PRINCETON: State rejects PRSD bus bidder’s appeal

By Greg Forester, Staff Writer
   The Princeton Regional School District’s rejection of a bid from its longtime bus contractor, Conover Transportation, “was appropriate” because the bid failed to conform to required specifications, a state review has determined.
   Kenneth Conover was acknowledged in a May 2, 2008 school district letter to have been “the lowest responsible bidder” for the contract but his bid was rejected because his pricing was presented on a per-year basis rather than the per-day basis called for in the bid specifications. The contract, held by Mr. Conover’s family for decades was awarded to another company, Rick Bus Co., of Trenton.
   In a Dec. 26 letter, the state eEducation dDepartment’s director of fiscal accountability and compliance, rejected a complaint filed by Mr. Conover last August, in which he maintained that the school district should have exercised its discretion to seek clarification on his pricing rather than reject his bid.
   The letter, from Robert J. Cicchino, noted that Conover was “correct” in claiming that other school districts have exercised such discretion in the handling of bids but stated that the PRSD was “not required” by state law to do so.Mike Yaple, a spokesman with the New Jersey School Boards Association, verified that asking for a clarification is an option for a district in a situation such as Princeton’s but added that the decision to do so is totally at the discretion of the board and its attorney.”We always advise school boards to follow the advice of their attorney,” said Mr. Yaple said. “That’s the person who is closest to the issue.”
   Mr. Yaple said that asking for clarification can negatively impact the process, because delays that can increase contract costs and bidders could respond with litigation.
   ”The process can be fraught with landmines,” he said.
   In a Sept. 16 letter to The Packet, David W. Carroll, attorney for the PRSD Board of Education, said he advised rejection of the Conover bid because the “defect here went to price, and there is no contract term that is more ‘material’ than price” under existing case law.Stephanie Kennedy, the district’s administrator, said of Mr. Conover’s complaint Thursday: “We had long considered that a nonissue. We acted appropriately.”
   Mr. Conover had triggered the bidding process by declining to renew his contract in 2008 due to what he saw as inadequate adjustments for rising diesel fuel prices. Four months after the rejection of his bid, Mr. Conover said his company has little work and is primarily providing transportation for school trips and other short term purposes.
   ”I am barely hanging on,” said Mr. Conover. “I could never survive another year (like this).”