The contract to maintain and upgrade the county’s computer network has become a source of contention among members of the Board of Freeholders as well as some of those who bid on the contract.
The contract is for operations management and administration of the county’s information service and related telecom services.
Last month, the County Executive’s office recommended awarding the contract to Hinesight, Inc. of Flemington, the highest of the five bids submitted – in fact, at $4.1 million, it is more than $800,000 higher than the next highest bidder.
This has raised concerns among some freeholders and certainly the president of Desktop Computer Services of Bridgewater, Al Poreda, who has protested at one meeting in May and by letter that the system for awarding the bid was unfair.
Poreda criticized the process by which Hinesight was selected over his and the other bidders. His objections forced the freeholders to postpone their vote last month until later in June.
The bids ranged from $1.9 million to $4.1 million, and these came as the result of a request for proposals issued earlier this year.
Under the usual bid restrictions imposed by the state, the county would normally have to award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. But under a special provision in the bidding law, the county has the right to consider other factors in awarding the bid, said Jim Kennelly, spokesperson for the county executive’s office.
“We’re allowed to look at the best price and the best service,” Kennelly said.
Under this provision, the county sets up a board of evaluators that included in this case Laurie Cotter, assistant county administrator, Wade Frazee, director of finance and administration, Arnold Bettinger, division chief for central services, Richard Greene, purchasing agent, and others. They set up a scoring system that evaluated the company’s ability to perform in various areas, such as its technical knowledge of the systems involved, the total cost to the county, the company’s financial resources, and its quality of personnel.
“In other words, the best quality gets the contract, even though it might be higher in price,” Kennelly said.
Each company lays out its plan to meet the needs of the county.
“Our people look at their resume of who the company has served before, their technical expertise, and how many people it has to provide the service,” Kennelly said. “We asked each of the companies to tell us how they would supply the service and we review it all to see which is the best fit.”
Poreda has questioned how points were awarded and has requested documents to support the committee’s decision. He said Hinesight received significant points boost because of its familiarity with the system.
Kennelly defended that issue, noting that experience on the job became one of the overriding factors in awarding the bid to Hinesight.
“While price is a factor, we wanted to make sure we got the company that could provide us with exactly what we need,” Kennelly said.
One complicating factor in awarding this bid was the antiquated telephone system installed during the 1980s.
“It is a very complex system with very old pieces and it needs a diverse staff to handle the operations,” Kennelly said. “Of all the companies, Hinesight has the staff to handle the wide variety of problems our system could present.”
More importantly, he said, Hinesight has been working on the system for several years and is the most familiar with it.
While Poreda said the computer network was not particularly complex – mostly over-the-counter equipment and software – Kennelly argued that the system to which the computers would hook up is a maze of wires, connecting boxes and switches that required expertise in other areas only Hinesight could provide.
“Desktop is more of a service company,” Kennelly said, “and it has not done a lot of work on networks like ours. Hinesight has kept together our system, and its staff knows what we need.”
Kennelly admits Hinesight’s bid is high, but said the committee feared awarding the contract to one of the lower bidders because change orders could elevate the eventual cost because the vendor did not understand the full scope of the work when making the initial bid.
Poreda, who intends to bring up the matter again later this month with the Freeholders, said his company has familiarity with the system as well.
“We’ve worked for the county prosecutor’s office for five years,” he said. “We do know how complex the work is. It involves keeping the county’s computers, telephones and data networks up and running. We can do that, and do it for $800,000 less than Hinesight can.”