LAPLACE — New water meter installation, once slated to begin in late Spring 2019, has seen continuous delay since division between the St. John the Baptist Parish Council, administration and the District Attorney’s Office shelved the public bid process for re-do on May 28.

Lack of clarity over whether public bid law is the correct solicitation process was compounded with a lawsuit addressed to Parish President Natalie Robottom and the Parish Council last month. The court date, originally scheduled for June 28, was continued to July 19.

Action to restart the bid process is expected at the upcoming Parish Council meeting Tuesday in Edgard. However, frustration shone through at a special July 3 Council meeting dedicated solely to the water meter issue.

“First of all, I think it’s extremely inconsiderate to call a meeting today,” Robottom said at the start of the meeting, adding it was scheduled without notice, just before a four-day weekend, with project manager Robert Figuero on vacation.

“Nothing that will take place today couldn’t have waited until Tuesday.”

Robottom repeatedly expressed irritation at the Parish Council’s May 28 motion to re-start the public bid process at the recommendation of the District Attorney’s Office.

What rendered the initial process invalid, according to Assistant District Attorney Keith Green Jr., was that advertisements for bids did not include the verbiage that funds for the project would not be readily available.

One day after the Council voted to re-start the bid process, the District Attorney’s Office issued a legal opinion stating, “Installation of water meters is not ‘construction’ and the Louisiana Public Bid Law is not the proper solicitation method.

The bid process was initially started in early 2019 after approval from the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality and a Parish Council vote. The bid process was re-started in the spring after it was determined one of the advertisements had been issued after the mandatory pre-bid meeting, failing to give proper notice to all prospective contractors.

By April, there were only two bidders: Aqua Metric Sales Company’s, boasting a $5.7 million bid, and the lowest bidder Greenup Industries with a $5.5 million bid.

Robottom recommended the Council vote to accept Aqua Metric, noting the bid was within budget and that Greenup’s lower bid had been determined “unresponsive.” According to Robottom, Greenup’s bid included incomplete responses, attachment of the wrong addendum, an unauthorized change of measurement units and addition of five extra elements to the project.

At the July 3 meeting, Gary Ragusa of Third Kettle Corporation doing business as Aqua Metric Sales Company said his company had no choice but to pursue legal action after not being approved for the project in accordance to public bid law.

“Aqua Metric was only responsible bidder and was under budget,” Ragusa said.

“Because of the pending litigation on the water meter project, I respectfully request that the Council and administration refrain from taking any action today. Otherwise, any action may be rendered moot by the court’s decision, run contrary to the court’s decision, and/or may create more legal issues than already exist, all or some of which will cause additional fees, expenses and delays on the project.”

Councilwoman Jaclyn Hotard Gaudet noted the lawsuit may not be resolved in 30 or even 60 days, making it imperative that the administration move forward with the bid process regardless.

“If we would have started this over 30 days ago when the Council offered the motion, we would be 30 more days into the process,” Hotard Gaudet said. “What legal is saying is the lawsuit and the interventions and everything else that has been filed is not preventing anything from taking place.”

Councilman Lennix Madere Jr. agreed the re-bid should start immediately, saying administration fell into a “who’s right, who’s wrong” argument when action should have been taken. He said any complications from the lawsuit should be addressed as they arise.

Robottom responded that action had not been taken because of the question of public bid law being incorrect, among other legal issues.

Green responded that, although public bid law is not advisable, it is OK to move forward with the process because it was already approved by LDEQ.

“If you re-bid, then you have to use that (funds will not be) readily available language,” Green said. “That was the only missing component from the entire process.”

That statement sparked a discussion over the meaning of “readily available.”

According to Councilman Larry Snyder, readily available means the money can be withdrawn from the bank at a moment’s notice.

Chief administrative officer Laverne Toombs said it is common practice to send in request for payment from agencies like LDEQ.

According to Robottom, a four-to-five day turnaround does not mean funding is not readily available.

“We closed on our loan in January,” Robottom said. “At that point, on that day, those funds became readily available. As government, we don’t go out for bid if we don’t have the money.”

Administration has until January 2021 to use funding from the $6 million LDEQ loan, according to Robert Delaune Jr. of Digital Engineering. If the deadline is not met, funding could be withdrawn.

Robottom maintains the process was followed correctly and that the legal delay resulted from lack of knowledge.

“Again, the only opinion —and it is an opinion— that there is something wrong with the process is coming from Keith Green,” Robottom said. “Everyone else with authority over the process who has been involved in it for over two years contends the process was followed.”