BCC Decision on Awarding Bids

Surely this will not get swept under the carpet by our BCC:roll:

I brought that up two weeks ago as a highlight from the mtg. I'll note that the BCC has every right to go against staff recommendations. Sometimes, I feel that they should. However, in this case, the most important issue is that Walton County BCC gave the rules on the bidding process, then broke their own rules, with Scott Brannon pushing the motion to award the bid to the second lowest bidder. Carr got screwed big time, and the BCC should be ashamed of their unjustly actions. As this article states, there was not even discussion on the item, just a quick motion by Comm. Brannon and a quick vote, and a look to the Carr representatives when they protested, like, "screw you." I see that Carr's letter doesn't include the discussion which happened later in the meeting, long after they left.

Surely this will not get swept under the carpet by our BCC:roll:

Actually, they used a big@ss street sweeper on this one, and they buried it in the Wooley Swamp.

This is on the lines of an auction company promising a 100% absolute auction, and people do their homework, drive to the auction. Instead of the winning bid going to the high bidder, they change the rules during the auction, and it goes to the person who bid the second highest. The only difference is that the people doing this aren't some shyster auctioneers (not all are shysters), instead, they are people who are supposed to be leading our gov't, and they are supposed to uphold the laws and policies of the County.

...and WaltonGOP says that he doesn't see the Good Ole Boy Network in WalCo.

I think it is very unfortunate that they will not be suing the BCC because of the legal costs. Yes, I know those are our tax dollars, but they need a wake-up call. :angry:

The BCC is COMPLETELY in the wrong! That's not just some Scooterbug opinion, that's legal fact!

They're not just changing arbitrary Walton County rules that they made up, they're screwing with the national building industry standards and decades of precedents.

I wish like hell that they would sue the bunch of f---ing crooks and it would cost the county a million dollars. Then maybe they would through the rednecks out on their ass. I know I'm not the only one thinking this, am I?

nope. you are not alone in your thoughts. Interestingly, at the Meeting, when the Carr representatives were leaving the room, one of them mentioned the idea of filing suit against the County, and received much applause from the audience. Then, Comm. Meadows reminded the audience that lawsuits cost taxpayers money, and that got responses from the audience like, "Then do the right thing" and "You are costing us money by not giving the bid to the low bidder."

Commissioner Brannon, later in the meeting, insinuated that Carr Construction was not reliable, by stating that the reason they gave the bid to the other company was because they would do a good job. I was floored. I know neither company competing for the bid, but it seems to me that only bona fide construction companies should be allowed to bid.

One other comment made by County Fill-IN Attorney, Mike Burke, after the Carr reps left the room in protest, was something along the lines, "their behavior just now shows that the right people were awarded the job." Again, I was floored by such comments, especially when the County awarded the job to the second highest bidder, going against the published rules of the bidding process.

Odd how Brannon was the only one who didn't feel they were qualified. Not only did their requirements not disqualify them, the county staff recommended them.

Of course, he has a MUCH better handle on where his campaign contributions come from than the rest of us :angry:.

Odd how Brannon was the only one who didn't feel they were qualified. Not only did their requirements not disqualify them, the county staff recommended them.

Of course, he has a MUCH better handle on where his campaign contributions come from than the rest of us :angry:.

Well, political contributions are public record. Here's Comm. Brannon's.

Not only Brannon chose the second lowest bid, but all of the other County Commissioners voted in favor of awarding the bid to them, without discussion of any type.

Actually, they used a big@ss street sweeper on this one, and they buried it in the Wooley Swamp.

...and WaltonGOP says that he doesn't see the Good Ole Boy Network in WalCo.

And you have spoken to the commissioners to find out what happened here? I do not see the ties, but am willing to admit I am wrong if you can point to proof instead of supposition.

I wish like hell that they would sue the bunch of f---ing crooks and it would cost the county a million dollars. Then maybe they would through the rednecks out on their ass. I know I'm not the only one thinking this, am I?

Did you participate in the process that put these persons in office?

And you have spoken to the commissioners to find out what happened here? I do not see the ties, but am willing to admit I am wrong if you can point to proof instead of supposition.

As I said before, maybe you don't understand the meaning of Good Ole Boy System.....

As I said before, maybe you don't understand the meaning of Good Ole Boy System.....

Yea that must be it. A major conspiracy is afoot, and I just do not understand.

And you have spoken to the commissioners to find out what happened here? I do not see the ties, but am willing to admit I am wrong if you can point to proof instead of supposition.

I didn't have to speak to the Commissioners regarding this issue to know, because Comm Brannon stated the reasons for his choice at the BCC Mtg. He stated he gave the project to the other bidder because "they were local and because they would do a good job." Being in the Good Ole Boy network doesn't always mean that people are corrupt, but I guarantee you that many people donate to campaigns hoping that they get a little more pull when it comes time for the candidate to vote on a decision involving the person or business donating. IN NO WAY AM I SUGGESTING THAT THE COMPANY BEING GIVEN THE JOB BY THE BCC IS CORRUPT, nor do I see their business name on the list of Scott Brannon's contributors. I've tried my best to not even mention their name in my posts because I think this particular situation has more to do with the BCC breaking its own rules for awarding bids. I will further add that I am 100% in favor of awarding bids to reputable local companies, which would keep more money and tax revenues in WalCo, even if the price came in higher, but within, let's say 1-2% of the low bid. However, don't publish the rules regarding the bids stating that the low bidder will be awarded the job. I'm no lawyer, but I'd think it would be fairly easy to create language which mentioned that the job would be awarded looking at collective information of the bidders, including but not limited to, amount of bid, previous comparable experience, other project completion times (ahead of schedule or behind), quality of previous jobs of similar nature, Walton County based business, etc.

You see, sometimes the Good Ole Boy network just means "keeping it local." However, in this case, where the BCC changed the Bidding Rules without publishing them up front, it appears that the Good Ole Boy network is filled with secret halls and passages and ends up appearing as though it is much more than the Commissioners trying to keep it local. It smells fishy. If you are going to make the rules, play by the rules.

The company whose bid they rejected in favor of a "local company" is in Panama City. It's not like their motivation was keeping $ from going out of state or country :roll:. There is so much overlap between Okaloosa, Walton, and Bay I consider any business in that area "local".

Public projects must go to the lowest bidder, which is why there are so many rules/regs in place to keep the playing field fair. If they had concerns or special conditions, they can easily have made them part of the initial bid info and weeded out people/companies that way.

Why in the world would anyone want the "job" of County Commissioner in WalCo, which pays something like $37,500 per year? Comm. Brannon's reported net worth was well over a million dollars. Do you think he's doing it for the money? If they paid what other elected County officers receive in salaries, most are $100,000+, I could see someone wanting the job, but when you can make more cash by working as a bartender in a well established place down here, there has to be more to the reasons why millionaires would want the job.

Must be the "benefits"...

Did you participate in the process that put these persons in office?

I didn't pay off anyone if that's what you mean WaltonGOP.

I didn't pay off anyone if that's what you mean WaltonGOP.

So you believe that someone has to be paid off to get into office? I am just asking the questions here. I do not have an opinion at this time either way. I was at the first meeting when their was a question about the percentage of the contract that was being subbed. Ryan Douglas was recommending not to give it to the low bidder because they did not respond to a letter. The low bidder stated he did not know anything about the letter, the BCC tabled the matter because Ryan did not have a copy of the letter with him.

As for why someone would want any elected job, my reason would be to try to change some of these things that are constantly being brought up because I find them very aggravating and frustrating. And, for the life of me, do not understand how government can be so inefficient at what it has to do.

Why in the world would anyone want the "job" of County Commissioner in WalCo, which pays something like $37,500 per year? Comm. Brannon's reported net worth was well over a million dollars. Do you think he's doing it for the money? If they paid what other elected County officers receive in salaries, most are $100,000+, I could see someone wanting the job, but when you can make more cash by working as a bartender in a well established place down here, there has to be more to the reasons why millionaires would want the job.

For what it is worth, Scott has a true love for that park that they are building. Maybe he felt someone other than the low bidder got his vision of things. If I see him, I will ask.

...and I also have a true love for Morrison Springs, but that shouldn't stand in the way of conducting business by the rules which they create, rather than misleading the public. As I stated, this deal may be as clean as they come, but the County awarding the bid to the second lowest bidder makes many people rightfully question gov't and political connections. Again, Scott stated during the BCC mtg that the second lowest bidder was awarded the project because they were local and they were experienced in this type of project. In the article, the writer states that Carr had just completed a similar project, so if that is true, Scott's second part of the explanation is irrelevant. Scott's statement really sounded as though Carr had no experience, by not even addressing the low bidder.

For the record, I'm not sure that anyone who had a true love for Morrison Springs would build such a park as the one the County has planned. This particular project as I understand it, is only the first phase of many to come. Of course everyone has different opinions and mine may not be any more correct that Scott's.

Well, political contributions are public record. Here's Comm. Brannon's.

THis is interesting, I think I know half the people on the list...

It's not exactly a hardship for a Sowaller to know half the names on the list when anyone can see when folks, their spouse, their relatives, and their company w/ their last name give $ when listed alphabetically.

Start researching the parties in any listed corp or llc and the names pop up even more frequently. :roll:

Add Google into the mix and you'll also pick up all his election law violations, but not the many contributions of $99.99!

I want election laws so that EVERY donation, regardless of amount shows up! :angry: That's not just directed at him, I want full transparency at all levels.

Start researching the parties in any listed corp or llc and the names pop up even more frequently. :roll:

This will help you. Just type in the name of the LLC and click search.

...
I want election laws so that EVERY donation, regardless of amount shows up! :angry: That's not just directed at him, I want full transparency at all levels.

You mean like these? or these?

Post all the links you want, even I'm not naive, drunk, or stupid enough to believe that all the contributions are actually listed.

Those are just official campaign contributions, they don't cover those less than $100 non-campaign freebies, meals, drinks, and "meetings" that don't require disclosure because less than 1 commissioner was involved so Sunshine laws don't apply!

Add Google into the mix and you'll also pick up all his election law violations, but not the many contributions of $99.99!

I want election laws so that EVERY donation, regardless of amount shows up! :angry: That's not just directed at him, I want full transparency at all levels.

All contributions have to be reported. Including those for $99.99. The difference is those under $100 for election laws in effect at that time do not require employment information. This has since been revised to $50. Anything over has to by check. The maximum contribution for these elections is $500 per person or entity. Bundling does occur. Bundling is when someone who owns several corporations gives $500 from each. It was not unusual at fundraisers at the State level this last time for you to have to bring 10 $500 checks to attend.

Now all of this is based on my knowledge of election law. I may be wrong on some of this and have missed something that you know about. If so, please point me to the statute cause currently I am reporting everything.