The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.053.1989 x. � . _ . �- . _. .. �__._ �� ,- � , _� �r � �, r� , `�,,' ; ;. , , ` •' . . , �'�. � :� .. �j'f�yj, ��} ��(. �i !�,,� . , _.. ;�, , ; �.� �k`,,s .� 'Y53'a"YY'.�d�Wl��U��1fJiD611'll`��'�W:ly'.dwlf+a�,�A.��41U.�. . . . [ .�! :.�../SSY 1. ''fxr _ �> �. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOAl2D OF COUNTY COMML�IIISSIONERS OF " PITIQN COIINTY, COLORADO ACTING AS Tf�; PROC6RSMENT APPEAIS BOARD APPROVING THE WRITTEN DECISION IN TSR PROC[TRII++IENNT APPEAL OF TfiE �' K.,_:.' FLEI5CHER-SMYTH COIKPANY Resolution No. 89-�'3.. '�''° - - WFiEREnS, Pitkin County issued a Request for Proposals and ;,:..'-�_�, aonducted a tertiary selection process for development of a � parcel of land adjacent to Aspen Valley Hospital and payment of � _ funds, from the developer's profit, to the County for �°: oonstruction of a County Health aad Human Services Building; and WF�REA5, one of the proposers on the project, Fleischer- _� 5myth Company, filed an appeal of the County Selection Committee i decision tn select another proposal; anfl r,:'-:_ ''� � Wf�REAB, the Board of County Commissioners, sitting as the ' = Procurement Appeals Board pursuant to authority gz'anted them by ,��` the Pitkin County Procurement Code, Sections 5-101(5) and 5-403, I �� aonducted a puhlic hearing on Apri1 24th and April 25th, 1989, �� and decided on April 25, 1989, by a three to one vote, with one . ` Board member abstaining, to uphold the County Seleation Committee ';.?� decision, � ; �:1� , NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Procurement Appeals Board of Pitkin County, Colorado that the written decision, �� attached hereta as Exhibit ��A," is the aetual and final decision ,.%� of the Board of County Commissioners, acting as the Procurement .••�;�;, Appeals Board, in the Fleischer-Smyth procurement appeaL _ .J.E �� I '��asr ATTEST: PROCUREMENT APPEALS BOARD OF � PITKSN COUNTY, COLORADO i � By: i; , 1 anette So s Colette Pen " ;; , _ Chairwo�nan � ��,/3-�'r1 M¢e�+"� � ��ro✓� � i r� ss6.50 - � � ;i.. :.� �s��. , �-' �;'.•;�: � . `c`s,.`:;�';�s- #�, - -� � r- �,e; ?.�-� ..L::t �, �., .... , m...�r,:... -��—_� �'�� :.i, . . _ ,,.� � . ' ..... � . . 1 .. . ��'f°�`�T�. _. , � ..a�'�';.f,s�w. ��iw :r.... . . - � y-�.�..;�`t"s:. . . !3('y-34. � . � . . ._r3��.� . . _ . . . • . . . :�(Y.�:-,�,I)S:�'••, . . . . . , . .s..;y`-•''�j:'i � • � . . 1y'�'�µ �, ' � . . � ' . . 'r Y�js,r - _ . . . \ .. . . R:��'�t'3." _ , . � F�� , � l;„��;, , .;��;3�,t,`�'F"'�-�'� � . , . t . . '�� . , O �, . •*9jG�,''M•,�'�'��'�. . r . .,....._ _ ` . . L _ . . ..� . 4 a � �h �. S� !1�tJe�� :1�4.'., , ,� • � ` ��{•�y�T��t�� rjty i,• ' .: � t � 'C' � d-�"� 1 �1��..1�"'!!'��y : , �,`!��'f��'� x'' ��'` y� .�' ';r:� t g.,� r ��';. �n�4n"i�'l�Tf�� .� �� n .--t��4` 7+`:., �.; ��ki., ai�� .�n.. ,i�1PK3Mw.i.�� L+t�t � need for affordable employee housing in Pitkin County was a report available to the public and was of such common knowledge that its inclusion in The Stevens Group proposal had no d`;';-. �. _ beneficial effect on the scoring of The Stevens Group. �; ,, Contrary to the contention of the protestor, The Stevens „'r � Group did not develop the Request for Proposals, ("RFP"), and was ,_::,� not at the time of the pre-proposal meeting a proposer but �` ' decided after this meeting to submit a proposal. The Housing ;,� Authority became a co-applicant with The Stevens Group at a later �. .� �,?' ` date and onl u on the re est of that ro oser. Thus there was �'. ` �y`• Y P 4u P P , 3i: T ;� no failure to disclose or misrepresent either the status of The "`�,� Stevens Group or the Housing Authority. Furthermore, the Housing `{a Authority also co-applied with the protestor upon their later �� request. �'�?� The Aousing Authority's co-applicant status with the winning applicant and with the protestor is consistent with its public '�� ,,i� purpose to further and facilitate affordable housing projects in �-. �.: the City of Aspen and Pitkin County. The Housing Authority is a separate cnrporate entity from the County and the City. It was �� not involved in the development of the RFP or in the selection � process. Thus, the Housing Authority had no information to �� ' "� diwlge that would be of advantage to any applicant in the ��. . • "-�� County's selection prooess for this project. The evidence failed -.,; � to establish that any advantage was given to the winning proposer �'_ ' . „ . � � by its earlier association with the Housing Authority. b 4,�,,, � Furthermore, the Board feels that the protestor's complaint, �,4n�� 's.i-F - � j3 _ ,�,: � .�,: !� � , , � °� , ' . . , . . .., , ,, . ,., �. .. � . � • ��` �s ��:,, 'S4,t�y�-_::. . ',: r, __:.;:: ,�. �� `�,'x��' ' , , n��t:. • • r��y�,�,�_�°'•-^., , .'�5?h�T R:�i,1;. . ;�,�.r+,,��;.. �;°x�u•:: . :�:.�s�� 3.�� k� � � �'F.:': , � ��2 ... . . .. .<.,.� _-,.._ i . _.. . _ . . . . . . . . . ,,. q� 's'G ' ` � ,�, �'q��.'� R� . '�'i,l',,�,s l?rf.: �-�� , � -��,xf,��j�� y,�� i. - ti,�� f re i:� � k � ��r� � � � l"�" �¢,�(?yy(�:'�.}{!� �t'yjFy��+.��{g' ry� ��3��'-� '�'Y . "�1 ��i r'. . t * _. .y��r�� .'JIP�.'i';.9KS-7}-�ki'�.. i /'•�t. ` f��S1n',. „�,':�. . ..�F:*: • . ....i' <.�..,�,-.�i7Ma...._ .. .. . . _. � �. after proposal se2ection, of advantageous information being provided to one proposer over another during the RFP process was (._,. ; not timely. If the protestor had complained at the time of any "' ` i � alle ed �"', g prob2ems, policy-making boards could have stopped the y::...", process, directed that any requested inforntation be given the �::_�.`;'_ T..' a protestor and the RFP bid period could have been extended. The �� ,� '-?�� Procurement Code, Section 5-101 1 re ires '�� O qu' proposers who feel F`- �r`. ,� they have a grievance concerning the proaurement process to submit their protest in writing to the County within fourteen - �:. ,f. (14) days of occurrence of the problem. The protestor did not do �� . � �v this but only complained after selection of another proposal. �.�� Such conduct prevented the County from correcting any possible �� improprieties oz misunderstandinqs on the part of any proposer. ' - �� The protestor's credibility is damaged when it proceeds through a �;�:,'y� three-step selection process without complaint and then complains �?�' after selection of another proposal is made. At one point in the selection process the protestor ;,_ . � complained informal2y to a Housing Authority Board member that it � was unable to get requested information from the Housing �-�:° Authority Director, James Adamski, on the affordable housing ,:.y,-. �� market. The Board member contaoted Mr. Adamski and the ! ; ,;�;�a information was expeditiousZy provided to the protestor. ` '� The protestor Failed to ahow that any advantaqeous information was supplied to one proposer and not another so as to ' �t ;,� prejudzce the protestor's proposal or p2ace it at any '^ .. ;:�. disadvantage in the scaring process. ��r :+,a,..a +� , � Fh -:'� 4 �Y;� �, �`'Y: �e4' .i.f� c �+ �.1� -T+'a ::_ ".� :.�F f "...:.. -�` . �.� . •� � M�� , _. _ . ,. ` . . �,�, .,; • t'r': x'" . . � ��; _ . ' 5��;. ' �4� T i� . . . . . �� "�t�k'. ' - . � �. � .'.::��1��I ' � � *Y��•, , , ,>�;�Y� _ � ,�;�� . �zS�:i'�.I� ` ' .. .. .. . . . _,. . .%!ss.`�a�: � � _. -:ir� " - .. . .... + ! ; � . � �� ,- :,e�t� �r,yrf _tr�. • � �,p � r �i� � ! �vx� �I��H� '��, ��1g��,�� w ,��s�; „ � -SD,� '� � ��1�.� �� 45`y"i' t �� "R�•,r �W... �."Y�� t�i�'�- }� e i �s;K �.��S�..� �� 1� �� .�� . ,yr�_x � f ��r ,� �§tl,,`2 : - .. _M �"� v. � .� ��i tk�.#'s'�. . tw�`�.��:!. q.. • i At the hearing the protestor did not establish that any � conflict of interest was present in the selecY.ion process. No �:,� , � �•, _ public employee benefitted or stood to benefit privately from the �=:,A=�; j project or �he selection pracess and no misuse of official ��;.`; information was shown. - ' ,°� The protestor complained that the Housinq Authority � ,. 4:"� committed to tax-exempt public financing for The Stevens Group. �'S?� However, despite The Stevens Group's apparent exploration of the - ;__�,`_, �;,. potential for tax-exempt financing, the evidence showed that The �';. - �:'., � T Stevens Group did not receive a commitment from the Housing ,es'�'� Authority for any aZternative financing and did not base its i '�.'�� proposal on any assumption of tax-exempt financing. � _ �V?�� Furthermore, the Housing Authority did r�ot commit 1�.YF� $400,000.00 in financing to The Stevens Group. Rather, The r�� Stevans Group's proposal contained a commitment to generate z�• 'A� ;.,-�;,9 $400,000.0o to the County upon sale of the proposed units. The i t�� Board further finds that the Selection Committee correct2y �' '"� concluded that the protestor's proposal did not contain an �"r unconditional commitment to provide a $400,000.00 return to the r:.r��y. ;ti� County without tap and permit fee waivers. v��• '+ " 'S The sending of different letters to the proposers at the :` ;;3� d. . � tertiary staqe was justified and necessary due to the need to place the proposers on equal footing with regard to their ` �� development assumptions and due to a change in policy direction ;w..n., '"ir�� from the new Board of County Commissioners. The new Board `��"��`•,� ,� ,. ;`^:� r'� decided that it wanted to see comparable proposals for an c'h • _- 5 `,�'° ri� -��:, ;�xr. . . �� ' �. -..?_ . .:•_•4•., .'.,r -' ..:... . �.:'.." . . . .. . .y��:: . . . . .. .. ... �� . �.'w�u"` � � � - r_w""T:�:` . , - :';,i:��,�. _ . -r:� � :�;` � . a�,i.��.�,�e:i` . . � . �;., '•�s.�1��'� . � . . . . _;,;R�g;�;�;, . �,uh a;�" � . � �+,'�n,�::"d's?� _ ,:}��;;; • ':;°•�. A!;�;;' , . :�w�.�.� ' � :�� . � ;�� ` � . . . _ . y�r !if s 1 ��. , ..._ ._ . ... ..,..,..- . . ., .... . ... . _ � . � ' • .'- . � ��b � �. . �. � � -. � ��c ��• � . _ �� y� � '��`.��r, � .:�. �5r t � ,'t�jc�,.n'��:t Y �S� � r ,c _� t aa#,� Y}}",!'� ... �,a .�v . 4,�A��P�•/Y�YS�R1�.W.'��w,�l.�.+r��..^......, f�SF�YY�.'+' � � �^�f employee housing project with a density level compatible with the surrounding communities. Thus, the different letters sent to the . proposers a� the tertiary stage of selection were intended to, ,.., .4_ and did, place the proposers on an equal footing so that both ' �.. � proposers were designing a low density sinqle family employee ;�: ��r ; housing project with a minimum retuxn o£ $400,000.00 to the !;"� J ;'� County. �� ". ' � , , " The evidence also fai2ed to establish improprieties in the r �� ; s�:<�� ,�° � scoring process, although the protestor apparently misunderstood �;', .�,'� � .'t. F•:=�.Py how the scores were to be calculated. Testimony revealed however �.�' that both proposers were treated equally and fairly in the ,��.y.. `'�3 scoring process. �� - � At the hearing the protestor went to some lengths to :�1;�Yi-'', <�� establish the superiority af its proposal. However, it is not ` �«�:}: the Procurement Appeal Board's role to second guess the Selection ;�s��` Committee's judgment in its seZection of a proposa2, but to � :rs.: <�;'�>,.��' determine if there were any unfair advantages or impropxieties in ' ; `'�; the selection process. }f�� =-'� CONCLUSION OF LAW �'_;:�:.;�rY _ �;. The evidence at the hearinq failed to establish that an '=�.�± unfair advantage was given one proposer over another or that `' ' ! -- there were improprieties in the County�s selection process so as � � _ to justify overturning the Selection Committee's deczsion. The ;'1 <.` c. - ,��w �x� � �w�," :'r. - .. 6 :�'� �' ��;Y'` . `-�.F�;; � � ��L =� � . . ,. h�, t....i; r.. 1 ,i::.... -� � .�..- -;;: � . -x . ,.::<: .�`-:-: e ::,:' ,.;:_; , .:. �-�}��r . � . ... . ... . . :t` . . ,'� ;._�;; , .�"e��'1�i�: . . ' . ` - . . • 1�� 'j�>� � � . . . . `� 4 1'. . . . . �y}L! ..:.�:' � �. . . 1 :�� '�:�s i 9-�` - � . - � . � � . ��. � � � . , . . �nx�`+''... • . . ' , . �;��,:�;;,'. , � '`�%iy�lL- . ' .... i��;..r�.� , . . ��!.. ,��( ' F , ;��,�� • � � - ,L`- .. , . . . .. . �:1x :. �,� M— r� ` y#Y t '� n� Y I�r � �+ti^ , . ,, t5� , , -� . `� � 3,�, , . .. ,� , y 7 i`h ��: �,��'y.�4'.�� 4 R`�:b - A . . . t� �asr �'f�-�v"��' . _ . . _�.� :�x. _ i'. .�.. t�a.�µ..l� �AVliw,..... .Y.'. �1 , � `;rs decision of the Selection Committee is affirmed. ��1�1 '�.. r}. �3 ATTEST: PROCUREMENT APPEALS BOARD i� OE PITKIN COUNTY, COLURADO ; �� ' /� '�^ F + � By: �11��n.tSC, �,L(J/1/L �4� ;:: p nette Jones Colette Penne (�_�3,.� y eputy Clerk Recorder t ��Chairwoman t� }� v ,,,�;^� ?� APPROVED AS TO FORM: j',. � �: J�� ri t�t{.�'�� Q . ?�;;�•:, • Susan W. Snyder ' iY��r`�.. Asst. Pitkin County arney } ;t k' ,��- ��:. '.� ` ,�' }�=';;,-� &55.31 ,�� ar �,i�:r�t �.-:,c!�- ��,�rA t �-`��b . ..a� .� . . . :C.C <�c� ,�-�. � �,��: �, ..R=. a.��; ' , �:.:.�� ,,; ,t�:�� ?� �> `;�;�rt - �:.}3�� `�: ; :; E ��; , -�::+,�.; . � ��' ..',�� . ;r " ,^��' - i.^r�` �;>;. , . ''t�v..�t:..; . .��. `='it_, � . ?:� :v��^ ��: .�� J!',`;�«^i':. . . ' ��: 7 ..i o . � s.�.Y�,) . �� ti�`+.,,*,y, ±�� 's� , f' .. . T ..-:. ::.. 4:'. �.. . . ..-. �'n�".al�sf��n1.�'+�rl�'�!r'�,��:tc�.�Cr-:i?u',r'hhf »:�s�J+f�,f,�rMw.T.(?,ti ..-,+'.S�yx,3 .�: .a.:��.,Y F.�,a•`.�sa F.1�.r��} _i;�Yk!�."�".��E�,�.�;..��.. ': , .�u ..: . . _ . �: `� � . " . . . . , . . l_� . �ti# .. . � � . . . . '�t�a . _ ;��-�• ,�� \' . � �T'6��r .�_ � . .. ..' ' . . . � .. � � '. - .. ' . . , .. \� ` . . " K: . � .. � . . .. �� .. .. ' "Iy . . . . . . . . . . � ( . 1-' � � � � � " ' . �' �j� - :e , - . � ' , t: . ♦ � • . ��.:r:'�:..r.