Feb 23, 2005 By Jennifer Harr 4 min read

Bethlehem-Center School District bid out a nearly $30,000, three-part paving project piecemeal, in violation of a state law that requires jobs that cost more than $10,000 be open to bids, according to a report from the state Department of Auditor General Jack Wagner. The report, filed in January, indicates that Beth-Center business manager Jody Nepa was responsible for contracting one paving job at the high school, budgeted at $20,000, in late July 2001.

The Public School Code requires competitive bidding for projects that exceed $10,000. That process includes public advertisement for those bids. The code specifically says that the project cannot be awarded piecemeal to avoid advertising for proposals.

The report found that, instead of putting the project out for bid, Nepa broke it up into several pieces and awarded it to four different companies.

As a result of the state’s investigation, the Office of Special Investigation (OSI) recommended that the school board take administrative action against Nepa, including, “if warranted,” making him pay back the difference between the estimated ($20,000) and actual ($28,910.94) cost of the project.

Nepa started working for the district at the beginning of July 2001 and was responsible for contracting the project.

According to the report, Nepa told the OSI that the project originally was to repair a bad spot in front of the high school and to widen the roadway. However, in response to complaints that there was not enough available parking after the project was started, plans to pave the faculty and student parking lots also were included.

The OSI report indicates that Nepa told an investigator he approved the lot-paving projects without consulting or getting the approval of the school board.

However, the district’s attorney, Keith A. Bassi, who filed a formal response to the auditor general’s document, wrote that the OSI’s claim simply wasn’t true.

Nepa “did not divide the projects, but merely responded to directions he received from the district and its board of directors to have additional paving projects performed and did so in compliance with the permissible alternative to formal billing requirements.”

While the board did set aside $20,000 for the paving, it later determined that since it was going to address only the area directly in front of the school – and not the lots – soliciting bids was unnecessary because limiting the project’s scope dropped the price of the work, Bassi wrote.

It was only after work started that the district decided to pursue paving the faculty and student lots, Bassi wrote.

Nepa obtained three quotes and hired the least expensive firm to do the lot work, Bassi wrote.

“The contractor that was mobilized and on site provided the district with the lowest quote,” Bassi said, referring to Higinbotham Paving.

Bassi wrote that having Higinbotham already at the school for the initial project when the company was hired to pave the lots resulted in “substantial savings,” because the district didn’t have to bring in someone new with the costs of transporting equipment, materials and supplies.

But the OSI report indicated that Bassi’s explanation was flawed.

“Had the project been properly managed and subject to competitive bidding, additional fees and costs would not have been necessary because one contractor would have been on site from the onset,” the report states.

The OSI also found that, if Nepa did not intentionally piecemeal the project, the school district was at fault for its poor planning.

“Had the school district determined all of its paving needs prior to starting the ‘single area,’ it would have realized that the costs associated with the full extent of the work involved was over the monetary threshold that activates the competitive bidding requirements of the Public School Code.”

Nepa, according to the report, gave 85 percent of the contract work to two companies, one of which had done work for Nepa at his home for just the cost of materials in 1999.

The companies, Higinbotham Paving and Higinbotham Trucking, are owned by the same family, according to the report.

A combined total of $24,595.02 was paid to Higinbotham Trucking and Higinbotham Paving for work done during those three projects, according to the report.

In his response, Bassi wrote that Nepa’s dealings with the company were from two years before he even came to work for Beth-Center.

The OSI disagreed.

“While such a relation per se is not necessarily detrimental to the school district, it does give the appearance of a conflict of interest. Since the business manager awarded the paving contract without using competitive bidding, the school district has no assurances that it received the best price for the work or that the work was awarded based upon merit and not on preferential treatment,” read the report.

Acting Superintendent Vicki Monas could not be reached for comment Tuesday evening.