[800 Million Yen Contract] Does "It's the same as that town" really hold up? The contradiction seen in the Hoffman Kiln bidding.
[This article is an in-depth explanation of the parliamentary report "Milk Oyaji Report" issued in April 2023]
This time, I will talk about the preservation and repair work of the "Hoffman Kiln No. 6," an important cultural property of Fukaya City. Protecting cultural properties is, of course, important. However, I felt a major doubt regarding the "way the contract was decided" for the 800 million yen in tax money used for that purpose.
The city chose a "discretionary contract," where they contract with a specific company without holding a bid. The reason cited was the precedent of the "Nogi Town Brick Kiln" in Tochigi Prefecture. However, when examined closely, a major contradiction was hidden in this logic.
1. A "fixed race" with only a 10,000 yen difference?
First, please look at the numbers that show the abnormality of this contract.
Design amount (estimated price calculated by the city): 801.13 million yen
-
Contract amount (contract price with the company): 801.02 million yen
The difference is only 10,000 yen. For a project on the scale of 800 million yen, such a precise match in price is a phenomenon unique to an environment without competition.
Under the Local Autonomy Act, discretionary contracts are originally limited to small-scale cases such as "within 1.3 million yen." However, the city proceeded with this discretionary contract as a special case, citing the reason that it is a "specialized construction project with only one example in the country."
2. The boomerang of the "Nogi Town precedent"
The basis used by the city for the discretionary contract (single-company designation) was the restoration work of the Nogi Town Brick Kiln in Nogi Town, Tochigi Prefecture. The logic is, "Because it is a special construction project similar to Nogi Town, we have no choice but to ask a company with that track record."
However, I pointed out one contradiction here.
Contradiction 1: Nogi Town decided it through "bidding"
The Nogi Town Brick Kiln project that the city used as a "precedent." In fact, the contractor was decided through bidding (competition).
If it were a "specialized technology that only one company in the world can perform," it should have been a discretionary contract from the beginning even in Nogi Town. The fact that Nogi Town held a bid is proof that it was judged that "competition is possible as long as the specifications are solid."
If you say you are "doing it the same way as Nogi Town," shouldn't the contract method also be "bidding," just like Nogi Town?
Contradiction 2: The danger of "doing it once" becoming a "permanent passport"
This time, the basis for the discretionary contract was the "one-time construction track record" in Nogi Town. If competition is excluded for this reason, what will happen?
The contractor who wins the first time can monopolize that work forever.
The chance for other skilled contractors to enter the market and gain experience is lost forever.
Under these conditions, competitive principles do not function, and prices remain high (the "10,000 yen difference" this time tells that story). While having a track record should be valued, it must not be used as a privilege to turn away other companies.
3. It also contradicts Fukaya City's own past
Furthermore, Fukaya City itself has conducted construction work on the Hoffman kiln six times in the past, and four of those times were through general competitive bidding.
In the past, they held bids, and there was actual competition where other companies submitted bids or prices fell below the minimum restricted price. Yet, to claim "it's a special case, so it's a discretionary contract" only this time risks negating the bidding administration they themselves have conducted in the past.
4. Conclusion: Transparency is the key to trust
To avoid any misunderstanding, I believed that a "bidding process" should have been conducted as a matter of principle, and I expressed my opposition in the assembly.
As long as 800 million yen of taxpayer money is being used, a fair competitive environment should be established unless there is objective and undeniable proof that "only one specific company can do it." We should not interpret "precedents" conveniently, but rather verify their contents thoroughly. I believe that is the responsibility of those entrusted with tax money.
Source: From the Milk Oyaji Report issued in April 2023