[EZM]

Maybe for the average person stuff like this could look nefarious ..... but it's QUITE COMMON to bid out a contract with a specific scope for a big dollar amount - say $20 Million, but during the process (as you engage perspective bidders with ideas, good suggestions and other options) to add segments of untendered work (add ons) as the process goes through - and sometimes there can be 2-3 other "added scope" items (which remain untendered and open) that could be a Million or two. Some of these suggestions are good ones that the person who made the tender maybe didn't consider.

Kinda like having people quote a new roof for you, like a $25,000 job, send it out for some quotes, and one of the contractors suggests that you look at your eaves and gutters, something like $2000 and something you never thought of before one of the contractors who was bidding the work suggested to you. Clearly the work should be done at the same time, and it's a good idea, so you, as the homeowner, just awards the main roof work and then add, after the fact, the eaves (which you know is going to be roughly $2000). Not a big deal.

The reason they can't do this is you ethically (and legally in some cases) can't change the sealed bid process adding scope, and since you can't add scope after your send out your RFQ (request for quote) package - you may have some untendered additions (disclosure or second source) that the contractor could be awarded as supplementary untendered contracts.

Keep in mind these non competitive authorized extras are usually tendered (awarded) to those organizations that successfully won a bid in a competitive tender for a much larger scope of work. So they did, in fact, already compete fairly to secure the main body of work (original scope) and went through a supply and delivery analysis by the procurement people in a fair and transparent process.

Although this looks nefarious, it doesn't mean it is really. I might be. It might not. But this is very common in all public contracts (and many commercial contracts).

It's also really not that easy to pull stuff like this with public money if you have ever become familiar with the process ..... it's not impossible ..... but there are many traps along the way (and many other people and department not necessarily "in on it") that make a recommendation and/or decision.

Don't know the details on this one specifically - but could be nothing to worry about and nothing uncommon. It could be sketchy, it may not be.