Mayor Ivy Taylor is calling for a re-do of the selection process for the multi-million dollar contract to operate the new San Antonio River Walk barge fleet, citing concerns that lobbying efforts “have tainted this process beyond redemption.”
City staff was slated to recommend San Antonio River Cruises to City Council this Wednesday as the top contender out of four companies vying for the 10-year contract, but Taylor removed discussion of the contract from the meeting’s agenda. Instead, City Council will be reviewing the application process this week with City attorneys during a closed-door, executive session.
Taylor stated in an email to City Manager Sheryl Sculley last week that she sees two options to move the selection process forward: “Scrap the existing process and issue a new RFP, or eliminate the top-ranked respondent and have the City Council interview the remaining respondents.”
There is at least one more option, sources told the Rivard Report: the selection process is reviewed, found to be solid, and the contract is awarded to the top applicant, San Antonio River Cruises.
San Antonio River Cruises is owned by Chicago-based Entertainment Cruises which has hired local attorney and former Mayor Phil Hardberger to represent the company. Taylor is concerned that because he was allowed to address the 11-member citizen selection committee as part of the company’s response to a request for proposals (RFP), the other applicants were not given a fair shot.
The current river barge operator, Rio San Antonio Cruises, is allegedly in second place for the contract. The City began the process in 2014 to purchase new, state-of-the-art barges to replace the decades-old fleet design and develop a new contract for the operator.
In an email sent to Sculley on Feb. 10, Taylor said she was “concerned about the integrity of the process” and asked Sculley to look into several questions she had about the contract and the RFP process. Taylor’s concerns were first reported by the San Antonio Express-News on Friday.
Sculley and City Attorney Andy Segovia responded to Taylor’s concerns in a Feb. 12 email.
“I am fully confident that the selection process was fair and objective given the process parameter and Legal requirements,” Sculley stated. “In short, there was nothing in the process that gave any proposal an unfair advantage over the other proposals and the scoring differential reinforces that the recommended proposal is the strongest for the City of San Antonio.”
But the mayor was not satisfied with the answers.
“…[T]he fact remains that our established processes, and the City of San Antonio Ethics regulations, do not seem to have been followed during the preparation for and delivery of presentations,” Taylor stated in a Friday, Feb. 17 email. Taylor pointed to the “last-minute” changes to the process in which City staff approved Hardberger’s attendance.
Sculley was not available for comment Monday, but responded to Taylor on Friday:
“There is no evidence to suggest that the process was purposely designed so that a specific proposal would emerge as the winner. My staff did not have a preconceived preference for the barge concession provider and most certainly did not engage in any process engineering or unethical conduct to give any proposer an unfair advantage. That conduct is not condoned or tolerated,” Sculley stated. “My staff is committed to following best practices and ethical principles in conducting any activity within the scope of the City Manager. Unfortunately, it appears that not all of the bidders have strictly adhered to Council adopted restrictions on communications for high profile solicitations.”
A “cone of silence” or blackout policy prohibits applicants from communicating with City officials. Taylor told the Rivard Report on Monday that one of her staffers was alerted of Hardberger’s “convincing” presentation, which took place on Monday, Jan. 20, by a community member.
City staff told the San Antonio River Cruises team that Hardberger’s presence would be “fine,” according to emails obtained by the Express-News.
Taylor declined to identify the member of the committee who she then spoke to regarding their concerns about his two-minute presentation.
“It’s still apparent to me that there was an issue with last minute rule changes and confusion about the role of attorneys in the presentations,” Taylor said. “The top issue is the presence of the attorney and what [their] role is. … Lobbyists are not allowed in presentations. Because of his notoriety in the community, [perhaps] no one spoke up to say it was inappropriate.
“Maybe his presence wasn’t inappropriate,” she added, “but the role of the attorneys should have been to answer questions or clarify positions of clients.”
Hardberger confirmed Monday that he made a two-minute presentation to the committee, but that it was as a “core” member of the application team.
“I’m not a lobbyist,” he told the Rivard Report. “I’ve never been a lobbyist in the past.”
San Antonio River Cruises parent company provides “dining cruises, yacht charters and sightseeing tours in Baltimore, Boston, Chicago, New York, Norfolk, Philadelphia and Washington D.C.,” according to its website. It was the company’s experience and community relations that convinced Hardberger to join the team.
His only interaction with the selection committee was during the presentation, he said, and he hasn’t talked to elected officials or City staff regarding the river barge contract.
“We’ve been totally above board, 100% transparent,” Hardberger said. “When the mayor is suggesting that you do away with the number one [applicant], yes there is some concern … but there is not concern that we’ve done anything wrong because we’re not doing anything wrong. We’re being shot at because we’re number one.
“What would you gain by starting over? We’re still going to be the most qualified in the country. That isn’t going to change,” Hardberger said. “At the very least it’s a waste of time and at the most it’s insubordination of justice – you don’t like the results so you want to do it again.”
Rio San Antonio Cruises’ 10-year contract has been extended until a new contract is awarded. Local attorney Bill Kaufman, who is working with the local company, could not be reached for comment but told the Express-News Friday that he will be monitoring the situation to see if a formal complaint needs to be filed.
“The issues of anyone bidding on any contract is fairness, and there may be mitigating facts that explain what [happened],” he told the newspaper. “But all I know is that it doesn’t appear from reports that all bidders had access to the same information.”
Taylor said that while she has worked closely with Kaufman in the past, that has “absolutely nothing” to do with her concerns.
“I don’t care who gets the contract except that we have a vendor that can do a good job and represent the city,” she said. “I don’t even know what team he’s working on.”
Taylor recognized that a new or revised RFP process could throw off the desired timeline for new barge operations to begin by the City’s Tricentennial in May 2018, but stressed that it’s more important that the rules are followed and the best operator is selected.
“I really want to get a pulse from my colleagues,” she said of the executive session slated for Thursday.
Taylor is the first to voice concerns over the contract so far. Councilman Roberto Treviño (D1) isn’t opposed to reviewing the RFP process, he said, but there isn’t enough evidence of wrongdoing for him to make accusations.
“If we messed up [on procedure], then let’s fix it,” he said, but he would like to see some clarity in what the concern is: the role of an attorney in the selection process, Hardberger’s notoriety, or that a non-local company was selected?
“When you say you want a fair, transparent, inclusive process …. that means that it’s open to all,” he said. “The minute we start picking and choosing who can be part of it, that’s not a fair process.”
Councilman Ron Nirenberg (D8), who is challenging Mayor Taylor for her seat in the May 6 general election, called Taylor’s accusations “hard-charged,” “reactionary,” and “very troubling.”
Nirenberg and Taylor have faced off on a number of issues involving transparency in the past few years.
“The charges that she’s levying stain San Antonio,” he said, “and so she better darn well have some evidence that can help us substantiate her claims because it sends a horrible signal to any company wanting to do business in San Antonio.”
I think the public would like to see the dollar figure, spent by the City, at the stage on all that has occured to get this far on the barge contract. This would include expenses of staffing, issuing of RFP and all other related costs.
You can obtain this information with a simply public information request – but what relevance would this data have to whether or not the RFP rules were violated?
The relevance is the decision making occurring at City Hall. To consider doing the RFP over again is using City funds to a “do over’ which would be taxpayer funds being used for likely “special interests”.
To obtain information through a public information request is frequently delayed.
If a company involved in the bidding process obviously violated the rules of the bidding process (as is the case clearly outlined here) the only ethical choices are to redo the RFP or eliminate the company responsible for the violation.
People complain about government corruption (as they should!) but that also means we need to be willing to do what it takes to keep things above board.
I can certainly see the argument that redoing the process is too costly (in which case they eliminate the top bidder) and I can see the argument that it is in the city’s best interest to redo the bidding since it is a 10 year multi million dollar contract.
There are valid points to be made on both sides. One thing that isn’t being debated is whether or not the rules were violated. They were, clearly. Now – how does the city do the right thing?
Personally, I don’t think the violations were necessarily intentional or corrupt but instead a series of poor choices. Since this is a large contract spanning 10 years it makes sense, to me, to restart the process and get it right while also making sure we set the standard that any impropriety in the bidding process is unacceptable, regardless of motives.
It is hard to piece the puzzle together as no one seems to be discussing the issue clearly. As I read it the concern expressed by Mayor Taylor is that one of the companies bidding on the project was given an advantage over the other bidders because they had a representative (Fmr Mayer Hardberger) give a two minute presentation and conversation with City Staff that the other participants were not able to participate in.
The rules of the bidding process say it is against the rules for the companies bidding to contact city officials and the other bidders followed by that rule but for some reason Hardberger was granted permission to attend a meeting in which he, by his own admission, gave a short presentation advocating for the company currently leading the bidding process.
Interestingly, no one is denying that this type of communication with the city is outside the rules established for the bidding process and no one is denying that this meeting/presentation did in fact take place.
This seems pretty straight forward. A rule was broken. The people who broke the rule openly admit the rule was broken. Why is this a political issue? Hardberger’s argument that it doesn’t matter that he broke the rule because his client would win the bid anyways is irrelevant.
If my understanding is correct then there is no question: The bidding process should be restarted and the bidding companies should be graded on objective criteria with those reviewing the contracts not knowing which company is attached to each individual proposal.
It is better to get behind schedule but follow the rules than to shrug off a violation because it was committed by a beloved community leader.
What am I missing?
All teams were required to make the presentation. The only difference is that this one had a former mayor as part of the team.
Hmmm, I am reading it different. I am seeing that there was a presentation by former Mayor Hardberger that was in addition to the presentation provided by the companies bidding on the project and that Hardberger provided a sales pitch on behalf of his client that the other companies were not able to get.
Essentially he was in the room to act as counsel and instead acted as a lobbyist/advocate – which seems to me like a clear violation of the bidding rules.
I must admit it doesn’t seem like an egregious violation, but a violation none the less.
The difference is that Hardberger was listed as their attorney, according to Scully’s first response to Taylor, and she referred the question of his attendance at the presentation to Segovia who then violated Scully’s long established best-practices Procurement Policy ordinance, by allowing all attorneys to attend. Scully screwed up by not following the law and then tried a convoluted excuse that her previous best-practices weren’t in this instance, but she saw no need to advise Council on needing a new ordinance. When was Scully going to advise Council that she recommended a new procurement policy? I didn’t see that recommendation in any of Scully’s emails. I’m with Taylor on the need for a citizens review board. City staff have no business on the selection committee. They should only act as consultants to the committee.
Hardberger’s company violated the Procurement Policy with the complicity of Sully and the City Attorney, per the emails among parties. They allowed attorneys for more than just one bidder. Hardberger’s protestations are those of a John McCain… scream and shout when caught with your pants down.
This coming from the mayor who was willing to build a baseball stadium downtown at the drop of a hat for a triple A baseball team at taxpayer expense after meeting with the owner once.
The problem with a politician like Mayor Taylor is that she is so inconsistent when it comes to transparency, which leads people to question her motives when she does raise concerns like this. She may have the city’s best interest at heart, but it seems like she has some unknown ulterior motive.
What does the AAA baseball team have to do with the river barge contract?
The concern is the company who is leading the bid process was granted access to city officials in violation of bidding rules and allowed to give a presentation and the other companies bidding on the project did not get the same opportunity.
Notice no one denies the presentation took place. Even Hardberger admits he gave the presentation to city officials. His rebuttal isn’t that he didn’t break the rules but that “it shouldn’t matter because we would have won anyways”. Hmmm. Even Nirenberg doesn’t deny the presentation – he just uses the opportunity to mark a political point that he can use in his campaign. The only other council member quoted also does not deny rules were broken.
The facts are straightforward: One company had a representative who broke the rules of the bidding process.
The only reason this is muddy is politics. In that sense your point is valid – when politics get involved it makes clear water murky…. but don’t kid yourself. Every member on that council is just as ‘political’ as Taylor.
My questions are:
1. Why is no other member of council upset the bidding rules were broken?
2. Notice even Scully’s statement stops short of denying the rules were broken. In fact, she doesn’t claim that at all. She just claims that they didn’t have any intention of breaking the rules and that city staff was objective.
3. If the person who had broken the rules had not been a popular and powerful political figure in the city would we still act like it was no big deal?
There is no doubt each council member has their own preference on who should get the contract – but that is exactly why they shouldn’t be involved. The bidding process should be fair and objective – not political – and that is why a violation of the rules in the bidding process should be taken seriously. It shouldn’t matter who the mayor is.
Excellent points.
I am not as focused on the violation of the rules as you are. I fully grant that rules were broken in the bidding process and your remedy for a more transparent process is worth consideration. However, my comment was meant to interrogate Mayor Taylor’s motivation for questioning this in the first place. The fact that “Taylor is the first to voice concerns over the contract so far” could be attributed to her being a clarion of transparency in city government, beating the rest of council and the city manager to this issue. However, issues in Taylor’s recent past, like meeting with the baseball team owner about a downtown stadium without consulting anyone else in government and forgetting to disclose SAHA rental properties that she owned, lead me to question commitment to transparency. She seems to be on top of things when it works to her benefit but not when it might make her look bad.
I’m not saying she did anything wrong by bringing this up, I merely remain skeptical of what drives Mayor Taylor to make that calls that she does.
So ask her.
To change the subject a bit, I’m just glad to see that a man whose company had planned to bid and has cheated the city in the past with a concession at the airport that has gone bankrupt more than once while having his contract renewed without repayment to the city of unpaid liabilities (discharged in bankruptcy) is not listed as one of the top two among those who bid!!
The Mayor should be commended for calling out The City Manager’s inappropriate dealings. The fact that Sculley gave her former boss (Mayor Hardberger) an advantage in the process was simply a “coincidence”. The Mayor was right to intervene…much better than the lapdog approach Nirenberg is taking.
seems to me Taylor is concerned that Hardberger pitching part of the presentation constitutes unfair lobbying. Sounds like a question for the ethics review board
I applaud the Mayor for calling out the inappropriate actions on the part of the City Manager. I’m sure the favoritism Manager Sculley showed her former Boss, Mayor Harberger, was just a “coincidence “. The former Mayor did nothing wrong…but the Manager did, and she should be fired. Councilman Nirenberg comes across like a lapdog for the Manager…and Medina is MIA on the issue. This cronyism Manager Sculley practices has to stop…one day…and soon.
Everyone sound surprise that city staff played favorites. The system is designed that way to tip balance anyway they want it. The problem here is more them one big dog is at the game. They all turn a blind eye until it does not favor them.
They can not have it both ways, play by the rules that will be fair for everyone, or keep running the city hall to benefit your friends, lobbyists and special interest.
I really do not believe they want a system that they can not manipulate information in favor of their friends. Ron Nirenberg your no better then Mayor Ivy Taylor and vise versa. Look what you did to us on the Uber and Lyft contracts.
Now you want to destroy 23 mom and pop cab services by flooding our already stressed industry with 350 additional taxicabs. You care less about the 1200 families of these cabdriver your will put out of business.
It about corrupted power at city hall not doing what it right. And they do wrong with a pretty boy smile. One thing I can say about Mayor Ivy Taylor, if she does not like you she not give you a hypocritical smile.
This response makes no sense whatsoever. Why would city staff care which company wins the contract. There is no incentive for them to tip the scales in favor of anyone. In fact i would argue they try to be extra vigilant when there’s even the potential of citizens to think cronyism. Nobody at city hall wants to end up on a breaking news story.
How nieve.
Naive.