All-Star Waste Services’ winning bid questioned by citizens

Posted July 9, 2009 at 5:14 pm and filed under City. Updated July 17, 2009 at 1:54 pm.

By Paul Tambasco
News Editor

Town Council members deny that friendships with the family of the winning trash bidder influenced last week’s decision to forego the town staff’s recommendation, which would have saved Garner $360,000.

Timeline

What a waste? The Town Council has selected a local company as its new trash vendor, raising questions about the use of town money.

On Wednesday Council members acknowledged that several of them are friends with the family of Tommy Sims, president of All-Star Waste Services, the Benson-based company that was awarded the town’s $4.6 million trash contract last week. Town staff had recommended the lowest bidder, Shaw Sanitation Services.

Council member Gra Singleton has lived on the same street as Sims’ parents for more than a decade. Singleton knows the family well but insists the relationship did not influence his vote.

“I didn’t even know that All-Star had bid on the stuff until the day the bids were opened. …To be honest with you, I didn’t know the name of what Tommy’s company was,” he said.

In a small town, personal connections are inevitable, Singleton said.

“When you live here practically your whole life, you know a lot of folks, whether it’s through church or civic groups or working at a hardware store,” he said. “Is it good? I don’t know, but that’s just the way it is.”

Last week Sims acknowledged that the connection between his family and the Council would have been difficult for elected officials to ignore.

“I don’t think it hurt,” said Sims. “I know a lot of people that work for the town. …I know a lot of the Council members … just from living here,” Sims said. “Obviously, it was weighed because anybody can go in and rubber-stamp a low bid. But I think the staff and the Council dug deeper and looked at all the factors.”

Disclosing connections

Though it was not discussed at a public meeting, other Council members were aware of the connection before voting, Singleton said.

Other bidders, however, did not learn of the connection until after the vote Monday, June 29. Representatives from Shaw, which was the lowest bidder by $360,000, were surprised by the news.

They have since filed a protest requesting that the town reverse its decision and contract with them. At Tuesday night’s board meeting, Shaw’s attorney argued that Garner’s elected officials unfairly awarded the three-year, $4.6 million contract based on factors other than cost or merit. The town rejected their request for an appeal.

Bidders should have realized that a local company would have local connections, Singleton said.

“I would assume that since we’re all involved here and live here that [they would realize] we may know some of the bidders just like we may know some of the people who have business that comes before [the Council],” Singleton said.

State conflict-of-interest laws require elected officials to disclose a financial interest in a bidder; disclosures of other types of relationships are not required, according to local government experts. In cases where officials stand to benefit monetarily, they are supposed to remove themselves from the vote.

None of the Council members has a financial stake in any of the bidders for the trash contract, Singleton said. In the past, Singleton had excused himself from a rezoning matter involving his employer at the time, he said.

Because the connections with the Simses did not violate conflict-of-interest laws, he did not believe they needed to be disclosed to the public or to other bidders prior to the vote, he said.

“The bids were open, and it’s all public information, and I’m not going to benefit from this in any kind of financial or fiduciary manner,” Singleton said. “It’s not like I’m here returning a favor. I just don’t do that. Never have, never will.”

Doubts about Shaw

Despite the missed savings, Council members say they went with All-Star because they believe the company will deliver the best service to Garner. The town’s current contractor, Republic Services Inc., had received too many service complaints – particularly during leaf season – since taking over the contract in 2003, Singleton said.

When the bidding began this spring, quality customer service was a top priority, Singleton said.

Initially, Shaw was the leading candidate, based on price.

Singleton said that changed after WRAL aired a story in May about a customer complaint.

In the segment, the customer showed videotape of Shaw employees dumping recyclables in the same truck with trash. A company employee who was interviewed on camera said Shaw comingles the two on routes where recycling participation is low, separates them by hand and then heads to the landfill. The company’s president later issued a statement saying it was not the company’s policy to mix recycling with trash.

Before recommending Shaw to the board at the June 29 meeting, however, staff said the company had adequately explained the situation and implemented measures to prevent it from happening again. The complainant remains a customer of the company, says Shaw’s attorney.  Shaw has given him a 15-month credit for recycling and a three-month credit for trash service.

Read Shaw Sanitation’s response to the WRAL report

“I think that speaks volumes about Shaw’s ability to satisfy its customers,” said Attorney Brian Edlin of Jordan Price Wall Gray Jones & Carlton on Tuesday.

But Singleton says the report shook the Council’s confidence. “It just created a doubt. When in doubt, do without,” he said. And after Shaw, the next lowest bid was All-Star.

Shaw representatives disagree that they were the riskier proposition.

“It’s a much bigger risk to go with a company with only eight employees,” said Craig Jackson, Shaw Sanitation’s vice president and chief financial officer. Shaw currently has 40 employees.

Jackson says the company is consulting with its attorney about its next step if the contract is executed with All-Star.

“We’re not going away,” he said.

Answering questions

Since the 4-1 vote, the decision to go with All-Star has been scrutinized by some local citizens and former elected officials.

Dan Emory, a Garner resident since 1951, appeared at Tuesday night’s meeting, demanding an explanation from the Council.

“You’re talking about over 300,000 [dollars] over a three-year period – the financial situation for the state, the county, the city, everybody. It’s irresponsible to reject the low bidder unless there was a valid reason, and I don’t know what the valid reason is, if there is one,” Emory said.

Sims’ parents were also long-time neighbors of Council member Buck Kennedy. Going forward, Kennedy is prepared to answer questions from the public – including ones about his ties to the family of the winning bidder.

“Did I know that people would know that I knew them? Yes. Did my friendship with them get them the job? The answer is no,” Kennedy said. “I knew I would have to answer questions. It doesn’t bother me.”

Kennedy also agrees with Singleton that disclosing the relationships to bidders was unnecessary.

“That was not part of the equation. If they had asked me, I’d had told them.”

Contract to be considered July 21

Shaw will have a last chance to persuade the Council at its next meeting Tuesday, July 21.Town Manager Hardin Watkins will present the contract with All-Star at the Town Council meeting. The board could reverse its decision, though it appears unlikely; neither Kennedy nor Singleton expects a change of heart.

“There was nothing really presented [at the Tuesday, July 7 meeting] that really shed any new light on the subject,” Kennedy said.

In the meantime, Emory is skeptical about whether the next meeting will answer his questions. He believes the community is owed a public explanation.

“I’ll be back,” he said. “I’m assuming they’ll say something, but they won’t explain what they did.”

Related articles:

Print This Print This
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. You can leave a response by filling out the following comment form, or trackback to this entry from your site

3 Responses for “All-Star Waste Services’ winning bid questioned by citizens”

  1. George A. says:
    July 10, 2009 at 5:45 am

    I think council needs to quantify, to the citizens of Garner, in concrete tangible terms, the value the extra $360,000 will bring. All I’ve read so far is a single customer complaint that got WRAL news coverage, against the low-bidder..
    There is obviously a loss of value to the citizens, in that the $360,000 could have been used somwhere else. This needs to be demonstrated to have higher alternative value, if it was, in fact, a fiscally responsible decision.
    Council should be able to justify their actions, and decisions, to their constituents, when requested to do so.

    Note: George A. is a regular columnist for The Garner Citizen.

  2. Jess C. says:
    July 10, 2009 at 2:23 pm

    Going from 2000 data, there were just shy of 7,000 households in Garner. We’ll use that and guess there are somewhere around 12,000 solid waste collection addresses. That means All Star bid somewhere around $8 per customer, per year, to win the contract. Some pickup stations will obviously have more to deal with than my home’s small weekly refuse, but averaging somewhere in the vicinity of an additional $0.65 per customer per month doesn’t really seem that big.

    I can see where the board is coming from when they were able to justify the higher bid, but in these financial times, the lesson being learned everywhere is to spend our money wisely. I can’t help but to think we’re losing out on better uses of funds by buying warm fuzzies from a waste removal subcontractor.

  3. Fred says:
    July 22, 2009 at 5:09 pm

    I was at the meeting on July 21st where the Council voted the second time to award the contract to All Star. I listened and listened and waited and waited to hear one valid reason why All Star was awarded the contract over Shaw. I heard nothing that even approached a valid reason….I smell something very stinky and and it’s not garbage.

Leave a Reply

We believe that reader interaction is a valuable feature on our website and aim to foster an online community that is enriching, robust and respectful. We reserve the right to remove any comment that contains profanity or obscenity; is an advertisement for services or a solicitation of funds; contains a personal attack or a threat; or is unrelated to the story.