Wednesday, April 29, 2009

PLCB contract "legal," but showed "poor judgment"

Remember that training contract that the PLCB issued, to the company owned by the husband of the agency's Western Regional Director? The contract people said was to teach LCB clerks "manners?" (I didn't say that, by the way; I used the word the PLCB did: it was to teach them "courtesy." You see the major difference?) The state Auditor General has completed his audit, and found that while the contract "was awarded according to the letter of the law, there are several incidents that occurred that raise serious concerns and put the PLCB's procurement procedures in question."

More here. When will it end?


sam k said...

I appreciate the AG looking into it, and he danced around the salient points as deftly as he could, considering he's looking into another state agency, but the LCB's lack of remorse is totally predictable.

Wagner's most notable point was the disparity between the three bids. That should set off an alarm with anybody. Except the PLCB.

Lew Bryson said...

Thank you, Sam: I brought that disparity up early, I think the day after the story broke. The Solutions 21 bid really looks like a low-baller...and how did they know? And a range from $173K to $1.2 mill? Something seriously wrong/deficient with how that proposal was written!