---- — Consultants notdoing good job
Logansport’s “electric generating plant” consultants have not done their job. Last November’s Request for Proposals (RFP) required answers that we should have gotten last January, and did not.
The RFP states: “Respondents are required to submit proposals that fully comply with the requirements set forth in these Specifications.” Let’s look at three of those requirements, all due last January.
p.7 required a full description of “Annual energy produced” from projects “implemented within the last five years.” Pyrolyzer’s proposal did not claim to have ever produced energy, nor offer any example of any pyrolyzation facility’s annual output. Pyrolyzer did not answer the question.
p.9 required “a detailed analysis of all environmental aspects of the proposed Project,” including: “Emissions and controls,” and “Detriments to neighboring facilities, landowners, and waterways.” Pyrolyzer’s proposal, p.7, states “Recycle unordinary waste streams such as high-chlorinated plastics and tires without air pollution, incineration, or landfill storage.” Page 16 lists emissions limits in Germany, but says actual emissions results are not available. As for Logansport: “More design work will be conducted in subsequent phases…” That is not a “detailed analysis.” Pyrolyzer did not answer the question.
p.10 required a complete description of the specifications and source(s) of any and all “refuse derived fuel” to be utilized, including “availability, sustainability, acquisition and transportation...” Pyrolyzer’s entire answer was: “Feedstock will be procured from Chicago, Indianapolis, and Fort Wayne.” That is not the “complete description” that the RFP requires. Pyrolyzer did not answer the question.
These are just three examples of information that Pyrolyzer was required to provide in their proposal which was opened last January 11. This information is necessary to make a good decision on whether Logansport should partner with Pyrolyzer LLC on a new electric plant. When our expensive consultants read the proposal, did they disqualify Pyrolyzer for not supplying the required information? No. They recommended that we pursue contracts with Pyrolyzer!
These and many more RFP requirements should have been answered for free last January. If the Mayor, (majority of the) City Council, and consultants liked Pyrolyzer so much, they should have demanded that the RFP’s requirements were fulfilled before one more dime of taxpayer’s money was spent.
Even though the consultants ignored the fact that Pyrolyzer did not answer the Request for Proposals’ requirements, taxpayers continue to pay them to prepare contracts between LMU, the City, and Pyrolyzer.