OMEGAPROFESSIONAL BACKLINE HIRE

Article by Truthseeker

Please take the time to familiarize yourself with the substantial D-Day Tendering complaints before proceeding.

The following VE-Day tendering complaints are a prolongation of the previous years D-Day tendering scandal that the council chose to ignore, with in its usual head stuck in the sand attitude.

One of the main concerns for local companies regarding the D-Day events were that yet again council officer Gary McCormick had drawn-up the tender sheets so as A Kerr’s equipment had an almost exclusive monopoly, and would develop into a fixture in the specification documents for Council events.

The Council and in particular Council officer John Thompson were evidently informed in relation to tender fixing well before the event took place.

During March it was common knowledge that ACK Lighting where the only local company stocking Trackspots, Cyberscan lights and a Scancommander lighting desk.

On the 6^th April the Tender document appeared with material evidence of the same theme emerging, listing Trackspots, Cyberscans and a Scancommander desk.

The tender ‘deadline’ was given as noon on 12^th April!

At this point it is important to understand that this brand of lighting equipment would ‘never’ normally be used by ‘any’ of the acts appearing at these events.

The events included a ‘Tea Dance’, a local gospel singer and some ‘seaside cabaret’.

Local companies now found themselves in the same ‘tender fixing’ position they were in during the run up to the last years D-Day events.

Contact was made with councillor A Lennon who suggested that (again!) all our concerns should be put in writing and put before the council.

As last year, the council received numerous complaints from local companies ‘prior to’ the events having taking place.

Yet again the local and Sunday papers supported these complaints.

Follow the links to view examples.

INSERT LINK TO ‘MOONLITIN’

INSERT LINK TO ‘EXCITING LIGHTING’

INSERT LINK TO ‘AMPEC’

One representative from Ballymena based Massive Productions travelled to Bangor to discuss the possibility of tendering for the VE-Day events.

He subsequently wrote to the council: -

Quote,

‘I feel I was unfairly treated in tendering for production services for your VE-Day celebrations, with reference to my site meeting with your representative Gary McCormick on April 12^th 95.

I requested to tender also for lighting that you required, to which he handed me a spec sheet and told me ‘He already had someone lined up for the lights’ in other words he was tendering out work to companies, but already had the work delegated.

I also have reason to believe that my quote for £9000 – total sound and lights for the pier and leisure centre was not treated confidentially and believe that other ‘competition’ got a look at it.

Under these circumstances I would not be interested in quoting for any further work. If however your procedure and indeed your representative should change with regard to such dealings I would be very happy to facilitate your requirements’.

The council later received a letter from a director of Concert Services stating: - ACK Lighting had booked additional lighting from a Dublin company at least three weeks prior to the tender date.

He also claimed that council officer Gary McCormick informed him that quote: - ‘Ampec hadn’t a chance if they tried to quote’.

INSERT LINK TO LETTER

Another representative from the Waterfront Hall wrote stating that he was witness to an incriminating conversation, were A Kerr bragged that ‘he had an acquaintance that worked for Bangor council and all tender specs written by the council could only be fulfilled by ACK’.

All of the above letters along with last years D-Day written complaints were placed with council officer John Thompson.

He chose to ignore them and later ‘all the letters along with Councillor Lennon’s correspondence mysteriously disappeared’ in time for any possible investigation by an independent Government authority.

More about this later.

Councillor Lennon wrote at the time: - ‘To say that I am concerned at the obvious lack of investigation into this serious matter by the town clerk would be an understatement’

Also, ‘I am convinced that the ratepayers of North Down are not receiving the best possible value for money with the tendering procedures that are currently in place’.

Also, ‘I consider this to be most unfortunate especially in light of the confidential manner with which both I and the complainants have pursued this matter over the past ‘year’ I have offered several suggestions and alternatives which would have alleviated the situation and ensured that the same scenario could not happen again.

None of which you have chosen to adopt.

Despite the accumulation of evidence this Council still refused an independent investigation into disgraced Council Officer McCormick’s handling and awarding of contracts worth tens of thousands of pounds of ratepayers money.

Council officer John Thompson (without speaking to any of the complainants) wrote: -

Quote, ‘I have every confidence in Mr McCormick as a professional’

On the final night of the VE-Day events the music for the firework display was to be played through a DAT machine (digital tape format).

Council Officer McCormick being the true professional ‘forgot’ to arrange for this machine to be hired in.

This machine was subsequently brought from UTV by a police motorcycle escort will the massive crowd were kept waiting.

Town clerk Adrian McDowell (without speaking to any of the complainants) wrote: -

Quote, ‘I do not propose now to have further discussions with Ampec, as you will gather the contents of those letters are not accepted as factual’.

It would appear that these two incompetent officers got some type of perverse thrill from supplying evasive and obstructive answers to Councillors and ratepayers alike.

The Council’s handling of these complaints must raise a huge question mark over the integrity of certain Officers and underscores the need to be vigilant when dealing with them.

On a score of one to ten this Councils diligence with regard to ratepayer money scores considerably less than one.