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.


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


1 plus 1 not equal to 2

January 4, 2013

The El Paso Times printed an article January 3, 2013 titled “Wilson:  Times building remodel on schedule”.

The article indicated “the City Council approved issuing a purchase order of nearly $650,000 for the remodeling of the Times building…”.  According to the report the city manager “said the authorization was a formality because individual purchase orders of more than $500,000 issued under a previously approved job-order contract must be approved separately by council.”

I like to use the Oxford Dictionaries to help me understand the meaning of words.  They define formality as “(a formality) something done or happening as a matter of course and without question”.

Once again it seems as though the city manager does not understand her place.  The Texas legislature required that the approval be brought to city council.  The legislature did not do this to waste our city representatives’ time, it did it to require the council to pay attention.  If council had to vote on the issue it was not a “formality”.  They had the right to disapprove.  Evidently the city manager thinks of council as her personal rubber stamp.

Also troubling is the discrepancy between the costs reported by the El Paso Times in it’s November 7, 2012 article “El Paso City Council OKs buying 2 buildings for move” and this new January 3 article.

On November 7 they reported that the city would spend $9.4 million to buy the Times building and $2.1 million to remodel it.  The January 3 article reports the purchase price as $9.75 million and the remodeling at about $3 million.

Oops!  There goes $1,250,000 of our money.

The November 7 article reported the costs associated with the Texas Street properties as $2.3 million for the purchase and $9.5 million for renovations.  The January 3 article reported the costs as $2.4 million and $8.5 million respectively.

The reporting on the Luther building had the same kind of differences.

So the question at hand is why did the same newspaper print different reports?

Possible answers (without being unkind) are:

  • One or both of the reporters was wrong
  • The city provided different numbers for each report

If the city provided different numbers why were they not reported as being different in the second article?

Do the reporters read their own newspapers, or do they not care about accuracy?

I support the El Paso Times, otherwise I would cancel my subscription.  Let’s encourage them to do better.

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.


Pre Sneak Attack

January 3, 2013

They really are creative.  Someone I know says “Once you have abandoned your principles the rest is easy”.

Remember that in Sneak Attack I wondered what was happening with the $450,000 the contractor quoted to demolish the old offices in the El Paso Times building.  City council was going to consider almost $649 thousand to build new offices for the mayor, council and the city attorneys, but was not considering the $450 thousand.

I pointed out that Texas law required council to approve the $649 thousand since it was over the $500 thousand threshold that the legislature set for automatic review with this type of contract.

Well, listening to the council meeting today I heard  the question asked and answered.

City staff evidently felt that since the $450 thousand was below the state requirement staff could proceed without council approval.

The reality is that this should have been a single contract.  The contractor is going to tear down some old offices and build new ones where the old ones were.  It would have added up to $1,099,000 but staff could get this started easier by breaking it into two separate pieces.  State law forbids this kind of sequential purchasing under some purchasing methods, but not under the one used here.

In any event rack up another $44 thousand that the Houston based Harris County Department of Education gets since the contractor must pay 4% of it’s booty to them.  That is money that could have stayed in El Paso.

O shame, where is thy blush?  (Who would have known that Hamlet knew the people at the city?)

We deserve better