Letter to the Editor

Spurned local bidder, no. Concerned taxpayer, yes
To the editor:
    In response to the July 20 article “Board hears from spurned local bidder,” I want to clarify some details. As a business owner, I understand bidding and do not expect to win every bid. As a taxpayer, I never want to see taxpayer-funded entities waste money.
    My company, Advanced Tech Solutions, Inc., was asked to bid on two recent projects at Hampton-Dumont schools. The first bid was requested in February and was for a camera system at the Middle School. This bid was submitted and presented to the board in March. At that time, the district decided to receive more bids. The additional bids were presented at the June 20 board meeting. There was only one bidder present at the meeting to answer questions, which was ATS, Inc. a Hampton-based business. The board voted all ayes and one nay (from Tom Brolsma) to accept the bid from Per Mar Security in Des Moines for $26,357. ATS provided two bids, one for $16,530, which was similar to the Per Mar system and a second system with more features for $28,605. Unfortunately, the board was not told that the ATS systems both included 30 cameras, whereas the Per Mar system included only 19. Also the ATS system included 600 percent more video storage for long-term storage, cameras with twice the resolution of those provided by Per Mar, and over $1,300 in networking equipment, which Per Mar failed to include.
    I understand that board members may not be “IT experts,” but I think the most people would at least question why the school is choosing a system that is $10,000 more than a local bid. With all things considered, the ATS quote was almost $17,000 less than the Per Mar bid. Board member Jeff Rosenberg stated during the board meeting “I am not sure we need 30 cameras.” While this may be true, that is what we were asked to bid. If the district only required 19 cameras, then we could easily have adjusted our bid accordingly. I also wonder why Per Mar was told that 19 cameras were enough, when the district had already opened the ATS quote for 30 cameras?
    The second bid requested from ATS was for an automatic door lock system for the district. In this case, we were asked for the bid only a few days before the bid deadline. The bids were presented at the June 20 board meeting with the ATS bid at $22,445 and Per Mar at $53,109. This would seem to be an obvious choice, but the Tech Coordinator proposed to choose the higher Per Mar bid. One reason for the discrepancy was that the ATS bid did not include door hardware, as we were told all hardware was already installed. However, we found during our walk through that this was not the case, but since we only had two days to prepare the bid, we were not able to provide the cost estimate on the additional hardware. The board tabled the decision so ATS could provide the additional estimates. Much to my surprise, the district then shared all bids with all bidders, allowing each bidder to re-bid after seeing all the other bids. When the final bids came in, the ATS bid was $42,250 and the Per Mar bid had surprisingly dropped to just under $49,886.
    At the June 30 board meeting, the board approved the Per Mar bid, stating that the ATS bid did not include a server. However, ATS was specially told NOT to bid a server by the technology coordinator. We informed the district that the server costs would have been $500-700, but again a more expensive, out-of-town bid was approved.
    I have requested that the H-D Superintendent and School Board provide justification for spending almost $24,000 more than the lowest bidder on these two projects, and have yet to receive a response. I have been told that some board members did not feel my bid was “as good” as the other bid, although no reason can be given. I believe that Advanced Tech Solutions, Inc. met all bid specifications provided to us and provided better equipment in the process. The only thing the Per Mar bid provided that I did not was travel and accommodations, because the installers are coming from Des Moines.
    Additionally, as a local business owner, I have a concern. The current school board policy 705.1 posted online states – “The board supports economic development in Iowa, particularly in the school district community. As permitted by law, purchasing preference will be given to Iowa goods and services from a locally-owned business located within the school districtor from an Iowa-based company which offers these goods or services if the cost and other considerations are relatively equal and they meet the required specifications.”
    I believe the school district should set the example of shopping locally. ATS is a small Hampton business, employing five H-D residents. We have supported the H-D schools with donations and pro bono work. How many donations has Per Mar made to the H-D schools? Why would the Board of Education believe it is better to send almost $80,000 to a company in Des Moines when that money could have been invested locally? Whether it is ATS or another local business, I believe this is wrong. Local businesses are continually asked to support the H-D school district. Why is the H-D school district not doing the same?
Jeff Christiansen, Owner ATS, Inc.
Hampton