The Bid Process, by Tracy Taylor

After an apparently short consideration the AG's office seems to have changed its mind.

AG won't probe bidding for schoolSalt Lake Tribune - United StatesHEBER CITY - The Utah Attorney General's Office will not investigate an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 million ...

(Comment added 11/2) This was submitted as a letter to the Wasatch Wave, which was not printed. Apparently the Trib thought it worthy of reporting.

Critics blast selection process for architect for a new $60 ...Salt Lake Tribune - United StatesPosted: 1:02 PM- HEBER CITY- The Utah Attorney General's Office is reviewing an allegation that a design contract was awarded unfairly for a proposed $59.5 ...

(Forwarded with no comments)

High School Decisions Made in a Bubble.

I wasn't planning on getting involved with the high school bond this year. After the "community jewel" that is the North School turned out to be a very expensive administration building (go check it out, the district offices are quite expansive) I thought they would have tightened their purse strings to show the community they've learned a few lessons from that mismanaged mess. I guess I was being overly optimistic. There was little public input on the new high school design prior to it’s unveiling a few months ago with the announcement of the bond election. I had parents calling me, in the past year, explaining how they tried to talk to certain school board members only to be rebuffed. The board said that they couldn't discuss it for fear it would weaken their bargaining power with the landowner.

The final straw was community members telling me, in the past month, documents were asked for but the school district said they didn't have them to copy. So that's the reason for my last minute investigation... I decided to go in and exercise my civic right to obtain public documents with a GRAMA request. The school district said publicly that they would be "open and straight forward" with the public on this high school bond and welcomed questions, yet I was told by an employee that the delivery of my request would be after the 10 day deadline because each member of the school board was going to look over the packet before they would hand it over. Interesting. I was also charged $218.10- $9.85 of which was the charge for the paper. They figured it took them 12.25 hours to assemble information that was already compiled; budgets, bid process, full financial analysis of bond process, etc. At least half of what they gave me was the facilities committee report from 2004. Information that all Wasatch County residents deserve, comes with a price.

With most school districts a bid process would go something like this: School district decides on a budget and that they want a new design, they determine the needs of their children, they advertise for the bid applications and give the interested firms specific details of what school we want, they share information with ALL applicants that one firm has due to their previous relationship with the district, the firms come back with a bid within our budget for the parameters set by the district and they pick the one that is best for our community.

I called four firms that applied last March, and asked them specific questions. They did not receive any information from our school district that would have helped them determine what we wanted in a high school. A couple of them were so disappointed with the bid process that they have decided not to bid for our school district anymore. They also said that some of the elements of this design aren’t SAFE. They don’t do basements, or long hallways without a door, because that would trap kids inside in a fire or if a gunman entered. They design schools that get the kids out quickly if they have an emergency situation.

There was no effective bid process for these architects to submit a new design based on our "very special" needs assessment that was compiled prior to this process by Sandstrom. If only they would have received that information from our school district to have a fair process, they had the experience to bring great designs to the table. That explains why the design is extravagant to many people. This is how Wasatch bid; Sandstrom was awarded the architectural services bid (with no prior experience in designing a complete high school), we got ONE design from them (after they worked on it a year) based on every department’s wish list, and then the district came up with a price. Kind of backwards! If we knew we wanted a new design, why didn’t we have an open bid for experienced architects to bring ideas to us within a certain budget? That would have been a more cost effective procedure.

In this continuing process, the school board authorized a payment to Sandstrom of $382,500 on August 17, 2006 to continue work on a design that did not go through a bid process, and had ZERO PUBLIC INPUT prior to announcing the bond! (No open houses explaining the design to the taxpayers) Even the previous "facilities committee", who volunteered countless hours a couple years ago, was never asked for their input before it was released to the public. I was at that board meeting. They never mentioned the price, they only said "25% of the total architectural fees." You’d have to know Sandstrom’s fees based on a certain percentage of the construction costs and a calculator…They didn’t advertise in the agenda what they were planning on doing either, as per the open meetings act. This decision to spend OUR money was made before we even had our first public hearing on Sept. 26th.

The school district made decisions in a bubble, which explains the disbelief now of the public on the extravagance of this design. Whether you're for or against the school bond, I thought you needed to know how this process worked to better explain the design and cost. If this bond doesn’t pass, I would think they’d get tired of this rejection and actually come back to us again with hopefully a more cost effective high school, based on PUBLIC INPUT and an actual bid process that could result in a well tested design for a lot less money. I don’t know one person in town that doesn’t think we need a new high school, but our school board took advantage of that, and went over the top. Why? Because they think the outside appearance is more important than the quality of education inside? We can have it OUR way. There are two schools due in 2008 for the same approximate number of students for $32 Mil and $36 Mil., with beautiful facilities. If we do that, we’ll actually save ourselves $20 million to probably totally finance the inevitable renovation of the Jr. High down the road… We’ll be able to get two schools for the price of this one! Not to mention being able to afford to raise the voted leeway for higher teachers salaries and improving our curriculum.

I am for better education, better paid teachers to retain quality, lower class sizes, better curriculum, more choices for students, and a school board that is fiscally responsible and well- managed while achieving these goals.
Tracy Taylor 435 503-1121