Orange County Water District’s $1-Million Pump

Re “Water District Deal for Pumps Draws Criticism” (Jan. 15): As a professional in the purchasing field, I find the issues covered in this article to be disturbing. When the Orange County Water District is getting ready to spend $1.3 million in public funds with no justification, I question the ability of this agency to allocate public money.

It appears that two questionable statements in the report forwarded to the board members led to a decision that could cost the people in Orange County up to an additional $450,000 in increased water bills.

I question the statement that the bidding process was too long to enable a competitive bid to support the water district’s requirement. There was enough time to solicit one company, why not two or three companies? The statement that only Flygt model pumps could meet the requirements of the agency is cast into serious doubt by the president of the Submersible Wastewater Pump Assn. His statement was that there are as many as 10 companies that could provide similar valves.

The fact that two of the district’s employees had an expense-paid trip to Sweden as a result of this transaction seems to indicate a lack of impartiality. Since their expenses were borne by the contractor, it tends to lead to at least an appearance of preferential treatment. I wonder if these same two employees had anything to do with the report that led to the original decision by the board.

I think that the agency had better review its internal procedures to preclude a reoccurrence of this episode. The main rule when spending public monies of significant magnitude should be that when you can competitively bid it, do it. This is not always possible, but any exception should be documented to assure impartial and economic purchasing practices.

BILL SPEAR

Fountain Valley