Friday, May 25, 2012



The rumor first - another indictment may come down in the Villalobos/Limas case sometime today.

The fun, Ignorance Endorsed by Erin Garcia and Carlos Masso - from one of their walkers at Cheezmeh:

What do the Border Patrol do best? Get drunk..."  Hey Carlito and Erin, how do you intend to work with law enforcement when your supporters at Cheezmeh are always trashing them?
In the story which follows we know the name of the company we believe to be part of the contract rigging.  We know the names of the owners, subcontractors and "consultant" advising them.  Restated, we know all of the players.  These documents along with the law have been forwarded on to my source who is the go between myself and the former and current BISD administrators meeting with the FBI.  Although this morning I learned the FBI may have already been turned on to this deal.

The key provision below requires that "the board must require that the cost savings projected by an offeror be reviewed by a licensed professional engineer."

In the Third Addendum ¶ 4  states no engineer has been assigned.  Why?

Now, BISD  can come back and say, "well we will assign an engineer once all of the bids are in."  Inside sources are saying this issue was discussed and a high level administrator specifically ordered that no engineer be brought in.  I am not using the name of the administrator because my source is secondary and not primary.  In a matter such as this, I want to hear from the BISD employee who is alleging this administrator ordered the engineer be kept out.


"(i)  Before entering into an energy savings performance contract, the board must require that the cost savings projected by an offeror be reviewed by a licensed professional engineer who has a minimum of three years of experience in energy calculation and review, is not an officer or employee of an offeror for the contract under review, and is not otherwise associated with the contract.  In conducting the review, the engineer shall focus primarily on the proposed improvements from an engineering perspective, the methodology and calculations related to cost savings, increases in revenue, and, if applicable, efficiency or accuracy of metering equipment.  An engineer who reviews a contract shall maintain the confidentiality of any proprietary information the engineer acquires while reviewing the contract."

Of further note, which we are following, is the bond requirement. I am hard pressed to believe that any bond company would provide a bond without strict compliance with the education code on the issue of the engineer.  So they either provide the engineering report, or they waive the bond requirement.  Is this reality evidence the story is suspect or evidence of the level of incompetence of Carl Montoya?


"(e) Before entering into an energy savings performance contract, the board shall require the provider of the energy or water conservation measures to file with the board a payment and performance bond relating to the installation of the measures in accordance with Chapter 2253, Government Code. The board may also require a separate bond to cover the value of the guaranteed savings on the contract."

Nonetheless, I think what has BISD insiders concerned are the players.  This is what brought this to the attention of the insiders and my source.  The good news is we have insiders now feeding us contract information which could be related to contract rigging.  Everything is immediately forwarded to my source who is working with those meeting with the FBI.

You should also know addenda 1 and 2 were extensions of time to file bids.  For whom did they provide the extensions?  Well, we know.

1 comment:

BobbyWC said...

people, until the primary source speaks with me I am not naming names or allowing for anony posts with names. The information I did post is all public information and verified as primary sources

Bobby WC