Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Contracts Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters question Camden County plan to award IDRC contract without RFP; lawyer says court did not direct award
Summary
At a Camden County Board of Commissioners meeting, residents and an attorney disputed claims about a court-ordered IDRC contract award and raised concerns that the county planned to bypass the usual RFP process amid pending litigation.
At a meeting of the Camden County Board of Commissioners, public commenters pressed the board about a planned contract award for the county’s IDRC program that they said would bypass the usual request-for-proposals process.
Dave Sherry of Glassboro told commissioners he had attended a prior call and was concerned the county would "bypass" the RFP process for the award and that "there's some very serious unresolved issues regarding the awardee." He asked whether the commissioners had considered comments submitted the previous day.
The presiding official said the board had discussed Sherry’s comments in a closed caucus and "we have a resolution to go ahead and award that contract, with the understanding that that is the wish of the court and also with the understanding that if there's any reason to discontinue it down the road, we, of course, would do that." Deputy Director McDonald then told the board there was "pending litigation in this matter, so I have advised the board not to comment."
Christopher Manley of the law firm Genova Burns, representing DUI Countermeasures Inc., addressed the board to correct statements about the court’s role. "That is not correct," Manley said, referring to an earlier comment that the court had expressed a wish the contract be awarded to ACS. "The court did, in its order, permit the county to adopt the resolution within 60 days, to award the contract to ACS, but the court did not direct the commissioners to pass a resolution and the court did not express any wish as to who would receive the contract." Manley said his firm had exchanged correspondence with Camden County Council about language in the proposed order.
The board moved on to consider its resolutions later in the meeting and voted on a block of resolutions 1–36 (see separate summary). The transcript does not identify which resolution number corresponds to the IDRC contract, and the board did not provide further public comment at the meeting because of pending litigation.
NEXT STEPS: The commissioners indicated they would vote on the resolution during the meeting; the transcript shows the board approved resolutions 1–36 en bloc and that resolution 37 did not pass for lack of motion.
