Pending Legislation a Concern as to Bidding of Large Contracts
Very few of our articles are political in nature.
We try our best to avoid that subject; however, in the cause of attempting to preserve rights of homeowners, once in a while it is necessary to bring information to you that could have a detrimental affect on ALL homeowners in the Las Vegas valley who reside in a Homeowners Association.
NOW is one of those times.
Currently we have a bill before the Nevada legislature that has the ability to allow Homeowners Association Boards the opportunity to avoid placing major association contracts out to competitive bid.
Our current laws are flawed in that we have a provision referred to as "practicability" that our board here in Sun City Anthem claimed as a reason for not placing our management company out to competitive bid a few years ago.
For those of you who did not reside here at that time, this MAJOR ASSOCIATION contract was at the point of renewal. It had been neglected for months and approximately three months prior to its renewal, then association president, Jack Troia, brought the matter to discussion.
As a result of waiting until the last minute to concern our association with the renewal of our contract with RMI, he claimed that it was "too late" to do so, under the guise of a provision in Nevada law referred to as "practicability". In other words, there was not enough time to obtain the bids, and as a result, the contract was renewed.
Subsequent to that, the board at that time, voted to allow him to solely negotiate the terms of a three year contract that was to expire in 2012.
As the time approached for the renewal, our board then authorized an "ad hoc" committee to study various alternatives to RMI, and through time-consuming efforts of those individuals, brought recommendations to our board.
These recommendations were IGNORED at that time, and the RMI contract was continued without competitive bid on a month by month basis.
Recently our board voted to place this contract out to competitive bid, but now we have a bill before the legislature which essentially allows any board to bypass the spirit of proper business competitive bidding.
This bill is AB34. (Assembly Bill 34)
Within the past couple of weeks, this bill was amended as follows as it pertained to bidding procedures for major association contracts, one of which is the management company.
It would allow "renewal of contracts where the contract is not changed and the term does not exceed one year."
In other words, this verbiage, undoubtedly placed in this bill by management companies, controlling boards, and organizations who look for ways to avoid ANY BIDDING possibilities, would have the ability to renew ANY MAJOR CONTRACT for a one year period at their whim, and thus, possibly PERMANENTLY AVOID ANY BIDDING AT ALL.
Is this something that concerns you? Should this bill pass?
If you have objection to the passage of such legislation, I would urge you to email your concerns to the following individuals at your earliest opportunity. These individuals sit on the Nevada Judicial Committee, and will be hearing this proposed bill.
Jason.Frierson@asm.state.nv.us
This legislation, if passed, in conjunction with a management technique known as "The Carver Method" that is currently being considered as an operating guide for the governance of our association, would essentially grant a free reign of authority to any management firm chosen by our board of directors.
This technique has been discussed in great detail on another of our community forums, www.anthemtoday.com. and I would suggest you take a few moments of your time to digest the full impact of this controversial management method.
Though we have no intention of discussing the merits of board candidates on this blog, we do know that two members of our board, Jean Capiluppo, and current president, Jim Long...who is running for reelection, HEAVILY FAVOR this option.
...and if you have the opportunity of meeting any of those who are currently seeking board election, my suggestion is to ask them IF they would vote in favor of the Carver Method, or if they would vote against it.
We're trying to refrain from political matters as much as possible, but in this instance, we find that these two issues should be of great concern to any homeowners association.
A very concerning article was posted this morning on the Anthem Today web site that mentions one of the legislators referred to in my initial article.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.anthemtoday.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=4468
I would URGE all of you to read this at your earliest opportunity.
The author makes the case for competitive bidding as if it is the perfect solution to supplying each and every need the SCA may have. It is next to impossible to write a perfect RFP. Therefore the quotes may not be equal. Price is not the answer. Value must be the criteria.
ReplyDeleteWe elect a board to carry out efforts in the best interest of the community. We should trust them to do the work. Competitive bidding is a tool to be considered when negotiating for services. It is NOT the only way to go and I think you are in error when you insist the process must be utilized in each contract renewal.
Excuse me, are you of the belief that legislation should allow a loophole to maintain a contract to remain in force without competitive bidding?
ReplyDeleteJust how do you know the best is what you already have, unless you allow others to compete for the job? Besides, competitive bidding is THE LAW, but in my opinion, the spirit of the law has been violated should this legislation pass in its current form.
We may "elect a board to carry out efforts in the best interests of the community", but I think the past track record indicates they may not have been the best of choices, and as a result of "politics", have led us down a path of potential no return if this legislation were to become law.
A committee was formed composed of people a board believed to be qualified, yet their work was discarded. That has made little sense to anyone.
I doubt others share your feelings, and I also believe your comments would have a greater meaning if you used your real name. It would clarify to our readers if you have any outside interests that might conflict with the good of the community.
If I am wrong, I hope people will come forth and speak their peace.