Sep 28, 2023 By Nick Sherman 4 min read

“Disappointed” is an often-used adjective to describe one’s feelings when expectations fail. I was clearly disappointed that my colleagues on the Washington County Board of Commissioners failed to do what was in the best interest of the taxpayers last week by agreeing to a $1.6 million, no-bid agreement with the Washington County Chamber of Commerce for cooperation on economic development.

The new agreement binds the county to a five-year contract, which could eventually grow to 10 years. My main concern is that this decision ties the hands of taxpayers for a significant number of years and tax dollars.

The agreed-upon contract also stipulates annual increases of 3% for the contract’s life. For example, the contract will rise to $144,200 in 2025. In comparison, the secretary of the Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED), which leads the commonwealth’s efforts to expand our economy and economic development, earns $160,000 annually. The governor is elected and serves as the state’s lead spokesperson for economic development. He charges DCED to foster economic growth in Pennsylvania. I see a similar role in Washington County, with the county commissioners serving as ambassadors and contract professionals leading economic development efforts. Recent comments from the chamber have declared them acting as ambassadors for the county. The taxpayers elect us to represent them and engage in economic development matters.

In addition to these county funds, the chamber has been a recipient of Local Share Account (LSA) funds, gaming revenues to support local projects, with $575,00 coming in the past five years and $1.6 million over the last decade. This is another substantial infusion of revenue taxpayers pay to the chamber.

Another troubling fact is that the contract has no out-clause for negligence, yet there is an early termination clause equal to 50% of the amount otherwise due to the chamber. A negligence and termination clause should have been added to this and future contracts to limit taxpayer exposure. Moreover, a 50% termination clause is a drastic benchmark. The termination clause is a tremendous burden on taxpayers.

I’m not offering my opinion to be adversarial or critical, but rather constructive by attempting to raise opportunities for change and improvement in the county’s policies and procedures. We should never award a $1.6 million, no-bid contract, especially one with no scope of work. I realize we have had a long-term partnership with the chamber. However, they must still deliver a solid economic plan and deliverables to the county and taxpayers for this significant contract.

Jeff Kotula, president of the Washington County Chamber of Commerce and Tourism Promotion Agency, recently stated, “Through conversation and collaboration with our board and member businesses … we have recognized there was not a unified message from the business community to communicate issues of local and countywide to our elected leaders, and those who seek to hold elected offices (in the county). We wanted to provide direction to our elected leaders for our county’s future growth.”

If the chamber had concerns about their work with the county, why weren’t these concerns addressed in meetings regarding this contract? I was not involved in any discussions with the chamber regarding this contract. Again, specific deliverables should have been laid out, and a requirement for a performance review included in the contract. In short, we just entered a five-to 10-year contract with an independent contractor that raised concerns about their own performance.

It is not good government or business practice to offer no-bid contracts. No-bid or sole-source contracts are awarded to a single vendor without going through a competitive bidding process. Washington County owes its taxpayers a thorough and thoughtful formal selection process of potential vendors, evaluating every submission based on application requirements. Vendors are evaluated based on metrics provided by the county. If the county wanted to continue hiring an independent contractor, they should have come in and sold us on who would do the best job for taxpayers.

Simply declaring that a long-term partner is the best value and selection for the county due to its duration without a review of other vendors is irresponsible. In the county, I’ve grown tired of the adage, “We’ve always done it that way.” The old way should not apply when awarding bids and spending taxpayer dollars.

Nick Sherman is a Washington County commissioner.