I have received more hits on my "Tepper's" blog post than any another--this suggests that I am not the only one with questions about this boondoggle. For those of you whose comments remain unpublished (at your request), please feel free to email me at email@example.com if you would like to add more to this discussion.
'Curiouser and curiouser!' cried Alice (she was so much
surprised, that for the moment she quite forgot how to speak good
English);'now I'm opening out like the largest telescope that
For those of you who read Dan Damon's blog post on the Tepper's project--click here,
I am wondering if you have some of the same questions that were brought
to my mind. After reading over some documentation about this
federally-funded project (to the tune of $462,500.00), I have several
questions related to the bidding process for this project and to the
actual disbursement of these federal funds.
The first question, of course, is: how did the city spend $459,000 in federal discretionary funds to fit out a portion of this basement in just 3 weeks? Of
course, I am not an engineer, nor do I work in construction, but it
should be obvious to a duck that what has been done does not represent
$459,000 of work.
personal tour of the space showed an unfinished, junked-up mess in the
basement of the Tepper's building, with some sheet-rocked areas, a great
deal of discarded construction materials and furniture, rough,
unfinished office space enclosed behind glass doors, locked bathrooms (a
key was not provided to inspect the bathrooms) and a water fountain. If
there were plumbing, electrical, and other inspections, they would not
pass muster. The basement is simply not habitable--how could $459,000
result in an uninhabitable space?
bidding process, from what I have read, was as follows: Invitations for
proposals were solicited and duly advertised by a Westfield company,
Vincentsen Associates on Thursday, August 2, 2007, from bid specs dated Tuesday, July 31, 2007.
Proposals were received on Wednesday, August 15, 2007, and opened on that same day. One company, Solid Rock Construction, was shown as the ONLY bidder, called the "only responsive bidder" in the letter from the engineering firm to Jennifer Wenson-Maier, dated Thursday, August 16, 2007, wherein they recommended that the city accept this bid because of time constraints on the project. It
is inconceivable to me that no other construction company would want
the opportunity to get a close to half-million dollar contract, and
possibly extremely convenient that Solid Rock received it.
was also spoken of as the only responsible bidder--out of $462,000 in
available grant money, the ONLY bidder provides a proposal to spend
$459,000 of that money--this seems very odd to me. The resolution passed
on Wednesday, August 22, 2007, and Solid Rock received the contract. Construction was scheduled to begin on Monday, August 27 and to be completed by Monday, September 17--three weeks later.
The first request for payment ($73,473.77) was received on Wednesday, August 29 and signed by Wenson-Maier on Thursday, August 30.
In looking at the documents for this first payment, some of the
invoices predate the resolution by a few days--which means that before
the contract was even formally awarded, Solid Rock started spending
The second payment request ($85,522.36) dated Wednesday, September 5, 2007, was received by the city on Friday, September 7 and the check was disbursed in that amount on Monday, September 10, 2007. Some of this money went for contracted-out labor costs and materials with breakdown sheets, along with a 20%
markup for Solid Rock. A lot of cash was spent at Home Depot as
well--many receipts for items that we can only assume were spent on this
project and not others.
There is also an invoice dated Thursday, September 6 for $6,760.00 for a company called Fyre Technology, Inc. in South Plainfield,
for "Materials-for project City of Plainfield office space"--I am
assuming related to a fire sprinkler system--there is just a handwritten
notation: "Required for Offices piping and Related Materials Sprinkler
Heads, Hanger, Rod"--there is NO breakdown of what Solid Rock received for that sum.
The check was cut on the very next day, Friday, September 7. Solid Rock did mark up the cost by 20% ($1,352.00), so the city actually paid over $8,000.00 for whatever it was. To the $26, 220.55 in material and labor costs for another company, Vela Electric, Solid Rock added $5,244.11 MORE for its 20% markup payment, resulting in $31,464.66 for the electrical work. The markup in this instance exceeded even the materials cost.
The third payment to Solid Rock was requested a scant two days after the 2nd payment disbursement, on Wednesday, September 12, 2007. A check in the amount of $99,478.07 was issued on Friday, September 14.
Part of this payment went to Saturday and Sunday time-and-a-half,and
Labor Day holiday double-time for some of the sub-contractors and their
workers. There are a few checks made out to individuals for vague
services, and there is a $100.00 check made out to Wash-a-load
Laundromat for "sanitary accomadations" (sic) --I presume for letting
the workers use the bathroom?
Oddly, there is also a receipt from Staples dated Thursday, September 6 for a LaserJet printer at a cost of $549.98 (minus a rebate of $150.00). In addition, Solid Rock purchased a 3-year warranty on the printer at an additional cost of $109.99. Why would Solid Rock bill the city for a 3-year warranty on a 3-week project?
Why would they charge the city for a printer at all? This suggests that
Solid Rock wanted a printer for 3 years--how is this purchase justified
on a 3-week project? Why would the city pay it? Where is this printer? How many other vague invoices did the city not scrutinize? Who was reviewing these invoices?
Final (4th) Payment
The final payment ($139,268.14) was issued Thursday, September 20, 2007 on an invoice received by the city just the day before, Wednesday, September 19, 2007. This
includes payments to the subcontractors for HVAC, electrical, plumbing,
and nearly $15,000 in carpeting and installation (and a payment for
carpet cleaning). There is also an invoice dated Thursday, September 13, 2007 from Federated Fire Services, Inc. in South Plainfield in the amount of $11, 376.24 for "LABOR" for sprinkler repair and replacement of 42 sprinkler heads.
Now, if you look above, at the second payment, you will see that there was an invoice dated Thursday, September 6, 2007 from Fyre Technology for sprinkler heads.
So, if, less than a week later, the original sprinkler heads were found
to be defective or in some way not suitable, why did Solid Rock
Construction bill the city for the replacement and additional labor
involved? There is no explanation in the paperwork--each company
The city also wrote a check for W.B. Mason in the amount of $29,000 for office furniture for the basement from this federal grant fund. The check was dated September 21, 2007, but was not disbursed until after June 9, 2008.This
is unclear, as there is no paperwork of W.B. Mason's response to the
terms requested by Mr. Howard. The terms were that because of the water
filtration issues in the Tepper's basement, the city was asking W.B.
Mason to continue storing the furniture. Unless I missed something, I
could not find anything to show what happened to the federally-funded
furniture--unless W.B. Mason is still storing it, 5 years later.
Jacques Howard sent a final report to the U.S. Department of Housing and Development on Friday, September 21, 2007, stating
that the city had fulfilled the terms of the $462, 500.00 grant and was
prepared to invoice the government for the balance of funds for this
special project grant. Listed among the milestones was that the "...City buildings division completed rough inspections by 9.14.07"
and that the construction was "...complete a of week of 9.17.07. City
will review and accept performance of the contract by week of 9.24.07."
Yet, less than two weeks later, Mr. Howard, in a Tuesday, October 2, 2007 memo (discussing a meeting with the Tepper's developer about the water filtration issues
in the basement) sent to Wenson-Maier, Corporation Counsel Dan
Williamson, and Marc Dashield, he notes that the city had recently (less
than two weeks earlier) "...invested $462,000.00 of federal grant
funds...yielding 7500 square feet of improvements." He suggests that the
city should make the developer abate the water issues as well as hold
him responsible for damages to the city's "improvements."
There are several other points made in that memorandum. A more recent memorandum (from December 2012) notes that a Certificate
of Occupancy cannot be granted due to the need for additional sub-code
inspections--electrical, framing, and plumbing. Yet, the city stated back in 2007 that the rough inspections were completed by Friday, September 14, 2007. So,
were inspections done or not? What does the federal government think
was done on this project regarding the claims made by the
Robinson-Briggs administration about these expenditures?
bottom line, however, is that six years after this rushed (and in my
view, extremely overpriced and shoddy) project was supposedly completed
for over $460,000 dollars in federal grant funds, it remains
uninhabitable and, therefore, unusable.
the questions regarding the bidding, the awarding of the contract, the
vague invoices, the $29,000 worth of furniture, and all the city
disbursements need to be explained satisfactorily to the residents of
this city--and to the federal government. I will follow up on the
current status of this project and the expenditures.