The following was submitted as a Letter to the Editor.

Have Superintendent Rigby and Asst Super. Flaherty manipulated the Process for the School Bus Outsourcing?  Did they really have an interest in looking at all options? 

Currently the Massachusetts Inspector General’s Office has been requested to investigate the bid process, both the Consulting Contract and the subsequent Transportation Bid Process that was conducted by the School Department. 

The School Committee is about to vote on a Contract with First Student Busing, that was based on an “Invitation to Bid” process issued by the School Department.  The Invitation is a set of documents drafted in detail that describe what the Town is requiring for the Outsourcing of our School Bus Transportation Fleet. 

The Invitation Document is critical – in essence it sets out all of the rules of the bidding process and more importantly, it presents the ultimate Contract language the successful bidder will have to comply with. 

This document is established to give all bidders a level and fair set of requirements.  No bidder is to achieve any advantage, such as bidding a lesser amount on a different/non-disclosed set of requirements, and winning the bid unfairly. 

Planning for Bus Outsourcing started as far back as July/August 2011. Mr. Flaherty decided he would need the assistance of an Outside Consultant to describe and draft the critical Bid Documents for the School Bus Transportation Outsourcing Contract. 

Mr. Flaherty, the Asst Super of Schools, and the Chief Procurement Officer for the School Department – by Law, is required to seek three “responsive and responsible” bids for any contract over $5,000.

With this in mind, Mr. Flaherty called three Companies/Individuals to invite them to Bid on the Consulting Contract:

1. Flahive Consulting was requested to bid on the Outsourcing Process only – their bid was $5,500
2. Transpar Consulting responded to his request, with a bid for (A) calculate the cost differential between keeping the service in house vs. Privatization and (B) Provide the description and preparation of the Outsourcing Bid Documents – their bid was $12,500

This contract would have offered some 3^rd party, independent information on the true cost difference between in House vs. Outsourcing.

1. Rich Jacobs – not sure what he was requested to bid on since he declined to bid due to a conflict of interest. He wanted to bid on the resulting, Bus Transportation Contract

With this information, Mr. Flaherty then requested funding approval from the School Committee for a – “transportation consultant”, scope of work is undefined, amount not to exceed $10,000.00.  

It would appear he requested funding that prevented us from receiving a 3^rd party, independent calculation,(Transpar), re: keeping the Bus service in House vs Outsourcing. 

Based on Mr. Flaherty’s actions, the only bidder left is Mr. Flahive.  Remember, the sole purpose of his contract is for the Outsourcing of the Bus Transportation Contract. 

The very same contract Rich Jacobs, consultant #3 above, wanted to bid on, so he gave up the opportunity to make some money helping Mr. Flaherty with the first consulting contract. 

Now Mr. Flaherty will offer that by Law, he is only required to – seek – three bids. In his mind it doesn’t matter that:

1. The bids are not offered for the same scope of work, and is it really 3 bids when one of the requested bidders declines to bid?
2. It appears he chose not to reach out to other Nationally recognized Bus Transportation Consultants with 20+ years of experience
3. Flahive Consulting – John Flahive – not sure what experience he has.  I have tried searching the Web for his credentials. I have found none. However, I have been made aware that Mr. Flahive was an Employee of First Student as late as April of 2009.  The same and only responsive Company to Bid on the Transportation Contract.
4. Is the outsourcing of the School Busing and the related changes to the lives of so many people, Employee’s as well as Town members, so trivial - that Mr. Flaherty would not go above and beyond the bare minimum requirements?  And I suggest he has not even met the bare minimum.

Please join me in demanding more effort from our School Department, before they dismantle our School Bus Transportation and Maintenance Facility. 

I request the School Committee Unanimously reject the First Student bid as not in the best interest of the Town.   

Further, I request the School Committee instruct Supt. Rigby to engage Consultants with the proper experience to document the true cost of keeping the Bus System in House vs. Outsourcing.  

Then, and only then, would the School Committee be in a position to move forward. 

Chris McKinney