Diana Stricker Photo
Two companies competing for a garbage collection contract in Branford should find out soon who will serve the town for the next three years.
The Board of Selectmen (BOS) was poised to award a contract to Waste Tech Family Refuse LLC at the March 20 meeting until objections were raised by National Carting Co., which has served the town for about 20 years.
After the company owners and their attorneys aired their views, First Selectman Anthony “Unk” DaRos announced the decision would be postponed until Town Counsel William Clendenen Jr. reviews the issues. The contract, which begins July 1, covers the weekly curbside collection of garbage and recyclables from 9,500 households for three years, with the option of two additional one-year extensions.
Waste Tech’s bid for three years totaled $2,055,000; and National Carting’s bid for three years was $2,734,612. That equates to a difference of $679,612 over three years. If the contract was extended the additional two years, the difference over five years would be $1.25 million. There were no other bidders.
“It’s not a little bit of money,” DaRos said, adding that the selectmen have a responsibility to obtain the best service at the most economical cost to taxpayers.
Mario Ricozzi, chair of Branford’s Solid Waste Management Commission, said the commission voted unanimously to recommend awarding the contract to Waste Tech because the company was the lowest responsible bidder. Ricozzi said he checked the company’s references and talked with its officials. He said National Carting had done a good job for many years, but their bid was higher.
“The cost savings is significant and I don’t believe there would be any decrease in service,” Ricozzi said.
When the two companies asked to discuss their concerns, DaRos said he would allow discussion to “go back and forth until everybody’s satisfied.”
Attorney Anthony DiCrosta, of DiCrosta & Rigat in New Haven, who represents National Carting, said his client is concerned because the bid invitation stated that a qualified bidder should have proven experience and recent work experience equal to or greater than the Branford job. DiCrosta said Waste Tech has customer experience servicing condominiums, but not municipal-type pick-up experience.
“It’s a very significant lack of experience,” DiCrosta said. He said it wasn’t a matter of “sour grapes” but that Waste Tech had experience equating to only half the customer base that was stipulated in the bid invitation.
National Carting owner David Parzych questioned the bid that Waste Tech made, saying the job couldn’t be done at that cost. “These numbers just don’t add up to me,” he said, noting the years of experience his company has in serving Branford. “I believe I have given the town of Branford my heart,” Parzych said.
Attorney Andrew Cellemme, of Cellemme Law LLC in Waterford, who represents Waste Tech, said the company has more than 20 years experience. “This is a financially stable company,” he said. Cellemme also said that the bid package says the town may waive items if it wishes, such as the one regarding the number of customers previously served.
Waste Tech services some condo complexes in Branford, including Turtle Bay and the Greens.
Paul Santa Barbara, who owns Waste Tech, said he currently operates 12 refuse trucks throughout the state. “I know the industry well,” he said. Santa Barbara said the municipal job is “pretty straight-forward,” and he added that “If I was unable to do this job, I would not be here tonight.”
In reference to Parzych’s question about why Waste Tech’s bid was so low, Santa Barbara asked why National Carting’s bid was so high.
Third Selectman James Cosgrove (pictured with DaRos) asked several questions about the invitation to bid and the length of the contract, which was initially listed as a one-year term. He said some companies may have been reluctant to bid if they thought it was only one year.
Ricozzi said the bid information on the town Web site initially said it would be a one year contract, but that the information was corrected to reflect a three-year contract.
The invitation to bid was advertised in a legal notice and the specifics were posted on the town Web site on Jan. 24. The initial listing on the Web site specified a one-year contract, but an addendum was posted on Feb. 6 stating it would be a three-year contract with two optional additional years. Bids were due Feb. 14.
When asked if there might be additional bidders if the town advertised again, Ricozzi said it was possible but he was not optimistic.
Former Republican third selectman John Opie said it’s difficult to determine which bid is “closer to the truth” concerning costs. He suggested the town delay a vote and said the companies could give the town more information about their financial structure.
DaRos said he doubted the companies would share internal information. But he said he was concerned about the difference in the two bid proposals. “When there is such a discrepancy, a million dollar difference, I feel uncomfortable.” DaRos said having the town attorney look at the matter would be one way to avoid a “possible problem” in the future.
“We may get to a point where we may have to defend our position,” DaRos said. “In my opinion, we have two very capable contractors and the issue of a substantial amount of money. So it may be wiser to postpone it.”
Cosgrove made a motion for the town attorney to review the issues, and all three selectmen voted in favor.
Marcia Chambers Contributed reporting for this story.
###
