Today, PT will look more closely at the ACTUAL DOCUMENTS submitted to the City for clues to sloppiness or, worse, fraud.
But first, let's review. What we have learned so far is that this project was the Mayor's initiative, and that QuadTech would provide a methodology and tools to implement the Mayor's vision.
Fair enough. To be thorough, PT slogged his way through both the City's RFP (47 pages) and QuadTech's proposal (52 pages). No, make that 53 pages.
Reaching the end of the proposal packet, PT thought he had gotten the pages out of order, as the page after page 52 (the last page) was page 47.
Going back, however, he found there ALREADY WAS A PAGE 47 in the packet. So, the copy machine just generated a second copy of the page? Happens sometimes. If so, why was it at the END of the packet and not RIGHT AFTER THE FIRST COPY?
Why indeed. Upon closer inspection, the signatures on the two page 47s DO NOT APPEAR TO BE THE SAME. Take a look for yourself --
This is a scan of the signature on page 47 in the packet.
This is a scan of the signature on the 'extra' page 47 at the end of the packet.
See what I mean? Now, the second, extra, page appears to be on the same stationery as all the others in the packet and is NOT a fax. Is it the signature of a City employee? A QuadTech employee? Was it the ORIGINAL SUBMISSION, and was the CORRECT SIGNATURE submitted to the City AFTER THE BID PACKAGE WAS OPENED?
If so, that would be a violation of the public bidding law. There is to be no 'FIXING' of the contents once they are submitted, sealed, in the bid process.
All of this caused PT to go over other pages with signatures more closely. ALL THE OTHER PAGES appear to bear a signature identical with that on the page 47 that is in sequence.
Scan of signature on the Non-Collusion Affidavit page.
Scan of signature on the Mandatory Affirmative Action Compliance statement.
But wait, SOMETHING ELSE caught PT's eye. The signature on page 46, the Non-Collusion Affidavit -- meant to prevent BID-RIGGING, requires NOTARIZATION. Curiously, this item is dated as notarized on September 5th, the due date for the proposal, while other items in the packet attest a September 1st date.
Notaries public perform a valuable function in many legal processes, particularly in affirmations that the person signing the document is who she says she is. PT's personal experience includes hundreds of real estate transactions where contracts and mortgage applications had to be notarized, as well as petitions for public office, in which the individual petitions need to be notarized.
Scan of signature space of the "Notary" on the Non-Collusion Affidavit.
In no case did PT ever see a notary fail to include the JURAT, which identifies the jurisdiction granting the notary's commission and that the person who appeared before the notary affirmed the truth of their statement or identity.
Curiously, the notarization of the Non-Collusion Affidavit here contains no JURAT, just an indication of an expiration date. Also, curiously, there is no signature for the notary, only a PRINTED name. So we CANNOT CONCLUDE from it by what authority the person who signed as Notary Public was allowed to do so, nor by what jurisdiction, nor even that they are a bona fide Notary Public. A fatal flaw? Evidently not in Plainfield.
So, are we witnessing sloppiness in violation of the statutes? Or fraud?
Let's hope the Prosecutor, to whom this matter evidently has been referred, got to see ALL the pages.
View today's CLIPS here. Not getting your own CLIPS email daily? Click here to subscribe.