January Deadline Looms as County Weighs Energy Saving Projects, Engineer

CREST HAVEN — There’s energy-saving work to be done on county buildings, but getting started must wait at least another two weeks.
“The process is brutal,” said Facilities and Services Director Robert “Budd” Springer as freeholders debated going forward on Concord Engineering’s work contained in an energy master plan.
Part of his angst: The process began in 2009 but progress seems to have hit a short circuit. Work must begin by January 2013 or the county stands to lose at least $86,000 paid to Voorhees-based Concord for its audit of 31 county buildings that covered everything from light bulbs to HVAC units.
Annemarie McMahon, Facilities and Services architectural assistant, who made the presentation to the board, noted Concord Engineering, at $86,000 was the lowest of five firms that submitted a proposal to perform work. Other proposals ranged from $124,000 to $319,000, she said.
The firm had previously done work for the county, and thus had a track record. If the work was shelved at this time, it could mean making detailed preparations for other firms, which would include arranging building escorts.
The preliminary figure presented by Concord was $404,500, McMahon said. That figure was “scaled down” and “not to exceed” $314,500. She noted that the county eliminated testing, balancing and overseeing the county portion of the work.
The audit of the 31 buildings included 92 line items, such as mechanical and lighting.
Some work has been performed in-house by the county, such as replacing thermostats, which Concord had included in its proposal.
The firm’s audit did not include county-run Technical School or Special Services School, McMahon said.
“The problem is, we approved this audit in September 2010, and had to start in one year, as proposed,” she added.
While some of the work performed may be eligible for state reimbursement, the county will likely pay for the bulk.
“So why are we still going forward with the project?” quizzed Vice Director M. Susan Sheppard.
Because the county sought an extension of the deadline until January, she was told.
There are five qualified engineering firms recognized by the state to oversee such work in order for a government agency to be reimbursed for work, McMahon said. Concord is one of those five. If the county does work on its own, and is not supervised by Concord, state reimbursement vanishes.
“It sounds scammy,” said Sheppard.
“We received $85,000 to do the audit,” said Springer. “If we don’t start replacement we will be in default of that $85,000. In addition, Smart Start money is out there, a lot more money out there, but it has to be done through a certified firm and there are only five in the state,” he added. “It’s in the local public finance notice.”
“That’s the way it is. It is allowed by law,” said Sheppard.
When the work is done, the county stands to save about $100,000 in energy costs annually, said McMahon.
“If we put this part of it in an RFP (request for proposal), can we get the same benefit from other firms?” asked Freeholder Director Gerald Thornton.
A somewhat perplexed McMahon replied that she had spent several weeks “getting all the documents ready for the audit for Concord. Proposals for the audit required the county to provide a lot of documents,” she added. Since the next lowest bidder was $40,000 higher, “it would be beneficial to have Concord. They are very familiar with our buildings,” she said.
“It is unbelievable. They (state) tell us to get RFPs, then the state places us in a position like this. It doesn’t make sense to me,” said Thornton.
“If we don’t move by January, we have to pay back $86,000, and we will not get $314,000 reimbursed,” said Springer.
Asked her thoughts on awarding the contract to Concord, county Purchasing Agent Kim Allen told the board it would have to be issued under the “Non fair and open” category, is a “sizable amount of money” and that she had not seen the specifications or timeline for completion. She acknowledged that Concord had previously done work for the county, and the firm was “familiar withour buildings.”
She agreed Concord is familiar with the needed work and placed “extensive effort” into the project thus far.
Allen also said she “hates to be locked into one vendor we have to work with…”
“What if they (Concord) exceed $314,000?” Allen asked.
“We can’t exceed that,” said Springer. He added that to move forward, a time line must be developed as well as a payment schedule. “I need an engineer to put that together. I can’t do that until I hire them,” he added.
He added that the state, through its Local Public Finance Notice, “is telling us to do it. They gave us $85,000 to do the audit. We have to hire one of five engineers. It’s going to cost us more money if we do an RFP on this part of the project.”
“If you go back and identify specific projects you want done, will Concord tell you specifically how much it will cost?” asked Thornton.
Thornton asked if an exception could be made to vote on “what projects are done in a time period.”
Regardless of the ticking clock on the project, Thornton told Springer the board would wait two weeks and vote April 24.