Intro: Let me start by saying that I’m not crazy about the fact that I let myself fall into the DOI’s rabbit hole. Nevertheless, by viewing the RFP I drank from the little bottle labeled “drink me” so there appears to be no turning back now. Anyway, here is the latest in what will no doubt be a 100 post saga about the shady “management consultant” RFP issued by the Insurance Commissioner.
In response to my email to Mr. Gould, I heard back from Elliot Jacobsen who characterized my post and questions submissions as an “attack” and said that the blog was undertaking some kind of “scorched earth approach” to dealings with the office. So now, in addition to knowing that the RFP is not meant to initiate a best-value procurement, we know that asking quite a few legitimate questions is an “attack” and putting up a blog post which makes a case that the “management consultant” RFP issued by the Insurance Commissioner’s office appeared to be a set up to transfer money to insiders is a “scorched earth” policy. Positions with multiple ironies, I think.
Below is the latest “DL Consulting” email to Mr. Gould.
Dear Mr. Gould:
We are in receipt of a response from Elliot Jacobson who asks us a number of pre-qualification questions that were not part of the requirement listed in the RFP to establish standing to ask questions about this RFP. Since this RFP does not provide any limitations on who may ask questions, we would wish to see answers to these posted on the website. Or we would like to understand the procurement rules that would allow you to ignore questions submitted in accordance with the RFP requirements.
We respond back to you on this since you are the officially named contact on this procurement and we don’t understand Mr. Jacobson’s relationship to the DOI, since his correspondence does not come from a state email domain, but from Comcast. We expect that people conducting official business of the State would correspond under its web domain. Finally, in the interest of full disclosure, you should know that we will not be bidding on the contract, but have posed the questions about the RFP as citizens and taxpayers using the humorous conceit of a consulting firm to underscore what we feel is the sketchy nature of the RFP.
We look forward to your responses to our questions or a detailed explanation as to the State regulations that allow you to not answer legitimate questions on this procurement.
Jason330
DelawareLiberal.net