Public speakers challenge Camden County award of 12-hour IDRC contract; commissioners go into closed session

At a meeting of the Camden County Board of Commissioners, two public commenters raised allegations about the county's planned award of a 12-hour Intoxicated Driver Resource Center (IDRC) contract and urged the board to review procurement records before acting.

Dave Cherby, who identified himself as a former county contractor and the husband of the owner of DUI Countermeasures of New Jersey, told commissioners that his wife's firm was the sole legal bidder on the county's 12-hour IDRC request for proposals but that the county had awarded the contract to Advanced Counseling Services.

"DUI Countermeasures is the only legal bidder on the contract," Cherby said, and added that "Advanced Counseling Services did not submit a bid." He also alleged an ongoing investigation into an Advanced Counseling Services staff member and said documentation alleging approximately $60,000 in diverted college revenue had been provided to Camden County College counsel.

Christina Bell, owner of DUI Countermeasures of New Jersey, spoke immediately after Cherby. Bell said she has administered IDRC services for 16 years and that she and her company were the only respondent to the county's 12-hour RFP. She said she followed up with county purchasing and was told the matter was under review, but that she was "genuinely surprised and deeply concerned" when the award was announced.

"I am asking you sincerely and respectfully to contact the college or the college's attorney to confirm the accuracy of what I'm stating before taking any action on this contract," Bell said, asking the board to rely on the county's RFP criteria and consistent procurement practice.

Bell told the board that, contrary to public filings alleging multiple principals of DUI Countermeasures were under investigation, she had been told by college counsel on Jan. 12, 2026, that neither she nor her current employees were the subject of an investigation.

Commissioners acknowledged the comments but said the board would take the concerns under advisement. The board then read and adopted a closed session resolution citing the Open Public Meetings Act and entered closed session to discuss personnel and related matters. The board later returned to public session and stated "there's no further action to be taken today by the board of commissioners."

The meeting record provided public comment on the IDRC procurement and a request that the county confirm the facts with the college and adhere strictly to established procurement procedures; the board took the matter into closed session rather than deciding on the resolution in public.