Contractors and their attorneys say city's Sinclair demolition bidding is a mess; one says Fox's Bill O'Reilly might be on the way

Eight contractors - four with attorneys - made their case to the City Council's new Procurement Committee on Friday afternoon for why they should get the city's multimillion-dollar contract to demolish the flood- and fire-damaged former Sinclair meatpacking plant.

Seven of the eight called the city's bid process and/or the City Hall analysis of the bids flawed. A representative from an eighth company – D.W. Zinser Co. of Walford, the only local contractor among a total of 11 firms that bid on the project – spoke only to dispute an allegation made against it by another of the firms.

Those contesting the city bidding process said it was done too hastily, identified the blemishes of some companies and not others and may have tilted the contract to a local bidder while fleecing the federal government out of millions of dollars for the benefit of the local landfill.

City officials did not speak at Friday's public hearing, though city officials have explained previously that the bidding process for the Sinclair demolition is an emergency one, which was approved by local, state and federal officials after a December fire at the abandoned plant created an imminent threat to the public.

Greg Eyerly, the city's flood-recovery director, said this week that city has responsibility forever for what happens to the asbestos-containing and any other hazardous debris that will come from the Sinclair demolition site, and for that reason, he said the city, with the approval of state and federal officials, opted to require that the material be buried in the local “Mount Trashmore” landfill across the Cedar River from the Sinclair site.

Among the most colorful comments at the City Hall hearing on Friday came from two Cedar Rapids attorneys representing the two lowest bidders - both Minnesota companies that are the low bidders because they, according to the city staff, did not follow the specifications laid out in the bid.

Michael McDonough, who is representing Veit Specialty Contracting, Rogers, Minn., called the bid requirement that the local landfill be used a “money grab” that easily could become “Bill O'Reilly fodder for how to rip off the taxpayers.” Veit planned to take the debris to a cheaper, private Minnesota landfill.

Tim White, who is representing Rachel Contracting, St. Michael, Minn., argued that the Mount Trashmore landfill is not outfitted with a liner to prevent hazardous materials in the Sinclair demolition debris from leaching into the Cedar River. White made reference to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, though it is the DNR that agreed to reopen the Mount Trashmore landfill under an emergency order to allow flood debris, including that containing asbestos, to be dumped there. Rachel proposed taking the debris to an Illinois landfill.

In addition, White accused the city of ignoring past violations against the Zinser company and not those against some of the other bidders in a way that seemed to be steering the contract to the local company. “It doesn't pass the smell test,” White said.

It came to all this on Friday when the City Council on Wednesday evening postponed making a decision on the demolition contract after one firm sued the city.

A City Hall bid review team, though, appears to have been prepared on Wednesday evening to recommend to the City Council that the Zinser Co be awarded the demolition contract even though Zinser's bid was sixth lowest among the 11 firms.

Zinser's bid came in at $9.827 million compared to low bidder Rachel Contracting at $5.56 million and second-lowest bidder Veit, at $7.86 million.

The city's review team found the five firms with the lowest bids either incorrectly submitted the bid or, perhaps, did not qualify as a “responsible” bidder.

Most of the contractors and attorneys who spoke on Friday noted that most any demolition contractor of any size and age will have been in the middle of some litigation.

Among those making the point was Joseph Morland, an Iowa City attorney representing the third lowest bidder, Dore & Associates, Bay City, Mich. The city review team raised questions about two prior Dore contracts, but Morland accused the city review team of identifying some instances of litigation among contractors and not others and of not giving bidders a chance to respond to the information. He said he quickly did an Internet search and found questions that had been raised about a Zinser contract in Muscatine. Dore's bid was $9.664 million.

The fourth lowest bid, from Ahrens, St. Louis, Mo., was flagged by the city review team because of a problem with a Cedar Rapids area subcontractor that Ahrens intended to hire. Ahrens' attorney, Kevin Caster of Cedar Rapids, noted that the city bid documents require city approval of any subcontractor after the award of a contract, and so he said any problem subcontractor would have been removed then. Ahrens' bid $9.68 million.

Friday's public hearing was, in and of itself, news in that prior Cedar Rapids city councils have not used standing committees meeting in public session.

Council member Chuck Swore, chairman of the Procurement Committee, said the three-member committee would make a recommendation about the Sinclair bid on Wednesday to the full City Council.