Item 8C on the consent agenda of the July 30, 2013 city council meeting is troubling.
The item asks permission to reject the sole bid received by the city for some airport property.
It reads:
Request that the Purchasing Manager, Financial Services, Purchasing Division, be authorized to reject the sole bid received for solicitation No. 2013-192 (Sale of Real Property Improvement, Airport Hangar #7) as the bidder did not agree to the terms and conditions of the Contract.
The backup material tells us that the city solicited bids from 16 parties. One responded. The backup material tells us:
Department of Aviation has reviewed solicitation 2013-192 and recommends rejection of the sole bid received as the bidder did not agree to the minimum lease rate for the ground lease.
The item will be rebid.
What gives?
The city sent out a bid. Sixteen parties were invited to bid. Only one spent the time and money it takes to bid. The bidder made an offer. The airport does not think it was good enough.
What are the chances that the sole bidder will try next time? Slim is the word that comes to my mind.
What went wrong?
Did the city send the bid to 15 parties that would have no interest in the deal? We can see the city doing that from time to time when they want to be able to say that they asked for bids but do not really want a wide field of bidders.
Does the city really want to lease the property or were they just testing the waters? That would be a shameful waste of a private concern’s money.
Does the city want to hold out for a higher bid? That is what this looks like. Was the bid low because the solicitation was written poorly?
What makes the city think that they will get a better offer next time? What will they do differently? Was the bid poorly written and thus a waste of everyone’s time?
It seems to me that the sole bidder has set the market value for the deal and is being treated poorly.
Not alone
I have written before that I know many firms in El Paso that will not even bid for city business. They feel the process is unfair and a waste of their time and money.
This bidder has the right to be furious. It seems the bidder played by the rules but ended up wasting time and money.
We deserve better
Brutus
elpasospeak 
Could be they’re holding out for a “crony-friend” who they would really like to give the bid to. This gives that individual more time to do his homework and come back with a better bid than this rejected one. Doesn’t look good in the dirty dealings department.
LikeLike
“the bidder did not agree to the terms and conditions of the Contract…
“…Department of Aviation has reviewed solicitation 2013-192 and recommends rejection of the sole bid received as the bidder did not agree to the minimum lease rate for the ground lease.”
If the only bid responder did NOT agree to the minimum lease rate, it is a non-responsive bid. This is similar to an item at auction not reaching the designated reserve for an item.
This is a standard bid clause.
LikeLike
Tim,
I understand your point and, as usual you are right.
My point is that the market has spoken. The value is not what the city says it is.
Yes, you and I have the right to hold on to something if no one wants to pay what we want for it.
So does the city, as long as it makes sense.
LikeLike
We disagree Mr. Collins. Government should not be in the real estate business, especially with speculative strategies. It is NOT a private party and thus, should concentrate on putting that asset to use in running the day-to-day affairs of the city. Plus, either you support free market strategies or you don’t (which we know local government “progressive” politicians don’t with their massive tax and spend policies that benefit rich political donors the most). The market has spoken quite clearly: the property is not worth the value the city wants. To hold means it is just a non-earning taxpayer asset. That’s bad public policy.
LikeLike
I agree with your general comment, but we need to be careful how we put labels on people and situations. In the media world these days, “progressives” is a synonym for liberals.
The ballpark deal, which is a perfect example of a so-called public/private “partnership” that uses tax dollars to benefit a few, is being driven by Mountainstar, which is owned by prominent Republican donors, who have strongly supported Rick Perry’s pay-to-play approach to government. Conservatives and Republicans typically say they are against government spending, taxes and debt, but their actions suggest that they are perfectly okay with it when it benefits them personally.
The ballpark deal reminds me of the many people who criticized Obama for his “you didn’t build this” comment. In the case of our ballpark and so many other ballparks built primarily to benefit wealth team owners, the owners truly didn’t build these stadiums — taxpayers did.
If we’ve learned anything over the past 13 years, it is that both major parties believe in big government and both are aligned with special interests, who tend to win regardless which political party is in office. The same principle applies locally.
Democrats typically don’t hide the fact that they are fans of government spending. They are less open and honest, however, about the fact that they, too, are in the pockets of special interests.
There is an old saying that a person’s character is evidenced by what they do when no one is watching. We now have a pretty good idea of what has been happening downtown behind closed doors when the voters weren’t watching.
A person’s actions are a far better indicator of their true beliefs than their party affiliation or their proclaimed beliefs. We need to judge leaders and vote based on what they do — not on who or what they say they are. I think at least 74% of El Paso voters now realize that.
LikeLike