So glad that I will soon be leaving this state.

Just when you thought the incomptence, ineptitude and carelessness couldn't get ANY worse over in Water World. It does.

Consultant wants 440 pct. hike in water commission contract

Now, admittedly, the Herald headline makes this look worse than it is - the guy bid $5,000 and now wants $27,000 so this ain't no $365,000 Jenner & Block pocketbook touch-up - but still.

Considering that a number of "commissioners" seemed to be SHOCKED! by the amount of money that J & B ended up charging, now they are SHOCKED! yet again?

Dumb and Dumber over there. Do these goofs even read what is put forth in proposals from "outside vendors"? What's with all the after-the-fact confusion about costs?

I might not agree with everything that the White Knight of Elmhurst is cookin' up for his Future Fiefdom but the one provision of this "specialized water commission law" that Dan Cronin pushed through that I heartily agree with: All current commissioners MUST QUIT by 12/31/2010.

It amazes me that most haven't quit already. Kinda makes you wonder, no?

Further, allow me to add that in over 22 years of bidding on time and material and fixed-bid types of contracted work, I have never been able to get one dime more than I originally proposed. If I am low? Too bad, so sad.

Sometimes, I am rewarded with EXTRA work, over and above the original request and this is always greatly appreciated [and is what I seek, to be honest] but it always comes about under cover of a new purchase order, for new work not in the original PO.

Not to say that professional services contracts don't sometimes need to be amended, if the vendor uncovers conditions not detailed in the original engagement agreement, but, normally there is a caveat that the vendor comes back for either pre-approval of additional monies, or to stop work at the agreed upon fee level, before incurring additional fees and expenses. What happened here?

darlili: What happened? Not a clue. This DPWC seems to operate in its own solar system of clownishness.

What is most stunning about the entire "operation" is just how un-businesslike it has been run. And, evidently, continues to be run.

Stunning, because this is DuPage County, fer cry-eye! One might expect this manner of self-serving silliness from some backroom Cook County "board" but DuPage?

Let's see:

• Sell water for LESS than you pay for it. Check.
  
• Give rebates to customers [member towns in 2007] without verification that you indeed DO HAVE THE MONEY to rebate. Check.
  
• Award a contract to THE most connected law firm in the Five County Area for $500 per hour and then express SHOCK! Shock, I tell you! That the total cost is close to $400K. Check.
  
• Force a COMMISSIONER to file FOIAs for something as mundane as office supply receipts. Check.
  
• Award a $5K contract [I guess?] and then when the outside vendor pleads for more money [440% more], become SHOCKED! Shocked I tell you! that the same Operation NuttBagg is happening again. Check.
  

I still say: There is much, much more dirt over there. If you read the $400K J & B "forensic report", there were a number of allusions to "scope", meaning that their "scope" was only to discover how MILLIONS of dollars in ostensible reserves disappeared.

It was a kinda sorta "cover our scope behind" strategy, I thought.

I'll be keeping one-eye cocked on this from my new domicle in Indianapolis.

Go get 'em, Kidz!

Bizarre. The vendor either performed unauthorized work (out of scope) or underestimated his fee. The former he's screwed unless the DWC needs the work product. Latter if he felt the job was bigger than he was lead to understand they should have stopped and re-negotiated. But it's the DWC- who knows if there was any oversight or what they told him to do workwise.

This? Incomprehensible to me.

quote:

"Based on my discussion with Mr. Peloquin, he is suggesting an additional $20,000 beyond the original $5,000 (contract) and also $2,000 for travel expenses," Zeilenga wrote.

So, Peloquin, the vendor is claiming $2,000 for travel expenses.

OK...but....

quote:

Water commission attorney Maureen Crowley said the commission is not required to pay any additional expenses to the agency and travel expenses were not part of the contract.

The legal DPWC mouthpiece clearly states that "travel expenses were not part of the contract.".

Look, I have been involved with at least 30-40 "personal services contracts" where travel was involved in the past 10 years. Travel expenses are ALWAYS a bugaboo in 3rd Party arrangements and anyone who is billing time and material or even a fixed-bid had BETTER KNOW AHEAD OF TIME JUST HOW TRAVEL EXPENSES WILL BE REIMBURSED.

I have been on many sides of this - split the costs, fully paid by customer and even, fully paid BY ME.

All of these situations impact the final proposal COST. Clearly, if I have to eat my own hotel, airfare and rental car, I AM GOING TO CHARGE MORE. Conversely, if the customer agrees to cover the travel costs, I can charge less.

Isn't this just so obvious?

To not have something so basic, so simple, so OBVIOUS, clearly delineated from Jump Street is just nutty.

Oh and in recent times, I have had to go so far as to ask for IMMEDIATE reimbursement for bonafide travel expenses so that the costs don't just slip into the "New Normal" Net 45 payment terms.

That's even worse than what I said above- they're arguing after the fact travel expenses? Don't they have a contract boiler plate with that stuff in it? Or at least have reviewed the guys proposal/contract?
Cripes. All sleep at the wheel I guess.

Unbusinesslike. "Making it up as they go along".

We've had any number of tip-offs that the DPWC is not exactly well run, haven't we?

I liked the quote by Jim Zay, a commissioner, after the news about the Jenner & Block costs hit the fan. I think it reveals quite a bit about how some of the commissioners think:

quote:

"I don't know why Jenner is charging us so much," Zay said. "We're a government agency."

Uh Jim? Which turnip truck did you fall off?

He might mean that gov contracts are usually not-to-exceed on fees. But then again, who knows how the DWC structures their contracts- obviously travel expenses aren't clear.

Ackerman - Minor news item but did you happen to read that Schilly's own county board is giving him some pushback on some other wacky "board" appointments? Some other do-little airport board?

The story is here but what I find kind of funny is that one of the guys Schilly is trying to appoint - William Maio - is also a Water Commisar.

quote:

The stalled appointments of Bill Maio and Terry Ekl come after some county board members threatened to reject the choices to replace longtime airport board members Gerry Gorski and Tom Maher.

Woah, county board members growing a lame-duck pair, eh?

Looks like these current water commissioners are persona non grata around town....

quote:

Some board members objected to the appointments because Maio is currently serving on the financially troubled DuPage Water Commission and Ekl once represented a waste hauler who wanted to build a waste transfer station near the airport property.

Maybe Schilly should ring up Dan Cronin and ask him for some help.

I agree.
Those guys are the dim bulbs of DuPage old school politics.

All probably friends of Lombard's Mayor Mueller also.

lol...I look forward to next week's scum bag nominee...