Opinion
No-Bid Contracts: Council, Show Taxpayers the Value
A higher lobbying authorization and a communications retainer deserve direct answers: why these firms, why these prices, and what did residents receive?
Berkeley Heights Council owes taxpayers a convincing explanation for its outside lobbying and communications contracts. Approving a consultant is easy. Demonstrating that residents received good value requires more than an award resolution.
Our judgment: these engagements deserve tougher scrutiny, especially when the council increases an authorization or pays for services that need a clear public purpose. A familiar vendor and a lawful procurement category are starting points for an explanation. They do not settle whether the choice was wise.
The registry documents 259 awards without formal competitive bidding from January 1, 2019 through October 19, 2026. That is a substantial body of decisions to examine. It is not, by itself, evidence of abnormal contracting: the tally includes recurring professional appointments, historical coverage is incomplete, and we do not have a comparable count for similar towns. Some awards also followed requests for qualifications or proposals. Calling them all suspicious would weaken the case for scrutiny of particular decisions.
Winning Strategies Washington / Hoboken Strategy Group is the clearest example. The council approved a cap of $120,000 on March 21, 2023, followed by $132,000 on February 6, 2024. Both award resolutions expressly state that the contracts were awarded without competitive bids: 2023 resolution, page 11; 2024 resolution, page 37.
That is a 10% higher authorization. Why was it justified? What changed in the work? Which alternative firms and prices were considered? The 2024 proposal specified $11,000 a month for twelve months, plus limited reimbursable expenses, and promised ongoing advice, advocacy and status reports. The council should make those reports, the selection rationale and contract-linked charges easy to examine. These authorizations are not verified payment totals.
There is relevant evidence in the firms' favor. Their proposal claims that their advocacy helped advance sewer and stormwater funding. A March 25, 2024 U.S. Senate announcement independently lists $2 million for Berkeley Heights sewer and stormwater improvements. That gives the engagement a plausible public benefit. It does not establish how much the consultants contributed, whether funds were received, or the return on their fees. The council should connect the work, charges and funding milestones rather than expect residents to assume the value.
Direct Development raises a different accountability question. The June 27, 2023 award authorized $2,500 a month for public relations and communications. Its scope and fee schedule included newsletters, social posts, press releases and scripts or speeches, with additional hourly rates for extra work. Twelve months at the retainer rate equals $30,000; that is not a verified total contract cap or spending figure.
Our review has not confirmed that this award was no-bid, so it remains outside the count. The spending questions still stand: why was outside capacity needed, how was the firm selected, and what supported classifying this work as professional services? What was delivered each month? Were any extra charges approved, and if so, for what work? What safeguards kept scripts and speeches focused on useful public information?
We have not verified the complete invoices, delivered work and performance record for these engagements. That is a research limit, not proof that the documents or results do not exist. It is also why the council should put the evidence together in a clear public accounting.
No blanket defense of these contracts is warranted. Neither is a blanket accusation. The council should explain each consultant's selection, price, delivered work and results before asking taxpayers to accept another authorization. “The law allows it” is an inadequate answer to “Was this the best use of our money?”