Letter to Vermont Legislators: Montpelier, we have a problem

3/26/2014 UPDATE:  For whatever reason ; )   since this was originally published, the Agency decided to issue the rebid.  I'd specifically asked the previous week.    The original post here has been re-edited to reflect the Agency's decision to rebid, though we noted the agency has inserted language to protect it from appeals.

There continues to be a lack of independent review of the Agency's bid process.  Hopefully they will have representation this time from the cities and towns and schools who actually receive the services.  When I was at Massachusetts DEP, the DPGS (procurement office) reviewed our bidding procedures, and appeals were considered part of the "checks and balances".  It remains to be seen how Vermont deals with the prospect of scandal.

After restating our request as a "FOIA", we got the state costs paid under the new contract for the first quarter.

Wait what?  Let's zoom in..

Cost per pound under the new state contract:  $0.42 (if you leave in the 10 days of the injunction, when Good Point charged 28 cents per pound).   Recall that ANR staff testified, under oath, in court, that the difference in cost was negligible, less than a penny per pound.

Attached is an open letter to the Vermont Legislators who are considering the 22 pages of red tape aimed a the Independent Plan, which would become statute (law) rather than a negotiated settlement once ratified.


Why do they need to protect their contract from competition?  28 cents per pound vs. 42 cents per pound.  CRT leaded glass recycling vs. CRT leaded glass landfilling (as "wind cover").  R2 certification vs. none.  Vermont based company vs. out of state.   I can see why they need 22 pages to protect it if the goal is to keep a standard plan run by 3 state employees.

No comments: