Friday, October 9, 2015

RFP Analysis A Challenge

The reassurances offered Monday regarding the benefits of outsourcing the Planning Division have not been enough to allay fears of hidden costs that will only come out after the in-house staff is gone.

The RFP responses are in the form of detailed brochures for each of the four companies, I found out after filing an OPRA request. I took home copies of the fee schedules, but comparing them to get a bottom line is beyond my ability. There are add-ons such as travel expenses that make the costs open-ended, and the complex array of daily tasks in the Planning office does not neatly fit on a grid. The respondents can only set forth a projection and after that billing is extra.

As commenters have said, once the staff is dismissed and the shift to outsourcing takes place, the city will not easily be able to revert if things don't work out.

One of the city's chronic problems over recent decades has been a failure to honor the notion of stewardship. Each administration wants to make its mark, and there can be a tendency or sometimes an outright mission to dismiss what went before. Economic development took a big hit when a roster of projects in 2006 was ignored in favor of some dubious new ones, like the 93-parcel Netherwood scheme that was reduced to 16 properties before stalling altogether, and the idea that two existing plus two defunct train stations could result in Plainfield having four transit villages.

The worst legacy of the immediate past administration may have been the flipping-off of fiscal responsibilities that is now requiring major remediation. Based on comments from supporters of the current administration, the proposed outsourcing of Planning could tip the the Good Ship Plainfield into a maelstrom instead of guaranteeing smoother sailing on the seas of development.

The "nothing ventured, nothing gained" crowd may prove to be right in the end, but people are also puzzled by the council contrarians' embrace of this one change when so many others have been dismissed outright. It is being perceived as a negative marker by some.

Finally, the timing of the proposal - just before an election - is adding to the uneasiness of some observers. The administration only has a couple of loyalists on the council and both have expressed concern over the outcome. The reaction to the administration's soothing reassurances Monday echoes an old New Yorker cartoon in which a mother tells her child, "It's broccoli, dear," and the youngster responds, "I say it's spinach, and I say the hell with it."

--Bernice 


21 comments:

  1. When the triumvirate on the right dais speaks it is hardly reassuring. I wasn't soothed a bit when Eric Watson said the office would be staffed by four or five people five days a week. The proposal he was reading hasn't been written yet. Suggestion- dump Watson and let the Planning Division take over the responsibilities of the Director of Public Works and Urban Development. That would save nearly $120,000 plus benefits, and you'd get more professional and conscientious service day in and day out. Add in the extra costs of the fake-emergency demolition and the accompanying (CYA) Remington & Vernick report and the City would save even more.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thank you Bernice for doing the legwork, as you consistently do, and presenting the facts about the city's issues in a transparent and concise manner.

    I would love to hear how this year's election candidates feel about this hot topic. Cory has made his stance public. Others should do the same. Voters should know where each candidate publicly stands before they cast their ballot.

    Richard Stewart

    ReplyDelete
  3. Should we the tenders on the good ship should adjust the sales even when the prevailing wind is not coming from the appointed direction. Because it seems like it is, it is?

    Or should the Captain say "hold on my mates" let me check that.



    ReplyDelete
  4. Is the administration actually outsourcing the Planning Division based on a Finger in the Air price and a brochure? Who is in charge of RFP's in this town that this would qualify as adequate? This joke of a proposal is getting more and more ridiculous all the time. The Mayor needs to withdraw this request and move on the other things. Or the city can figure out how to conduct a proper RFP, analyze the results and discover that the current cost is much lower than outsourcing. But in its current state this proposed outsourcing is laughable. I vote for Watson to be let go and end this silliness.

    ReplyDelete
  5. This administration's major problem is that they do not have a spokesperson who can clearly, confidently, and with authority, speak to the issues that is brought before them. Their constant - I think, it could be, this is what we want- does nothing to further their cause. If the Mapp administration wants to get things passed, and have public opinion behind them, they need to think their case through, they need to have facts and figures to back them up, and they need to have answers to the negative questions that will come up BEFORE they present their case.

    Even those of us who support this Mayor, have a hard time following some of his logic - and we give him the benefit of the doubt.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If the Planning Board is working, perhaps we shouldn't fix it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Planning Board is not at issue, it is the Planning Division staff that would be replaced by an outside entity.

      Delete
  7. Corrected. The same still goes for the Planning Division. If it works efficiently and is not at a great cost to the city, then let's leave it as is.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Isn't the Planning Board, among others, under the Planning Division? So if the city outsources the Planning Division, isn't it outsourcing all the units under it?

    The Planning Division has five main areas of responsibility – each of which includes its own budget: the management of the Planning Division, the Planning Board (PB), the Zoning Board of Adjustment (ZBA), the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC), and the Shade Tree Commission (STC). http://plainfield.com/planning-divisions.aspx

    Richard Stewart

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Can someone please explain to Richard again how this all works.

      Delete
    2. Members of boards and commissions are nominated by the mayor and their appointments are approved or rejected by the council. They may suffer the loss of in-house support but they cannot be "outsourced." They vote on all applications and other land use matters.

      Delete
    3. Thanks for the clarification. However I'm still of the opinion that outsourcing the Planning Division equates to outsourcing the boards and commissions.

      As stated in the RFP (the latest one not the plagiarized one) the hired firm's responsibilities include:

      Board Planner to Planning Board and Zoning Board of Adjustments.

      Oversee the Historical Preservation Committee and the Shade Tree Commission.

      So if the firm (whether by rule or practice) has final say or even majority say over the direction and decisions of the other boards and commissions then this proposal by the administration just makes the members of the boards and commissions straw-men,

      I'm strongly oppose the administration's outsourcing of the Planning Division because, in my eyes, this is just a way to strip the independence of the Planning Board and for the administration to obtain more direct control/influence over the Division.

      In addition to the mayor nominating the members of the boards and commissions, now the Mayor hires and fires the firm that oversees division, boards, commissions.

      Richard Stewart

      Delete
    4. Yes Anon 12:57 because you are too much of a bitter and cowardly person to do it yourself.

      Richard Stewart

      Delete
    5. Correction: independence of the Planning *Division*

      Richard Stewart

      Delete
    6. The role of the planner is to advise the Board on its consideration of site plans and the like. It is not an executive-type position; the planner cannot tell the Board what to do.

      Delete
  9. The only responsive bid would be one which entered a dollar amount on the line provided absent any accompanying qualifications. That is, an amount for which the bidder would perform the laundry list of duties specified in the Bid Documents. If Mr. Watson's representation that there would be a saving of $200,000was valid then the amount bid would of necessity be the amount which the Planning Division currently costs, which I believe is about $475,000/year ( this includes an allowance for some outside consulting ), minus the purported $200,000 saving, or a LUMP SUM GUARANTEED of $270,000/year, or less. It won't happen. Even if such a bid were received there would be cause for pause. . Pause because there is no definitive assurance that the replacement would perform with the efficiently, or WITH THE INTEGRETY, of the existing experienced team. In any appropriately administered municipality any bid returned with qualifications would be deemed non-responsive and summarily rejected. If the Bid Solicitation were to have requested a "proposal" for a service,( which it was not ) then it would be appropriate to submit a document outlining a suggested scope of work and the associated fees. The advocacy of dissolution by Messrs. Yates and Watson is sufficient reason to maintain the existing department.
    Bill Kruse

    ReplyDelete
  10. Bernice, thank you for saving me the trouble of reading and trying to comment on the incomprehensible. I sincerely doubt if either Watson or Smiley read the bids received, and I am sure that there are few on the Council that understand what is really proposed.

    Perhaps Watson could inform us who is the anointed recipient? What party ties do they have?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Supporters of maintaining the current Planning Division as is should make their opinions known by appearing at the city council meeting this Tuesday 10/13 at 8:00 PM. This matter will be on the Agenda for a vote and every voice should be heard. After the decision is made by the council it will be too late.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Yes, show up on Tuesday, but in the meanwhile contact our Mayor and respectfully tell him why this is a bad idea and ask him to withdraw it. Don't wait until Tuesday, "the die will be cast" by then.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I don't think the counsel will approve the layoff of our planning division. They know better. But we should all show up at the next counsel meeting anyway.

    Here's something to get you laughing:

    Lizzy and Vince look into their crystal ball and predict what will happen if the planning division is "outsourced."

    dial tone ... dialing ... ring ... ring

    "You have reached the City of Plainfield Planning Division. Press 1 if .... 2 if ... 3 if ... 4 if ... and we’ll get back to you as soon as a consultant becomes available. Please be advised that we are experiencing extremely high volume, since our well-educated and seasoned professionals were laid off and replaced with debt ridden grads hired by predators disguised as a mild-mannered, well-intentioned corporation. If you've bribed us recently, please hang up and build whatever the hell you want and we’ll give you huge tax breaks. If you find it more convenient, you can send us messages, written on hundred dollar bills. Just slide them under the door or over the transom after regular business hours. For low-income housing proposals, dial 1-800-NO-ENTITLEMENTS.”

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lizzie & Vince, you have laid out the alternatives nicely!

      And Bill, you always have the right things to say and the right issues to raise. I wish you would present at the Council meeting so that the whole community could hear them!










      Delete