Martin County Fiscal Court now has an opportunity to correct a decision that should never have been made in the first place.
The county will rescind its $560,500 award to Howell’s Recycling & Sanitation and rebid eight flood-buyout demolition projects after learning it failed to complete required USDA procedures before advertising the work.
Starting over is necessary, but the procedural failure should not obscure the other troubling part of this story: The Fiscal Court voted Aug. 20 to spend $403,000 more in federal taxpayer money than the competing bidder proposed.
Howell’s bids for the eight demolition projects totaled $560,500.
West Brothers Contracting bid $157,500.
Both companies submitted the bid security required by the county’s bid packet. Neither was disqualified.
Yet three magistrates voted for the higher bidder.
The explanation offered on the record should concern every taxpayer.
District 1 Magistrate Cody Slone said Howell’s was local, had helped the county in the past and had sponsored free swimming days at the county pool.
Then came the statement that gets to the heart of the problem:
“It’s federal money. I mean, it’s not like it’s coming through the local money.”
Federal money is taxpayer money.
It does not become less valuable because it arrives in Martin County through Washington rather than through the county treasury. Those dollars come from people who work, pay taxes and expect government officials at every level to spend responsibly.
Supporting local businesses is a worthy goal. When bids are reasonably competitive and procurement rules permit local preference, keeping public dollars in the community can make good economic sense.
A $403,000 difference is something else entirely.
Past generosity to the county cannot be the basis for awarding a public contract. Sponsoring swimming days cannot justify hundreds of thousands of dollars in additional public spending.
Public contracts are not thank-you gifts.
County Attorney Melissa Phelps was right to question the enormous difference in the bids and ask that the reasoning be explained for the record. District 5 Magistrate Ronald Workman was right to vote no, saying, “I just can’t with that much difference.”
Judge/Executive Lon Lafferty also deserves credit for stopping the process once concerns arose and taking the matter directly to USDA officials.
The difference between the bids caused him to look more closely. That scrutiny exposed another problem: the county apparently had not completed required federal steps before it advertised the demolition work.
That is why questions matter.
The county says it relied on professional guidance from the consultant administering the project. If required demolition plans, environmental assessments or federal approvals were supposed to be completed before bidding, county officials need to determine precisely how that requirement was missed and make certain it does not happen again.
The next round must be beyond reproach.
When the bids return, officials should remember whose money they are spending.