Sherlock
Active Member
- Messages
- 378
Last week I submitted an email to Governor Herbert's office expressing my concerns about the whole expo controversy and, in particular, the loss of tags from the public draw to the benefit of select private entities with ties to DWR that have the appearance of impropriety. I received the following response. Enjoy...
March 2, 2016
Dear (Sherlock):
Thank you for your email to the Office of the Governor regarding the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Governor.
Our office appreciates hearing from constituents and your comments and opinion on this issue have been noted. As much misinformation has circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR. I hope the below details remove any doubt you may have had regarding the expo selection process.
"The purpose of the wildlife expo permits is to raise revenue for conservation, but also to bring a large wildlife exposition to Utah for all of the economic benefits such an exposition would provide to the state. Whenever the state desires to procure goods or services, we follow the process described in state procurement code. In this case, state procurement code required that the state issue a formal "Request for Proposal", which not only asks that proposals be submitted, but it also clearly defines how those proposals will be scored. The RFP for the expo permit distributor clearly stated that proposals would be scored on: 1) the viability of the business plan and potential to put on a high quality expo (40% of total score), 2) the ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20%), 3) the commitment of the organization to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30%), and 4) the historical contribution and previous performance of the organization in Utah (10%). All of this information was made available to potential applicants before proposals were written.
After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria. The independent committee unanimously agreed that the proposal submitted by Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) was the superior proposal, because it better addressed the criteria in the RFP, and consequently had the highest total score. The SFW proposal scored particularly well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal, and it also provided a detailed data security plan to protect the personal information of the state's customers, as well as the credit card information of people that attend the expo. The other proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan provided little to no detail. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could cost the state millions of dollars. As I'm sure you can understand, we could not put the social security numbers and credit card numbers of our customers at risk due to the lack of a detailed data security plan. If you would like more information about the committee's decision, please read the justification statement for their selection, which is located at: Caution-http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.
As many have noted, the SFW proposal did not directly return the most money to the state on a percentage basis (and as you can tell by the justification statement, that component of the SFW proposal was scored accordingly). However, it was the only proposal that provided enough detail to give the state certainty that a high-quality expo would occur and that customer data could be secured. Because of these concerns with the losing proposal and the lack of detail it provided, there is no way to say with any certainty that the total amount of money directly provided to the state would have been higher if the losing proposal was selected. In fact, the losing proposal may have cost the state money if the expo was not economically viable or if there had been data security issues. Although both proposals had their strong points, the state purchasing process selected the best proposal in a fair and unbiased manner. Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."
Again, we appreciate your communication and thank you for taking time to contact us regarding this matter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Governor's Office again.
Sincerely,
Austin Cox
Constituent Services
March 2, 2016
Dear (Sherlock):
Thank you for your email to the Office of the Governor regarding the Division of Wildlife Resources (DWR). I have been asked to respond on behalf of the Governor.
Our office appreciates hearing from constituents and your comments and opinion on this issue have been noted. As much misinformation has circulated, I wanted to share a statement from Michael Canning, Assistant Director at DWR. I hope the below details remove any doubt you may have had regarding the expo selection process.
"The purpose of the wildlife expo permits is to raise revenue for conservation, but also to bring a large wildlife exposition to Utah for all of the economic benefits such an exposition would provide to the state. Whenever the state desires to procure goods or services, we follow the process described in state procurement code. In this case, state procurement code required that the state issue a formal "Request for Proposal", which not only asks that proposals be submitted, but it also clearly defines how those proposals will be scored. The RFP for the expo permit distributor clearly stated that proposals would be scored on: 1) the viability of the business plan and potential to put on a high quality expo (40% of total score), 2) the ability to organize and conduct a secure and fair permit drawing (20%), 3) the commitment of the organization to use revenue generated for wildlife conservation in Utah (30%), and 4) the historical contribution and previous performance of the organization in Utah (10%). All of this information was made available to potential applicants before proposals were written.
After proposals were received, an independent four-person committee (comprised of members from the Department of Information Technology Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the Governor's Office, and the Division of Wildlife Resources) reviewed the proposals and scored them based on the pre-established criteria. The independent committee unanimously agreed that the proposal submitted by Sportsman for Fish and Wildlife (SFW) was the superior proposal, because it better addressed the criteria in the RFP, and consequently had the highest total score. The SFW proposal scored particularly well because it contained a detailed expo business and marketing plan that included data to support the claims in the proposal, and it also provided a detailed data security plan to protect the personal information of the state's customers, as well as the credit card information of people that attend the expo. The other proposal provided a much less detailed business plan, and its data security plan provided little to no detail. The lack of detail in the data security plan was particularly troubling, as a data breach could cost the state millions of dollars. As I'm sure you can understand, we could not put the social security numbers and credit card numbers of our customers at risk due to the lack of a detailed data security plan. If you would like more information about the committee's decision, please read the justification statement for their selection, which is located at: Caution-http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf.
As many have noted, the SFW proposal did not directly return the most money to the state on a percentage basis (and as you can tell by the justification statement, that component of the SFW proposal was scored accordingly). However, it was the only proposal that provided enough detail to give the state certainty that a high-quality expo would occur and that customer data could be secured. Because of these concerns with the losing proposal and the lack of detail it provided, there is no way to say with any certainty that the total amount of money directly provided to the state would have been higher if the losing proposal was selected. In fact, the losing proposal may have cost the state money if the expo was not economically viable or if there had been data security issues. Although both proposals had their strong points, the state purchasing process selected the best proposal in a fair and unbiased manner. Finally, it is important to note that the contract recently signed between the state and SFW to distribute expo permits clearly states that all of the money raised from expo permit application fees will be used specifically to "support conservation initiatives in Utah". No money has been lost, and all proceeds will benefit Utah wildlife conservation."
Again, we appreciate your communication and thank you for taking time to contact us regarding this matter. If you have additional questions, please feel free to contact the Governor's Office again.
Sincerely,
Austin Cox
Constituent Services
