RE: Part 2 - Debunking the DWR?s Frequently Asked Questions Re: Utah Expo Permits and Conservation Funding
FAQ #19 ? Q19: What was the Wildlife Board?s role in awarding the expo permit contract?
The Utah Wildlife Board?s role was limited by state procurement code. These restrictions were explained to board members and the public at multiple Wildlife Board meetings in late 2015. In this case, the Board?s only options were to either approve the proposal scored highest by the independent evaluation committee or to cancel the RFP. This ensured the contract was awarded based on the merits of the proposals and not on other factors.
After reviewing the two proposals and the State Purchasing committee's justification statement, the Wildlife Board chose to accept the committee?s recommendation. The contract was then awarded according to state procurement code. Watch the Wildlife Board meeting held Dec. 18, 2015.
RESPONSE:
While the DWR is correct that the Wildlife Board played a limited role when it came down to actually awarding the Expo Tag, it plays a major role in enacting/modifying the Expo Tag rule and ensuring that the DWR follows those rules. In prior posts, I have outlined in detail the fact that the DWR?s own Administrative Rule describes the process that the DWR must follow in awarding the five-year Expo Tag contracts. See R657-55-4 -
http://www.rules.utah.gov/publicat/code/r657/r657-055.htm#T4. That rule/process has been in place in March 2005 and the DWR/Wildlife Board amended that rule as recently as January 2015. As we all know, however, the DWR did not follow that process in awarding the most recent Expo Tag contract. Instead, the DWR chose to move to a formal RFP process administered by the Division of Purchasing even though that formal RFP process conflicts with its own rule. The Wildlife Board, as the governing board of the DWR, could have and should have required the DWR to either follow the process set forth in its Administrative Rule or to amend the process set forth in its rule to allow them to move to a formal RFP. That did not happen.
Once the DWR moved to the formal RFP process, the DWR is correct that the scoring of the proposals was performed by the five-person selection committee and the Wildlife Board?s involvement was simply to determine whether to accept the recommendation from the selection committee. The Wildlife Board was required to accept the highest scoring proposal unless that proposal was otherwise disqualified. See
http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf. The DWR explained these limitations during the December 2, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. However, if you go back and watch the video from that meeting, you will see that the attorney for the DWR actually had to explain the entire formal RFP process to the Wildlife Board. See
? (starting at 3:54 to 4:06 - the DWR?s video recording deleted the first few minutes of the presentation). Why was this necessary? Because the DWR was not following the process set forth in the DWR?s Administrative Rule, the attorney for the DWR had to explain to the Wildlife Board how the formal RFP process worked and what the Board?s role would be in the process.
The most interesting part of the presentation was when the DWR?s lawyer explained to the Wildlife Board what would constitute a conflict of interest. He stated that mere membership in one of the conservation groups alone probably would not be a conflict so long as you do not socialize with the groups and have not been an officer, director or employee of the groups. That statement prompted a follow up question from Byron Bateman who asked ?are you talking about past officers and directors or current?? At that point, the lawyer explained that a current officer or director would certainly have a conflict but there is also a broad prohibition of participating in the process if you participation would create ?the appearance of impropriety.? The DWR?s lawyer agreed to work with each Board Member individually to answer questions regarding potential conflicts. Finally, Steve Dalton asked how many Board Members need to be able to vote in order to make a decision. The DWR?s lawyer explained that they needed 4 of the 7 Board Members in order to have a quorum. See
? (starting at 4:06 to 4:09). Thus, the DWR and the Wildlife Board were concerned about the conflict issue well in advance of the December 18, 2015 Wildlife Board Meeting. And given the makeup of the Wildlife Board, it was unclear if they would have a quorum at the upcoming meeting.
Finally, the DWR is correct that the Expo Tag Contract was awarded to SFW at the December 18, 2015 Board Meeting. Three of the seven Board Members recused themselves. The four members of the Wildlife Board who did not recuse themselves voted to accept the recommendation of the selection committee. Watch the Wildlife Board meeting held Dec. 18, 2015.
In summary, description of the Wildlife Board?s role in the decision to award the Expo Tag Contract to SFW is generally correct. However, the DWR ignores the fact that the Wildlife Board, as the governing board of the DWR, could have and should have required the DWR to either follow the process set forth in its Administrative Rule or to amend the process set forth in its rule to allow them to move to a formal RFP. I assume that the Board relied upon the advice of the DWR?s lawyer to press forward with the formal RFP process even though it was inconsistent with their own rule.
I do not personally blame the Wildlife Board for the decision to award the Expo Tag Contract to SFW. Nor do I blame the selection committee. I believe that both groups were doing their jobs and following the process and criteria laid out in the formal RFP. That criteria and the scoring of the criteria was provided by the DWR. As I have stated many times, I personally believe that the formal RFP was drafted in a way that favored certainty and past performance from the incumbents over a proposal from a new bidder that may result in even greater returns for sportsmen, wildlife and the state?s economy. Under this system, it will be difficult, if not impossible, for outside group to compete with SFW and MDF for future Expo Tag contracts. If the DWR is content with the status quo and what SFW and MDF have delivered with regard to past Expos then so be it. But let's not pretend that RMEF was not capable of hosting a similar or perhaps even bigger event, that RMEF did not meet the DWR?s requirements, or that RMEF does not understand data security. Just simply state that we are more comfortable doing business with our current partners.
Tomorrow I will address the alleged conflicts of specific Wildlife Board Member in my response to FAQ #20.
-Hawkeye-
