Shawn Chandler has faced numerous challenges, all personal to him and his actions. It is unwarranted for him to project his dissatisfaction onto 5,860 families. His previous distribution of offensive flyers is also notable, and it's likely that some could still be found.
Fri, Sep 27, 12:23 AM (4 days ago)
to cathy.sparks, George, Ruthanne.visnauskas
Cathy Sparks
Vice President/Director
Office of Integrated Housing Management
State Supervised Mitchell Lama Portfolio
Dear Cathy Sparks,
Subject: Concerns Regarding Bid Selection Process
As a board member, I must voice my significant concerns regarding the recent bid selection process for the Rochdale Village Laundry Room Contractor. The decision appears to have been made hastily and exhibits several critical flaws. It seems to have been orchestrated in bad faith, aiming to achieve a pre-determined outcome favored by a few, without considering the best interests of Rochdale Village.
To provide some context, Jean Hall is the President of the Board of Directors at Rochdale Village Inc. Together with other board members, they formed the Jewel of Jamaica (JOJ) group. They pledged to bring about change, regardless of the consequences. Residents of Rochdale Village Inc. have been awaiting new laundry machines for nearly two years. Woodside, the current service provider, acquired machines for a building as a pilot project and sought feedback from residents nearly two years ago, but the installation was obstructed by the JOJ board. Numerous complaints have been lodged about the malfunctioning laundry machines. Indeed, the machines are outdated and beyond their efficient lifespan. However, the core issue lies with the building's construction, specifically a ventilation problem dating back to 1964 when Rochdale Village was completed. Addressing this issue in 2024 is proving to be expensive.
A Request for Proposal (RFP) was issued to identify a new laundry room vendor for January 2025. Woodside, among other vendors, was invited to submit a bid. Prior to bidding, a walkthrough was conducted, which both the current and prospective vendors attended, resulting in two bids. In my view, Woodside's participation in the walkthrough may have upset Jean Hall, who implied that his interactions could have discouraged other vendors from participating. She has proposed issuing a new RFP to attract additional bids. It is crucial for all parties to be well-informed to make a sound decision. Moreover, some vendors previously engaged with Rochdale are aware of our well-known ventilation issues, a significant challenge that likely contributed to the limited bid engagement. Industry experts, as expected, would assess the advantages and disadvantages, including the impact on their profit margins, before placing a bid. Therefore, attributing the low number of bids to the current vendor's involvement is unfounded and demonstrates a lack of business insight.
Outlined below are the primary concerns pertaining to the proposals submitted by the bidders as well as the voting procedure;
Financial Advantage: Woodside Super Laundry's proposal presented a significantly higher rental offer to Rochdale Village, promising an improved financial prospect over the long term. The projected financial advantage for Rochdale Village over seven years, including the third-year increase, was estimated to exceed $990,000, with potential for further growth through profit-sharing. These funds are critically needed for operational purposes.
Revenue Sharing: Woodside Super Laundry has a provision to share a portion of the earnings that exceed a certain threshold with the buyer, thus creating an additional stream of revenue, whereas Hercules does not offer such an option.
Equipment: Woodside Super Laundry offers the latest model Electrolux equipment (refer to model numbers in the management comparison sheet), whereas Hercules proposes dryers that were last produced in 2014 and, according to management's evaluation, "do not currently appear on the Wascomat website or in their current brochure." They also mention "budget-friendly washers" based on the model numbers in the management comparison. Additionally, Hercules charges an extra 25 cents per wash for additional rinse cycles and another 25 cents for a soiled wash cycle, which totals an extra 50 cents per wash. In contrast, Woodside includes these services in their base price without any additional charges.
Infrastructure Improvements: Woodside Super Laundry has proposed a complete overhaul of the ventilation system, with an estimated cost of around $2 million as assessed by our contracted engineer. This project will be fully financed by Woodside Super Laundry and is designed by the engineers at Electrolux/Wascomat. Additionally, there will be a comprehensive renovation of the laundry room adhering strictly to the bid's specifications.
Accessibility Features: Woodside Super Laundry offers machines that accept both cash and electronic payments, including EBT, catering to the needs of Rochdale Village's elderly and those less familiar with technology. In contrast, Hercules lacks a cash payment option, which could disadvantage the elderly residents of Rochdale Village.
Proven Track Record: Woodside Super Laundry boasts a strong operational history with few minor complaints and no record of lawsuits or improper work practices. In contrast, the Hercules bid is currently embroiled in a class action lawsuit for fraud and has been cited for non-compliance with gas piping regulations, posing a significant safety risk.
Issues with Bid Submission: The competing bid was not completed correctly, failing to adhere to the proper and legal bid procedures, and thus should have been rejected. Hercules' bid was essentially blank, accompanied by only two pages detailing their offerings. Essentially, they dictated the terms, not Rochdale Village. This raises the question: has such an event occurred previously? Can an improper bid like this be validated? The bid also included a clause for post-selection negotiations, which is at best inappropriate and presumptuous. Such conduct is highly improper, warranting the bid's annulment. It is not permissible for one company to meticulously follow the bid process while another completely ignores it. As the governing body, it is imperative that bid regulations are strictly enforced to ensure transparency in the bidding process. Never before, as a board member, have I witnessed such a blatantly biased and unethical approach to proceedings. The bid process should serve the interests of Rochdale Village, not be exploited to push a particular agenda. The described process borders on fraudulent, with Rochdale Village majority board willfully going along. This will result in the loss of critical funds and revenue under the pretense of responsible stewardship and public service. The visible mismanagement at the board level is deeply troubling.
Improper Process: The voting process was flawed due to the absence of a question-and-answer segment, discussion session, and debate, which are typically part of the events leading to a vote. The process was expedited to elude scrutiny, clarity, and transparency. Furthermore, the management team was excluded from participating in the discussions during the vote. They were deliberately not invited to the Rochdale Village interview sessions with the contractors, preventing them from asking necessary, professional, and challenging questions. Essentially, this approach was designed to be deceptive, with the specific intent of eliminating the chance for negative feedback to surface and be addressed. A full-board discussion did not take place in Legal and Management.
Simultaneous Presentation: For the first time in my tenure on the board, both bids were presented for voting concurrently, a situation that should have seen them evaluated individually with management's recommendation, followed by a selection and subsequent board voting. The management team was not consulted, depriving them of the chance to offer their insights, opinions, or expertise on the issue, which involves millions of dollars and a seven-year lease. The central issue, the venting system of the current laundry rooms, has not been addressed by Hercules. This oversight is unacceptable, contravenes proper procedure, and is detrimental to Rochdale Village. The board lacks the proficiency and expertise required to independently conduct this process and pose the necessary technical and challenging questions.
As a dedicated member of this community and board, I insist on a comprehensive review by you, The Authority. I also request that our attorney stop these proceedings from advancing in such an autocratic manner, devoid of transparency and Management's input, which is typically sought due to our collective responsibility for all liabilities. This time must not be an exception.
I implore you to reconsider the results of this process considering these issues. I am convinced that the unselected party's proposal presents a more beneficial option regarding finances, community, shareholder interests, and the overall betterment of Rochdale Village. It warrants a fair and unbiased reevaluation by an authority like you, who can provide an impartial perspective free from any agenda.
It seems that the voting was influenced by JOJ's agenda due to the impending elections. Several new board members are now serving without the training I underwent upon joining the board. The departure of objectivity is evident, and the dominant voice of one overshadows the rest, creating a regrettable scenario. The campaign's pledge to dismiss the laundry room service disregards Rochdale's well-being, aiming solely at reelection, securing votes, and satisfying a segment of misinformed constituents.
At the conclusion of the legal and management session, the matter was briefly mentioned at 10 PM without any subsequent discussion or debate. The only query raised concerned the lawsuit against Hercules, with assurances given that our counsel would conduct an investigation. The follow-up from our counsel suggests that the matter could be resolved contractually. It is important to note that Hercules faces multiple legal challenges.
During the last board meeting, the voting commenced mere minutes after the start, which was surprisingly quick for such significant proceedings. This deviated from our standard vendor selection process and seemed more like election propaganda. Prior to the meeting, a comprehensive comparison of both bids, provided by management, was distributed to all members, along with the contractors' bid documents. However, there was no mention of the laundry room resolution in our management packet. I learned that this resolution was distributed just before the vote, deliberately kept secret, and authored not by management but by the board president, Jean Hall. As I participated in the meeting online, I didn't receive this resolution. Consequently, we were caught off guard when the first agenda item was the laundry room vote, leaving us no time to review or raise questions. The swift conduct of the vote at the meeting's onset suggests impropriety and premeditation, sidelining Rochdale's best interests for political motives and unwarranted change. Please review the attachments and feel free to request the minutes and recording of the board proceedings.
Your immediate action is imperative to conduct a comprehensive review and investigation, aimed solely at safeguarding the interests of Rochdale Village and its shareholders, prior to finalizing any legally binding contract.
I appreciate your prompt attention to this critical issue and grateful for a swift response.
Respectfully,
Lisa Stark
Board Member
Rochdale Village