By Jerry Peters
This site has devoted attention to the
The reality is that the headquarters project is a monumental and complicated undertaking. Several firms attended the pre-bidding briefings, but the more potential bidders learned about the requirements, the fewer attended subsequent briefings.
Potential bidders took a pass because a public-private partnership has never been done in
This project was unusual because it was a mismash of legislation, requests for proposals, best-and-final-offer calls and mandated agreements.
The project had a creative element that attracted me to the challenge. It required a new office building and a Rail Runner station, but, otherwise, bidders had a nearly blank, 25-acre landscape upon which to create a masterpiece of mixed-use residential, retail and commercial space in a walkable neighborhood, or a monstrosity of asphalt and uninspired, big, boxy buildings.
I was enthusiastic about our proposal for this legacy project. The team is world-renowned. The concept and design is as good as it gets.
My goal for this project was doing a public-works project right. Building a 100-percent renewable-energy DOT headquarters and rail station at no expense to the state isn’t the way developers make money. Other developers took a pass because they didn’t think it could be done. Done wrong, this project will be a monstrosity.
I wanted it to fit into
Our group didn’t get special treatment
The Peters Group was the only bidder to submit a timely, responsive bid for the first request for proposals on Nov. 10, 2005. The Hunt Group delivered a proposal late and DOT did not accept it.
A week later, the secretary of DOT determined that it was in the best interest of DOT to re-bid the project.
The Nov. 28, 2005 second deadline arrived and the Peters Group submitted a timely bid. The department determined that the Hunt Group proposal was incomplete and non-responsive. The Hunt Group protested and was allowed to resubmit a complete proposal. Even though the Peters Group had the right to object, we agreed that it was in the interest of DOT to obtain more than one proposal.
The other bidder was given three opportunities to submit a responsive proposal. The Peters Group got it right every time. The irony is that the Hunt Group, not our group, was the beneficiary of special treatment.
Little happened for almost a year.
On Nov. 6, 2006, DOT asked for “best and final offers” from both bidders based on a 150,000-square-foot building, a size DOT arrived at after issuing the request for proposals and doing a space utilization study but before a winner was selected. In December, the Peters Group was selected by DOT’s independent selection committee based on a point system.
We entered into a memorandum of understanding agreement in January. The six-week negotiation timeline in the request for proposals reinforced my expectation that the final agreements would be quickly completed.
Big miscalculation: We did not receive draft agreements from DOT’s attorneys for many months. Planning and other development work was also needed before some terms could be finalized.
The DOT lawyers insisted on strict confidentiality. Big mistake: The secrecy fed the rumor mill. Confusion about the applicability of the state Procurement Code added grist to the mill. The request for proposals stated unequivocally that the Procurement Code did not apply. The legislation that authorized this project stated it “shall be exempt from the provisions in the Procurement Code, but the request for proposals process shall conform to the extent practicable with the competitive sealed proposal process in the Procurement Code.” The beginning and end of the sealed bid process is undefined. No wonder there was confusion.
Most of this year’s negotiations weren’t so much about dividing the proverbial pie, but rather defining the project’s details.
Helping
In exempting the project from the Procurement Code, the legislation exempted it from the code’s ban on contractors engaging in political activities at the state level. These exemptions for state political activity underscore the appropriateness of my support for Bill Richardson for president – a national office –after we were selected and after the memorandum of understanding had been signed.
During the bidding process, which significantly overlapped the 2005-2006 election cycle, I made no contributions to Governor Richardson’s campaign for re-election even though I think he was a great first-term governor and deserved a second term.
I didn’t write my $2,300 check for Bill Richardson’s presidential campaign until I was assured by federal election lawyers and the
It would have been better, from a perception standpoint and my self-interests, if I hadn’t engaged in these political activities. I let my strong conviction that this election is a watershed election – one that will determine the foreign policy path for our nation for the next century – guide my actions. I firmly believe the country and the world need Bill Richardson’s foreign-policy experience.
The
In retrospect, should I have put my checkbook away, flew the plane with empty seats and boarded up the house? Probably, from a purely perception standpoint. Absolutely not, from a legal standpoint.
Final thoughts
None of the people involved in recent scandals were part of our development team. No one at DOT suggested we hire anyone or do anything improper. But perception is perhaps more important than reality.
I don’t mind being held to a higher standard. I only want to win if our proposal is demonstrably superior. For these reasons, I support the independent investigation, the third re-bidding of the project and a new, more transparent and open process for keeping the public informed.
Peters is a