In an earlier article Efficient, hardworking city staff I wrote about the “Score Summary Form” and how city staff had produced a definitive analysis of a complex project in just one day. The form boiled all of their hard work down to four ratings, 1, 2, 3, and 4.
I wondered about the consistency of the reviews and about several other things.
Compare that with these two pages (801TexasRanking) that are the comparable documents supporting the decision to award a contract on the 801 Texas building that the city just bought. You should be able to right click on the document to rotate it–sorry.
While the second page indicates that the city expected to conduct this analysis in one day also, the rating was not published for 8 days. Maybe the fix was not in on the 801 Texas building. Look at the numerical values (they are on a scale of 1-100).
Why the different rating systems? Is it possible that in the case of 801 Texas the city was actually interested in doing a rating instead of rubber stamping a decision that had already been made?
I wonder why the firm that got the ball park contract did not bid on this one. They did bid on the Luther building and got it. That means that they were good enough to get two contracts but did not even bother to bid on a third? What gives here?
What would the result have been if the 1-100 scale had been used for the ball park?
I suspect that when the true story finally comes out it will not be a pretty one.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 