It was difficult decision, but choosing which company’s going to build Oxford Village’s new water treatment plant certainly shouldn’t have been a controversial one.
Unfortunately, in this community, it seems as if any decision has the potential to become fraught with controversy.
Last week, the village council voted 5-0 to enter into negotiations with the Ohio-based Artesian of Pioneer to build a new $2.4 million water treatment plant on S. Glaspie St.
However, one of the bidders, the Oxford-based Trojan Development Company, Inc., is crying foul over the way council handled the decision and is considering legal action against the municipality.
‘We’ve taken that to our lawyer and he said there’s lot there to work with,? said Dan Cinader, co-vice president of Trojan. ‘It all depends on how far we want to pursue it.?
Based on the recommendation printed in the council’s meeting packet, it appeared the village was going to choose Trojan because at $2.4 million the local company was the low bidder and was recommended by an independent consultant hired by the municipality to review the four bids.
Artesian’s bid was for $2.45 million, but the Ohio company is planning to forgive the $40,000 fee the village incurred for renting a water softener to help keep its 30-year-old treatment plant running, so that lowers their price to $2.41 million.
If Artesian had not been awarded the bid, the company would have charged the village the $40,000 rental fee. So, in reality, only $10,000 separated Trojan and Artesian’s bids.
But it appears a July 18 letter from Ed Kidston, of Artesian, helped change council’s mind. In the letter, Kidston accused Shannon Filarecki ? the engineer from the Farmington Hills-based Fishbeck, Thompson, Carr and Huber, Inc. who the village hired to do the independent review ? of being biased.
Kidston based this on the fact that Filarecki used to be employed by Rowe, Inc. and when she worked there, she was the project manager who oversaw the construction of the township’s two water treatment plants by Trojan using Tonka equipment.
Trojan was going to partner with Rowe and Tonka to build the village’s new plant.
‘When council decided to hire an ‘independent voice? to look at the bids and that ‘independent voice? just happened to be a former employee of Rowe and a lead designer for the Tonka plant at Oxford Twp., I knew you had made your decision,? Kidston wrote to council.
Kidston claimed Filarecki ‘intentionally skewed? and ‘intentionally misrepresented? Artesian’s bid in her analysis. He quoted a representative from the Oakland County Drain Commissioner’s Office who supposedly called Filarecki ‘biased? and said she ‘should not have been chosen as the independent view.?
‘I knew when Shannon was hired, the project was going to Tonka, but I never expected her to change my documents, put words in my mouth and skew the facts to arrive at her predetermined conclusion,? Kidston wrote. ‘This was unfair and unethical on her part.?
Filarecki denied Kidston’s accusations.
‘I believe I’ve given a fair and unbiased review,? she told council. ?(Manager) Joe (Young) and I visited all of the plants (built by the bidders). They’re all very nice. I think the four bidders that you have are all very viable bidders.?
Filarecki noted she had worked with three of the four bidders in the past. The only one she was ‘unfamiliar? with was Artesian.
Council was upset because apparently no one on the board was made aware of Filarecki’s previous employment with Rowe, Inc. or past work with Trojan and Tonka on the township’s two treatment plants.
‘I can honestly say if I would have known this before, I would have voted ‘no? at our last meeting to hire you,? said Councilman Tony Albensi to Filarecki. ‘I think it puts this council in a bad light.?
Albensi noted that despite what Kidston wrote in his letter, his mind was not already made up when Filarecki was hired.
‘I was hoping to get an independent view and I don’t believe that I got that,? he said.
Albensi felt the $4,000 council spent on Filarecki’s review ‘was not money well spent.?
‘I can assure you this is an unbiased review,? Filarecki said. ‘I have no allegiance to Rowe, Inc. I left their employment over a year ago of my own volition because I wanted a change.?
Filarecki assumed council knew she worked for Rowe because during her time there she was the township’s engineer for 10 years. However, for most of that time, her last name was Parry.
‘I assumed everybody else knew that and I apologize if that was unclear,? she said.
Because of this, council ultimately decided to award the bid to Artesian.
Councilman Tom Benner said it would be unfair to the four bidders ‘to throw everything out and start over from scratch.?
‘I think we could get a quality water plant for our community from any one of the four,? he said.
But Filarecki warned council, ‘If you’re going to disqualify the low bid, you need to be aware of the fact that you need to have some reason to disqualify that bid so you don’t put yourself in a position to enter into some sort of legal issue.?
That’s one of Cinader’s points. ‘They have no recommendation now,? he said. ‘What caused them to award to (Artesian)??
Cinader said council has ‘no idea whether (Artesian’s) telling them right or wrong.?
‘There’s no checks and balances on this process that they’re entering into with (Artesian),? he said.
Cinader said council should have hired another firm to do a second independent review if officials had issues with this one.
‘If they throw out the consultant’s recommendation, then they need to get another consultant and go through the process again,? he told this reporter. ‘Michigan’s got a ton of great engineers.?
Cinader’s also upset that Artesian aided the village in developing the Request for Proposal (RFP) specifications for the new water treatment plant by advising the municipality on what was needed. ‘We feel at the very least it’s unethical to allow one of the bidders to prepare the RFP,? he said.
Cinader accused Artesian of slanting the RFP in their favor. ‘A lot of the RFP mirrors (Artesian’s) website page,? he said.
Allowing Artesian to help prepare the RFP ? negates the competitive bidding in the state of Michigan,? in Cinader’s opinion.
‘Why would other people want to bid with Oxford if they’re going to allow this to happen?? he said.
Cinader said all he wants is ‘the chance to go head-to-head? with Artesian in bidding for this job.
‘What can it hurt?? he said. ‘He can question anything that we say, anything that we do, but we want the chance to question anything that he says or anything that he does.?
Cinader noted because his company’s ‘right there in the community,? much of that $2.4 million for the village plant would have benefited businesses in Oxford and throughout the state. ‘Everything we buy is from Michigan,? he said.