| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmasch https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=46964 |
Page 1 of 4 |
| Author: | BSFSRYFAN [ Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:22 pm ] | ||
| Post subject: | CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmasch | ||
See attached, the Federal Government recently moved the Court in Wyoming to order Rimmasch to pay just north of $1.9 million to properly abate CNJ 1021, transport it back to Steamtown, and finish restoration. The Court hasn't ruled one way or the other. Of note, on page 8 there is a breakdown supplied by NPS.
|
|||
| Author: | superheater [ Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
Does he have substantial personal assets? |
|
| Author: | BSFSRYFAN [ Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:39 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
Likely not. It appears he was heavily leveraged before the indictment, including mortgaging his personal home to try to keep the business afloat. My lawyer neighbor tells me that a federal restitution order lasts for 20 years. So, if the court enters it, it'll follow him around for a bit. |
|
| Author: | co614 [ Mon Oct 17, 2022 3:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
All added up it totals about $ 3,250,000.00. That will likely mean that John Rimmasch will remain a pauper the rest of his days as any money he would accumulate would be grabbed by the gov't. to go against this debt. Got to be a world record amount involved in restoring one simple day coach !!! Ross Rowland |
|
| Author: | David Notarius [ Tue Oct 18, 2022 6:43 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
Hi guys, where is the coach now, and what is it’s current condition? Thanks - David |
|
| Author: | Kelly Anderson [ Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:04 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
. |
|
| Author: | Overmod [ Tue Oct 18, 2022 10:16 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
I sincerely hope that the Government has guidelines about exactly how you could spend 'north of 1.9 million' to remove what asbestos supposedly still remains after the asbestos was illegally removed, transport the coach to some other location, and finish it back to whatever was 'contracted' (and apparently paid for). I also sincerely hope that no one in the restoration community gets the urge to 'pad' the work when it is done, just because the Government set the amount and they can 'get' John a little more as a result. I always used a completion bond to ensure that any contract would be finished if there were some problem. Was his 'invalidated' because improper procedures were followed? |
|
| Author: | EDM [ Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:00 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
Sitting outside, stripped, and exposed to the elements? Steel can be replaced, but what about the inlaid mahogany woodwork that those cars were known for? I hope that something was done to protect that woodwork. |
|
| Author: | Overmod [ Tue Oct 18, 2022 11:18 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
Quote: "what about the inlaid mahogany woodwork that those cars were known for?" 1) In what state was the woodwork when CNJ got done with the car and donated it? 2) Was part of the paid-for Rimmasch contract to restore the woodwork? 3) Is there any way to see the exact original contract provisions that cover this issue? It occurs to me that the Government might actually have provided the text of the contract somewhere, or the relevant sections could be obtained via a FOIA request. Some of the 'inquiring minds that want to know' can do the request and post the results here later. |
|
| Author: | jayrod [ Tue Oct 18, 2022 9:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
I’d like to see the original bid specs as well. I’ve poked around online to see if they’d pop up easily but I’d either need to do a deeper dive or they’re not available. If they are buried online, if someone knows where, please post a link. |
|
| Author: | Overmod [ Wed Oct 19, 2022 9:54 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
If I remember correctly (and don't particularly care if I don't) the bid amount is mentioned in some of the documents linked earlier in this thread -- about $750,000. There may have been some breakdown of that amount. |
|
| Author: | superheater [ Wed Oct 19, 2022 1:24 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
The thing that is frustrating here is that JR was a known quantity and yet his "services" were contracted anyway-all by a "certified" government contracting officer. What value is it to have somebody spend years seeking a certification that involves learning a vast array of rules that produce this result? |
|
| Author: | JR May [ Wed Oct 19, 2022 2:23 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
Coming to the defense of the contracting officer, this was a Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) acquisition, meaning that it was awarded to the lowest priced offeror who met the technical requirements (Go/No-Go) which consisted mostly of resumes and data covering Past Performance as follows: Past Performance – Submit a minimum of 3, no greater then 5, past performance references for similar projects in size and complexity. Each submission shall include primary contact name, telephone number, email address of current or past (if the work was not performed for the current owner) railroad passenger car owner, project description, contract value and completion date or current status. Limit one page per past performance reference. Government will contact references and assess relative to criteria/standards listed in Section M, Past Performance. In theory, as part of the evaluation, the evaluation board made the required calls and received positive feedback. Keep in mind John did a lot of work for the NPS Gold Spike National Historic Site. He was a known entity in a positive way. Armed with the limitations of the LPTA RFP, and a focus on low price, the acquisition office made a decision. J.R. May |
|
| Author: | superheater [ Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:02 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
JR May wrote: Coming to the defense of the contracting officer, this was a Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) acquisition, meaning that it was awarded to the lowest priced offeror who met the technical requirements (Go/No-Go) which consisted mostly of resumes and data covering Past Performance as follows: Past Performance – Submit a minimum of 3, no greater then 5, past performance references for similar projects in size and complexity. Each submission shall include primary contact name, telephone number, email address of current or past (if the work was not performed for the current owner) railroad passenger car owner, project description, contract value and completion date or current status. Limit one page per past performance reference. Government will contact references and assess relative to criteria/standards listed in Section M, Past Performance. In theory, as part of the evaluation, the evaluation board made the required calls and received positive feedback. Keep in mind John did a lot of work for the NPS Gold Spike National Historic Site. He was a known entity in a positive way. Armed with the limitations of the LPTA RFP, and a focus on low price, the acquisition office made a decision. J.R. May I fail to see how this is an improvement on procurement from S. Washington Ave. It should, but will not be a cautionary tale for the present mindset that believes in contracting as a magic bullet. I'm not much in to the "I checked all the boxes" defense. |
|
| Author: | Scranton Yard [ Wed Oct 19, 2022 3:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: CNJ Coach #1021-Government seeks restitution from Rimmas |
JR May wrote: Coming to the defense of the contracting officer, this was a Low Price Technically Acceptable (LPTA) acquisition, meaning that it was awarded to the lowest priced offeror who met the technical requirements (Go/No-Go) which consisted mostly of resumes and data covering Past Performance as follows: Past Performance – Submit a minimum of 3, no greater then 5, past performance references for similar projects in size and complexity. Each submission shall include primary contact name, telephone number, email address of current or past (if the work was not performed for the current owner) railroad passenger car owner, project description, contract value and completion date or current status. Limit one page per past performance reference. Government will contact references and assess relative to criteria/standards listed in Section M, Past Performance. In theory, as part of the evaluation, the evaluation board made the required calls and received positive feedback. Keep in mind John did a lot of work for the NPS Gold Spike National Historic Site. He was a known entity in a positive way. Armed with the limitations of the LPTA RFP, and a focus on low price, the acquisition office made a decision. J.R. May Thanks for the insight, JR. To clarify, with an LPTA, as long as the applicant meets the technical requirements in the application and is the lowest bidder, then the applicant is successful. My read, if correct, leads me to believe that the CO is not permitted to consider evidence that is outside of the application and so would not have been permitted to disqualify the applicant based on hearsay on this board or any other more credible evidence obtained outside of the application process. Please confirm. Thank you. |
|
| Page 1 of 4 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|
