Skip to main content

Fight Over School Copy Machines Heads To Court
A local company claims the Minneapolis School District wants to hire a national, more expensive company to deal with the district's copy machines.

The school says that's not the case.

Both sides have conflicting numbers and tomorrow a judge will hear the case.

The district says the change will actually save them money, but Imaging Path, the company that's managed the district's copiers for years, disagrees.

http://kstp.com/news/stories/S1639168.shtml?cat=1
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Judge To Decide Mpls Schools Copier Dispute By Weeks End
A judge will need to settle a dispute over copy machines in the Minneapolis school district.

The district was set to award a mult-million dollar contract to Ricoh, a company based in New Jersey.

But Imaging Path, a Minnesota company also vying for the contract, says the district handled the bidding process incorrectly.

A judge says the district will have to wait to engage the contract with Ricoh until she rules later this week.

Imaging Path was the low bidder by about $600,000.

School officials say the long term savings in support and service exceeds the short term savings.

The Minneapolis School board voted Tuesday night to approve the recommendation and move forward with plans to do business with Ricoh. All four members who voted, voted in favor. One member abstained because he used to work for Ricoh, another was on vacation and another was a vacancy that was filled tonight. The board says they will move forward but not officially sign a contract until after a judge's ruling.
Got this in today's email:

The Minneapolis school district spends more than $1 million a year on copying and printing, and firms compete for that business.

On Tuesday, a Minneapolis company that lost its bid to provide the district with copying equipment and service took the competition to Hennepin County District Court, accusing the district of showing favoritism, violating public contract law and costing Minneapolis taxpayers a lot of money.

Imaging Path charged that the district's new purchasing director, Gary Anderson, favored Ricoh Americas Corp. before bidding began. Imaging Path says selecting Ricoh will cost at least $600,000 more over five years.

The district fired back that it broke no laws, picked the best company and went with a bid that was only slightly more costly. Corey Ayling, the district's lawyer, said the deal with Ricoh will cost the district only $573 more a month. He said one reason for Ricoh's higher cost is that Imaging Path proposed 46 copiers for the district's two office buildings, while Ricoh proposed 65.

"This was a rational, non-arbitrary process," Ayling said.

Judge Denise Reilly said she'll rule by week's end on a request for temporary restraining order that would block the deal.

The school board approved the new contract Tuesday night, but it won't be signed until Reilly issues her decision, said district spokesman Stan Alleyne.

The district argued that courts have ruled that judges are not experts on bidding processes, and unless there's an illegal or capricious process, which there was not, Reilly should not intervene.

Mark Blando, Imaging Path's attorney, called the district's process "deeply flawed," resulting in unequal treatment and irreparable damage.

"The proposed award is contrary to the public interest and represents an unacceptable waste of taxpayer funds ... even as it [the school district] faces a $19 million budget deficit," Imaging Path claims.
A Hennepin County District judge on Tuesday denied a request for a temporary restraining order to block the Minneapolis school district from contracting with a technology company to provide copier and printing services for the school system.

Judge Denise Reilly rejected the claim of a losing bidder, Imaging Alliance Group, that the district's decision to hire Ricoh Business Systems was "unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious."

She said evidence the company cited was not compelling enough to indicate that the losing bidder would have prevailed at a trial.

Imaging spokesman Blois Olson issued a statement saying, "We disagree with the court's decision. Imaging ... will quickly file a motion to reconsider."

Imaging, a local company that previously had a contract with the district for some of its printing, issued several news releases this week suggesting the public was a victim of misconduct by the district in choosing a more expensive firm.

But Reilly noted the district believed that by hiring Ricoh it could ultimately save hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.

The school district prints 6.79 milion copies a month, many on 1,300 computer printers and fax machines, and decided to shift to higher-volume copy machines because the cost per copy is far lower. It put the plan out for bids and chose Ricoh.

Imaging said this week that the district, hence taxpayers, would pay Ricoh $600,000 more per year. Representatives for Imaging later acknowledged in interviews with the Star Tribune that the claim was wrong and it meant to say $600,000 over five years.

Imaging also provided a chart indicating its proposal would save the district between $300,000 and $1 million over five years, based on the various proposals by Imaging and Ricoh. The new contract with Ricoh, approved by the school board Tuesday, will cover all machines and servicing and cost the district around $800,000, according to the district.


The district, in response to the newspaper's inquiries, issued its own analysis of the competing proposals Thursday, showing that Ricoh would be $34,000 more expensive than Imaging over five years, but that was based on an assumption it would be using Imaging's equipment. Using Ricoh's equipment, the district said, Ricoh will save the district $2.6 million over five years, compared with a savings of $2.1 million to $2.4 million if the district selected Imaging.

The district said it used a scoring system to rate the two companies on a variety of issues, and Ricoh scored higher. Imaging said it believed the district's purchasing director, Gary Anderson, unfairly favored Ricoh.

"Taking the record as a whole, there is insufficient evidence that Mr. Anderson showed favoritism or bias toward Ricoh," Reilly wrote.

http://www.startribune.com/loc...0334.html?page=1&c=y

Add Reply

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