|
No Coke. Pepsi.
Monday, Mar 24, 2008 - Posted by Kevin Fanning
* Lawmakers have asked Auditor General William Holland to look into allegations made by Pepsi rival, Coca-Cola, that the contract was tainted because the administration accepted Pepsi before hearing Coke’s best offer. Earlier this month the Illinois House of Representatives voted 104-0 to probe the $130 million deal between the state and the soft drink company. Rep. Susanna Mendoza, who sponsored the resolution, said Coke’s arguments seem compelling. “It makes you ask questions,” she said. “If there’s nothing wrong, we will know that at the end of the audit.” Last July the state awarded Pepsi the contract. It includes four universities and 2,300 vending machines. Eight months later, Coca-Cola officials are still salty over what they consider an unfair deal. They say they submitted an initial pop (cheesy pun intended) of about $43 million but could not provide a competitive proposal because the state did not answer certain questions about the contract before awarding the deal to Pepsi. Rep. Jack Franks, who doesn’t exactly have the fondest memory of the administration after they dumped the Mercy Hospital mess on him and who has recently offered a proposal for a recall amendment, said:
* However, the administration is defending the deal, and even claiming that it was good for taxpayers:
So the question remains, is this more of their recurring theme of “incompetence not corruption,” is there something deeper, or is the administration in the right?
|
 |
|
|
- OneMan - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 10:36 am:
“incompetence not corruption” — Hey I think we have a tag line for Rod’s ads in the next cycle.
- pchappel - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 10:40 am:
:-) Well, there are still only Coke machines here outside of my office at UIUC… Looking forward to seeing a Mt. Dew here on campus again…
- wordslinger - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 10:45 am:
Hard to say at this point, but you have to believe Coke will vigorously pursue the matter to a point where we’ll be able to reach a reasonable conclusion. A bedrock component of their marketing is exclusivity agreements. They don’t lose many deals like these and they have the resources to find out why they did.
- Cassandra - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 10:49 am:
It’s not good for the taxpayers because both Coke and Pepsi are bad for your health. They contribute to obesity and attendant health conditions. There is absolutely no valid reason to be selling it in government buildings.
The jogging for health governor should be ashamed of himself.
- Levois - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 11:03 am:
I wonder why they couldn’t just sell both Coca-Cola and Pepsi on state property.
- Give us a Break - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 11:16 am:
Does the Illinois Legislature really have nothing better to do than debate the Pepsi contract?
- Dixie - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 11:17 am:
Cassandra - Yes, I’m sure the state would be far healthier if it forced dietary restrictions on state employees rather than treating them like adults and letting them choose whether or not to purchase soft drinks…
- Joe Schmoe - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 11:22 am:
How about bottled water? Oh I forgot, that’s another sweet deal altogether…..
- A Citizen - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 11:36 am:
These products that lead to the inevitable excess consumption of gravity must be obtained under prescription only! Conserve gravity, beautify Illinois.
- steve schnorf - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 11:38 am:
Complaints from unhappy losers of state contracts don’t usually mean incompetence or corruption, just the sour grapes of a loser.
- RMW Stanford - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 12:06 pm:
how about incompetence and corruption? that seems to be a better tag line for this administration.
To Cassandra how about this for a valid reason, the people working in government buildings are adults and should be allowed to drink what they want? I drink plenty of coke in a day and yet some how I have managed to stay in shaped and healthy.
- G - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 12:18 pm:
I agree with steve schnorf - Sounds more like sour grapes. The Coke lobbyists got some legislators all riled up once corporate found out that they screwed up.
The fact of the matter seems to be, though, that Pepsi offered a bid that provided the state twice as much money as Coke would have.
- Downstate Commissioner - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 12:35 pm:
Whatever happened to Freedom of Choice? Should sell both. Glad I don’t work for state-I won’t drink Pepsi.
- The Mad Hatter - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 2:34 pm:
People! Don’t lose sight of the forest because the trees are in the way! The pertinent question here is how much did Pepsi contribute to Unindicted Official A-Rod’s campaign fund to win this contract. Was Levine involved? Rezko? Just asking.
- FlackerBacker - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 2:36 pm:
The state’s Procurement Policy Board is the entity that has oversite on state contracts - precisely because contracts shouldn’t be reviewed at the whim of the General Assembly. The PPB knows the strict process and protocol associated with contracts and regularly raise the red flag if something doesn’t smell right. This legislation is entirely ridiculous and shouldn’t be given a second look by the Senate.
- A Citizen - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 3:05 pm:
- The Mad Hatter -
… And what is served at the Panda Express Pizza joints?
- Just Because - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 3:30 pm:
Having worked in procurement for 2 state agency’s, I can guarantee (2) things. One the Procurement Policy Board is hardly in charge, and (2) I can write a proposal and technical specs to make anyone win. If there was a vendors conference and questions were raised by a vendor, then the state is obligated to answer the questions before eliminating the vendor for none compliance. Might want to see who represents Pepsi or do we have more corrupt inside dealings?
- Clean and Fair Bidding - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 3:50 pm:
I agree “with just because”….and let’s keep on topic… the point is that Coke was not allowed to submit a fair bid. Like Representative Franks said we will never know if the State got the best deal for the Universities and for the state because Coke was not allowed to bid.
- ScottieMac - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 3:58 pm:
Clearly another example of an insider deal. This needs to end, soon.
- Not a fair shake... - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 4:11 pm:
In a perfect world, it would be a great deal to have open competition for state services but unfortunatly this is just another shady Blago deal. As an U of I student, it certainly appears Coke didn’t even get a shot…
- Wait and See - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 4:14 pm:
If there proves to be no wrong doing, this is a case of “government being ran like a business” which everyone seems to call for during campaigns, but the moment it plays out in the real world, everyone has a problem with it.
- Clean and Fair Bidding - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 4:48 pm:
How can you say in this instance government was run like a business when the state never let the two biggest soft drink manfacturers compete for the business. It seems to me that the state have gotten the best deal if they would have had two bids to choose from.
- Wait and See - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 7:47 pm:
To Clean and Fair Bidding: That is why I said “If”. The bottom line is that everyone talks a good game about running government like a business, but when the rubber meets the road, like selling or leasing your assets, selling naming rights to state properties, selling exclusive rights to vending, or closing old out-dates institutions and moving the operations to newer more effective locations (see Vandalia), people start screaming.
Do you think the private sector has problem with selling naming rights or exclusive vending rights? Do you think Boeing or GM would keep Vandalia open? You say you want govt. ran like a business? Well stop complaining about when they try to.
- Princeville - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 9:07 pm:
reminds me of when the CMS did the contracts for state employee health insurance back in early 2004, those had to be rebid. Bottomline here doesn’t matter if it’s Pepsi, Coke, or 7-up, it’s about fair negotiating of public contracts.
- Fox Mulder - Monday, Mar 24, 08 @ 10:10 pm:
Of course, just another co-inky-dink that the Chicago (Pritzker,like they need any more dough) and Southern IL Pepsi franchisees are owned by big-time Democrats.
New State Motto: “Illinois-Making Jersey Look Better Every Day!”
- VanillaMan - Tuesday, Mar 25, 08 @ 8:45 am:
This is so STUPID!
- Concerned Student - Tuesday, Mar 25, 08 @ 6:53 pm:
As a student at the U of I, I am deeply concerned with the state’s secrecy of this contract. This administration has continuosly failed to properly fund the University of Illinois and now they are using insider contracts to produce a smokescreen that makes them look as if they have the university in their best interest. Coke should be allowed a fair chance at this contract. This will allow both the state and it’s universities to see benefit from this contract and not Blagojevich himself.
- Prairie Sage - Tuesday, Mar 25, 08 @ 11:02 pm:
Look into it? Sure. But if you’ve ever worked with or for one of those two companies, you know the competition between them makes a Chicago Aldermanic primary look like a game of pre-school ring-around-the-rosie.
I would be stunned if the loser of this contract didn’t sue and make a big stink — that’s just the way they play the game.