To the Editor:

Your recent editorial, "Moment of Truth" (Jan. 28), regarding the City of Live Oak's public works contract with CH2M HILL cites "supposed concern for workers' rights" as the only rationale for the city not to open the contract to public bidding. While the welfare of our local employees and their future vesting is a very real and significant concern for both the company and the city, it is far from the only one.

Any bid process incurs costs - for advertising, staff time to review the bids, etc. Furthermore, unlike commodities or capital projects, it can be difficult to discern differences in professional services bids, to compare apples to apples. Moreover, if the city ultimately does change service providers, there are costs associated with any transition.

Finally, and perhaps most important, CH2M HILL has a proven track record of success in Live Oak since 1997, starting with management of the city's water and wastewater facilities then expanding eight years later to public works services that include solid waste collection and disposal; city vehicle repair; and maintenance of streets, the cemetery, and public spaces and grounds. This ongoing relationship earned the National Council for Public Private Partnerships' Partnership Award in the service category in 2005.

City officials have acknowledged that there are no performance issues. Operating and contract costs are equal to or less than cities of similar size and in neighboring jurisdictions. CH2M HILL is confident our combination of experience, expertise and pricing compares favorably to any other vendor in the market.

There are certainly valid reasons for going through a competitive bid process. However, there also are times when such a process simply results in an unnecessary cost to taxpayers and an unnecessary risk to employee morale.

Sincerely,

Brent W. Stauffer

CH2MHILL OMI



The Democrat responds

Note first, Mr. Stauffer, that our comments were directed at the Live Oak City Council, not OMI. OMI is a private company whose aim, presumably, is to generate revenue and maximize profit. The city council, on the other hand, has different obligations.

As to the need for competitive bidding, your comment on comparing "apples to apples" sums it up nicely. Observing that OMI's fees are "equal to or less than cities of similar size and in neighboring jurisdictions" hardly proves we mightn't get a better deal elsewhere. Surely there are unique challenges to every municipality, some of which are "apples," others, "oranges."

As for OMI's "proven track record of success," that is a factor to be considered when weighing competing offers -- not an argument against competitive bidding to begin with.