Borough road service contractor under fire

PALMER — Is Tew’s Inc. the best snowplowing contractor in the Mat-Su Borough or the worst? Should the company get contractors to do work for the Mat-Su Borough or not?

After examining these questions, the borough says it’s not quite sure the answer. But Tew’s again will be plowing roads in Big Lake this coming winter, even if some in the community — including the board overseeing that road service area — say the company should not be retained.

After it became clear the borough intended to award Tew’s the contract to plow in Big Lake, letters and emails began pouring in to the borough. And calls began coming into the Frontiersman newsroom.

“We’ve really been attacked pretty heavily on this award,” said Roberta Tew, co-owner of the company. But, she said, “We do take pride in our work and it shows if you drive through our areas.”

Tew’s critics point to the company’s track record and letters of noncompliance the borough sent Tew’s regarding the company’s performance in Big Lake. They point out that in the case of the Tew’s contract to plow the Alpine Road Service Area — which runs along the Glenn Highway and encompasses Sutton — the borough actually revoked its contract this year due to poor performance.

“Their track record just keeps getting worse and worse,” said Terri Hone, who testified at a borough assembly meeting last week discussing the contracts.

She said she was motivated to get involved with road service areas one winter when Tew’s had the contract to plow her neighborhood off of Bogard Road. She was not at all pleased with the job the company did.

“(The borough is) letting (Tew’s co-owner Moki Tew) slide every chance that they get. It’s not fair to the other contractors, and it’s certainly doing nothing for public safety,” Hone said.

But it’s not that simple, said borough purchasing officer Russ Krafft, who made the decision to recommend Tew’s again be awarded the contract for Big Lake.

Yes, he said, Tew’s lost the contract to plow Alpine. At the same time, Tew’s was operating two other plowing contracts that were not revoked. Usually, a revocation would be enough to disqualify a bidder, or at least raise some major red flags. But in this case, he said the borough weighed the canceled contracts against the ones that weren’t.

“There’s a lot that we have to take into consideration and the code is pretty specific about things that we must consider,” Krafft said. “A letter that I sent to Tew’s … addressed certain things and it asked them to give us a plan on how they are going to avoid what happened in (Alpine).”

He said he was surprised by the plan Tew’s put together. The company hired a professional engineer with experience working with the borough to oversee the contract and make sure it is in compliance. Tew’s also laid out a step-by-step plan for monitoring roads during the winter, for keeping them clear in a timely manner and for reporting on the work the company performs. Krafft said in many ways the plan Tew’s put forward was more than the contract required.

“I did not think they were going to step up to the plate the way that they did,” Krafft said.

Since Tew’s had that plan, and since the company was the lowest bidder, by code the borough all but had to award the company that contract. Even so, Tew’s is on pretty thin ice, Krafft said.

“Really what this boils down to is they’ve got one year to prove that they can do the work or their skeptics will be proven correct,” he said.

The Mat-Su Borough Assembly had to weigh in on it, and while most of the road service contracts sailed through without debate, the Tew’s contract drew a split vote.

Assemblyman Warren Keogh said Tew’s had contracts in three parts of his district and, overall, the result was kind of a mixed bag. One area generated a few complaints from residents, some valid, others not. The other was the aforementioned Alpine area. The third was Lazy Mountain.

“I didn’t hear a single complaint all winter by anyone in the Lazy Mountain area,” Keogh said. “From everyone I have heard from (Tew’s) has been exemplary in the Lazy Mountain service area.”

So Keogh said he was conflicted. Other assembly members weren’t. Assemblyman Jim Colver moved to hand the contract to the second lowest bidder rather than Tew’s.

“Almost daily this past winter documentation of Tew’s Incorporated’s non compliance with the contract was provided to us,” Colver said. “A majority of the road service area (board of) supervisors do not support the awarding of the contract to Tew’s.”

Borough Attorney Nick Spiropoulos advised the assembly that, in code, it is the job of the purchasing officer — Krafft — to weigh all those factors, not the assembly.

“Having said that, my caution to you is to not re-weigh everything and my recommendation to you is go with the purchasing officer’s recommendation,” he said.

At the assembly table only Vern Halter agreed with Colver, but Keogh was the only one who said why.

“If the purchasing officer says that this is a responsive bidder and he’s the low bidder, and he has not been disbarred, if he’s not disqualified from bidding, then I’m not going to object to the issuing of the contract,” Keogh said.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.