{"id":2214,"date":"2007-09-10T11:44:00","date_gmt":"2007-09-10T17:44:00","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/09\/dot-bid-has-integrity-but-new-process-is-needed\/"},"modified":"2007-09-10T11:44:00","modified_gmt":"2007-09-10T17:44:00","slug":"dot-bid-has-integrity-but-new-process-is-needed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/2007\/09\/dot-bid-has-integrity-but-new-process-is-needed\/","title":{"rendered":"DOT bid has integrity, but new process is needed"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"\"<\/a>By Jerry Peters<\/span> <\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

This site has devoted attention to the New Mexico<\/st1:state><\/st1:place> Department of Transportation headquarters project<\/a>, my role as the development partner and my friendship and support for Governor Richardson\u2019s presidential campaign<\/a>. It is necessary to reconcile reality with the media perception.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Potential bidders took a pass because a public-private partnership has never been done in New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> and every layer of local and state government was clamoring to shape the project. Other bid-discouraging hurdles were a required bond that exceeded the net worth of most local builders and the sheer size of the project \u2013 between $350 million and $400 million.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

This project was unusual because it was a mismash of legislation, requests for proposals, best-and-final-offer calls and mandated agreements.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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\u2019t the way developers make money. Other developers took a pass because they didn\u2019t think it could be done. Done wrong, this project will be a monstrosity.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

I wanted it to fit into Santa Fe<\/st1:city><\/st1:place>, not detract from it. Our vision is state-of-the-art green technology and sophisticated architecture for the entire project. My team had the necessary and extensive experience building and financing these complex, capital-intensive, public-private partnership projects.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Our group didn\u2019t get special treatment<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

A week later, the secretary of DOT determined that it was in the best interest of DOT to re-bid the project.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Little happened for almost a year.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

On Nov. 6, 2006, DOT asked for \u201cbest and final offers\u201d 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\u2019s independent selection committee based on a point system.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Big miscalculation: We did not receive draft agreements from DOT\u2019s attorneys for many months. Planning and other development work was also needed before some terms could be finalized.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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 \u201cshall 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.\u201d The beginning and end of the sealed bid process is undefined. No wonder there was confusion.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Most of this year\u2019s negotiations weren\u2019t so much about dividing the proverbial pie, but rather defining the project\u2019s details.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Helping Richardson<\/st1:place><\/st1:city>\u2019s campaign<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

In exempting the project from the Procurement Code, the legislation exempted it from the code\u2019s 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 \u2013 a national office \u2013after we were selected and after the memorandum of understanding had been signed.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

During the bidding process, which significantly overlapped the 2005-2006 election cycle, I made no contributions to Governor Richardson\u2019s campaign for re-election even though I think he was a great first-term governor and deserved a second term.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

I didn\u2019t write my $2,300 check for Bill Richardson\u2019s presidential campaign until I was assured by federal election lawyers and the New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state> attorney general that it was legal. I was asked if the campaign could pay for and use my plane. I was asked to co-host, with others, fundraisers for Bill Richardson\u2019s presidential campaign and I agreed. I did it twice \u2013 in Jackson Hole<\/st1:city>, Wyo.<\/st1:state>, and New York City<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> \u2013 all consistent with the relevant laws.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

It would have been better, from a perception standpoint and my self-interests, if I hadn\u2019t engaged in these political activities. I let my strong conviction that this election is a watershed election \u2013 one that will determine the foreign policy path for our nation for the next century \u2013 guide my actions. I firmly believe the country and the world need Bill Richardson\u2019s foreign-policy experience.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

The Richardson<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> campaign is receiving millions of dollars from hundreds of thousands of contributors. A $2,300 contribution is not enough money to influence anyone in a presidential race estimated to cost the winning candidate more than $400 million. To me it was just continuing my long-standing support for Bill Richardson\u2019s career in public service. By co-hosting events at my home, I was providing a forum for more people to size up Bill Richardson.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Final thoughts<\/span><\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

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. New Mexico<\/st1:place><\/st1:state>\u2019s first public-private partnership must proceed under a process that is irreproachable.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

I don\u2019t 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.<\/p>\n

<\/o:p><\/p>\n

Peters is a Santa Fe<\/st1:place><\/st1:city> developer and art dealer. He\u2019s also behind the proposal, along with the Jemez Pueblo, to build a casino in Anthony.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Jerry Peters This site has devoted attention to the New Mexico Department of Transportation headquarters project, my role as the development partner and my friendship and support for Governor Richardson\u2019s presidential campaign. It is necessary to reconcile reality with the media perception. The reality is that the headquarters project is a monumental and complicated […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2214","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-guest-columns"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2214","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2214"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2214\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2214"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2214"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/nmpolitics.net\/index\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2214"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}