Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Staff Contacts | Affiliates | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Local firm wins Esky city bid for roofing project

March 21, 2014

ESCANABA — After hearing concerns from a local business which bid to re-roof Escanaba’s police building, the Escanaba City Council approved the proposal which was initially $203 more in price but......

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(17)

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:38 PM

Maybe everything is on the “up-and-up”

regarding what’s going on here; could be shady, shoddy reporting too.

Everyone is in the church choir, and the priest, minister, rabbi and imam, can vouch-safe these men and their endeavor.

But, this is just the thing that gave birth to lawyering, and their fees . . .

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:36 PM

Accordingly, if what mr. neumeier said is true, and there were no bid specifications

- None were ever put in writing,

- None were ever circulated,

- then there is something totally wrong with

- the city administration,

- the city council

- for having ever awarded the project to anyone !

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:36 PM

And, if what mr. neumeier says is true:

“Also this article is missing a lot of detailed information which was talked about before and during the meeting. The missing information would sure help in painting the full picture for everyone.”

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:36 PM

SURELY, THEN, THE PRESS IS TO BLAME

for not attending the “meeting’ to report what actually took place.

The daily press, for too long, has never actually sent a “reporter” to many public meetings to record what has taken place and put in their paper as a matter of public record.

Instead, the daily press has been known to take the “quick and easy” route, call the public entity for their “NEWS RELEASE” and the daily press, writes an article based on the “news release”,

which is another way of saying the “news is managed” by someone with a vested interest to preserve their point of view!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:34 PM

Mr. neumeier is an intelligent person,

so are the people at Markell, they do good work as well,

then why would any business man get caught up in such a deal ?

It isn’t worth the time and effort to write up and put together a project proposal, if the project owner has no written specifications under which the work would be done, will get paid for,

and

what other people will propose to accomplish and price for the same project.

It’s ridiculous, on the part of the city, the city council, and the bidders!

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:32 PM

If there were no written project specifications, it remains for the city administration AND city council to explain to the public what they were trying to accomplish, outside of their awarding of taxpayers’ money without following due process and the bid process ?

Sounds like a set-up, from the start, through the process and cut, dried, and finished… just saying, that’s what comes to mind. . .

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:31 PM

All this, without ever advertising for bids based on a

- project description,

- work to be done,

- materials description, - method of construction description,

- performance bond

- warranty covering the expected life of the roof.

How could the city succumb to such a sloppy undertaking?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:29 PM

Is this the same degree of consideration, expertise,

and problem solving that went into the wayward, city income-producing goose,

OUR power plant?

As someone else mentioned,

why didn’t the city consider converting the plant to a multi-fuel operation, incorporating natural gas, bio-fuel and garbage;

and hand-over the plant to an electrical authority, whose job it would have be to be a full-time, hands-on plant operator?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-24-14 2:27 PM

Just thinking,

didn’t the city have another roofing problem over their heads,

and got-in over-their-heads,

on their current domicile, “once upon a time., long ago”

Maybe there’s nothing wrong, shady or shoddy going on here, but

if is smell’s like cr.ap, tastes like cr.ap,

then the ingredient’s must be made from,

but, what-else, cr.ap.

Just saying . . .

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neumeier

Mar-23-14 7:48 PM

Also this article is missing a lot of detailed information which was talked about before and during the meeting. The missing information would sure help in painting the full picture for everyone.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

neumeier

Mar-23-14 7:37 PM

Frog legs, first independent roofing wasn't the only other bidder, there was two other ones. Ind, lake states and bell roofing, who all bid the same thing, as we were asked to at the walk over. True there was no written spec, but at the walk over we talked with the city to decide what they wanted. The only bidder who didn't submit a base bid like that was Markell. They had a add for everything, new ballast, new metal. A deduct to use a city truck, a deduct for no bond. So are speaking on their price was simple math of adding their bid, which is public information. As for the old ballast, for warranty reasons it could not be reused for roofing, but the city has a use for it, as they stated in the walk thru, when we were told to bid with new ballast.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-23-14 12:07 AM

Judging from the purported accuracy of the article as reported by the daily press,

and after reading and re-reading this article,

here’s the way the press should have headlined this piece:

LOCAL FIRM

- Independent Roofing

- SKUNKS out-of-city FIRM

- MARKELL - for roofing project .

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-23-14 12:06 AM

Any lamebrane should easily seen the specifications were changed and considered

AFTER-THE-BIDS were received.

The city changed the specifications and did not call for each bidder to bid on the

SAME EXACT SPECIFICATIONS

This whole bid process reaks of stinks!

2 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-23-14 12:05 AM

There is

NO REASON Paul Neumeier,

should have been speaking to city representatives

on the behalf of the MARKELL company.

Since when,

does the city and city council allow

a biased person to speak on behalf of a competing bidder?

Why wasn’t MARKELL ALLOWED TO MAKE similar ASSUMPTIONS regarding Paul Neumeier’s bid?

Perhap's the city didn't have the where-with-all, (backbone) to insist on a new bid process.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-23-14 12:02 AM

OLD BALLAST ?

NEW BALLAST ?

ROOF DRAINS ?

NO ROOF DRAINS ?

OLD FACIA ?

NEW FACIA?

CLEARLY, THE TWO COMPANIES WERE NOT BIDDING ON THE SAME THING

One company was bidding on Marbles while the other was bidding on Water-Melons.

The city council should have recognized this slight discrepancy and called for the project to be re-bid on oranges only!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-23-14 12:00 AM

If the city clearly stated in its project specifications, and bidders did not bid according to the specifications,

then it is clear that the bidders did not understand the project and by bidding on alternatives,

CITY ADMINISTRATION AND THE CITY COUNCIL

IS WRONG FOR NOT CALLING for

THE PROJECT TO BE RE-BID.

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

frogleggs

Mar-22-14 11:58 PM

If the old ballast was good enough the first time around, why couldn’t it be REUSED and save taxpayer’s from paying for NEW STONE, unless the original ballast wasn’t good to begin with, in which case the city should have sued the original roofer.

The whole process stinks,

AND

out of fairness

should be re-bid.

But if the article by the press is to be trusted and there’s a rebuttal refuting the facts as the press has written,

The press needs to correct a distorted article

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 17 of 17 comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web