Abstaining from vote should have been call

We’ve probably all experienced the consequences of sacrificing quality for price. Whether it’s been in food purchased at the grocery store, repairs made on our home, or other areas of daily life. We want the cheapest price possible, but in making that the sole factor in our decision, it can end up costing more in the long-run if we choose a lower quality product. So even though the construction contract awarded to J.E. Dunn for the community center expansion was about $300,000 above the lowest bid, many of us understand price alone cannot be the only factor. After all, out of the projected cost of $21 million, that $300,000 or so only accounts for about 1.5% of the total construction cost. It could be considered a premium well worth the cost if it avoided any number of mistakes costing much more later on from errors due to poor workmanship, bad planning, or corner cutting of an unqualified contractor, right? Maybe that’s what the County Commission believed they were doing. For this situation, that argument can’t convincingly be made though.

In order for a decision like that to be justified, the process itself must have credibility, transparency, and uniformity. If that takes place, the decision defends itself and this is where the questions begin to arise regarding the Commission’s selection of contractor J.E. Dunn.

J.E. Dunn’s campaign contribution to Presiding Commissioner Jason Brown alone is not enough to suggest it was given in return for a future contract, but Brown’s previous employment with the company, which was not widespread knowledge, does bring up a conflict of interest. Not the kind that suggests wrong doing, but one which could be perceived and the kind that should require him to abstain from the vote. No matter how objectively Brown weighed the bids, his familiarity with the firm and inside knowledge should have been enough to remove himself from the process. Even had Brown abstained from the final vote, if J.E. Dunn was the most qualified and presented the best value for the taxpayer dollar, it would have been reinforced with a staff recommendation and support from 2nd District Commissioner Jim Plunkett. It received neither. At the minimum, an explanation should be available to stand on its own as to why the lowest bid was rejected from a clearly qualified Universal Construction. In fact, it seems like several people or groups of people involved in the process had varying opinions on which contractor was best for the project, despite all seeing the same analysis and numbers.

Now, the Commission can’t and shouldn’t always streamline county staff’s recommendations, but in the event a decision is contrary to that recommendation, it should have credible and strong reasoning. Awarding a bid to any company, not just JE Dunn, because ‘they built it originally’ and ‘we like them’ should not be acceptable reasons on their own to choose a contractor for such a substantial project. Doing so could even be considered lazy because many contractors use this type of reasoning to gain repeat business. It’s applicable, but not a deal breaker. If you pick a contractor based on that line of thought, it makes you wonder why county staff and resources were used for a competitive bid process in the first place.

In the end, J.E. Dunn may truly be the best contractor for the job. But with a divided vote from a usually unified three-member Commission, a perceived conflict of interest, a different staff recommendation, and no supporting back-up for the decision, it’s easy to see why people may question the final selection. Overall, it seems to cancel out many of the touted financial gains that came from the Commission’s decision to lower the tax levy last fall and the heavily debated budget cuts which occurred in January.