Qualifications or favoritism?

January 9, 2013

Texas law prohibits competitive bidding for professional services rendered to  governments.  It instead requires the agencies to make a selection ” (1) on the basis of demonstrated competence and qualifications to perform the services; and (2) for a fair and reasonable price”.

Professional services include architecture, professional engineering, accounting, legal, real estate appraising and a host of other disciplines that are generally under a state licensing board like the Texas Appraiser Licensing and Certification Board.

This is unusual in that businesses choose professional services frequently based upon the price to be charged.  Being competent is part of the process.  Under the state system, however,  the agencies conduct a “beauty contest”.  They generally issue a Request for Qualifications first.  Interested individuals and firms respond to the request.  The agency then generally has a committee rank the candidates.  The rankings must by necessity be subjective, in other words “who looks best”.

This leads to mischief.  The committees frequently pick their favorites since disproving a subjective judgement is so difficult and they can thus get away with favoritism.

Lets look at the process at the City of El Paso.  Some professionals will not bid city jobs because they know from prior experience that they will not be chosen and that submitting a response would be a waste of time.  This item on the October 30, 2012 city council agenda is particularly troubling.

Here the city states that their “On-Call” agreements with various consulting firms will expire and that they need to issue new ones.  Instead of waiting for a specific project to create a need for consulting services the city wants to pre-approve a bunch of different firms (43 to be precise) for various kinds of work.  The city evidently issued requests, picked their favorites and now wants to issue contracts.

The way it works out:

  • The firms were not selected for their specific capabilities for an individual project.  Let’s say that the city wants to build a new major league swimming facility.  They did not issue a Request for Qualifications that centered on the firm’s ability to design or engineer a swimming facility.  Instead the firms were judged generally (whatever that means).
  • In most categories the ranking committees select about half of the candidates to be worthy
  • The other half are banished
  • Contracts are awarded for $500,000 to each selected firm.  The firms are not given specific jobs to do,  just be “on-call”.  Who knows how much work the city will actually require at this point?  They just want to be able to pick and choose the firms when the need for work comes up.
  • Some firms actually have work assigned to them and some of them don’t.  The amount of work they get will depend upon how well they get along with the city staff.  Don’t ever, ever, ever disagree professionally with city staff.  After all, they control the money and you are just an expert on the subject.
  • Feedback to city council is minimized because the firms that are awarded contracts but not given any actual work keep their mouths shut when a deal is awarded to someone else.  They have hope that if they “go along” they will eventually get some work.
  • The net effect is that the city staff has great control over the professionals and the professionals need to be quiet about what is happening if they want any city work.

Maybe by and large this leads to fairness.  No.  Consider these circumstances:

  • A firm submitted a response  for architectural services and was ranked 14th out of 18.  That is not very good.  The city selected the top 9 (see page 4 of the presentation).  The firm did not get a contract.  Evidently the city thought that their work was not as good as it needed to be.
  • Less than a month later the city needed architectural services to rehabilitate the Luther building as part of the move out of city hall.  The firm that was ranked 14th got the contract for $562,316.   Why?  Because previously a private owner ran its own selection process and chose the firm to do work on the building and thus the firm was the best qualified according to the city.
  • Hold it!  Not good enough — then good enough.  Baloney!  Not my favorite — but need to use them anyway — is what this looks like.

I don’t know anyone at the firm in question and they do not know that I am writing this.  I just have to wonder how they can be so undesirable to the city and still be good enough to handle a project for one of the most able businessmen in El Paso.  I have to conclude that they are just fine and that their only problem with the city is that they have not become one of the chosen few.

There may however be an element of truth in the process.  The city refers to on-call professionals.  The world’s oldest profession uses that designation also if I am not mistaken.

We deserve better.


If you must regulate, regulate the business not the consumer

January 8, 2013

The editorial in the El Paso Times on January 4, 2013 was about potential city action relative to payday/car-title loans.

I agree with the Times and applaud the fact that they are taking a position on this issue.  Sometimes these loan businesses are vultures.  Many times the firms do not end up helping the borrower, they make the problem worse.

I have not read the proposed ordinances that the city is considering, so I do not know how they are structured.

I have however read the editorial and take issue with what the Times proposes.

They wrote “the city may need to act on the following:

  • Limit the amount a customer can borrow
  • Limit the number of times a customer can renew a loan
  • Require lenders to provide financial counseling for borrowers”

Any rules that the city adopts should control the actions of the loan businesses, not the consumer.  The city evidently has the right to control the business licenses of these lenders and thus some of their actions.  I suspect that the fees charged and interest rates applied are the real problem here —  the Times does not address these issues.  If however they feel that their suggestions are the right business way to handle the issue, I would prefer that the Times write:

  • Limit the amount the loan business can loan to an individual
  • Limit the number of times the loan business can renew a loan
  • Require lenders to provide financial counseling for borrowers

I do not know what penalties the Times would propose.  If any activity needs to be made illegal or subject to fines it should be the actions of the businesses, not the individuals.

I have enjoyed seeing the Times  do better under the new editor and publisher and hope that they take my comments constructively.

Maybe the Times intended what I have suggested.  If so, they should have said it.

We deserve better


You wouldn’t do this with your own money

January 7, 2013

Brutus’ post Foul Ballpark has me wondering why we put up with this stuff at the city.

Would you:

  • Decide to build a new home
  • Sign a contract to have the house built for $150,000
  • Have the plans drawn up later
  • Give the builder 30% of what is left if the house ends up costing less than $150,000
  • Let your real estate agent decide how the home will be built?

Of course not!  You would:

  • Have detailed plans before you signed the contract
  • Keep control over the design, not let someone else decide for you
  • Make sure that the contractor built what was promised, not delete a bathroom or leave the roof off …
  • Walk away from any contractor that proposed such nonsense

It appears that this is what the city wants to do to us at their Tuesday meeting.  The El Paso Times article this weekend did not point this out.  I hope they write an editorial about this.

Why do we allow the people at the city to do this to us?

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.


Foul ballpark

January 6, 2013

Next Tuesday’s city council agenda has item 9C on it that will authorize spending $40,182,111 to build our new ballpark.

The contract details are way out of my league (sorry, couldn’t resist), but I did note a few things:

  • The construction documents are not due in from the architect until May 17, 2013 according to the contract with the architect.  Maybe the dates have changed and the design is all done, after all council approved the contract with the architect way back on November 27, 2012.  How long does it take to design a ball park anyway —  especially when your local cabal has complete control over what we get for our money?
  • Demolition is now budgeted at $2.5 million dollars, not the $2 million we have been told about all along.  Maybe someone has a car payment due.
  • The city engineer will have complete control over the design (without city council approval).  “…the City Engineer may without further authorization from City Council approve contract changes which are necessary for proper execution of the work and carrying out the intent of the project, which are in accordance with applicable law, do not make changes to the prices ad are within the appropriate budget”.
  • If the firm can bring the ballpark in under budget, the firm will get 30% of the savings.

If the design is finished, we citizens would sure like to see it.  I for one would like to see how they “fit” the stadium to the site.  Will first base really only have a few spectator rows?  Will they put part of the park on top of the train way (cough, sputter)?  Will Santa Fe and Durango disappear?  I have a lot of questions.

Once again, I really don’t know how these kinds of deals work.  If I understood what is really going on I would probably be ill.

I suppose that you could convince me that it is in our interest,  since we evidently have an agreed upon price for a facility that we have no plans for, that the city engineer can change at his will, and where the contractor will get 30% of the savings.   Then again, I think not.

We deserve better


Trouble with city inspectors

January 5, 2013

This was posted anonymously.  I thought that it deserved a separate category so I have moved it here.

Feel free to tell us about your experiences, both good and bad.  Post your comments

————————————————————————————

I had the opportunity to deal with El Paso’s City Development department this week. The experience was not totally pleasant, and a friend suggested I visit elpasospeak.com and tell you about it. So….

My water heater died a couple of weeks ago. Just one of those things that a homeowner has to deal with. I called a plumber in to replace it; on finishing the job, he informed me that we now needed to schedule a visit by a city inspector to approve the installation. Okay, I thought, there has to be accountability somewhere, and a city inspector sounds like the kind of person I’d want to make sure the plumber did the right thing.

He offered to schedule the inspector’s visit for me. But, he said, the down side is that they (the city) would not give us a time, and that if I was not home when the inspector came, the city would bill me $65.00 and I’d have to reschedule.

Huh. Ok, I’m sure the inspectors are very busy people. And I understand that service related technicians can only offer a window of time; because of the nature of what they do, it’s hard to be specific.

So, the plumber arranges it and tells me that I can call the city on that day and maybe get a narrower time frame as to when the inspector would be out. The day arrives, and at 8:00 a.m., I begin calling the city development department. No answer. I call again at 10 minute intervals, until, finally, at 9:10, someone answers the phone. (Ok, maybe the city doesn’t honor normal business hours.) I’m given the inspector’s name and phone number, and I call him directly. He tells me he’ll be at my house sometime after 10:30 a.m., but before lunchtime (which, I surmised, would be noon). At this point, I’m thinking that maybe I’ll only miss a half day of work. Hah!

Noon came and passed, and of course, no inspector. I finally reached him at 4:30 to determine why he had not yet come to my home. Turns out he had other homes in my neighborhood, and he thought he had hit them all, but apparently had overlooked mine. To his credit, he apologized and said he’d be right out to do the inspection. Ten minutes later, I showed him the new water heater; he looked, noted the insulation around the pipes, noted that it was a gas water heater, noted that they had also installed a drip pan. He then pulled out a card, wrote his name, my address, handed it to me and said ‘This is for your records. Sorry again for the delay’.

He was done in about two minutes.

Huh? That’s it? I don’t need to sign anything?

Nope, he said. You’re good to go!

Amazing. So, this little episode raised some concerns in my mind:

I wonder if the inspector considered the value of my time? Because it wasn’t just my time. It was my boss’s time. And my customer’s time. Considering he was 4 1/2 hours late, I’m thinking I should invoice the city for a sum of money equal to the amount of money my company lost….

And where is the accountability? Where are the checks and balances? How does the supervisor in the city development department even know that the inspector was at my house? Or any other house? What documentation does the city keep to ensure that inspections don’t get skipped?

And, by the way, what kind of an inspection was that? I could have taken a photograph and sent it in as proof that it was installed up to code.

I believe that in any organization, leadership sets the tone. They are the role models, and they set the example for the rest of the organization to follow. I’m wondering now, just what kind of leaders my inspector has? And if it really does come from the top, boy, are we in trouble.