dryflyelk
Active Member
- Messages
- 842
For those who are just catching up, I've made a summary of the main points of these events as they have rolled out over the last few months. Please feel free to correct me if any of this is erroneous.
- The Expo contract was up for renewal with applications due on Sept 1, 2015
- Following requirements in administrative rule R657-55, RMEF submitted their proposal to host on Sept 1, the last day to do so.
- After the deadline to submit proposals set forth in the DWR's own rule, the DWR announced that rules for submission had changed, and it would begin a formal RFP (Request For Proposal) process to determine the winner of the new contract.
- The DWR has been unable to explain the change to the formal RFP process. The DWR contends they are required to follow the Formal RFP process due to requirements in the State Procurement Statute even though that process conflicts with the requirements in its own rule R657-55-4.
- If the DWR is actually required to follow this formal RFP process, then they have been doing it incorrectly and violating the law for 10 years, including awarding past contracts for the expo to SFW and MDF without the formal RFP.
- The DWR changed the process to move to an RFP without any input from the public.
- Despite the change in the rules, RMEF put together a revised proposal following the RFP and submitted it to the DWR.
- The RFP form was heavily weighted to favor the existing organization putting any new groups at a distinct disadvantage.
- The RFP justification statement written by the selection committee scored each proposal out of 500 possible points. SFW scored 435, RMEF scored 387.5 (link at end of post for details.)
- The Utah Wildlife Board has 7 members, at least 4 of which are or have been heavily involved with SFW. Three members of the board recused themselves (John Bair, Byron Bateman, Steve Dalton) before making the recommendation. Donnie Hunter has been actively involved with SFW, but chose not to recuse himself from the process.
- Once a contract is signed between the DWR and SFW, a GRAMA request can be made to see the proposals by the different organizations. Detailed proposals from all orgs will be available soon.
- RMEF has stated that 100% of the revenues generated from application fees would be returned to Utah for conservation.
- RMEF offered 50% net income to DWR
- SFW and MDF can keep 70% of application revenues ($3.50 of every $5)
Score broken down as follows:
(link here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf)
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
- The Expo contract was up for renewal with applications due on Sept 1, 2015
- Following requirements in administrative rule R657-55, RMEF submitted their proposal to host on Sept 1, the last day to do so.
- After the deadline to submit proposals set forth in the DWR's own rule, the DWR announced that rules for submission had changed, and it would begin a formal RFP (Request For Proposal) process to determine the winner of the new contract.
- The DWR has been unable to explain the change to the formal RFP process. The DWR contends they are required to follow the Formal RFP process due to requirements in the State Procurement Statute even though that process conflicts with the requirements in its own rule R657-55-4.
- If the DWR is actually required to follow this formal RFP process, then they have been doing it incorrectly and violating the law for 10 years, including awarding past contracts for the expo to SFW and MDF without the formal RFP.
- The DWR changed the process to move to an RFP without any input from the public.
- Despite the change in the rules, RMEF put together a revised proposal following the RFP and submitted it to the DWR.
- The RFP form was heavily weighted to favor the existing organization putting any new groups at a distinct disadvantage.
- The RFP justification statement written by the selection committee scored each proposal out of 500 possible points. SFW scored 435, RMEF scored 387.5 (link at end of post for details.)
- The Utah Wildlife Board has 7 members, at least 4 of which are or have been heavily involved with SFW. Three members of the board recused themselves (John Bair, Byron Bateman, Steve Dalton) before making the recommendation. Donnie Hunter has been actively involved with SFW, but chose not to recuse himself from the process.
- Once a contract is signed between the DWR and SFW, a GRAMA request can be made to see the proposals by the different organizations. Detailed proposals from all orgs will be available soon.
- RMEF has stated that 100% of the revenues generated from application fees would be returned to Utah for conservation.
- RMEF offered 50% net income to DWR
- SFW and MDF can keep 70% of application revenues ($3.50 of every $5)
Score broken down as follows:
(link here: http://wildlife.utah.gov/pdf/2015-12-18_justification_statement.pdf)
Vi Et Armis Invictus Maneo
