No-bid provision needs review
In last week’s Sun, Gary Kinzer opined that the architectural design for the new fire station should have gone out to bid for aesthetic reasons. While I am not crazy about the paint color, I would agree with him for a couple of different reasons.
Firstly, the bidding process could have resulted in considerable savings to the city. As a case in point, a city consultant estimated that the construction phase of the project would cost $6.3 million. However, the low bid came in at $3.9 million, almost a 40 percent discount. If the city had gotten a similar discount on the $585,000 paid in architectural fees, over $200,000 could have been saved.
Secondly, the bidding process would have removed much of the controversy that ensued when it was later revealed that the owner of the architectural firm was a life-long friend of the city manager.
So why was there no bid on the architectural design? Quite simply, it is prohibited by section 3.20.025(c) in our Municipal Code. This section exempts certain professional services from having to go out to bid regardless of the amount of money involved. Those exempt include architectural, legal, engineering, and solid waste disposal services among others.
The nature of these services is quite diverse and begs the question as to the rationale for each. There may be good reasons for some of the exemptions, but I think our experience with the fire station indicates that it is time for the City Council to formally review section 3.20.025(c).
Robert L. Goldberg,
Seal Beach
