Posted by Barton Lorimor (@bartonlorimor)
* CMS director Malcolm Weems testified last week before the Procurement Policy Board in response to a Lee Enterprises story that included figures showing emergency no-bid purchases are way up.
From his remarks…
Of the 346 referenced emergencies for FY13, 164 were either extensions of existing contracts or below the small purchase threshold. if these two definitional changes were not made relative to the numbers prior to SB51, the actual count of emergencies would be 182 and would equate to FY11 numbers. The attention on this has not been an apple-to-apple comparison, and a constructive conversation on this topic needs to be effective.
From the Senate Bill Weems references…
a) Conditions for use. In accordance with standards set by rule, a purchasing agency may make emergency procurements without competitive sealed bidding or prior notice when there exists a threat to public health or public safety, or when immediate expenditure is necessary for repairs to State property in order to protect against further loss of or damage to State property, to prevent or minimize serious disruption in critical State services that affect health, safety, or collection of substantial State revenues, or to ensure the integrity of State records; provided, however, that the term of the emergency purchase shall be limited to the time reasonably needed for a competitive procurement, not to exceed 90 days. A contract may be extended beyond 90 days if the chief procurement officer determines additional time is necessary and that the contract scope and duration are limited to the emergency. Prior to execution of the extension, the chief procurement officer must hold a public hearing and provide written justification for all emergency contracts. Members of the public may present testimony. Emergency procurements shall be made with as much competition as is practicable under the circumstances. A written description of the basis for the emergency and reasons for the selection of the particular contractor shall be included in the contract file.
(b) Notice. Notice of all emergency procurements shall be provided to the Procurement Policy Board and published in the online electronic Bulletin no later than 3 business days after the contract is awarded. Notice of intent to extend an emergency contract shall be provided to the Procurement Policy Board and published in the online electronic Bulletin at least 14 days before the public hearing. Notice shall include at least a description of the need for the emergency purchase, the contractor, and if applicable, the date, time, and location of the public hearing. A copy of this notice and all documents provided at the hearing shall be included in the subsequent Procurement Bulletin.
As you can see, these changes in the statute do not expand on what qualifies as an emergency purchase. Rather, the changes involve how those contracts can be extended. The Governor’s Office says that is why the number appears to be so much higher.
Thoughts?
- Anon 1 - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 12:44 pm:
Shame on the PPB for manipulating/inflating the numbers and causing needless hysteria. Just what agenda are they advancing? And for who? Is there a Bedore-Daley connection?
- Just Because - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 12:54 pm:
The real truth is, it is easier to do an emergency procurement then go through the bid process. The only process the EEC executive ethics committee will allow is IFB. Invitation for bid, low price wins. In the real word the lowest price isn’t always the best deal….
- Rufus - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:08 pm:
The amount the state of Illinois pays for services and products is grossly inflated in order to pay back political contributors. It is unethical, immoral and probably breaks a law. When is Illinois going to stand up to this blatant corruption?
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:11 pm:
@Rufus:
I’m guessing you have proof of that assertion? Care to share your information with the rest of us?
- Anyone Remember? - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:12 pm:
Rufus -
Facts, figures, and citations, please.
- yo yo - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:13 pm:
Anon1 - I’m guessing you work for Weems. The PPB is the only entity that actually gives us legitimate data about procurements. Matt Brown does a good job, but Weems and his people have done everything they can to thwart the procurement process. Nothing will change until he’s gone. If Quinn was smart, he’d let Weems go work with Lavin.
- Demoralized - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:15 pm:
I’m glad Malcolm Weems called out this story. It’s easy to put these stories out there with only partial information and start a ruckus, which I guess sell newspapers. If anybody has an issue with the procurement process they need to blame the legislature because they have made the process incredibly convoluted. And, as I said before, if this guy on the PPB had a problem with the emergency procurements he could have raised questions in his capacity as a Board members as opposed to the flippant remarks made to the newspaper. I don’t have a whole lot of respect for the PPB anyway. I think they are a bunch of arrogant blowhards who like to listen to themselves speak.
- Seen it - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:29 pm:
I can say from a long time working with CMS procurement, that it is an incredibly byzantine operation designed seemingly to discourage actually procuring things your office needs. When we got a terrible product and never wanted that vendor to bid again, our opinions were ignored and the vendor got more chances to disappoint us. Vendors we trusted, somehow never qualified, or got discouraged from the application process’s tons of irrelevant paperwork. Your paperwork goes into some hole somewhere, and what comes back half the time isn’t what you asked for.
- Anon. - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:35 pm:
==As you can see, these changes in the statute do not expand on what qualifies as an emergency purchase. Rather, the changes involve how those contracts can be extended. The Governor’s Office says that is why the number appears to be so much higher.==
Since the Governor’s Office said so, it must be true.
- Anon. - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 1:57 pm:
Actually, if you look at the legislation, the only thing it really did that might support Weems’ testimony is provide that emergency contracts are supposed to be let only for a period long enough to allow proper bidding, not to exceed 90 days, with additional periods allowed. This could have the effect of increasing the number of contracts (i.e., there might be 4 90-day contracts now where there would have been one 1-year contract before), but the Lee Enterprises story was based on the increase in dollar amounts involved, not the number of contracts. If anything, this new provision should have reduced the dollar amounts involved (i.e., by having only one 90-day emergency contract followed by a properly bid one, rather than a one-year emergency contract), so an apples-to-apples comparison probably makes this administration look worse than the article states.
- James B - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 2:41 pm:
There goes the Decatur Herald again today, negative, negative, negative without recognizing the rest of the story. Such a dour lot they and Lee Enterprises are.
- Chicago Cynic - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 4:55 pm:
Hey Barton (or Rich if you’re back). Care to check the IP addresses of the commenters on this thread and let us know how many of them are coming from CMS or state computers. Somehow I’m guessing most, especially Anon 1.
- Nonplussed - Tuesday, Sep 10, 13 @ 7:56 pm:
Ed Bedore has worked for the Daleys for 50 years. Nuff said.
- Rahm's Middle Finger - Wednesday, Sep 11, 13 @ 7:17 am:
Cynic- What’s your point?