Skip to main content

Seven months after the Springfield City Council approved a $316,378 contract with Ikon Office Solutions for copying services, the previous vendor, Watts Copy Systems, is still waiting for the city to return nearly three dozen machines.

The city says Watts’ machines are still needed because Ikon isn’t finished installing the new equipment.

Equipment being shipped in from out-of-town is arriving damaged, said Jay Wavering, the city’s purchasing agent. Machines can’t be shut off because it erases the programming. Lawyers wrangled for months just to get a contract signed.

Wavering told aldermen last week that he’s not happy with the new vendor, but he’s not surprised by the problems either.

“This is a major contract,” he said. “This is 84 machines being replaced, replacing old machines with new technology machines.”

Several departments, including the offices of the city clerk and city treasurer, are looking into buying their old machines from Watts instead of dealing with Ikon.

Put out for bid

The city requested proposals last fall to lease digital copying machines and other copying equipment. The city wanted the ability to network the copiers and have them equipped with scanning and faxing capabilities, budget director Bill McCarty told aldermen in January.

Watts held the contract at the time. McCarty told aldermen the administration was trying to get away from the longtime city practice of extending contracts without bidding them.

A committee from different city departments evaluated proposals from four vendors: Ikon, Watts, R.K. Dixon and Xerox Corp. The committee ranked Ikon first and Watts second.

McCarty said the winning vendor, Ikon, offered to provide services at 2.39 cents per copy, which would save $29,000 a year compared to the previous contract.

Not a breach

During last week’s committee meeting, Ward 1 Ald. Frank Edwards rattled off problem after problem with the new copiers.

“When are we going to say enough is enough?” he asked.

Wavering said he does not think the company is in breach of contract.

Asked to comment about the situation, a spokeswoman from Ricoh Americas, which acquired Ikon in 2008, said the company needed more time to respond.

City Clerk Cecilia Tumulty said her office was one of the last to have a new copy machine installed. By then, she said, “the city rumor mill was running at high speed with horror stories about these machines.”

She kept one of the Watts machines and has asked for information about buying it from Watts.

“My office cannot be without a copy machine, nor can we just run down the hall and make hundreds of copies,” she said. “If we have issues with the new machine, we have a back-up.”

Watts: City lying

Carol Watts, president of Watts Copy Systems, said she didn’t realize for months that the contract had been awarded to another company.

City officials had asked if she was willing to match Ikon’s price per copy and she said yes. For months, she thought she still had a chance.

Her frustration boiled over last week when she watched aldermen question Wavering about the situation.

“Jay stood up and lied — blatantly — to all the aldermen, eyeball to eyeball, and said there’s only 12 machines left to be installed in the city and there was 33 at the time,” Watts said.

Wavering told aldermen a couple different numbers during that meeting – ranging from 12 to 20.

On Monday, Wavering said Watts is wrong to say that 33 machines still need to be installed. She has nothing to do with installation, he said, so all she could know is that 33 machines are still being used.

He said Watts is still being paid under her old contract, and she is within her rights to have them removed. But Watts said doing so would leave a customer in a lurch, and she doesn’t want to do that.



Rough transition expected

Wavering said he has been working with her staff since Thursday to arrange times for additional machines to be picked up.

“I do not want to be misunderstood when I say Watts Copiers has been an excellent vendor, provided excellent service and Carol Watts has accommodated every one of our requests, which has been greatly appreciated,” Wavering said. “I understand her frustration with losing a long-term, major customer over a four-year term by $51,539.76, but that was the result of this sealed competitive bidding.”

McCarty said the city experienced similar frustration.

“When one of our current, long-time vendors is outbid on a contract, it is difficult for not only the business, but also the city because of the transition that can be involved,” McCarty said, “That being said, ultimately it is our job is to manage city operations as efficiently and economically as possible in order to maximize the use of taxpayer funds.”

Watts said it’s not about the money.

“I don’t know where this is going, but I’m going to pick up my equipment like a good local business does and not burn any bridges,” she said. “But the deception and the lies, and the innuendoes, and the half truths and the lack of giving good information to the aldermen … is pretty pathetic.”

http://www.sj-r.com/top-storie...ver-copying-contract
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

That's the problem with government and often churches and other large organizations who go out for multiple bids and then go for the low bidder.

They almost always wind up getting the $h!ttiest vendor. Price isn't everything.

I think back to a local school system who leased a fleet of 5 Canons from the low bidder. The vendor delivered all 3 year old 50 ppm Canons with over a million copies on each. When I got involved the original vendor had taken the money and run only a year into the 63 month lease. Closed their doors. The machines were all in terrible dis-repair. To make matters worse the service was built into the 63-month lease.

It would have all been funny except it is the town where I grew up and where my parents still pay property and school taxes.

If you go on the school board website you can read the meeting minutes from when they approved the copier deal with this vendor and they were all patting themselves on the back cause this vendor was going to save them $40,000 over the course of the lease compared to the next best vendor. How'd that work out??????

When I met with them the upgrade figure on their fleet of broken down junk was over $130,000.

They ended up rolling that $130,000 into another bad deal with Xerox.

How's that for your tax dollars at work.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×
×