Red flags galore
A no-bid contract, awarded by the Portland City Council, on an emergency basis, on Christmas Eve. And over a paid consultant's objections. Is it any wonder that the deal went wrong in a big way?
| Posted at 8:48 AM | Permalink |
|
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on July 7, 2011 8:48 AM.
The previous post in this blog was Low grades for a Type A.
The next post in this blog is Lake O. streetcar: shell game in progress.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (12)
Wonder if IE Solutions or their employees have donated to any political campaigns in the past few election cycles?
Posted by Mister Tee | July 7, 2011 9:18 AM
Emergency no-bid contracts - another slimy tool for these weasels to abuse.
What gets me the most is the utter disdain our local reps have for the citizens of Portland.
I guess the feelings mutual...
Posted by Ralph Woods | July 7, 2011 9:31 AM
I wonder if Randy (or any Commissioner) even bothered to read all 57 pages of the report.
Any Commissioner who read the specific recommendations in the conclusion, and failed to address them, would be HIGHLY MOTIVATED to downplay the current shortcomings.
Posted by Mister Tee | July 7, 2011 9:39 AM
Misfeasance?
Posted by David E Gilmore | July 7, 2011 10:19 AM
Wow. I'd be completely stunned if this wasn't approximately the 1,893rd instance of this type of thing happening here.
Posted by Larry Legend | July 7, 2011 10:29 AM
From what I read maybe a grand jury needs to look into this. Who got what, when and how.
Posted by Evergreen Libertarian | July 7, 2011 10:42 AM
An unusually thorough bit of reporting from the Oregonian. I especially appreciate this:
'For a sole-source contract over $100,000, council approval is required. Such a contract means that the services sought "are of such a unique nature, or the consultant possesses such a singular capability to perform the work that proceeding without competition is likely to provide a significant benefit to the City," city rules say.'
I think the QA report makes it clear that that wasn't the case here.
Posted by Snards | July 7, 2011 10:47 AM
This whole thing stinks to high heavens the way its been handled.
Posted by matthew vantress | July 7, 2011 11:09 AM
If only we had a , hmm , what do you call that , oh yea , a District Attorney.
Posted by billb | July 7, 2011 2:26 PM
A nice little Merry Christmas present we were given by this corrupt or inept Council. Looks like a big Christmas though for others and imagine lots of champagne was brought out over the holidays. Happy New Year to the mess created once again by our Admiral.
Posted by clinamen | July 7, 2011 2:35 PM
Wooweee.... I think Randy is trying to put Portland ahead of Chicago with moves like this.... and I am talking about corruption with a capital C, brothers and sisters...
Posted by LucsAdvo | July 7, 2011 8:21 PM
Before we even get to the bidding process: What reason was there to buy an all-new system? Nearby cities simply refurbished theirs (very similar to Portland's) for a relatively modest price, and with no drama.
I'm a techie, and saying "but it's old" just isn't a good enough reason. You can run a mature system nearly indefinitely if you have the spare parts and support. User familiarity and proven reliability count. Old can be good.
Just ask the county about their courthouse...
Posted by Downtown Denizen | July 7, 2011 9:36 PM