As the recycling program manager at Massachusetts DEP in the 1990s, I oversaw something like 40 contracts per year (if you include 03 consultant hires). We went through one of the biggest bid challenges, for the Springfield Materials Recovery Facility, which saved the state about $1 million dollars per year by switching from an incumbent vendor.We knew that if the incumbent vendor lost, that they were certain to challenge the bid, so I had lots of time with attorneys at MA DEP making sure that each step of our bid evaluation was transparent, and run by NASPO.org standards (National Association of State Procurement Officers). (Link to Massachusetts Chapter 30B Guidance on Procurement)
The incumbent Springfield MRF vendor did appeal, and they even won an injunction keeping us from awarding the contract to a new vendor. Even though the state was losing roughly $500,000 during the six month injunction, however, we saw our jobs as making a smooth and continuous transition, and further, to show that Massachusetts DEP did not even want to suffer the APPEARANCE of impropriety. By NASPO standards, the appearance of shady procurement is just as costly to society as impropriety itself. Once an injunction is granted, the best thing is to sit down, in full transparency, and let the protester's case be heard.
So we patiently worked with the incumbent vendor, in as professional a manner as we could, until the court hearing. The court found The Massachusetts DEP's contract procurement process was valid and dismissed the injunction. But like an appealed referee's call in an NFL game, no one accused anyone of doing anything in bad faith. And at this time, I'm not making any noise about bad faith in Vermont.
You will see in the news cycle a number of stories about the State of Vermont's E-Cycles ("e-waste") contract procurement, which my company, along with NRRA.net, administered for the past 27 months, with generally rave reviews. The truth is that before the Vermont electronics recycling law had even passed, my company had already set up the infrastructure, and had a turnkey proposal in place in 2011.
This is not the time or the place to air our concerns about the new 2014 contract, or the merits of the two proposals the state decided between. But this is a time to look at Vermont Procurement laws, and ask why "safety railings" are not in place to keep vendors and regulators from having it out in the press. That's what NASPO standards were created to avoid.
"Does the injunction save the state money while providing the public assurance to a fair review of the process?" If the answers to both questions is "yes", why fight the injunction? Save tax money, hear the appeal out, and start the new contract when you've won.
