District 158 is in the process of re-bidding its multi-year custodial services contract. Even though the district has been pleased with the services provided by the current vendor, new bids will be sought so that the district can try to get a better price and clean up some contract language. The majority of the board, this time including Snow and Seedorf (funny, there weren’t any complaints coming from Snowdorf regarding the “board majority” this time), pushed for the re-bidding of this contract. Snow and Seedorf remain 100% in favor of re-bidding the custodial services contract.
But what about the Moore Turf Care contract for landscaping services? This too is a multi-year agreement with the school district. The contract includes language which would allow the district to re-bid, provided the vendor was notified in writing that the services were being re-bid. Both Snow and Seedorf are on record as being against re-bidding the landscaping contract before it expires, even though the current contract includes a provision which would allow it. No notification was sent to the Moore's and they will begin their third year of their landscaping agreement with no attempt by the board to seek a better price.
If the purpose for re-bidding is to obtain the best-possible price, why is the District re-bidding custodial services but not landscaping services? Why is it important to Snow and Seedorf to seek a better price for custodial services but not for landscaping? Could it be that the rules of good fiscal management only apply when the vendor is not their political ally the Moore’s?
No comments:
Post a Comment