RE: Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #12 ? Q12: When was the RFP open for organizations to submit proposals?
State Purchasing issued the RFP on Oct. 8, 2015. It remained open until Nov. 24, 2015. This was after the application period of Aug. 1?Sept. 1 outlined in DWR?s administrative rule for the expo permits contract. Although the release of the RFP through State Purchasing was intended to coincide with that timeframe, there were unexpected delays in issuing it. (These delays were due to personnel changes and the complexity of the issue.)
The DWR stated during the public Utah Wildlife Board meeting on Aug. 27, 2015 (see timestamp 05:22:24) ? before any proposals were submitted ? that DWR personnel were in the process of working with State Purchasing to issue the RFP. The DWR regretted the delayed release of the RFP, but felt it was important to get the process right.
RESPONSE:
In the first paragraph of FAQ #12, the DWR admits that the RFP was issued ?after the application period of Aug. 1?Sept. 1 outlined in DWR?s administrative rule for the expo permits contract. Although the release of the RFP through State Purchasing was intended to coincide with that timeframe, there were unexpected delays in issuing it.? The DWR?s formal RFP was not issued until over two months after the application period set forth in R657-55-4(3) opened. See
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm. The DWR attributes those delays to ?personnel changes and the complexity of the issue.? However, in FAQ #11 the DWR admits that they did not begin ?formally working with State Purchasing to develop the RFP document? until May 2015. That is seven months after the DWR claims to have first discussed the change to the formal RFP during a private meeting with conservation groups in October 2014. If this change was so significant and complex then why didn't the DWR start working on it immediately? Why wait seven months? In addition, I served a GRAMA request on the State Division of Purchasing and asking for ?any correspondence, emails, notes and/or other written communications between the Division [of Purchasing] and the DWR . . . relating to the Expo RFP.? The earliest email or written communication that the Division of Purchasing produced in response to that GRAMA request was dated July 1, 2015. Therefore, even if the DWR starting working with the Division of Purchasing in May 2015, it does not appear that there was any significant written communications between the groups until July 2015.
It is also curious that the DWR expresses concern with the fact that the RFP was not issued until well after the application period set forth in its administrative rule. While that may be a concern to me and many other sportsmen, the fact is the DWR violated the terms of its administrative rule in a number of ways by moving to the formal RFP without amending its rule. So why worry about the application time period? Let me give you a few examples:
1. Under R657-55-4(3) the application period ran from ?August 1 and September 1 of the year preceding the expiration of each wildlife exposition term.? In contrast, under the RFP, the DWR unilaterally changed the application period to October 8, 2015 to November 25, 2015.
2. R657-55-4(4) spells out the information that must be included in an application for the Expo Tag. The 38-page RFP document issued by the DWR changed and expanded those criteria. See Section 2.2 and 2.3 of RFP -
https://drive.google.com/open?id=0BwhBsR2dj01GZXpSQ3R3MS1MTnM.
3. R657-55-4(6) and (7) states that the Wildlife Board (with a recommendation from the DWR) would determine which group would receive the contract. Under the RFP a selection committee was created and tasked with reviewing the applications and their recommendation was then presented to the Wildlife Board.
4. R657-55-4(7) set forth the criteria that should be considered with by the Wildlife Board. In contrast, the RFP set forth a different set of criteria and a scoring formula for weighing those criteria. See Attachment C to RFP.
Thus, by moving to a formal RFP, the DWR was acting in a manner that was inconsistent with the application process set forth in R657-55-4. Now, I want to be clear that I have no objection with the DWR moving to a formal RFP process. However, if that is what the DWR wanted to do then they should have done it in a timely, transparent and fair manner. And most importantly, they should have amended their rule to allow them to use a formal RFP. All the DWR would have needed to do was modify the procedure in R657-55-4 to state that they would be issuing a formal RFP through the Division of Purchasing and then take those proposed amendments to the RAC meetings in December 2014 and the Wildlife Board Meeting in January 2015 where the rule amendment was discussed. However, that did not occur.
In an effort to cover their tails, the DWR has searched the meeting minutes for any reference or mention of the word ?RFP? and they point to a statement during the August 27, 2015 meeting that ?DWR personnel were in the process of working with State Purchasing to issue the RFP?. Remember, the DWR?s proposed rule amendments were presented at the December 2014 RAC meetings and January 2015 Wildlife Board meeting. Now, the DWR is justifying the move to a formal RFP by stating that they mentioned the change during the August meeting? Tune in and listen to the recording referenced by the DWR. What was happening there is Kenny Johnson was providing a report to the Wildlife Board on the annual Expo Permit ?Audit.? See Agenda and Packet for 8/27/2015 Board Meeting -
http://wildlife.utah.gov/public_meetings/board/2015-08_board_agenda.pdf . The public has absolutely no notice that the DWR was going to announce a major change to the Expo Tag Program. No announcement of a change to the Expo Tag program was on the agenda for that meeting. Nor was any announcement of a change to the rules governing the Expo Tags on the agenda. None of this was taken to the RACs for public input. As a result, the public was denied any opportunity to comment on this significant change and the conservation groups who did not have close relationships with the DWR and relied upon the process set forth in the DWR?s own administrative rule were left in the dark.
In summary, the DWR?s move to a formal RFP was poorly communicated, untimely and inconsistent with their own administrative rule. Take a minute and read through R657-55-4 as it exists today on the state?s website? See
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. It still says nothing about a formal RFP.
Tune in tomorrow. I believe that FAQ #13 is one of the most misleading statements in the DWR?s document. I am looking forward responding to that one.
-Hawkeye-