This internet blog is about a $1.2 Million dollar Transportation Enhancement Grant in Morristown, Tennessee. It is being created to provide ready access to information about this grant to a number of individuals: TDOT (Tennessee Department of Transportation) officials, FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) officials, other State of Tennessee Departments, local City of Morristown officials, Morristown, TN citizens and taxpayers, and also citizens across the State of Tennessee and the United States who are concerned about waste of tax dollars in the award and administration of grants. [UPDATE: For a short summary of bid shopping by the City of Morristown on behalf of the Millennium Square Partners, click here.]
The individuals who have requested documents and researched the information that is provided here are all City of Morristown taxpayers and include former Morristown City Councilman Gene Brooks, Mr. Carl Murphy (who is Mr. Brooks' father-in-law), and Linda Noe, an attorney. Noe is the administrator of this site.
This site will anger some--those who believe grant dollars are a "gift" from one government agency to another government agency and that taxpayers shouldn't concern themselves with the handling of grant money. Just take whatever you can get, however you can get it. This site will anger those who tried to game the system in the Millennium grant with conflicts of interest that were concealed from state officials but whose prohibited conflicts of interest were exposed and whose additional conflicts and questionable actions will be revealed.
The waste and deceptions and conflicts of interest in the Millennium grant will incense others. While people may be incensed, it is hoped that this site will inspire citizens and taxpayers everywhere to take action to stop fraud, waste, and abuse in taxpayer-funded projects. It is time to see that there is real oversight in the expenditure of TAX DOLLARS where, in the Millennium Grant, a federal agency (FHWA) hands money to a state agency (TDOT) and then the state agency hands the money over to a local government (City of Morristown) and the only checks and balances on how the City handles the money are that the City has to sign and submit forms to TDOT so TDOT can show a stack of forms to the FHWA and keep the FHWA money rolling in.
One of the most unfortunate statements that we heard repeated over and over during our attempts to meet and present information on the Millennium project directly to TDOT is the statement that Millennium is a "locally-managed" project. That statement is clearly meant to discourage citizen-activists. If we had accepted that statement and simply walked away from the Millennium mess in 2010, the bidding conflicts of interest, the favoritism shown in delaying the billing of certain individuals (the Millennium Square Partners) for tens of thousands of dollars owed the City or Morristown, and the fraud, waste, and abuse exhibited throughout the Millennium project would have been hidden away forever and, no doubt, repeated with other grants.
Scroll down to the next post for a brief review of how $1.2 Million in grant funds ended up in a public-private partnership with a group (Millennium Square Partners) whose membership includes members of the city's auditing firm and owners of a contracting firm (Wild Building Contractors).
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Brief History: How Grant Money for Morristown College Ended Up in Downtown Morristown in the Hands of the Millennium Partners
Here is a short history of the Millennium Square Grant that we present to give a brief overview of the topic before embarking on an in-depth review of the project with documentation of numerous conflicts of interest and bid shopping as obtained through open records requests and through conversations with various persons involved directly and indirectly with this project, here is a short history of what is now known as the Millennium grant:
Today's Millennium project actually began in 2005 as a $1.2 Million dollar TDOT grant for use at and around the historic Morristown College site. After plans with the private developer of the college site fell through, the City re-scoped the original project and asked TDOT to let it change the grant to various improvements such as sidewalks, lighting, and a greenway trailhead at an existing park near the College site. TDOT allowed the change in scope, and the City signed a new contract with TDOT in 2007.
Around 2009, the City got into financial trouble including shifting sewer funds to the general fund and failing to obtain required state approval for various financial actions. The City was robbing Peter (sewer fund) to pay Paul (general fund) in order to cover up the financial mess within all its major funds (general, stormwater, sewer). In the meantime, the sewer system was crumbling and the City found itself under a state order to fix its sewer system. It also ended up under a federal court order to fix the Witt sewer line to reduce or eliminate odors and overflows.
Just about the time that the City's financial neglect and mismanagement was being exposed, the City received a letter from TDOT reminding the City about the Morristown College grant funds and imposing a deadline for the project to be completed or there would be a loss of funds.
The City searched to find a way to keep the grant.
City officials and employees approached the Millennium Square Partners (MSP) about forming a public-private partnership to use the $1.2 Million in grant funds to build retail shells on the privately-owned downtown MSP property. To qualify for the TE grant funds, there would have to be a rooftop parking deck on top of the retail shells and the rooftop parking deck with 22 spaces would be called a "greenway trailhead."
By calling the parking deck a greenway trailhead and designating two spaces for greenway parking, the privately-owned retail shells and the remaining 20 public parking spaces adjacent to the MSP Office building became part of the taxpayer-funded TE grant. Since the MSP group had planned to build parking on its property anyway, having taxpayers build the parking deck and include taxpayer-funded retail shells was like hitting the lottery.
The Millennium group quickly signed on to become the beneficiary of the $1.2 Million dollars former Morristown College transportation grant and, of course, agreed to pay the City's local match since MSP would now get not only the parking it had wanted all along but retail shells, too.
Then greed set in and conflicts of interest and bid shopping became the norm. [UPDATE: For a short summary of "bid shopping" by the City of Morristown acting on behalf of the Millennium Square Partners, click here.
The Millennium "Plan" in the Words of Millennium Square Partner David Wild
The Downtown Morristown "Millennium Square" transportation grant is a poster child for conflicts of interest and bid shopping in a federal/state grant. It is also a primer on how to get away with and be rewarded for fraud and waste in the use and abuse of taxpayer dollars.
Red flags were and still are evident within the project and almost everything and everyone involved.
It was not enough for the Millennium Square Partners (MSP) that the taxpayers were going to fund $1.2 Million of construction and improvements on their private property. It was not enough that the taxpayers would be building privately-owned retail shells for MSP. It was not enough that the taxpayers would be building a parking deck that would be used by customers and employees of the businesses located in the Millennium Square Office building.
Follow the money...but when greed enters the equation, it is never enough.
In the video above, David Wild of Millennium Square Partners appears before the Morristown City Council on February 5, 2013. Councilman Brooks, who had exposed conflicts of interest in December 2010 that had prevented Wild from bidding on the Millennium project, had found out a few weeks before this video that the MSP group was 7-9 months delinquent in reimbursing the City for payments made by the City to the Millennium architects Brewer, Ingram & Fuller (BIF). Brooks also discovered that the Millennium Square Partners, including David Wild and City auditor James Craine, had not paid interest on these delinquent payments as provided in the City-MSP contract.
[Under the City-MSP contract, the City would pay the BIF invoices and then bill MSP for reimbursement. If MSP failed to reimburse the City within 30 days, MSP would have to pay interest.]
About a week to ten days before Wild's 2/5/13 appearance before the Council, Mayor Danny Thomas had asked City Administrator Tony Cox to take care of collecting all delinquent payments and interest due the City (taxpayers) by MSP. Wild met with Mayor Thomas, and just a few days before Wild spoke to council on 2/5/13, MSP had paid the delinquent billings but not the interest due to the city taxpayers.
[In a later post, we will find that City Administrator Tony Cox knew that MSP was not paying amounts billed to it by the City and that Cox was actively involved in directing that the City refrain as long as possible from paying BIF invoices and/or from sending City invoices to the MSP partners seeking reimbursement from MSP.]
In his statement to the Council, Wild tells councilmembers that the "plan" at the start of the Millennium project was for his firm--Wild Building Contractors--to take all the $1.2 Million Transportation Enhancement (taxpayer) grant funds and build the privately-owned retail shells on the land owned by the Millennium Square Partners and build a parking deck on top of the retail shells.
The parking deck would be called a "greenway trailhead" to qualify for the grant money but only two of the 22-23 parking spaces would be marked for trailhead parking. The rest of the parking spaces would be used as parking for customers and/or employees of the businesses in the Millennium Square Office building that happens to be a hundred feet or so from the taxpayer-funded Millennium Square parking deck.
Wild complains that the "plan" to let him build his taxpayer-funded retail shells and his taxpayer-funded (public) parking spaces next to his Millennium Square Office building was derailed by individuals who refused to remain silent--as the City and the architect did--about his conflicts of interest.
The oldest tactic in the book is "blame the messenger." Ironically, people who have to resort to blaming the messenger--as Wild does--typically do so because they can't handle the truth of the message. Instead of blaming the messenger for interfering with his "plan," Wild should have simply acknowledged that it was his actions and his multiple conflicts of interest in the project that caused TDOT to rule that he could not put on a Wild Building Contractors hat and make the conflicts go away.
The carefully contrived "plan" that Wild speaks so glowingly about was not going to save a penny of taxpayer-funded grant dollars. It was just going to set up a bid-rigging where Wild would use all the taxpayer/grant dollars budgeted for the construction and do so by not charging (himself) overhead and profit.
Competitive bidding requires that all bidders be put on a level playing field. While he may not have realized it, Wild's explanation of the initial "plan" is an open admission that he had a bidding advantage as a member of the MSP and there was an uneven playing field for other bidders. Wild's explanation also serves as an admission that the individuals who saw, spoke out, and stopped the conflicts of interest at the core of the Millennium grant were right all along.
There are people who, like Wild, believe that grant money is somehow "free money" that is different from direct locally-taxed funds, that accountability is just a word, and that blaming the messenger is the best tactic to use when you're caught with one or more hands in the cookie jar.
Fortunately, there are more and more people who have decided enough is enough and who are willing to step forward in their communities to stop waste and sweetheart deals.
Still more conflicts in the project...
The City Starts the Process of Trying To Get Wild Declared a "Sole Source" Contractor for the Millennium Construction
The City knew about Wild Building Contractors "plan" to do the construction work itself and to contract with Brewer, Ingram & Fuller for architectural services.
To avoid having to competitively bid out the construction and to help implement the "plan," the City's Todd Morgan called and sent emails to Lisa Dunn (TDOT) asking how to go about having WBC declared a "sole source" contractor for the project.
[Sole source means the City wanted to have WBC named as the only construction company "sole source" who could handle the project for the City by coming up with some special or unique ability of Wild to perform the construction work]
In the email below, Morgan says Dunn will be forwarding a "sole source" letter to the City and Morgan will pass that along to Tim and David (Wild). The email is copied to Millennium Partners David and Tim Wild (Wild Building Contractors) and to Dan Brewer and Lisa Hoskins of the architectural firm Brewer Ingram & Fuller (BIF).
It is important to note that BIF does not have a contract with the City at this time (6/3/10) but is the architectural firm with whom MSP and Wild and the City have been working since as far back as October 2009. The City will hurriedly advertise for architectural proposals on July 11, 2010, and an "evaluation committee" will send a letter to BIF on July 20, 2010, telling BIF of its "selection."
The email indicates that Dunn has recommended that Morgan and the City justify the request for "sole source" designation for WBC by focusing on the need to complete the project "quickly and efficiently."
[In a later email, TDOT will inform the City that the construction is not unique and WBC can not be designated as "sole source." TDOT will also inform the City that they can pick BIF, the "firm of choice," as architect but they will have to go through some hoops before making it official.]
You can left-click on the email to enlarge it for reading.
What about Wild's "Plan" To Contract with Brewer, Ingram & Fuller Architects?
While waiting for TDOT's response to Todd Morgan's inquiry for sole source information for Wild Building Contractors, Morgan is also moving forward in working with the architectural firm Brewer, Ingram & Fuller (BIF).
BIF is the firm that Morgan mentioned in an email to Hansen as being the architectural firm that the Millennium Square Partners "intended" to contract with.
On May 21, 2010, TDOT sends the city a Notice To Proceed with the Preliminary Engineering:
BIF is the firm that Morgan mentioned in an email to Hansen as being the architectural firm that the Millennium Square Partners "intended" to contract with.
On May 21, 2010, TDOT sends the city a Notice To Proceed with the Preliminary Engineering:
Here is TDOT's Notice To Proceed: In this Notice, TDOT asked (see the 3rd paragraph) that the City provide the name of the consultant and a copy of the contract with the consultant. The City had not, however, solicited engineering proposals or letters of interest from architectural/engineering firms. The City had no contract with a consultant. From Morgan's perspective, this Notice To Proceed is an OK to tell BIF to finish the design work. Look at the handwritten note near the bottom of the Notice: "after May 21st Letter from City telling BFI (sic) to proceed." Four days after the date of this Notice To Proceed with Preliminary Engineering, Todd Morgan will send out an email to various recipients, calling for a planning meeting. Members of only one architectural firm are invited to this Millennium "planning meeting": Brewer, Ingram & Fuller (Dan Brewer and Lisa Hoskins) | ||||||||||||
|
The City Has No Architect Under Contract or Does It?
In the previous post, TDOT gave the City the go-ahead on May 21, 2010, to begin preliminary engineering and asked the City to provide the name of its consultant and a copy of the contract.
But the City doesn't have a consultant or a contract with a consultant.
Instead of soliciting architectural proposals, Morgan sends an email out on May 25, 2010, and informs the recipients that TDOT has given the go-ahead with the Design Phase on the Millennium project and that the City will be holding a planning meeting on June 2, 2010.
Only one architectural firm is invited to this Millennium planning meeting--Brewer, Ingram & Fuller represented by Dan Brewer and Lisa Hoskins. Others invited are the City attorney, then-Mayor Barile, Administrator Tony Cox, LAMPTO's Rich DesGrosseilliers, TimWild, and David Wild.
Brewer responds any time is fine for him and his associate Lisa Hoskins.
Morgan and other City officials and employees know that the City has not officially selected BIF as project architect and know that the City has no contract with BIF on the Millennium project.
But Morgan invites one and only one architectural firm to a June 2, 2010, Millennium planning meeting at which other city officials/employees and Tim and David Wild of Millennium Square Partners and Wild Building Contractors are in attendance.
But the City doesn't have a consultant or a contract with a consultant.
Instead of soliciting architectural proposals, Morgan sends an email out on May 25, 2010, and informs the recipients that TDOT has given the go-ahead with the Design Phase on the Millennium project and that the City will be holding a planning meeting on June 2, 2010.
Only one architectural firm is invited to this Millennium planning meeting--Brewer, Ingram & Fuller represented by Dan Brewer and Lisa Hoskins. Others invited are the City attorney, then-Mayor Barile, Administrator Tony Cox, LAMPTO's Rich DesGrosseilliers, TimWild, and David Wild.
Brewer responds any time is fine for him and his associate Lisa Hoskins.
Morgan and other City officials and employees know that the City has not officially selected BIF as project architect and know that the City has no contract with BIF on the Millennium project.
But Morgan invites one and only one architectural firm to a June 2, 2010, Millennium planning meeting at which other city officials/employees and Tim and David Wild of Millennium Square Partners and Wild Building Contractors are in attendance.
TDOT's Construction and Legal Teams Tell the City that the Millennium Construction Is Not Unique and Thus Wild Building Contractors Is Not Eligible for "Sole Source" Designation
In a 6/21/10 email, TDOT's Neil Hansen tells the City's Todd Morgan that TDOT's construction and legal teams say the Millennium construction does not qualify for a special "sole source" designation for Wild Building Contractors or anyone else.
Hansen adds that WBC could submit a bid for the project "as long as they do not retain any inside information."
Morgan's reply to the news that Wild Building Contractors can not be given the contract as a "sole source" contractor is interesting: "Thank you. I'll have to distribute this information and see if we can still make it work." [Emphasis added]
Hansen also informs Morgan that the design consultant (Brewer, Ingram & Fuller) can not be selected simply because they have provided conceptual plans. Hansen lets Morgan know of the "process" to go through in asking for design consultant proposals and then the City can do the evaluations and pick BIF. "This should not be a problem to select the firm of choice, but Morristown will still need to follow the procedures outlined above." [Emphasis added]
Watch the dates as we move along...the selection of the architect, the architect's contract, the architect's bills...the conflicts...and ultimately the FIVE bids (bid shopping).
The City Quickly Advertises for Architectural Services--So It Can Select BIF as Project Architect for Millennium
The City's actions and emails and letters both before and after May 21, 2010, indicate that the City was working with and considered Brewer, Ingram & Fuller as the project architect or certainly as the "project architect to-be."
But TDOT's email of 6/21/10 changed all that. TDOT said that the City at least had to go through the "motions" of letting other firms submit proposals before the City officially selected BIF as the "firm of choice."
Morgan scrambled to run an ad in the paper requesting Letters of Interest from architectural firms so the City could select BIF but present the appearance of considering other firms.
Here is the newspaper ad that ran on July 11, 2010, requesting that all architectural proposals be submitted to the City by July 19, 2010 (eight days later).
Who will be selected is pre-determined. What a shame and a sham to waste the time of other firms that may have thought this was an open process.
The evaluations--by the City--are next
But TDOT's email of 6/21/10 changed all that. TDOT said that the City at least had to go through the "motions" of letting other firms submit proposals before the City officially selected BIF as the "firm of choice."
Morgan scrambled to run an ad in the paper requesting Letters of Interest from architectural firms so the City could select BIF but present the appearance of considering other firms.
Here is the newspaper ad that ran on July 11, 2010, requesting that all architectural proposals be submitted to the City by July 19, 2010 (eight days later).
The evaluations--by the City--are next
The City Evaluates the Architectural Proposals and Selects the "Firm of Choice": Brewer-Ingram & Fuller
Architectural proposals for the Millennium project had to be in on July 19, 2010.
The next day--Todd Morgan, Alan Hartman, and Tracy Stroud with Rich DesGrosseilliers of LAMTPO--Lakeway Area Metropolitan Transportation and Planning Organization-- gave BIF the highest total score of the three firms submitting letters of interest.
The scoring sheet is below. Look closely at the sheet--certain words in the description of the criteria in b, c, and g are underlined, and it is in each of these criteria (b, c, and g) that Brewer, Ingram & Fuller had a higher score than the 2nd ranked firm (Barge, Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon).
Maybe the person who prepared the sheet just happened to underline these words in three criteria and maybe these three areas just happened to be the areas where BIF would outscore the second-ranked BWSC.
BIF is a very qualified architectural firm. But in the Millennium mess, BIF ended up with conflicts of interest that affected its actions and that critically impaired the independence of its handling of the project.
BIF ended up trying to serve two masters--(1) the City with which it had a contract for direct payment of BIF invoices and (2) Millennium Square Partners who were ultimately responsible for paying BIF invoices through contractual reimbursement payments to the City for all BIF invoices.
Evaluator Todd Morgan had been working with BIF on Millennium for months before Morgan helped officially evaluate and "select" BIF as project architect. Morgan had even referred to BIF as the "project architect" in letters written months before BIF's selection on 7/20/13.
Evaluator Rich DesGrosseilliers had written a letter to TDOT's Neil Hansen in February 2010 with BIF scheduled to perform design work such as submission of a project schedule, preliminary plans, environmental documents, and document revisions---DesGrosseilliers' letter with BIF performing specific design work was written five months before BIF was "selected" as project architect.
The next day--Todd Morgan, Alan Hartman, and Tracy Stroud with Rich DesGrosseilliers of LAMTPO--Lakeway Area Metropolitan Transportation and Planning Organization-- gave BIF the highest total score of the three firms submitting letters of interest.
The scoring sheet is below. Look closely at the sheet--certain words in the description of the criteria in b, c, and g are underlined, and it is in each of these criteria (b, c, and g) that Brewer, Ingram & Fuller had a higher score than the 2nd ranked firm (Barge, Waggoner, Sumner & Cannon).
Maybe the person who prepared the sheet just happened to underline these words in three criteria and maybe these three areas just happened to be the areas where BIF would outscore the second-ranked BWSC.
BIF is a very qualified architectural firm. But in the Millennium mess, BIF ended up with conflicts of interest that affected its actions and that critically impaired the independence of its handling of the project.
BIF ended up trying to serve two masters--(1) the City with which it had a contract for direct payment of BIF invoices and (2) Millennium Square Partners who were ultimately responsible for paying BIF invoices through contractual reimbursement payments to the City for all BIF invoices.
Evaluator Todd Morgan had been working with BIF on Millennium for months before Morgan helped officially evaluate and "select" BIF as project architect. Morgan had even referred to BIF as the "project architect" in letters written months before BIF's selection on 7/20/13.
Evaluator Rich DesGrosseilliers had written a letter to TDOT's Neil Hansen in February 2010 with BIF scheduled to perform design work such as submission of a project schedule, preliminary plans, environmental documents, and document revisions---DesGrosseilliers' letter with BIF performing specific design work was written five months before BIF was "selected" as project architect.
Architectural Conflicts of Interest
The City committee composed of Morgan, Stroud, Hartman, and DesGrosseilliers reviewed and evaluated BIF's proposal on July 20, 2010, and gave BIF the highest score of three firms.
Morgan sent a letter to BIF that same day informing BIF of its selection and advising that this was not a contract.
Morgan sent a letter to BIF that same day informing BIF of its selection and advising that this was not a contract.
Note that this letter says that this selection "does not represent acceptance of a contract between the City of Morristown and Brewer, Ingram & Fuller Architects, Inc. which will be reviewed through a separate process."
In the next post, we will look at some important dates and actions that Todd Morgan took that don't match what he said above.
(1) The dates when the city attorney reviewed or amended or revised the actual City-BIF contract.
(2) The date on the signed contract.
(3) The date that City Council met in special called session and approved the contract.
Architectural Conflicts: The City Reviewed and Evaluated BIF's Architectural Proposal and the City Knew that Wild Building Contractors Wanted To Do the Construction...Did the City Question BIF or Mention This To TDOT
While red flags were all over the place, no one wanted to look at the apparent conflicts of interest. It was through a public records request that a clear conflict of interest and a much too cozy relationship between the architect BIF and Wild Building Contractors (WBC) was discovered. Of course, there was a further conflict in that David and Tim Wild, who are principals in WBC, are also members of the Millennium Square Partners.
This is straight from BIF's Letter of Interest submitted to the City in July 2010:
If you remember, Wild Building Contractors first wanted the construction project given to them--no bidding--as a sole source contract. TDOT said "no."
Then Wild asked about being able to "bid" on the project. Hansen told Morgan that WBC could bid "as long as they do not retain any inside information."
Well, guess what, WBC had all the information (inside and outside) on Millennium.
They were proposed to be and were in fact acting as an Estimating Consultant to the Architect BIF.
Four individuals associated with the City, including Alan Hartman and Todd Morgan, reviewed the BIF letter of interest in evaluating the BIF proposal, but it appears that no one from the City said anything to TDOT about WBC being listed as an estimating consultant to BIF while also seeking to bid on the project.
Inside information? As consultants to the Architect, David and Tim Wild had all the information (inside and outside) on the Millennium project and they were making property decisions and many design decisions. As members of the Millennium Square Partners, they had all the information (inside and outside) on the Millennium Square Partners group: its finances, its budget for this project, and the MSP-City contract for reimbursing the City for BIF invoices.
The public's access to public records is vital. Without that access, the Millennium project with its conflicts and cover-ups would have proceeded--conflicts and all--because the City and BIF, both of whom knew about the many conflicts of interest, just wanted to ignore and cover them up. TDOT was sitting in Nashville and simply accepting what it was told. And local citizens who fight against conflicts of interest and push for accountability were being attacked in the tried-and-true tactic of "blame the messenger."
With public records being used by Councilmember Gene Brooks and citizens to expose Millennium conflicts, the City Council adopted an official "public records policy."
While many local governments charge citizens for copies of public records, the City's policy charged councilmembers for copies of "non-routine" that exceeded 50 sheets of paper in a month.
Not surprisingly, City Administrator Tony Cox decided that documents related to the $1.2 Million dollar Millennium grant project were "non-routine." Cox began charging Councilmember Brooks under the new policy.
This is straight from BIF's Letter of Interest submitted to the City in July 2010:
If you remember, Wild Building Contractors first wanted the construction project given to them--no bidding--as a sole source contract. TDOT said "no."
Then Wild asked about being able to "bid" on the project. Hansen told Morgan that WBC could bid "as long as they do not retain any inside information."
Well, guess what, WBC had all the information (inside and outside) on Millennium.
They were proposed to be and were in fact acting as an Estimating Consultant to the Architect BIF.
Four individuals associated with the City, including Alan Hartman and Todd Morgan, reviewed the BIF letter of interest in evaluating the BIF proposal, but it appears that no one from the City said anything to TDOT about WBC being listed as an estimating consultant to BIF while also seeking to bid on the project.
Inside information? As consultants to the Architect, David and Tim Wild had all the information (inside and outside) on the Millennium project and they were making property decisions and many design decisions. As members of the Millennium Square Partners, they had all the information (inside and outside) on the Millennium Square Partners group: its finances, its budget for this project, and the MSP-City contract for reimbursing the City for BIF invoices.
The public's access to public records is vital. Without that access, the Millennium project with its conflicts and cover-ups would have proceeded--conflicts and all--because the City and BIF, both of whom knew about the many conflicts of interest, just wanted to ignore and cover them up. TDOT was sitting in Nashville and simply accepting what it was told. And local citizens who fight against conflicts of interest and push for accountability were being attacked in the tried-and-true tactic of "blame the messenger."
With public records being used by Councilmember Gene Brooks and citizens to expose Millennium conflicts, the City Council adopted an official "public records policy."
While many local governments charge citizens for copies of public records, the City's policy charged councilmembers for copies of "non-routine" that exceeded 50 sheets of paper in a month.
Not surprisingly, City Administrator Tony Cox decided that documents related to the $1.2 Million dollar Millennium grant project were "non-routine." Cox began charging Councilmember Brooks under the new policy.
The City's Contract with Architect Brewer, Ingram & Fuller Is Signed Before City Attorney Made Revisions and Three Weeks Before Council Approved the Contract
A committee of four individuals with various connections to the City made the selection of BIF as the Millennium Architect.
On July 20, 2010, Todd Morgan notified BIF of its selection and said: This selection does not represent acceptance of a contract between the City of Morristown and Brewer, Ingram & Fuller which will be reviewed through a separate process."
But Morgan and Brewer signed a contract dated July 20, 2010 --two weeks before the contract was reviewed and revisions made by the city attorney and three weeks before the contract was approved by the City Council on August 10, 2010.
Here is the first page and signature page of the contract.
AGREEMENT made as of the Twentieth day of July in the year Two-Thousand Ten
On July 20, 2010, Todd Morgan notified BIF of its selection and said: This selection does not represent acceptance of a contract between the City of Morristown and Brewer, Ingram & Fuller which will be reviewed through a separate process."
But Morgan and Brewer signed a contract dated July 20, 2010 --two weeks before the contract was reviewed and revisions made by the city attorney and three weeks before the contract was approved by the City Council on August 10, 2010.
Here is the first page and signature page of the contract.
AGREEMENT made as of the Twentieth day of July in the year Two-Thousand Ten
The City-BIF Contract: How Could a Contract That Was Not in Final Form and Was "Revised" by the City Attorney on August 9, 2010, Be Signed and Dated July 20, 2010?
Re-cap:
(1) BIF was selected as project architect on July 20, 2010, by a committee.
(2) At the time of selection, Todd Morgan told BIF that its selection was not a contract--that would be handled in a separate review.
(3) City Attorney Dick Jessee appears to have begun reviewing and revising the proposed BIF-City contract on or about August 3, 2010, and was still making revisions to the AIA contract as late as August 9, 2010.
(4) The City Council approved the contract on August 10, 2010.
How could a contract--that was not even in final form on August 9, 2010 and that was not approved by city council until August 10, 2010--be signed and dated on July 20, 2010?
Here are Jessee's bills showing that he first began a review of the Millennium (AIA) Architectural contract on or about August 3, 2010, and was still reviewing and making revisions to the proposed
contract on August 9, 2010.
There are several reasons someone may have wanted to back date the contract. The next post with BIF's first billing to the City poses one possible reason...
Here are the minutes of the special called meeting on August 10, 2010, when the City approved the City-BIF contract, a guaranty that Millennium Partners would pay all non-grant funded costs, and a lease agreement where two of the 22 parking spaces on the parking deck would be labeled for City greenway trailhead use and the remaining parking spaces would be general public parking, including two handicapped spaces, near the Millennium Square Office Building.
Brewer, Ingram & Fuller: BIF's 1st Invoice To the City Includes Billing for Work Performed over Five Months Prior To Its Selection as Architect
In the last post, it was noted that there were several reasons that someone or several people might back date the City-BIF contract for architectural services.
One reason might be to allow BIF to bill for work performed prior to approval of a contract.
Although the below invoice from BIF to the City says it is Invoice #4 from BIF, the City and BIF claim that this is actually BIF's first invoice to the City on the Millennium project.
Note that the work being billed to the City covers services from February 1, 2010- July 31, 2010!
[BIF was not selected as project architect until July 20, 2010, and a contract with BIF was not approved until August 10, 2010.]
Even if one accepts that BIF is allowed to bill the City for services performed from the very date of its selection on July 20, 2010 up to and through July 31, 2010, this Invoice shows that BIF completed and "earned" 87.5% ($52,500) of total basic project compensation in only 9 business days or 11 days if you count Saturdays.
Note that the Invoice bills for services on a percentage of completion basis.
[BIF's contract called for billings for initial basic services to be on an hourly basis not to exceed 6% of construction costs. BIF shows no hourly documentation in this billing for basic services.
Instead BIF notes "Basic Compensation Amount per Agreement --- $60,000" and then calculates what percentage (100%, 100%, 75%) of that $60,000 of basic compensation is complete]
Finally, BIF deducts $17,253.00 from the total earned and this $17,253.00 is termed "Less Previous Billings." Various explanations have been given for this deduction, including that this was "free" preliminary work performed by BIF.
Here is the section of BIF's contract that states that compensation for basic services shall be on an hourly basis not to exceed 6% of construction costs. There is a maximum percentage of construction costs that can be billed for basic services but the billings themselves should be shown on an hourly basis. This was not done on any of BIF's first invoices for basic services.
One reason might be to allow BIF to bill for work performed prior to approval of a contract.
Although the below invoice from BIF to the City says it is Invoice #4 from BIF, the City and BIF claim that this is actually BIF's first invoice to the City on the Millennium project.
Note that the work being billed to the City covers services from February 1, 2010- July 31, 2010!
[BIF was not selected as project architect until July 20, 2010, and a contract with BIF was not approved until August 10, 2010.]
Even if one accepts that BIF is allowed to bill the City for services performed from the very date of its selection on July 20, 2010 up to and through July 31, 2010, this Invoice shows that BIF completed and "earned" 87.5% ($52,500) of total basic project compensation in only 9 business days or 11 days if you count Saturdays.
Note that the Invoice bills for services on a percentage of completion basis.
[BIF's contract called for billings for initial basic services to be on an hourly basis not to exceed 6% of construction costs. BIF shows no hourly documentation in this billing for basic services.
Instead BIF notes "Basic Compensation Amount per Agreement --- $60,000" and then calculates what percentage (100%, 100%, 75%) of that $60,000 of basic compensation is complete]
Finally, BIF deducts $17,253.00 from the total earned and this $17,253.00 is termed "Less Previous Billings." Various explanations have been given for this deduction, including that this was "free" preliminary work performed by BIF.
Here is the section of BIF's contract that states that compensation for basic services shall be on an hourly basis not to exceed 6% of construction costs. There is a maximum percentage of construction costs that can be billed for basic services but the billings themselves should be shown on an hourly basis. This was not done on any of BIF's first invoices for basic services.
Back to Contractor Conflicts of Interest and the Wild/BIF/City Connections and Actions
As BIF prepares construction documents, Todd Morgan is asking TDOT's Neil Hansen for assurance that Wild Building Contractors, David and Tim Wild, can bid on the Millennium project.
Hansen refers Morgan to a prior email in which Hansen stated that Wild Building Contractors could bid "as long as they did not retain any inside information pertaining to the competitive bid process." Hansen says he confirmed the above statement with Chief Engineer Paul Degges--based on the limited information he (Degges) had received.
Hansen adds that if any improprieties are found at the time of bid award to the apparent low bidder, the bid may be disqualified.
Hansen then asks about the relationship of the firm (WBC) to the partnership group (Millennium Square Partners) and the site ownership.
Morgan responds that Tim and David Wild, as D&T Rentals, are of the six members of the Millennium Square Partners. He adds that Tim and David Wild also have interests in Wild Building Contractors.
Morgan, who saw and evaluated BIF's letter of interest in the Millennium project, does NOT tell Hansen that Wild Building Contractors was listed as the proposed Estimating Consultant for BIF (Brewer, Ingram & Fuller) in its letter of interest.
Morgan does NOT tell Hansen that Wild is or may be working with the architect on the Millennium project while at the same time seeking to bid on the project.
Hansen adds that if any improprieties are found at the time of bid award to the apparent low bidder, the bid may be disqualified.
Hansen then asks about the relationship of the firm (WBC) to the partnership group (Millennium Square Partners) and the site ownership.
Morgan responds that Tim and David Wild, as D&T Rentals, are of the six members of the Millennium Square Partners. He adds that Tim and David Wild also have interests in Wild Building Contractors.
Morgan, who saw and evaluated BIF's letter of interest in the Millennium project, does NOT tell Hansen that Wild Building Contractors was listed as the proposed Estimating Consultant for BIF (Brewer, Ingram & Fuller) in its letter of interest.
Morgan does NOT tell Hansen that Wild is or may be working with the architect on the Millennium project while at the same time seeking to bid on the project.
Wild Building Contractors Prepares a Millennium Construction Estimate for Architects Brewer, Ingram & Fuller
TDOT gave the go-ahead for Wild Building Contractors (WBC) to bid on Millennium. This go-ahead, however, is based on the "limited information" TDOT has been given.
One key bit of information has been withheld from TDOT by the City, by WBC, and by BIF.
WBC, while preparing to bid on the Millennium project, acted as an estimating consultant for Brewer, Ingram & Fuller on the Millennium project.
It appears that Wild prepared the preliminary Millennium estimate and then BIF may have made a few tweaks to the Wild estimate and then sent it off to TDOT to provide TDOT with a required preliminary line item of estimated costs for the work prior to approval of the project.
Here is the 8/24/10 Construction Cost Budget Estimate:
One key bit of information has been withheld from TDOT by the City, by WBC, and by BIF.
WBC, while preparing to bid on the Millennium project, acted as an estimating consultant for Brewer, Ingram & Fuller on the Millennium project.
It appears that Wild prepared the preliminary Millennium estimate and then BIF may have made a few tweaks to the Wild estimate and then sent it off to TDOT to provide TDOT with a required preliminary line item of estimated costs for the work prior to approval of the project.
Here is the 8/24/10 Construction Cost Budget Estimate:
BIF, MSP, and the City--With the Concurrence of TDOT--Embark on a Nearly Three Year Period of Bid Shopping through FIVE bid openings on the Millennium Project
Before discussing the specifics of bid shopping by the City, let's look at what bid shopping is.
Bid shopping at its basic level is repeatedly putting a project out to bid while trying to reach a target number. The target number for the Millennium Square partners was around $1.2 Million dollars. The City, acting on behalf of the Millennium Square Partners, rejected the low bid on the Millennium project four times. The City then advertised for bids a fifth time, and the target number was reached when a local company that had passed up the four prior opportunities to bid came in and bid the target number. This was the first time that any local construction company had bid on the conflicted Millennium project.
You have to have full information about each bid opening to understand how the bid shopping was conducted and what was going on with the project and project estimates to cause bids to be "over" the construction estimates.
Before going into the details of each bid opening, here is a bare bones summary about the FIVE Millennium bid openings held during a nearly three year period December 2010-August 2013:
BID OPENING #1 The first bid opening is set for December 14, 2010.
a) Millennium Partners David and Tim Wild (Wild Building Contractors) and several other contractors have attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting and have acquired plans for bidding.
b) However, none or very few of the other potential bidders are aware that the Wilds are part of the Millennium Square Partnership that owns the property on which the retail shells and parking deck will be built.
c) None or very few of the other potential bidders appear to be aware that the Wilds as Millennium Partners and/or as Wild Building Contractors have been involved in project design decisions.
d) None of the potential bidders appear to be aware that David and Tim Wild as Wild Building Contractors have been involved directly with the Architect in preparing Millennium Square estimates and that David and Tim Wild as Millennium Square Partners are paying the architect's fees through a reimbursement contract with the City.
Councilman Gene Brooks, after reviewing Millennium documents with Carl Murphy and Linda Noe, informs TDOT of conflicts of interest and provides documentation indicating that the Wilds are and have been acting in concert with the Architect BIF in design and estimating for the Millennium project.
On December 10, 2010, TDOT asks the City to postpone the December 14, 2010, bidding and prepare responses to Mr. Brooks' allegations.
After receiving responses from BIF about the Wild estimates, from Wild Building Contractor's attorney claiming no conflict of interest, and additional information from Councilman Brooks, TDOT informs the City that Wild can not bid as there is a conflict of interest under 23 CFR 1.33.
The City again prepares for the first bid opening which is now set for April 5, 2011---with WBC excluded as a bidder due to prohibited conflicts of interest and "inside" information revealed through public records requests.
Many contractors who had initially expressed interest in bidding do not participate at all due to the entire process being tainted by the revelations of conflicts of interest and the action(s) of Wild and BIF and the City in concealing and/or ignoring the obvious conflicts.
Two bids were received:
Messer Construction: $2,004,905.00
Southern Constructors: $2,545,122.50
[No local contractor submitted a bid]
The bid estimate that had been prepared by Wild with a possible slight adjustment by BIF was $1,513,908.
After the 1st bid opening, the City, on behalf of the Wilds/MSP, asked that all bids be rejected due to the low bid being substantially higher than Wild's estimate.
One day after the bid opening, David Wild sent an email to Todd Morgan asking if Wild could bid on the next round if it didn't help prepare the next construction estimate. Emails indicate that Wild also contacted State Sen. Steve Southerland for "help."
TDOT's Neil Hansen tells Morgan that Wild still has a conflict and can not bid.
TDOT agrees to the rejection of all bids.
A Geotek study of the site and design changes are made by BIF, and the project is re-scoped to reduce costs.
A new local contractor (Gary Epps) is used by BIF to provide the project estimate for the second round of bidding.
BID OPENING #2 May 9, 2012
Southern Constructors is the only bidder $1,982,672.00.
[No local contractor submits a bid]
The City, on behalf of the Wilds/MSP, asks to reject the bid and re-bid a third time with only minimal changes to the design.
The project architect BIF meets with Southern Constructors to discuss the differences in the bids submitted and the project estimates.
BID OPENING #3 October 2, 2012
Three bids are submitted:
Jenkins & Stiles $1,753,964
Denark $1,769,900
Merit $1,785,246
[No local contractor submitted a bid]
The City, on behalf of Wilds/MSP, again asks to reject all bids and re-bid
The project is re-scoped with the primary change being the elimination of the private retail shells below the parking deck
BID OPENING #4 May 22, 2013
Two bids are submitted:
Southern Constructors $1,524,620
Merit Construction $1,625,754
[No local contractor submitted a bid]
The City, on behalf of the Wilds/MSP, again asks that all bids be rejected.
TDOT concurs with the City's request to reject the low bid---even though the low bid was within 7% of the architect's budget estimate of $1,428,235. [TDOT has a general policy of accepting a responsive bid that is within 10% of the estimate.]
Why did the City ask to reject a responsive bid that was so near the project budget/estimate?
An email from City Engineer Jeff Branham to City Administrator Tony Cox answers that question. Branham states that the low bid exceeds the "budget" of $1,200,000. The "budget" of $1,200,000 was not the project budget--the budget Branham refers to is Wilds/MSP target budget.
The City, knowing that MSP wants to re-bid the project, admits and cites its error in not advertising for bids in a grand division newspaper as a basis for re-bidding for a FIFTH time to get more bids!
There are to be no or only the tiniest of changes to the plans prior to the fifth bidding--meaning that the bids of Southern Constructors and Merit Construction, if they choose to bid again, are, for all practical purposes, known.
BID OPENING #5 August 15, 2013
Two bids are received:
East Tennessee Turf $1,202,000
Southern Constructors $1,478,000
East Tennessee Turf did not bid on any of the four previous bid, and this is the first time in a nearly 3-year period that any Morristown contractor submitted a bid on the local Millennium project.
Amazingly, the bid of East Tennessee Turf almost exactly matches the Wild/MSP budget/target number of $1,200,000 mentioned in Jeff Branham's email following the 4th bidding.
East Tennessee Turf's bid is about $276,000 less than that of Southern Constructors.
Bid shopping at its basic level is repeatedly putting a project out to bid while trying to reach a target number. The target number for the Millennium Square partners was around $1.2 Million dollars. The City, acting on behalf of the Millennium Square Partners, rejected the low bid on the Millennium project four times. The City then advertised for bids a fifth time, and the target number was reached when a local company that had passed up the four prior opportunities to bid came in and bid the target number. This was the first time that any local construction company had bid on the conflicted Millennium project.
You have to have full information about each bid opening to understand how the bid shopping was conducted and what was going on with the project and project estimates to cause bids to be "over" the construction estimates.
Before going into the details of each bid opening, here is a bare bones summary about the FIVE Millennium bid openings held during a nearly three year period December 2010-August 2013:
BID OPENING #1 The first bid opening is set for December 14, 2010.
a) Millennium Partners David and Tim Wild (Wild Building Contractors) and several other contractors have attended the mandatory pre-bid meeting and have acquired plans for bidding.
b) However, none or very few of the other potential bidders are aware that the Wilds are part of the Millennium Square Partnership that owns the property on which the retail shells and parking deck will be built.
c) None or very few of the other potential bidders appear to be aware that the Wilds as Millennium Partners and/or as Wild Building Contractors have been involved in project design decisions.
d) None of the potential bidders appear to be aware that David and Tim Wild as Wild Building Contractors have been involved directly with the Architect in preparing Millennium Square estimates and that David and Tim Wild as Millennium Square Partners are paying the architect's fees through a reimbursement contract with the City.
Councilman Gene Brooks, after reviewing Millennium documents with Carl Murphy and Linda Noe, informs TDOT of conflicts of interest and provides documentation indicating that the Wilds are and have been acting in concert with the Architect BIF in design and estimating for the Millennium project.
On December 10, 2010, TDOT asks the City to postpone the December 14, 2010, bidding and prepare responses to Mr. Brooks' allegations.
After receiving responses from BIF about the Wild estimates, from Wild Building Contractor's attorney claiming no conflict of interest, and additional information from Councilman Brooks, TDOT informs the City that Wild can not bid as there is a conflict of interest under 23 CFR 1.33.
The City again prepares for the first bid opening which is now set for April 5, 2011---with WBC excluded as a bidder due to prohibited conflicts of interest and "inside" information revealed through public records requests.
Many contractors who had initially expressed interest in bidding do not participate at all due to the entire process being tainted by the revelations of conflicts of interest and the action(s) of Wild and BIF and the City in concealing and/or ignoring the obvious conflicts.
Two bids were received:
Messer Construction: $2,004,905.00
Southern Constructors: $2,545,122.50
[No local contractor submitted a bid]
The bid estimate that had been prepared by Wild with a possible slight adjustment by BIF was $1,513,908.
After the 1st bid opening, the City, on behalf of the Wilds/MSP, asked that all bids be rejected due to the low bid being substantially higher than Wild's estimate.
One day after the bid opening, David Wild sent an email to Todd Morgan asking if Wild could bid on the next round if it didn't help prepare the next construction estimate. Emails indicate that Wild also contacted State Sen. Steve Southerland for "help."
TDOT's Neil Hansen tells Morgan that Wild still has a conflict and can not bid.
TDOT agrees to the rejection of all bids.
A Geotek study of the site and design changes are made by BIF, and the project is re-scoped to reduce costs.
A new local contractor (Gary Epps) is used by BIF to provide the project estimate for the second round of bidding.
BID OPENING #2 May 9, 2012
Southern Constructors is the only bidder $1,982,672.00.
[No local contractor submits a bid]
The City, on behalf of the Wilds/MSP, asks to reject the bid and re-bid a third time with only minimal changes to the design.
The project architect BIF meets with Southern Constructors to discuss the differences in the bids submitted and the project estimates.
BID OPENING #3 October 2, 2012
Three bids are submitted:
Jenkins & Stiles $1,753,964
Denark $1,769,900
Merit $1,785,246
[No local contractor submitted a bid]
The City, on behalf of Wilds/MSP, again asks to reject all bids and re-bid
The project is re-scoped with the primary change being the elimination of the private retail shells below the parking deck
BID OPENING #4 May 22, 2013
Two bids are submitted:
Southern Constructors $1,524,620
Merit Construction $1,625,754
[No local contractor submitted a bid]
The City, on behalf of the Wilds/MSP, again asks that all bids be rejected.
TDOT concurs with the City's request to reject the low bid---even though the low bid was within 7% of the architect's budget estimate of $1,428,235. [TDOT has a general policy of accepting a responsive bid that is within 10% of the estimate.]
Why did the City ask to reject a responsive bid that was so near the project budget/estimate?
An email from City Engineer Jeff Branham to City Administrator Tony Cox answers that question. Branham states that the low bid exceeds the "budget" of $1,200,000. The "budget" of $1,200,000 was not the project budget--the budget Branham refers to is Wilds/MSP target budget.
The City, knowing that MSP wants to re-bid the project, admits and cites its error in not advertising for bids in a grand division newspaper as a basis for re-bidding for a FIFTH time to get more bids!
There are to be no or only the tiniest of changes to the plans prior to the fifth bidding--meaning that the bids of Southern Constructors and Merit Construction, if they choose to bid again, are, for all practical purposes, known.
BID OPENING #5 August 15, 2013
Two bids are received:
East Tennessee Turf $1,202,000
Southern Constructors $1,478,000
East Tennessee Turf did not bid on any of the four previous bid, and this is the first time in a nearly 3-year period that any Morristown contractor submitted a bid on the local Millennium project.
Amazingly, the bid of East Tennessee Turf almost exactly matches the Wild/MSP budget/target number of $1,200,000 mentioned in Jeff Branham's email following the 4th bidding.
East Tennessee Turf's bid is about $276,000 less than that of Southern Constructors.
Morristown Uses $41,274.47 of BIF Architectural Fees as "Soft Match" Funds. The Local Hard Match (Cash) Is Reduced to 7% for Actual Construction
In this email exchange between TDOT's Hansen and the City's Todd Morgan, it appears that $41,274.47 of the first architectural fees paid to BIF on the Millennium project were applied to the City/MSP soft match when funds were obligated for the project.
Using these architectural fees as part of the City/MSP required local match apparently resulted in the City/MSP match for actual Millennium construction costs going from 10% down to 7%.
I am going largely by the email here because soft match-hard match can be confusing and the option for using engineering fees as matching funds changed during the course of the Millennium project. It appears that Todd Morgan was asking for clarification in this email to make sure that changes in soft match-hard match did not affect the City's prior use of architectural fees as part of the City/MSP match:
But it also appears that all or part of the $41,274.47 in architectural fees that the City/MSP applied toward the local match was for payments to the Architect before the City even approved a contract with the Architect. See this prior post.
Using these architectural fees as part of the City/MSP required local match apparently resulted in the City/MSP match for actual Millennium construction costs going from 10% down to 7%.
I am going largely by the email here because soft match-hard match can be confusing and the option for using engineering fees as matching funds changed during the course of the Millennium project. It appears that Todd Morgan was asking for clarification in this email to make sure that changes in soft match-hard match did not affect the City's prior use of architectural fees as part of the City/MSP match:
But it also appears that all or part of the $41,274.47 in architectural fees that the City/MSP applied toward the local match was for payments to the Architect before the City even approved a contract with the Architect. See this prior post.
Gene Brooks Sends a Letter and Documentation to TDOT that Stop the Dec. 14, 2010 Millennium Bidding for a Review of Conflicts of Interest
The Architect BIF is moving toward a bid date. Wild Building Contractors (WBC) is planning to bid even though they are working with the architect as an estimating consultant as WBC, paying the architect's fees as MSP, and are the ultimate grant beneficiary's as owners of the land on which the taxpayer-funded parking deck and retail shells will be built.
The conflicts of interest are coming out...
Armed with information about the relationships among the parties and the architect's own document stating that he proposed and appears to be using Wild Building Contractors, a project bidder, as a project estimator, Councilman Brooks sent documentation to the state (TDOT) and to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The letter and attachments cause TDOT to stop the December 14, 2010, bidding and begin a review of the allegations, focusing primarily on the conflict of interest involving one bidder (WBC/David and Tim Wild) and the Millennium architectural firm BIF.
Brooks has the facts and the documentation to back it up. Everything came from PUBLIC DOCUMENTS requests that were reviewed and pulled together and then sent to TDOT and the FHWA, et al.
The conflicts of interest are coming out...
Armed with information about the relationships among the parties and the architect's own document stating that he proposed and appears to be using Wild Building Contractors, a project bidder, as a project estimator, Councilman Brooks sent documentation to the state (TDOT) and to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).
The letter and attachments cause TDOT to stop the December 14, 2010, bidding and begin a review of the allegations, focusing primarily on the conflict of interest involving one bidder (WBC/David and Tim Wild) and the Millennium architectural firm BIF.
Brooks has the facts and the documentation to back it up. Everything came from PUBLIC DOCUMENTS requests that were reviewed and pulled together and then sent to TDOT and the FHWA, et al.
TDOT Stops the First Millennium Bidding (December 14, 2010) in Light of Brooks' Letter and as Contractors Start Asking Questions
After Brooks' letter goes out, contractors contact TDOT and TDOT's Neil Hansen sends a letter to the City asking it to respond to the allegations in Brooks' letter.
The City recounted the history of the project. BIF provided a 2-page statement about Wild's estimating work. Wild's Knoxville attorney Woolf McClane presented arguments against the existence of a prohibited conflict of interest and referred to BIF's 2-page statement.
In a nutshell, BIF says that Wild had no advantage by virtue of its preparation of a Millennium cost estimate. And Wild was not paid for its work.
[Of course WBC didn't bill or get paid for their services. If BIF paid Wild then BIF would turn around and bill the City which would then just turn around and bill the Millennium Partners, including David & Tim Wild. Why bill for estimating services when you are going to end up paying yourself? Why not do it for free and keep a close relationship with the architect that you selected, that you pay, and that you had expected to work with as the project contractor.]
In the end, TDOT confirmed that there was a prohibited conflict of interest with WBC's participation in the bidding, and Wild was excluded as a bidder.
One interesting sidenote is that while all this controversy about conflicts of interest was taking place, a newspaper article written by Bob Moore on Dec. 12, 2010, states that Dan Brewer of Brewer, Ingram & Fuller (BIF) confirmed that his firm had "internal discussions" about Wild bidding but Brewer would not state publicly if there was a consensus opinion or what that opinion was.
My guess is that BIF knew there was a conflict of interest in Wild's bidding on a project where David and Tim Wild were also members of the MSP group that was owner, decision maker in design questions, and responsible for paying the architect. The conflict wasn't just about "inside information" related to an estimate--although that was the conflict that finally got TDOT's attention.
Unfortunately, BIF got caught up in the Millennium web and couldn't/wouldn't bite the hand that was and still is feeding (paying) it.
If contractors could see the conflicts--as noted in this article--then BIF certainly saw them.
BIF's knowledge of what was really going on in the handling of this project would probably be extremely enlightening if BIF could speak freely or was required to provide information and documents.
The City recounted the history of the project. BIF provided a 2-page statement about Wild's estimating work. Wild's Knoxville attorney Woolf McClane presented arguments against the existence of a prohibited conflict of interest and referred to BIF's 2-page statement.
In a nutshell, BIF says that Wild had no advantage by virtue of its preparation of a Millennium cost estimate. And Wild was not paid for its work.
[Of course WBC didn't bill or get paid for their services. If BIF paid Wild then BIF would turn around and bill the City which would then just turn around and bill the Millennium Partners, including David & Tim Wild. Why bill for estimating services when you are going to end up paying yourself? Why not do it for free and keep a close relationship with the architect that you selected, that you pay, and that you had expected to work with as the project contractor.]
In the end, TDOT confirmed that there was a prohibited conflict of interest with WBC's participation in the bidding, and Wild was excluded as a bidder.
One interesting sidenote is that while all this controversy about conflicts of interest was taking place, a newspaper article written by Bob Moore on Dec. 12, 2010, states that Dan Brewer of Brewer, Ingram & Fuller (BIF) confirmed that his firm had "internal discussions" about Wild bidding but Brewer would not state publicly if there was a consensus opinion or what that opinion was.
My guess is that BIF knew there was a conflict of interest in Wild's bidding on a project where David and Tim Wild were also members of the MSP group that was owner, decision maker in design questions, and responsible for paying the architect. The conflict wasn't just about "inside information" related to an estimate--although that was the conflict that finally got TDOT's attention.
Unfortunately, BIF got caught up in the Millennium web and couldn't/wouldn't bite the hand that was and still is feeding (paying) it.
If contractors could see the conflicts--as noted in this article--then BIF certainly saw them.
BIF's knowledge of what was really going on in the handling of this project would probably be extremely enlightening if BIF could speak freely or was required to provide information and documents.
First Bid Opening April 5, 2011
The first bid opening for the Millennium Square Parking Deck/Retail Shells finally takes place on April 5, 2011.
The Wild/BIF estimate is still the official project estimate despite the confirmed conflict of interest in a bidder providing the project estimate.
The official (Wild) project estimate is $1,513,908.00.
Some bidders have walked away from the project that is seriously tainted and where they would essentially be working through the City and through BIF for the contractor that was excluded.
Two bids are received.
Messer Construction $2,004,905.00
Southern Constructors $2,525,122.50
There is no public discussion or action by City Council to reject the bids.
Todd Morgan sends a letter to TDOT stating that the City is requesting TDOT's concurrence to reject all bids, re-design the project, and re-bid.
TDOT agrees with the request to reject and re-bid. This rejection was reasonable--especially since the City/MSP intended to make changes to the project prior to any re-bid.
Remember BIF's/Wild's/MSP's estimate of $1,513,908.00. We will watch what happens to this estimate as later estimates are submitted after significant cuts are made and after the project becomes a parking deck only.
Just so you don't have to wait too long...Wild's/MSP's estimate $1,513,908 was for a parking deck and retail shells below with a vapor/water barrier because putting a parking deck on top of retail space (instead of below) isn't cost effective and has risks of water intrusion into commercial space.
A geotechnical/soil study was done in 2011 after the first estimate/first bidding. The results of that study were said to have resulted in cost savings of $150,000. Other design cuts were made by BIF. Finally, the retail shells were eliminated in late 2012/early 2013.
After the Geotek savings which were said to be $150,000, after additional cuts, and after the elimination of the retail shells, an independent contractor from Knoxville (not Wild and not with close connections to Wild or the Millennium Partners) provided an estimate of $1,428,235.
The Wild/BIF estimate is still the official project estimate despite the confirmed conflict of interest in a bidder providing the project estimate.
The official (Wild) project estimate is $1,513,908.00.
Some bidders have walked away from the project that is seriously tainted and where they would essentially be working through the City and through BIF for the contractor that was excluded.
Two bids are received.
Messer Construction $2,004,905.00
Southern Constructors $2,525,122.50
There is no public discussion or action by City Council to reject the bids.
Todd Morgan sends a letter to TDOT stating that the City is requesting TDOT's concurrence to reject all bids, re-design the project, and re-bid.
TDOT agrees with the request to reject and re-bid. This rejection was reasonable--especially since the City/MSP intended to make changes to the project prior to any re-bid.
Remember BIF's/Wild's/MSP's estimate of $1,513,908.00. We will watch what happens to this estimate as later estimates are submitted after significant cuts are made and after the project becomes a parking deck only.
Just so you don't have to wait too long...Wild's/MSP's estimate $1,513,908 was for a parking deck and retail shells below with a vapor/water barrier because putting a parking deck on top of retail space (instead of below) isn't cost effective and has risks of water intrusion into commercial space.
A geotechnical/soil study was done in 2011 after the first estimate/first bidding. The results of that study were said to have resulted in cost savings of $150,000. Other design cuts were made by BIF. Finally, the retail shells were eliminated in late 2012/early 2013.
After the Geotek savings which were said to be $150,000, after additional cuts, and after the elimination of the retail shells, an independent contractor from Knoxville (not Wild and not with close connections to Wild or the Millennium Partners) provided an estimate of $1,428,235.
After the First Bid Opening: Wild Tries To Get Back On As a Bidder. TDOT Asks Todd Morgan if He Has Talked with the Firm (Wild) that Provided Such a Low Estimate
As soon as the first bids were opened and rejected, David Wild (MSP/Wild Building Contractors) sent Todd Morgan an email asking if Wild Building Contractors could bid the next time if they weren't involved in estimating. Indicating that Wild had contacted Sen. Steve Southerland to intervene with TDOT, Wild added that they might wait until they hear back from Sen. Steve Southerland.
In a later email, TDOT's Neil Hansen rejected the proposal and told Morgan you can't "unring" the bell.
About the same time, TDOT's Lisa Dunn sent an email to Todd Morgan asking him if he had had a conversation with the individual (Wild) who had provided such a low estimate prior to the first bid opening. Morgan forwards the email to Tim Wild, Dan Brewer, and Tony Cox.
About the same time, TDOT's Lisa Dunn sent an email to Todd Morgan asking him if he had had a conversation with the individual (Wild) who had provided such a low estimate prior to the first bid opening. Morgan forwards the email to Tim Wild, Dan Brewer, and Tony Cox.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)