for 1 BOT/VP member, not one person there, particularly the VP, has a clue about this kind of thing.
a) It's not easy assigning this type of work to the lowest bidder as if web development is like buying toner for printers.
b) Because VP knows something about web communications he should be given some leeway in selecting a vendor.
c) A full RFP provides some political cover in case something goes awry, so there is considerable risk involved by not advertising the work even if the money involved is very little.
b) Because VP knows something about web communications he should be given some leeway in selecting a vendor.
c) A full RFP provides some political cover in case something goes awry, so there is considerable risk involved by not advertising the work even if the money involved is very little.
Dave I agree about point b, which is why I was surprised he didnt just have his firm do it for us. Regarding point C, I hope nothing does go wrong but it seems he is kind of untouchable if it does.
Point A, however, and RFP doesnt necessarily require that one goes with the lowest bidder, however it provides a proper platform for the APPROPRIATE firm to get the job, ie one that has done similar work at an acceptable price.
I just wish there was a way we can figure out the "relationship" between the CEO and the VP. There is a substantial age difference, so it is not a school buddy.
Point A, however, and RFP doesnt necessarily require that one goes with the lowest bidder, however it provides a proper platform for the APPROPRIATE firm to get the job, ie one that has done similar work at an acceptable price.
I just wish there was a way we can figure out the "relationship" between the CEO and the VP. There is a substantial age difference, so it is not a school buddy.
michael golberg - I dont agree with everything michael says or does but in the 20 years I've been a resident he is
THE BEST TRUSTEE EVER.
THE BEST TRUSTEE EVER.
dave said:
a) It's not easy assigning this type of work to the lowest bidder as if web development is like buying toner for printers.
b) Because VP knows something about web communications he should be given some leeway in selecting a vendor.
c) A full RFP provides some political cover in case something goes awry, so there is considerable risk involved by not advertising the work even if the money involved is very little.
I think Dave's analysis is pretty spot on.
I wish I had done more research in advance of the meeting, but a quick search shows that West Orange (and I believe Maplewood) both used CivicPlus for their new website
From the West Orange July 26, 2011 meeting minutes:
189-11 Resolution Authorizing an Award of Contract to Icon Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a CivicPlus, 317
Houston Street, Suite E., Manhatten, KS 66502 in the Amount of $34,747.00
The Township’s website is presently designed as a proprietary format which limits the Townships
ability to provide information and is difficult to maintain. The goal is making our website an
indispensible tool to the residents of West Orange.
http://www.westorange.org/archives/46/189-11%20Award%20of%20Contract-Website%20Design.pdf
(P.S. Thank you for the kind words, Hoops)
From the West Orange July 26, 2011 meeting minutes:
189-11 Resolution Authorizing an Award of Contract to Icon Enterprises, Inc., d/b/a CivicPlus, 317
Houston Street, Suite E., Manhatten, KS 66502 in the Amount of $34,747.00
The Township’s website is presently designed as a proprietary format which limits the Townships
ability to provide information and is difficult to maintain. The goal is making our website an
indispensible tool to the residents of West Orange.
http://www.westorange.org/archives/46/189-11%20Award%20of%20Contract-Website%20Design.pdf
(P.S. Thank you for the kind words, Hoops)
According to the CivicPlus website, over 1,110 cities, counties and govt. associations have used them. But, of course, we have to reinvent the wheel.
Oct 12, 2012 at 2:40pm Edited
And here's another thought. How could any of them (the VP, Levison, etc.) know the fee would be under the threshold before they got back the proposal? In other words, the firm must have been contacted first BEFORE they knew they did not meet the RFP threshold. Is that the way government is supposed to work? Tell me.
In addition, why didn't Davis-Ford contact her buddies at the county to see who did theirs and how much it cost? She seems to think her role is simply to endorse whatever the VP wants.
In addition, why didn't Davis-Ford contact her buddies at the county to see who did theirs and how much it cost? She seems to think her role is simply to endorse whatever the VP wants.
In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.
Featured Events
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
On the heels of the largest recession since the Great Depression, how could our community best be served by taking this myopic approach to procuring professional services? And, without an open, competitive process, to what extent was this vendor vetted in comparison to alternative vendors – in terms of its experience, its management and assigned professionals, its references, its financial credentials, its EEO compliance track record, and its pay-to-play contributions track record?
I also read the selected vendor somehow will complete this project for only $15K. This either is the first phase of a project that will mushroom into costing far more money; or, this vendor is giving away its services in return for some quid pro quo other than upfront fees. According to the authorizing resolution, the proposal includes only:
• Design and creation of top level pages
• Design and creation of templates for all lower level pages
• Training for staff to create lower level pages
• Role-based administration— township departments will have access to maintain their own content.
• Calendar with detail view of events— including integration with external calendars
• Page workflow— ability to save pages in draft mode, publish and archiving
• Ability to automatically archive a page based on a date set by administrative users
• All pages will have an associated create date and last update.
• Full search capability, both on public-facing site and administrative module
• News feed/alert ticker on home page
• Linking to live video feed
• Link to external 311 system
• One hour of monthly maintenance for application updates (there’s no pricing for additional hours)
Who will be creating and entering all of the content “for all lower level pages,” and at what cost? And, before the Village chose this vendor and accepted its low-ball price, were detailed “business requirements” written and accepted, so everyone knows exactly what will be designed and built for only $15K?
The Board apparently already loosened the Village’s anti-pay-to-play ordinance to allow professional service contract add-ons without issuing RFP’s. And, now it wants to further loosen this ordinance. Should we be concerned about this, in view of this latest transaction?
ETA: More suitable titlte