Bus Company Owner Alleging ‘Fraud, Favoritism’ In Awarding All-Star Bid

By John Voket

Thomas Adams, a principal in Newtown’s MTM Transportation, Inc, and an unsuccessful contender for the same school bus contract that was awarded to All-Star Transportation, is challenging the June 23 bid process through his attorney, William C. Franklin. In a memo prepared by Mr Franklin and delivered to the Newtown Board of Education offices and all seven board members March 2, Mr Adams claims that “fraud, corruption and favoritism marred the bidding process.”

Citing a state Supreme Court ruling in the 1983 case of Spinello Construction Company v Town of Manchester that permits a bidder to challenge the outcome under certain circumstances, Mr Adams is demanding the local school board rescind the contract it approved with All-Star; that the board disregard that bid as “tainted”; and that the board accept the bid tendered by a consortium of local owner-operators.

The memo states Mr Adams will pursue formal legal action against the board if the All-Star contract is not invalidated.

“We don’t want to sue the town,” Mr Adams told The Bee. “But I don’t know how the board can ignore the facts as they are stated in the memo.”

Carey Schierloh, a spokesperson for the owner-operators, said she could not comment at length on this latest development due to an ongoing labor dispute involving her colleagues and her. But she was able to say that “all the owner-operators agreed there appeared to be irregularities in the awarding of that bid to All-Star.”

Mr Adams’ action is the latest controversy involving the All-Star contract, that also included a complaint to the State Department of Labor. The owner-operators were scheduled to be present at an ongoing labor board hearing on that matter Wednesday, March 7 (see separate story).

The memo from Mr Adams details the litany of actions that he believes resulted in the All-Star bid being awarded in error. The memo states that instructions to bidders for that five-year transportation contract included an advisory that the bidder is responsible for ensuring all requested information is supplied with the initial bid.

“The school district reserves the right to reject any late submissions, and is not responsible for notifying the bidder of any missing elements in the bid,” the Newtown document states.

‘No Alterations’

The original bid specifications additionally state that “No alterations, erasure, or addition is to be made in the typewritten or printed matter. Any deviations from the conditions and specifications may constitute sufficient grounds for rejection of the bid.” The specifications also state that all bidder signatures must be written, not faxed, printed or typewritten.

The memo states that the original June 23 bid solicitation called for 37 buses, for a school year of 183 days, and a five-year term. But a modified addendum was issued June 17 reducing the fleet requirement to 32 buses. According to the memo, five bidders adhered to the addendum and tendered sealed bids that were predicated on 32 buses, while the All-Star bid was predicated on the original specification of 37 buses.

The memo goes on to state that once the sealed bids were opened, school district Business Manager Ron Bienkowski “unilaterally altered the bid of All-Star Transportation.”

“In this regard, Mr Bienkowski assumed that All-Star Transportation, LLC had made a mistake in submitting a bid predicated on 37 buses; assumed he had the authority to alter that bid; assumed he had the authority to lower the bid on a prorated basis to reflect a bid for 32 buses rather than the 37 buses; and, assumed he had the authority to resubmit that bid on behalf of All-Star Transportation, LLC,” the memo continues.

The memo points out that after reducing the All-Star bid from $11,723,908 to $10,207,896, Mr Bienkowski did not obtain a dated signature from any principal at All-Star.

“Nevertheless, the altered bid in the amount of $10,207,896 was considered by the school district, again without the authority to do so, as a valid, timely bid submitted by All-Star Transportation, LLC notwithstanding the fact that such a bid was not created by All-Star Transportation, LLC, not submitted by All-Star Transportation, LLC, and was submitted after the 2 pm deadline on June 23, 2011, for submission of all sealed bids,” the memo states.

Reason To Rescind

The memo goes on to state, “Given the collusion and favoritism in favor of All-Star Transportation, LLC that characterized its bid, and the subsequent awarding of this contract pursuant to such bid, it is clear that this contract does violate the public policy of the State as codified by our Supreme Court…and, accordingly, can be rescinded on that basis.”

Board of Education Chair Debbie Leidlein told The Bee that no discussion of this latest development would be entertained during the regular board meeting scheduled March 6, and that she could not speak to the memo until she consulted with legal counsel for the district.

After the sealed bids were opened in June 2011, Mr Bienkowski told The Bee that there was “nothing unusual or improper about the adjustments.”

At that time the district business manager said “the bid wasn’t reduced,” and that the “actual number was different,” because the original bid was calculated from a worksheet that did not factor the June 17 addendum that reduced the number of vehicles required to fulfill the bid specifications.

Mr Bienkowski said when he calculated the “unit prices” reflected on the All-Star bid, he noted that a net reduction of five vehicles constituted the change in the bottom line, which went from $11,724,051 to $10,207,896.

A message requesting comment from Superintendent Janet Robinson was not immediately returned.