COM 0041.001 1996-1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

PROTEST DENLAL: Request Formal Contested Case Hearing page 2 E. In addition Contract 96112 calls for two one year options. There is no stated levels of performance for these option years with regards to payment or a defined criteria for which renewal would be established. This makes it highly unlikely that the merits of this contract are being critically assessed. If the same funding is available in "potential" years two and three, the County has virtually committed $648,000.00 to one contractor without going through a proper bid process. II. Cottflict of Interest 1. Invested Interest A. The County has exhibited a vested interest in establishing a contract agreement with the proposed contractor. Because the State contract under which the Cotmty will receive funds has a deadline of June 30, 1996, the County must establish afast-track approach to spend these funds or the funds will be returned to the State. The County developed a vested interest over-and- beyond the normal by not focusing on a clear and definite path for establishing a comprehensive and equitable glass recycling program prior to its actual signing of the State agreement. Therefore, they must commit themselves to a single contractor in order to ensure the monies are encumbered even though it is clearly not in the best interest of the community. 2. Time line A. RFP 1533 calls for the proposed scope of work for the contracted services to be provided from 2-I-95 to 1-31-96 on proposal page 3. On specifications page 10 it states the implementation schedule date is "on or about February 1, 1995." On special provision page the Contract "shall be effective for a period of one year beginning January 1, 1995. Because the County of Hawaii did not have the funds in hand in order to proceed with the contract in question, it should not have accepted this proposal or the RFP should have specifically clarified the funds the County anticipated and when they would be made available for this RFP. 3. Double Dipping A. Contract 961 ]2 does not specifically establish b~rotutd work for the buy-back program. Nor has an incentive fee's specific dollar amount for the glass collection been established. This further puts all perspective outside collection of glass at a financial disadvantage. Collection of glass under this contract only establishes financial benefits for the contractor. Furthermore, no mention is made of excluding the contractor from also partaking in the County's Diversion Grants Program. By allowing double-dipping it also depletes funds set aside for others to establish their own recycling program. It is the County's intention to terminate the Diversion Grants Program as of August 1, 1996. This along with the notice that State money was available should have been specifically mentioned in a glass recycling RFP in order for each prospective recycler to have an opportunity to respond to the future needs of the Counn• with respect to glass recycling. RI. County's Best Interest 1. The best interests of the County should be an over-riding inlluence in establishing Cuunty contracts whether through the [FB or RFP processes. It is clearly not in the best interests of the County to establish through an RFP a community based recycling protgam where competition of