As PT noted earlier, an OPRA request netted considerable information about the ill-fated information technology deal that began outside the purview of the Council and expended considerable amounts of taxpayer dollars -- yours, dear reader -- before running off the rails upon the departure of the previous City Administrator, Carlton McGee. This is going to take several posts. Today: THE MONEY.
One phrase that entered the American consciousness as a result of the Watergate scandal and the subsequent resignation in disgrace of President Richard M. Nixon is 'follow the money'. Follow the money we will, indeed.
On August 23, 2006 the city ran a legal notice requesting proposals for 'Project Management for Information Technology'.
The city's 47-page RFP is dated August 24. Below are are scans of the Notice and the Executive Summary from the RFP. (Note: Click on any image to enlarge it for printing; documents have been set at 8 inches wide and will fit on one sheet of paper.)
The NOTICE constitutes the first page of the RFP
The EXECUTIVE SUMMARY outlines the who, what & why of the RFP
The due date for submission was September 5, 2006.
QuadTech Systems' 52-page submission is dated September 5th. For today, PT reproduces the COSTS of the project as proposed by QuadTech, by MILESTONE and by RESOURCE:
QuadTech Systems COST PROPOSAL -- By Milestone & Resource
To this point, all appears in order.
Until we compare things with the record of PAYMENTS made to QuadTech. PT reproduces below a scan of the printout of vendor activity for QuadTech, aka Vendor #55295.
Disbursements to QuadTech by the City of Plainfield
You will note that until the termination of the payments at the end of October, 2006, QuadTech received a total payment of $153,650 from the City -- $36,650 of that amount BEFORE the vendor was even BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COUNCIL.
PT's OPRA request had been for the City's RFP and for the vendor's CONTRACT. After lugging the documents home and starting to go through them, it was noticed that the materials contained the vendor's PROPOSAL, but no contract. Schlep to Clerk's office, point out the request had been for the contract. As a staff member was explaining to PT how the package was assembled, Corporation Counsel Dan Williamson came into the Clerk's office. The staffer pointed out to him that PT was looking for the CONTRACT. Mr. Williamson said there was NO CONTRACT.
Hmmmmmm.
Tomorrow: WHAT WAS IT THE CITY WANTED?
Previous posts on PT about this topic:
- Tuesday, 10/17/2006 - "A regular Mad Hatter's Tea Party". The first inkling of what was going on.
- Friday, 12/1/2006 - "Fresh fallout from McGee financial finagling". The pickle the City was left in getting rid of QuadTech.
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.
http://plainfieldtoday.blogspot.com/
Posts
1 comments:
So if the city has paid about 37% of proposal, then that imples that the project, as a whole, is 37% completed, right? Exactly what does the city have to show for the money spent? A PR website? Really, requiremenst 1-4 (network, cable, infrastructure, management) should already be in place. As for online government services, there is not a whole lot that people can get online aside from INFORMATION. All the other important things (permits, licenses, certificates, etc.) require you to come to city hall in person, to verify identity and residence. Don't they?
Post a Comment